Financial Accounting

Financial Accounting Standards Board

ORIGINAL
PRONOUNCEMENTS
AS AMENDED

Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 157
Fair Value Measurements

Copyright © 2010 by Financial Accounting Foundation. All rights reserved.
Content copyrighted by Financial Accounting Foundation may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Financial Accounting Foundation.

FAS157

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157
Fair Value Measurements
STATUS
Issued: September 2006
Effective Date: For ﬁnancial statements issued for ﬁscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those ﬁscal years
Affects: Amends APB 21, paragraphs 13 and 18
Deletes APB 21, footnote 1
Amends APB 28, paragraph 30
Amends APB 29, paragraphs 18 and 20(a)
Deletes APB 29, paragraph 25 and footnote 5
Amends FAS 13, paragraph 5(c)
Amends FAS 15, paragraphs 13 and 28
Deletes FAS 15, footnotes 2, 5a, and 6
Amends FAS 19, paragraph 47(l)(i)
Amends FAS 35, paragraph 11 and footnote 5
Deletes FAS 35, footnote 4a
Amends FAS 60, paragraph 19
Deletes FAS 60, footnote 4a
Amends FAS 63, paragraphs 4, 8, and 38 through 40
Amends FAS 65, paragraphs 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 29
Amends FAS 67, paragraphs 8 and 28
Deletes FAS 67, footnote 6
Amends FAS 87, paragraphs 49 and 264 and footnote 12
Deletes FAS 87, footnote 11a
Amends FAS 106, paragraphs 65 and 518 and footnote 21
Deletes FAS 106, footnote 20a
Deletes FAS 107, paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 18 through 29
Amends FAS 107, paragraphs 9, 10, 30, and 31
Amends FAS 115, paragraphs 3(a) and 137
Replaces FAS 115, footnote 2
Amends FAS 116, paragraphs 19, 20, 184, 186, and 208
Deletes FAS 116, footnote 8
Amends FAS 124, paragraphs 3(a) and 112
Replaces FAS 124, footnote 3
Deletes FAS 133, paragraph 16A and footnote 6c
Amends FAS 133, paragraphs 17 and 540
Effectively deletes FAS 133, footnotes 9b, 10b, 18a, 18b, 20a through 20e, and 24a
Amends FAS 136, Summary and paragraphs 15 and 36
Amends FAS 140, paragraphs 11(c), 17(h), 17(i), 63(b), and 364
Deletes FAS 140, paragraphs 68 through 70 and footnotes 20 and 21
Amends FAS 141, paragraph F1
Amends FAS 142, paragraphs 3, 19, 23, and F1
Deletes FAS 142, paragraphs 24, E1, and E2 and footnotes 12 and 16
Deletes FAS 143, paragraphs 6, 7, 9, A19, and F1 through F4 and footnotes 5 through 8, 17, and 19
Amends FAS 143, paragraphs 8, A20, A21, A26, C1, C3(d), C4, C6 through C9, C11, and C12 and footnotes 12 and 18
Deletes FAS 144, paragraphs 22, 24, A12, and E1 through E3 and footnotes 12 through 14, 28, and 29
Amends FAS 144, paragraphs 23, A6 through A8, A11, A13, and A14

FAS157–1

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

Deletes FAS 146, paragraphs 5, A4, and A5 and footnotes 13 through 16
Amends FAS 146, paragraph A2
Amends FAS 150, paragraph D1
Deletes FAS 156, paragraph 3(c)
Amends FIN 45, paragraphs 9(a) and 9(b)
Affected by: Paragraph 2 amended by FSP FAS 157-1, paragraph 9(a), and FAS 164, paragraph E14
Paragraphs 21, 28, 30, 32, 33, A20, A34, and A35 amended by FSP FAS 157-4, paragraphs A1(a), A1(b), A1(d), A1(e), A1(e), A1(f), A1(h), and A1(h), respectively
Paragraphs 29A through 29H and A32G added by FSP FAS 157-4, paragraphs A1(c) and A1(g), respectively Paragraph 31A added by FSP FAS 132(R)-1, paragraph C1
Paragraph 36 amended by FSP FAS 157-2, paragraph 11
Paragraphs A32A through A32F added by FSP FAS 157-3, paragraph 11
Paragraphs A32A through A32F replaced by FSP FAS 157-4, paragraph A1(g)
Paragraph D1 amended by FSP FAS 157-1, paragraph 9(b)
Footnote 2 amended by FAS 141(R), paragraph E4(a), and FAS 166, paragraph B6
Footnotes 21a through 21d added by FSP FAS 157-3, paragraph 11
Footnotes 21a and 21b replaced by FSP FAS 157-4, paragraph A1(g)
Footnote 21c amended by FSP EITF 99-20-1, paragraph 17
Footnotes 21c and 21d deleted by FSP FAS 157-4, paragraph A1(g)
Other Interpretive Releases: FASB Staff Positions FAS 157-1 through FAS 157-4
Issues Discussed by FASB Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF)
Affects: Modiﬁes EITF Issue No. 02-3
Interpreted by: No EITF Issues
Related Issue: EITF Issue No. 08-5

SUMMARY
This Statement deﬁnes fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. This Statement applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements, the Board having previously concluded in those accounting pronouncements that fair value is the relevant measurement attribute. Accordingly, this Statement does not require any new fair value measurements. However, for some entities, the application of this Statement will change current practice.
Reason for Issuing This Statement
Prior to this Statement, there were different deﬁnitions of fair value and limited guidance for applying those deﬁnitions in GAAP. Moreover, that guidance was dispersed among the many accounting pronouncements that require fair value measurements. Differences in that guidance created inconsistencies that added to the complexity in applying GAAP. In developing this Statement, the Board considered the need for increased consistency and comparability in fair value measurements and for expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. Differences between This Statement and Current Practice
The changes to current practice resulting from the application of this Statement relate to the deﬁnition of fair value, the methods used to measure fair value, and the expanded disclosures about fair value measurements.
The deﬁnition of fair value retains the exchange price notion in earlier deﬁnitions of fair value. This Statement clariﬁes that the exchange price is the price in an orderly transaction between market participants to sell the asset or transfer the liability in the market in which the reporting entity would transact for the asset or liability, that is, the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability. The transaction to sell the asset

FAS157–2

Fair Value Measurements

FAS157

or transfer the liability is a hypothetical transaction at the measurement date, considered from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, the deﬁnition focuses on the price that would be received to sell the asset or paid to transfer the liability (an exit price), not the price that would be paid to acquire the asset or received to assume the liability (an entry price).
This Statement emphasizes that fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-speciﬁc measurement. Therefore, a fair value measurement should be determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. As a basis for considering market participant assumptions in fair value measurements, this Statement establishes a fair value hierarchy that distinguishes between (1) market participant assumptions developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of the reporting entity (observable inputs) and (2) the reporting entity’s own assumptions about market participant assumptions developed based on the best information available in the circumstances (unobservable inputs). The notion of unobservable inputs is intended to allow for situations in which there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability at the measurement date. In those situations, the reporting entity need not undertake all possible efforts to obtain information about market participant assumptions. However, the reporting entity must not ignore information about market participant assumptions that is reasonably available without undue cost and effort.
This Statement clariﬁes that market participant assumptions include assumptions about risk, for example, the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique used to measure fair value (such as a pricing model) and/or the risk inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. A fair value measurement should include an adjustment for risk if market participants would include one in pricing the related asset or liability, even if the adjustment is difficult to determine. Therefore, a measurement (for example, a “mark-to-model” measurement) that does not include an adjustment for risk would not represent a fair value measurement if market participants would include one in pricing the related asset or liability.
This Statement clariﬁes that market participant assumptions also include assumptions about the effect of a restriction on the sale or use of an asset. A fair value measurement for a restricted asset should consider the effect of the restriction if market participants would consider the effect of the restriction in pricing the asset.
That guidance applies for stock with restrictions on sale that terminate within one year that is measured at fair value under FASB Statements No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, and
No. 124, Accounting for Certain Investments Held by Not-for-Proﬁt Organizations.
This Statement clariﬁes that a fair value measurement for a liability reﬂects its nonperformance risk (the risk that the obligation will not be fulﬁlled). Because nonperformance risk includes the reporting entity’s credit risk, the reporting entity should consider the effect of its credit risk (credit standing) on the fair value of the liability in all periods in which the liability is measured at fair value under other accounting pronouncements, including FASB Statement No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.
This Statement affirms the requirement of other FASB Statements that the fair value of a position in a ﬁnancial instrument (including a block) that trades in an active market should be measured as the product of the quoted price for the individual instrument times the quantity held (within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy).
The quoted price should not be adjusted because of the size of the position relative to trading volume (blockage factor). This Statement extends that requirement to broker-dealers and investment companies within the scope of the AICPAAudit and Accounting Guides for those industries.
This Statement expands disclosures about the use of fair value to measure assets and liabilities in interim and annual periods subsequent to initial recognition. The disclosures focus on the inputs used to measure fair value and for recurring fair value measurements using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs (within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy), the effect of the measurements on earnings (or changes in net assets) for the period. This
Statement encourages entities to combine the fair value information disclosed under this Statement with the fair value information disclosed under other accounting pronouncements, including FASB Statement No. 107,
Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments, where practicable.
The guidance in this Statement applies for derivatives and other ﬁnancial instruments measured at fair value under Statement 133 at initial recognition and in all subsequent periods. Therefore, this Statement nulliﬁes the guidance in footnote 3 of EITF Issue No. 02-3, “Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities.” This Statement also amends Statement 133 to remove the similar guidance to that in Issue 02-3, which was added by
FASB Statement No. 155, Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments.

FAS157–3

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

How the Conclusions in This Statement Relate to the FASB’s Conceptual Framework
The framework for measuring fair value considers the concepts in FASB Concepts Statement No. 2, Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information. Concepts Statement 2 emphasizes that providing comparable information enables users of ﬁnancial statements to identify similarities in and differences between two sets of economic events.
The deﬁnition of fair value considers the concepts relating to assets and liabilities in FASB Concepts Statement No. 6, Elements of Financial Statements, in the context of market participants. A fair value measurement reﬂects current market participant assumptions about the future inﬂows associated with an asset (future economic beneﬁts) and the future outﬂows associated with a liability (future sacriﬁces of economic beneﬁts).
This Statement incorporates aspects of the guidance in FASB Concepts Statement No. 7, Using Cash Flow
Information and Present Value in Accounting Measurements, as clariﬁed and/or reconsidered in this Statement.
This Statement does not revise Concepts Statement 7. The Board will consider the need to revise Concepts
Statement 7 in its conceptual framework project.
The expanded disclosures about the use of fair value to measure assets and liabilities should provide users of ﬁnancial statements (present and potential investors, creditors, and others) with information that is useful in making investment, credit, and similar decisions—the ﬁrst objective of ﬁnancial reporting in FASB Concepts
Statement No. 1, Objectives of Financial Reporting by Business Enterprises.
How the Changes in This Statement Improve Financial Reporting
A single deﬁnition of fair value, together with a framework for measuring fair value, should result in increased consistency and comparability in fair value measurements.
The expanded disclosures about the use of fair value to measure assets and liabilities should provide users of ﬁnancial statements with better information about the extent to which fair value is used to measure recognized assets and liabilities, the inputs used to develop the measurements, and the effect of certain of the measurements on earnings (or changes in net assets) for the period.
The amendments made by this Statement advance the Board’s initiatives to simplify and codify the accounting literature, eliminating differences that have added to the complexity in GAAP.
Costs and Beneﬁts of Applying This Statement
The framework for measuring fair value builds on current practice and requirements. However, some entities will need to make systems and other changes to comply with the requirements of this Statement. Some entities also might incur incremental costs in applying the requirements of this Statement. However, the beneﬁts from increased consistency and comparability in fair value measurements and expanded disclosures about those measurements should be ongoing.
The Effective Date of This Statement
This Statement is effective for ﬁnancial statements issued for ﬁscal years beginning after November 15,
2007, and interim periods within those ﬁscal years. Earlier application is encouraged, provided that the reporting entity has not yet issued ﬁnancial statements for that ﬁscal year, including ﬁnancial statements for an interim period within that ﬁscal year.
The provisions of this Statement should be applied prospectively as of the beginning of the ﬁscal year in which this Statement is initially applied, except as follows. The provisions of this Statement should be applied retrospectively to the following ﬁnancial instruments as of the beginning of the ﬁscal year in which this Statement is initially applied (a limited form of retrospective application):
a. A position in a ﬁnancial instrument that trades in an active market held by a broker-dealer or investment company within the scope of the AICPAAudit and Accounting Guides for those industries that was measured at fair value using a blockage factor prior to initial application of this Statement
b. A ﬁnancial instrument that was measured at fair value at initial recognition under Statement 133 using the transaction price in accordance with the guidance in footnote 3 of Issue 02-3 prior to initial application of this Statement

FAS157–4

Fair Value Measurements

FAS157

c. A hybrid ﬁnancial instrument that was measured at fair value at initial recognition under Statement 133 using the transaction price in accordance with the guidance in Statement 133 (added by Statement 155) prior to initial application of this Statement.
The transition adjustment, measured as the difference between the carrying amounts and the fair values of those ﬁnancial instruments at the date this Statement is initially applied, should be recognized as a cumulativeeffect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings (or other appropriate components of equity or net assets in the statement of ﬁnancial position) for the ﬁscal year in which this Statement is initially applied.

FAS157–5

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157
Fair Value Measurements
CONTENTS
Paragraph
Numbers
Objective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Standards of Financial Accounting and Reporting:
Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2–4
Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5–31
Deﬁnition of Fair Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5–15
The Asset or Liability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
The Price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
The Principal (or Most Advantageous) Market. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8–9
Market Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10–11
Application to Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12–14
Application to Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Fair Value at Initial Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16–17
Valuation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18–20
Inputs to Valuation Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Fair Value Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22–31
Level 1 Inputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24–27
Level 2 Inputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28–29
Level 3 Inputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Inputs Based on Bid and Ask Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32–35
Effective Date and Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36–39
Appendix A: Implementation Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A1–A36
Appendix B: Present Value Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B1–B19
Appendix C: Background Information and Basis for Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C1–C116
Appendix D: References to APB and FASB Pronouncements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D1
Appendix E: Amendments to APB and FASB Pronouncements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E1–E32

FAS157–6

Fair Value Measurements

OBJECTIVE
1. This Statement deﬁnes fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. Where applicable, this Statement simpliﬁes and codiﬁes related guidance within generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
STANDARDS OF FINANCIALACCOUNTING
AND REPORTING
Scope
2. This Statement applies under other accounting pronouncements1 that require or permit fair value measurements, except as follows:
a. This Statement does not apply under accounting pronouncements that address share-based payment transactions: FASB Statement No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment, and its related interpretive accounting pronouncements that address share-based payment transactions.
b. This Statement does not eliminate the practicability exceptions to fair value measurements in accounting pronouncements within the scope of this Statement.2
c. This Statement does not apply under FASB
Statement No. 13, Accounting for Leases, and other accounting pronouncements that address fair value measurements for purposes of lease classiﬁcation or measurement under Statement 13. This scope exception does not apply to assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a busi-

FAS157

ness combination that are required to be measured at fair value under Statement 141 or Statement 141(R), regardless of whether those assets and liabilities are related to leases. [Note: After the adoption of FASB Statement No. 164, Notfor-Proﬁt Entities: Mergers and Acquisitions
(effective prospectively for mergers for which the merger date is on or after the beginning of an initial reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2009, and prospectively for acquisitions for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the ﬁrst annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2009) by not-for-proﬁt entities, the following sentence is added as follows:] This scope exception also does not apply to assets acquired and liabilities assumed in an acquisition of a business or nonproﬁt activity by a not-for-proﬁt entity that are required to be measured at fair value under FASB Statement No. 164, Not-forProﬁt Entities: Mergers and Acquisitions, regardless of whether those assets and liabilities are related to leases.
3. This Statement does not apply under accounting pronouncements that require or permit measurements that are similar to fair value but that are not intended to measure fair value, including the following:
a. Accounting pronouncements that permit measurements that are based on, or otherwise use, vendor-speciﬁc objective evidence of fair value3
b. ARB No. 43, Chapter 4, “Inventory Pricing.”
4. Appendix D lists pronouncements of the Accounting Principles Board (APB) and the FASB existing at

1
This Statement uses the term accounting pronouncements consistent with its use in paragraph 2(b) of FASB Statement No. 154, Accounting
Changes and Error Corrections.
[Note: After the adoption of FASB Statement No. 166, Accounting for Transfers of Financial Assets (effective as of the beginning of each reporting entity’s ﬁrst annual reporting period that begins after November 15, 2009, for interim periods within that ﬁrst annual reporting period, and for interim and annual reporting periods thereafter), the reference to FASB Statement No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities, is deleted from footnote 2.]
2Accounting pronouncements that permit practicability exceptions to fair value measurements in speciﬁed circumstances include APB Opinion
No. 29, Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions, FASB Statements No. 87, Employers’ Accounting for Pensions, No. 106, Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Beneﬁts Other Than Pensions, No. 107, Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments, No. 116, Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made, No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities, No. 141, Business Combinations, No. 141 (revised 2007), Business Combinations, No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities, and No. 153, Exchanges of Nonmonetary Assets, and FASB
Interpretations No. 45, Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of
Others, and No. 47, Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations. Also included among those pronouncements are AICPAAudit and
Accounting Guide, Not-for-Proﬁt Organizations, and EITF Issues No. 85-40, “Comprehensive Review of Sales of Marketable Securities with
Put Arrangements,” and No. 99-17, “Accounting for Advertising Barter Transactions.”
3Accounting pronouncements that permit measurements that are based on, or otherwise use, vendor-speciﬁc objective evidence of fair value include AICPA Statement of Position 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition, as modiﬁed by AICPA Statement of Position 98-9, Modiﬁcation of
SOP 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition, With Respect to Certain Transactions. Also included among those pronouncements are EITF Issues
No. 00-3, “Application of AICPA Statement of Position 97-2 to Arrangements That Include the Right to Use Software Stored on Another Entity’s
Hardware,” and No. 00-21, “Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables.”

FAS157–7

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

the date of this Statement that are within the scope of this Statement. Appendix E lists those APB and
FASB pronouncements that are amended by this
Statement.
Measurement
Deﬁnition of Fair Value
5. Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.

liabilities; it is not a forced transaction (for example, a forced liquidation or distress sale). The transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability is a hypothetical transaction at the measurement date, considered from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, the objective of a fair value measurement is to determine the price that would be received to sell the asset or paid to transfer the liability at the measurement date
(an exit price).
The principal (or most advantageous) market

The price

8. A fair value measurement assumes that the transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability occurs in the principal market for the asset or liability or, in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market for the asset or liability. The principal market is the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the greatest volume and level of activity for the asset or liability. The most advantageous market is the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the price that maximizes the amount that would be received for the asset or minimizes the amount that would be paid to transfer the liability, considering transaction costs in the respective market(s). In either case, the principal (or most advantageous) market (and thus, market participants) should be considered from the perspective of the reporting entity, thereby allowing for differences between and among entities with different activities. If there is a principal market for the asset or liability, the fair value measurement shall represent the price in that market (whether that price is directly observable or otherwise determined using a valuation technique), even if the price in a different market is potentially more advantageous at the measurement date.

7. A fair value measurement assumes that the asset or liability is exchanged in an orderly transaction between market participants to sell the asset or transfer the liability at the measurement date. An orderly transaction is a transaction that assumes exposure to the market for a period prior to the measurement date to allow for marketing activities that are usual and customary for transactions involving such assets or

9. The price in the principal (or most advantageous) market used to measure the fair value of the asset or liability shall not be adjusted for transaction costs.5
Transaction costs represent the incremental direct costs to sell the asset or transfer the liability in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability.6 Transaction costs are not an attribute of the asset or liability; rather, they are speciﬁc to the

The asset or liability
6. A fair value measurement is for a particular asset or liability.4 Therefore, the measurement should consider attributes speciﬁc to the asset or liability, for example, the condition and/or location of the asset or liability and restrictions, if any, on the sale or use of the asset at the measurement date. The asset or liability might be a standalone asset or liability (for example, a ﬁnancial instrument or an operating asset) or a group of assets and/or liabilities (for example, an asset group, a reporting unit, or a business). Whether the asset or liability is a standalone asset or liability or a group of assets and/or liabilities depends on its unit of account. The unit of account determines what is being measured by reference to the level at which the asset or liability is aggregated (or disaggregated) for purposes of applying other accounting pronouncements. The unit of account for the asset or liability should be determined in accordance with the provisions of other accounting pronouncements, except as provided in paragraph 27.

4The deﬁnition of fair value focuses on assets and liabilities because they are a primary subject of accounting measurement. However, the deﬁ-

nition of fair value also should be applied to instruments measured at fair value that are classiﬁed in stockholders’ equity.
5Transaction costs should be accounted for in accordance with the provisions of other accounting pronouncements.
6Incremental direct costs to sell the asset or transfer the liability refer to those costs that result directly from and are essential to that transaction

and that would not have been incurred by the reporting entity had the decision to sell the asset (or transfer the liability) not been made (similar to cost to sell, as deﬁned in paragraph 35 of FASB Statement No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets).

FAS157–8

Fair Value Measurements

transaction and will differ depending on how the reporting entity transacts. However, transaction costs do not include the costs that would be incurred to transport the asset or liability to (or from) its principal
(or most advantageous) market. If location is an attribute of the asset or liability (as might be the case for a commodity), the price in the principal (or most advantageous) market used to measure the fair value of the asset or liability shall be adjusted for the costs, if any, that would be incurred to transport the asset or liability to (or from) its principal (or most advantageous) market.

FAS157

sible, legally permissible, and ﬁnancially feasible at the measurement date. In broad terms, highest and best use refers to the use of an asset by market participants that would maximize the value of the asset or the group of assets within which the asset would be used. Highest and best use is determined based on the use of the asset by market participants, even if the intended use of the asset by the reporting entity is different. 13. The highest and best use of the asset establishes the valuation premise used to measure the fair value of the asset. Speciﬁcally:

Market participants
10. Market participants are buyers and sellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability that are:
a. Independent of the reporting entity; that is, they are not related parties7
b. Knowledgeable, having a reasonable understanding about the asset or liability and the transaction based on all available information, including information that might be obtained through due diligence efforts that are usual and customary
c. Able to transact for the asset or liability
d. Willing to transact for the asset or liability; that is, they are motivated but not forced or otherwise compelled to do so.
11. The fair value of the asset or liability shall be determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. In developing those assumptions, the reporting entity need not identify speciﬁc market participants. Rather, the reporting entity should identify characteristics that distinguish market participants generally, considering factors speciﬁc to (a) the asset or liability,
(b) the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability, and (c) market participants with whom the reporting entity would transact in that market. Application to assets
12. A fair value measurement assumes the highest and best use of the asset by market participants, considering the use of the asset that is physically pos-

a. In-use. The highest and best use of the asset is inuse if the asset would provide maximum value to market participants principally through its use in combination with other assets as a group (as installed or otherwise conﬁgured for use). For example, that might be the case for certain nonﬁnancial assets. If the highest and best use of the asset is in-use, the fair value of the asset shall be measured using an in-use valuation premise.
When using an in-use valuation premise, the fair value of the asset is determined based on the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the asset assuming that the asset would be used with other assets as a group and that those assets would be available to market participants. Generally, assumptions about the highest and best use of the asset should be consistent for all of the assets of the group within which it would be used.
b. In-exchange. The highest and best use of the asset is in-exchange if the asset would provide maximum value to market participants principally on a standalone basis. For example, that might be the case for a ﬁnancial asset. If the highest and best use of the asset is in-exchange, the fair value of the asset shall be measured using an in-exchange valuation premise. When using an in-exchange valuation premise, the fair value of the asset is determined based on the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the asset standalone.
14. Because the highest and best use of the asset is determined based on its use by market participants,

7

This Statement uses the term related parties consistent with its use in FASB Statement No. 57, Related Party Disclosures.

FAS157–9

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

the fair value measurement considers the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset, whether using an in-use or an in-exchange valuation premise.8

transaction and the asset or liability. For example, a transaction price might not represent the fair value of an asset or liability at initial recognition if:

15. A fair value measurement assumes that the liability is transferred to a market participant at the measurement date (the liability to the counterparty continues; it is not settled) and that the nonperformance risk relating to that liability is the same before and after its transfer. Nonperformance risk refers to the risk that the obligation will not be fulﬁlled and affects the value at which the liability is transferred.
Therefore, the fair value of the liability shall reﬂect the nonperformance risk relating to that liability.
Nonperformance risk includes but may not be limited to the reporting entity’s own credit risk. The reporting entity shall consider the effect of its credit risk (credit standing) on the fair value of the liability in all periods in which the liability is measured at fair value. That effect may differ depending on the liability, for example, whether the liability is an obligation to deliver cash (a ﬁnancial liability) or an obligation to deliver goods or services (a nonﬁnancial liability), and the terms of credit enhancements related to the liability, if any.

a. The transaction is between related parties.
b. The transaction occurs under duress or the seller is forced to accept the price in the transaction. For example, that might be the case if the seller is experiencing ﬁnancial difficulty.
c. The unit of account represented by the transaction price is different from the unit of account for the asset or liability measured at fair value. For example, that might be the case if the asset or liability measured at fair value is only one of the elements in the transaction, the transaction includes unstated rights and privileges that should be separately measured, or the transaction price includes transaction costs.
d. The market in which the transaction occurs is different from the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability, that is, the principal or most advantageous market. For example, those markets might be different if the reporting entity is a securities dealer that transacts in different markets, depending on whether the counterparty is a retail customer (retail market) or another securities dealer (interdealer market).

Fair Value at Initial Recognition

Valuation Techniques

16. When an asset is acquired or a liability is assumed in an exchange transaction for that asset or liability, the transaction price represents the price paid to acquire the asset or received to assume the liability
(an entry price). In contrast, the fair value of the asset or liability represents the price that would be received to sell the asset or paid to transfer the liability (an exit price). Conceptually, entry prices and exit prices are different. Entities do not necessarily sell assets at the prices paid to acquire them. Similarly, entities do not necessarily transfer liabilities at the prices received to assume them.

18. Valuation techniques consistent with the market approach, income approach, and/or cost approach shall be used to measure fair value. Key aspects of those approaches are summarized below:

Application to liabilities

17. In many cases, the transaction price will equal the exit price and, therefore, represent the fair value of the asset or liability at initial recognition. In determining whether a transaction price represents the fair value of the asset or liability at initial recognition, the reporting entity shall consider factors speciﬁc to the

a. Market approach. The market approach uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable assets or liabilities (including a business). For example, valuation techniques consistent with the market approach often use market multiples derived from a set of comparables.
Multiples might lie in ranges with a different multiple for each comparable. The selection of where within the range the appropriate multiple falls requires judgment, considering factors speciﬁc to the measurement (qualitative and quantitative). Valuation techniques consistent with the market approach include matrix pricing. Matrix

8The fair value of an asset in-use is determined based on the use of the asset together with other assets as a group (consistent with its highest and

best use from the perspective of market participants), even if the asset that is the subject of the measurement is aggregated (or disaggregated) at a different level for purposes of applying other accounting pronouncements.

FAS157–10

Fair Value Measurements

pricing is a mathematical technique used principally to value debt securities without relying exclusively on quoted prices for the speciﬁc securities, but rather by relying on the securities’ relationship to other benchmark quoted securities.
b. Income approach. The income approach uses valuation techniques to convert future amounts
(for example, cash ﬂows or earnings) to a single present amount (discounted). The measurement is based on the value indicated by current market expectations about those future amounts. Those valuation techniques include present value techniques; option-pricing models, such as the BlackScholes-Merton formula (a closed-form model) and a binomial model (a lattice model), which incorporate present value techniques;9 and the multiperiod excess earnings method, which is used to measure the fair value of certain intangible assets.10
c. Cost approach. The cost approach is based on the amount that currently would be required to replace the service capacity of an asset (often referred to as current replacement cost). From the perspective of a market participant (seller), the price that would be received for the asset is determined based on the cost to a market participant
(buyer) to acquire or construct a substitute asset of comparable utility, adjusted for obsolescence.
Obsolescence encompasses physical deterioration, functional (technological) obsolescence, and economic (external) obsolescence and is broader than depreciation for ﬁnancial reporting purposes
(an allocation of historical cost) or tax purposes
(based on speciﬁed service lives).
19. Valuation techniques that are appropriate in the circumstances and for which sufficient data are available shall be used to measure fair value. In some cases, a single valuation technique will be appropriate (for example, when valuing an asset or liability using quoted prices in an active market for identical assets or liabilities). In other cases, multiple valuation techniques will be appropriate (for example, as might be the case when valuing a reporting unit). If multiple valuation techniques are used to measure fair value, the results (respective indications of fair value) shall

FAS157

be evaluated and weighted, as appropriate, considering the reasonableness of the range indicated by those results. A fair value measurement is the point within that range that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances.
20. Valuation techniques used to measure fair value shall be consistently applied. However, a change in a valuation technique or its application (for example, a change in its weighting when multiple valuation techniques are used) is appropriate if the change results in a measurement that is equally or more representative of fair value in the circumstances. That might be the case if, for example, new markets develop, new information becomes available, information previously used is no longer available, or valuation techniques improve. Revisions resulting from a change in the valuation technique or its application shall be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate (FASB Statement No. 154, Accounting
Changes and Error Corrections, paragraph 19). The disclosure provisions of Statement 154 for a change in accounting estimate are not required for revisions resulting from a change in a valuation technique or its application. Inputs to Valuation Techniques
21. In this Statement, inputs refer broadly to the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk, for example, the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique used to measure fair value (such as a pricing model) and/or the risk inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. Inputs may be observable or unobservable:
a. Observable inputs are inputs that reﬂect the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of the reporting entity.
b. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reﬂect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on the best information available in the circumstances.

9The guidance in this Statement does not apply for the fair-value-based measurements using option-pricing models under Statement 123(R).
10The use of the multiperiod excess earnings method to measure the fair value of in-process research and development is discussed in AICPA
Practice Aid, Assets Acquired in a Business Combination to Be Used in Research and Development Activities: A Focus on Software, Electronic
Devices, and Pharmaceutical Industries.

FAS157–11

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

Valuation techniques used to measure fair value shall maximize the use of relevant observable inputs (that is, Level 1 and Level 2 inputs that do not require signiﬁcant adjustment) and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.
Fair Value Hierarchy
22. To increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements and related disclosures, the fair value hierarchy prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three broad levels. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3).
In some cases, the inputs used to measure fair value might fall in different levels of the fair value hierarchy. The level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement in its entirety falls shall be determined based on the lowest level input that is signiﬁcant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. Assessing the signiﬁcance of a particular input to the fair value measurement in its entirety requires judgment, considering factors speciﬁc to the asset or liability.
23. The availability of inputs relevant to the asset or liability and the relative reliability of the inputs might affect the selection of appropriate valuation techniques. However, the fair value hierarchy prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques, not the valuation techniques. For example, a fair value measurement using a present value technique might fall within
Level 2 or Level 3, depending on the inputs that are signiﬁcant to the measurement in its entirety and the level in the fair value hierarchy within which those inputs fall.
Level 1 inputs
24. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date. An active market for the asset or liability is a market in which transactions for the asset or liability occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. A quoted price in an active market provides the

most reliable evidence of fair value and shall be used to measure fair value whenever available, except as discussed in paragraphs 25 and 26.
25. If the reporting entity holds a large number of similar assets or liabilities (for example, debt securities) that are required to be measured at fair value, a quoted price in an active market might be available but not readily accessible for each of those assets or liabilities individually. In that case, fair value may be measured using an alternative pricing method that does not rely exclusively on quoted prices (for example, matrix pricing) as a practical expedient. However, the use of an alternative pricing method renders the fair value measurement a lower level measurement.
26. In some situations, a quoted price in an active market might not represent fair value at the measurement date. That might be the case if, for example, signiﬁcant events (principal-to-principal transactions, brokered trades, or announcements) occur after the close of a market but before the measurement date.
The reporting entity should establish and consistently apply a policy for identifying those events that might affect fair value measurements. However, if the quoted price is adjusted for new information, the adjustment renders the fair value measurement a lower level measurement.
27. If the reporting entity holds a position in a single ﬁnancial instrument (including a block) and the instrument is traded in an active market, the fair value of the position shall be measured within Level 1 as the product of the quoted price for the individual instrument times the quantity held. The quoted price shall not be adjusted because of the size of the position relative to trading volume (blockage factor). The use of a blockage factor is prohibited, even if a market’s normal daily trading volume is not sufficient to absorb the quantity held and placing orders to sell the position in a single transaction might affect the quoted price.11
Level 2 inputs
28. Level 2 inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. If the asset or liability has a speciﬁed (contractual) term, a
Level 2 input must be observable for substantially the full term of the asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include the following:

11The guidance in this Statement applies for positions in ﬁnancial instruments (including blocks) held by all entities, including broker-dealers and investment companies within the scope of the AICPAAudit and Accounting Guides for those industries.

FAS157–12

Fair Value Measurements

a. Quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets
b. Quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. (Paragraph
29A includes example factors that may indicate a market is not active or that there has been a signiﬁcant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability when compared to normal market activity for the asset or liability (or similar assets or liabilities), depending on the degree to which the factors exist.)
c. Inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability (for example, interest rates and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks, and default rates)
d. Inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means (market-corroborated inputs).
29. Adjustments to Level 2 inputs will vary depending on factors speciﬁc to the asset or liability. Those factors include the condition and/or location of the asset or liability, the extent to which the inputs relate to items that are comparable to the asset or liability, and the volume and level of activity in the markets within which the inputs are observed. An adjustment that is signiﬁcant to the fair value measurement in its entirety might render the measurement a Level 3 measurement, depending on the level in the fair value hierarchy within which the inputs used to determine the adjustment fall.
29A. The reporting entity should evaluate the following factors to determine whether there has been a signiﬁcant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability when compared with normal market activity for the asset or liability (or similar assets or liabilities). The factors include, but are not limited to:
a. There are few recent transactions.
b. Price quotations are not based on current information.
c. Price quotations vary substantially either over time or among market makers (for example, some brokered markets).
d. Indexes that previously were highly correlated with the fair values of the asset or liability are demonstrably uncorrelated with recent indications of fair value for that asset or liability.
e. There is a signiﬁcant increase in implied liquidity risk premiums, yields, or performance indicators
(such as delinquency rates or loss severities) for

FAS157

observed transactions or quoted prices when compared with the reporting entity’s estimate of expected cash ﬂows, considering all available market data about credit and other nonperformance risk for the asset or liability.
f. There is a wide bid-ask spread or signiﬁcant increase in the bid-ask spread.
g. There is a signiﬁcant decline or absence of a market for new issuances (that is, a primary market) for the asset or liability or similar assets or liabilities. h. Little information is released publicly (for example, a principal-to-principal market).
The reporting entity shall evaluate the signiﬁcance and relevance of the factors to determine whether, based on the weight of the evidence, there has been a signiﬁcant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability.
29B. If the reporting entity concludes there has been a signiﬁcant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability in relation to normal market activity for the asset or liability (or similar assets or liabilities), transactions or quoted prices may not be determinative of fair value (for example, there may be increased instances of transactions that are not orderly). Further analysis of the transactions or quoted prices is needed, and a signiﬁcant adjustment to the transactions or quoted prices may be necessary to estimate fair value in accordance with this Statement. Signiﬁcant adjustments also may be necessary in other circumstances (for example, when a price for a similar asset requires signiﬁcant adjustment to make it more comparable to the asset being measured or when the price is stale).
29C. This Statement does not prescribe a methodology for making signiﬁcant adjustments to transactions or quoted prices when estimating fair value.
Paragraphs 18−20 discuss the use of valuation techniques in estimating fair value. If there has been a signiﬁcant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability, a change in valuation technique or the use of multiple valuation techniques may be appropriate (for example, the use of a market approach and a present value technique). When weighting indications of fair value resulting from the use of multiple valuation techniques, the reporting entity shall consider the reasonableness of the range of fair value estimates. The objective is to determine the point within that range that is most representative of fair value under current market conditions. A wide range of fair value estimates may be an indication that further analysis is needed.

FAS157–13

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

29D. Even in circumstances where there has been a signiﬁcant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability and regardless of the valuation technique(s) used, the objective of a fair value measurement remains the same. Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction (that is, not a forced liquidation or distressed sale) between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. Determining the price at which willing market participants would transact at the measurement date under current market conditions if there has been a signiﬁcant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability depends on the facts and circumstances and requires the use of signiﬁcant judgment. However, the reporting entity’s intention to hold the asset or liability is not relevant in estimating fair value. Fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-speciﬁc measurement. 29E. Even if there has been a signiﬁcant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability, it is not appropriate to conclude that all transactions are not orderly (that is, distressed or forced).
Circumstances that may indicate that a transaction is not orderly include, but are not limited to:
a. There was not adequate exposure to the market for a period before the measurement date to allow for marketing activities that are usual and customary for transactions involving such assets or liabilities under current market conditions.
b. There was a usual and customary marketing period, but the seller marketed the asset or liability to a single market participant.
c. The seller is in or near bankruptcy or receivership
(that is, distressed), or the seller was required to sell to meet regulatory or legal requirements (that is, forced).
d. The transaction price is an outlier when compared with other recent transactions for the same or similar asset or liability.
The reporting entity shall evaluate the circumstances to determine whether the transaction is orderly based on the weight of the evidence.
29F. The determination of whether a transaction is orderly (or not orderly) is more difficult if there has been a signiﬁcant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability. Accordingly, the reporting entity shall consider the following guidance:
a. If the weight of the evidence indicates the trans-

action is not orderly, the reporting entity shall place little, if any, weight (compared with other indications of fair value) on that transaction price when estimating fair value or market risk premiums. b. If the weight of the evidence indicates the transaction is orderly, the reporting entity shall consider that transaction price when estimating fair value or market risk premiums. The amount of weight placed on that transaction price when compared with other indications of fair value will depend on the facts and circumstances such as the volume of the transaction, the comparability of the transaction to the asset or liability being measured at fair value, and the proximity of the transaction to the measurement date.
c. If the reporting entity does not have sufficient information to conclude that the transaction is orderly or that the transaction is not orderly, it shall consider that transaction price when estimating fair value or market risk premiums. However, that transaction price may not be determinative of fair value (that is, that transaction price may not be the sole or primary basis for estimating fair value or market risk premiums). The reporting entity shall place less weight on transactions on which the reporting entity does not have sufficient information to conclude whether the transaction is orderly when compared with other transactions that are known to be orderly.
In its determinations, the reporting entity need not undertake all possible efforts, but shall not ignore information that is available without undue cost and effort. The reporting entity would be expected to have sufficient information to conclude whether a transaction is orderly when it is party to the transaction.
29G. Regardless of the valuation technique(s) used, the reporting entity shall include appropriate risk adjustments. Paragraph B5 of this Statement indicates that “risk-averse market participants generally seek compensation for bearing the uncertainty inherent in the cash ﬂows of an asset or liability (risk premium).
A fair value measurement should include a risk premium reﬂecting the amount market participants would demand because of the risk (uncertainty) in the cash ﬂows. Otherwise, the measurement would not faithfully represent fair value. In some cases, determining the appropriate risk premium might be difﬁcult. However, the degree of difficulty alone is not a

FAS157–14

Fair Value Measurements

sufficient basis on which to exclude a risk adjustment.” Risk premiums should be reﬂective of an orderly transaction (that is, not a forced or distressed sale) between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions.

FAS157

used to develop unobservable inputs shall be adjusted if information is reasonably available without undue cost and effort that indicates that market participants would use different assumptions.
Inputs based on bid and ask prices

29H. When estimating fair value, this Statement does not preclude the use of quoted prices provided by third parties, such as pricing services or brokers, when the reporting entity has determined that the quoted prices provided by those parties are determined in accordance with this Statement. However, when there has been a signiﬁcant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability, the reporting entity should evaluate whether those quoted prices are based on current information that reﬂects orderly transactions or a valuation technique that reﬂects market participant assumptions (including assumptions about risks). In weighting a quoted price as an input to a fair value measurement, the reporting entity should place less weight (when compared with other indications of fair value that are based on transactions) on quotes that do not reﬂect the result of transactions. Furthermore, the nature of the quote (for example, whether the quote is an indicative price or a binding offer) should be considered when weighting the available evidence, with more weight given to quotes based on binding offers.
Level 3 inputs
30. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability. Unobservable inputs shall be used to measure fair value to the extent that relevant observable inputs are not available, thereby allowing for situations in which there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability at the measurement date.
However, the fair value measurement objective remains the same, that is, an exit price from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, unobservable inputs shall reﬂect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability (including assumptions about risk). Unobservable inputs shall be developed based on the best information available in the circumstances, which might include the reporting entity’s own data. In developing unobservable inputs, the reporting entity need not undertake all possible efforts to obtain information about market participant assumptions. However, the reporting entity shall not ignore information about market participant assumptions that is reasonably available without undue cost and effort. Therefore, the reporting entity’s own data

31. If an input used to measure fair value is based on bid and ask prices (for example, in a dealer market), the price within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances shall be used to measure fair value, regardless of where in the fair value hierarchy the input falls (Level 1, 2, or 3).
This Statement does not preclude the use of midmarket pricing or other pricing conventions as a practical expedient for fair value measurements within a bid-ask spread.
Disclosures
31A. Plan assets of a deﬁned beneﬁt pension or other postretirement plan that are accounted for under FASB Statements No. 87, Employers’ Accounting for Pensions, and No. 106, Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Beneﬁts Other Than Pensions, are not subject to the disclosure requirements of this
Statement. Instead, the disclosures required in paragraphs 5(d)(iv) and 8(c)(iv) of FASB Statement No.
132 (revised 2003), Employers’ Disclosures about
Pensions and Other Postretirement Beneﬁts, shall apply for fair value measurements of plan assets of a deﬁned beneﬁt pension or other postretirement plan.
32. For assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis in periods subsequent to initial recognition (for example, trading securities), the reporting entity shall disclose information that enables users of its ﬁnancial statements to assess the inputs used to develop those measurements and for recurring fair value measurements using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs (Level 3), the effect of the measurements on earnings (or changes in net assets) for the period. To meet that objective, the reporting entity shall disclose the following information for each interim and annual period separately for each major category of assets and liabilities (for equity and debt securities major category shall be deﬁned as major security type as described in paragraph 19 of FASB
Statement No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, even if the equity securities or debt securities are not within the scope of Statement 115):
a. The fair value measurements at the reporting date
b. The level within the fair value hierarchy in which

FAS157–15

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

the fair value measurements in their entirety fall, segregating fair value measurements using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1), signiﬁcant other observable inputs (Level 2), and signiﬁcant unobservable inputs (Level 3)
c. For fair value measurements using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs (Level 3), a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances, separately presenting changes during the period attributable to the following:12
(1) Total gains or losses for the period (realized and unrealized), segregating those gains or losses included in earnings (or changes in net assets), and a description of where those gains or losses included in earnings (or changes in net assets) are reported in the statement of income (or activities)
(2) Purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements
(net)
(3) Transfers in and/or out of Level 3 (for example, transfers due to changes in the observability of signiﬁcant inputs)
d. The amount of the total gains or losses for the period in subparagraph (c)(1) above included in earnings (or changes in net assets) that are attributable to the change in unrealized gains or losses relating to those assets and liabilities still held at the reporting date and a description of where those unrealized gains or losses are reported in the statement of income (or activities)
e. The inputs and valuation technique(s) used to measure fair value and a discussion of changes in valuation techniques and related inputs, if any, during the period.

period and the reasons for the measurements
b. The level within the fair value hierarchy in which the fair value measurements in their entirety fall, segregating fair value measurements using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1), signiﬁcant other observable inputs (Level 2), and signiﬁcant unobservable inputs (Level 3)
c. For fair value measurements using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs (Level 3), a description of the inputs and the information used to develop the inputs
d. In annual periods only, the valuation technique(s) used to measure fair value and a discussion of changes, if any, in the valuation technique(s) used to measure similar assets and/or liabilities in prior periods. 33. For assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis in periods subsequent to initial recognition (for example, impaired assets), the reporting entity shall disclose information that enables users of its ﬁnancial statements to assess the inputs used to develop those measurements. To meet that objective, the reporting entity shall disclose the following information for each interim and annual period separately for each major category of assets and liabilities (for equity and debt securities major category shall be deﬁned as major security type as described in paragraph 19 of Statement 115 even if the equity securities or debt securities are not within the scope of Statement 115):

Effective Date and Transition

a. The fair value measurements recorded during the

34. The quantitative disclosures required by this
Statement shall be presented using a tabular format.
(See Appendix A.)
35. The reporting entity is encouraged, but not required, to combine the fair value information disclosed under this Statement with the fair value information disclosed under other accounting pronouncements (for example, FASB Statement No. 107,
Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments) in the periods in which those disclosures are required, if practicable. The reporting entity also is encouraged, but not required, to disclose information about other similar measurements (for example, inventories measured at market value under ARB 43,
Chapter 4), if practicable.

36. Except as provided in subparagraphs 36(a) and 36(b) below, this Statement shall be effective for ﬁnancial statements issued for ﬁscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those ﬁscal years. Earlier application is encouraged, provided that the reporting entity has not yet issued ﬁnancial statements for that ﬁscal year, including any ﬁnancial statements for an interim period within that ﬁscal year.
a. Delayed application of this Statement is permitted for nonﬁnancial assets and nonﬁnancial liabilities, except for items that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the ﬁnancial statements

12For derivative assets and liabilities, the reconciliation disclosure required by paragraph 32(c) may be presented net.

FAS157–16

FAS157

Fair Value Measurements

on a recurring basis (at least annually), until ﬁscal years beginning after November 15, 2008, and interim periods within those ﬁscal years.
b. An entity that has issued interim or annual ﬁnancial statements reﬂecting the application of the measurement and disclosure provisions of this
Statement prior to the issuance of FSP
FAS 157-2, Effective Date of FASB Statement
No. 157, must continue to apply all of the provisions of this Statement.
37. This Statement shall be applied prospectively as of the beginning of the ﬁscal year in which this Statement is initially applied, except as follows. This
Statement shall be applied retrospectively to the following ﬁnancial instruments as of the beginning of the ﬁscal year in which this Statement is initially applied (a limited form of retrospective application):
a. A position in a ﬁnancial instrument that trades in an active market held by a broker-dealer or investment company within the scope of the
AICPA Audit and Accounting Guides for those industries that was measured at fair value using a blockage factor prior to initial application of this
Statement
b. A ﬁnancial instrument that was measured at fair value at initial recognition under Statement 133 using the transaction price in accordance with the guidance in footnote 3 of EITF Issue No. 02-3,
“Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative

Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities,” prior to initial application of this Statement
c. A hybrid ﬁnancial instrument that was measured at fair value at initial recognition under Statement 133 using the transaction price in accordance with the guidance in Statement 133 (added by FASB Statement No. 155, Accounting for
Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments) prior to initial application of this Statement.
38. At the date this Statement is initially applied to the ﬁnancial instruments in paragraph 37(a)–37(c), a difference between the carrying amounts and the fair values of those instruments shall be recognized as a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings (or other appropriate components of equity or net assets in the statement of ﬁnancial position) for that ﬁscal year, presented separately.
The disclosure requirements of Statement 154 for a change in accounting principle do not apply.
39. The disclosure requirements of this Statement
(paragraphs 32–35), including those disclosures that are required in annual periods only, shall be applied in the ﬁrst interim period of the ﬁscal year in which this Statement is initially applied. The disclosure requirements of this Statement need not be applied for ﬁnancial statements for periods presented prior to initial application of this Statement.

The provisions of this Statement need not be applied to immaterial items.

This Statement was adopted by the unanimous vote of the seven members of the Financial Accounting
Standards Board:
Robert H. Herz,
Chairman
George J. Batavick

G. Michael Crooch
Thomas J. Linsmeier
Leslie F. Seidman

Appendix A

Edward W. Trott
Donald M. Young

the application of those provisions. This Statement sets out a framework for measuring fair value, which refers to certain valuation concepts and practices.
However, this Statement is not intended to establish valuation standards.

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE
Introduction

The Fair Value Measurement Approach
A1. This appendix describes in general terms certain provisions of this Statement and provides examples that incorporate simpliﬁed assumptions to illustrate

A2. This Statement clariﬁes fair value in terms of the price in an orderly transaction between market

FAS157–17

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

participants to sell an asset or transfer a liability in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability. The transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability is a hypothetical transaction at the measurement date, considered from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, the objective of a fair value measurement is to determine the price that would be received to sell the asset or paid to transfer the liability at the measurement date (an exit price). Because that exit price objective applies for all assets and liabilities measured at fair value, any fair value measurement requires that the reporting entity determine:
a. The particular asset or liability that is the subject of the measurement (consistent with its unit of account) b. For an asset, the valuation premise appropriate for the measurement (consistent with its highest and best use)
c. The principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability (for an asset, consistent with its highest and best use)
d. The valuation technique(s) appropriate for the measurement, considering the availability of data with which to develop inputs that represent the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability and the level in the fair value hierarchy within which the inputs fall.
A3. The judgments applied in different valuation situations often will be different. The examples in this appendix illustrate, in qualitative terms, the judgments a reporting entity that measures assets and/or liabilities at fair value might apply in varying valuation situations.
The Valuation Premise
A4. The valuation premise used to measure the fair value of an asset depends on the highest and best use of the asset by market participants. If the asset would provide maximum value to market participants principally through its use in combination with other assets as a group (highest and best use is “in-use”), the asset would be measured using an in-use valuation premise. If the asset would provide maximum value to market participants principally on a standalone basis (highest and best use is “in-exchange”), the asset would be measured using an in-exchange valuation premise. A5. When measuring the fair value of an asset inuse, the in-use valuation premise can be incorporated in the measurement differently, depending on the circumstances. For example:
a. The fair value of the asset might be the same whether using an in-use or an in-exchange valuation premise. For example, that might be the case if the asset is a business (such as a reporting unit) that market participants would continue to operate. In that case, the transaction would involve the business in its entirety. The use of the assets as a group in the context of an ongoing business would generate synergies that would be available to market participants (market participant synergies). b. The in-use valuation premise might be incorporated in the fair value of the asset through adjustments to the value of the asset in-exchange. For example, that might be the case if the asset is a machine and the fair value measurement is determined using an observed price for a similar machine (not installed or otherwise conﬁgured for use), adjusted for transportation and installation costs so that the fair value measurement reﬂects the current condition and location of the machine
(installed and conﬁgured for use).
c. The in-use valuation premise might be incorporated in the fair value of the asset through the market participant assumptions used to measure the fair value of the asset. For example, if the asset is work-in-process inventory that is unique and market participants would complete the inventory into ﬁnished goods, the fair value of the inventory would assume that any specialized machinery necessary to complete the inventory into ﬁnished goods would be available to market participants. In that case, market participants would have the specialized machinery in place or would acquire the specialized machinery in conjunction with the inventory.
d. The in-use valuation premise might be incorporated in the fair value of the asset through the valuation technique used to measure the fair value of the asset. For example, that might be the case when using the multiperiod excess earnings method to measure the fair value of certain intangible assets because that valuation technique speciﬁcally considers the contribution of any complementary assets in the group in which an intangible asset would be used.

FAS157–18

Fair Value Measurements

e. In more limited situations, the asset might be measured at an amount that approximates its fair value in-use when allocating the fair value of the asset group within which the asset is used to the individual assets of the group. For example, that might be the case if the valuation involves real property and the fair value of improved property
(an asset group) is allocated to its component assets (such as land and improvements).
Highest and Best Use
A6. Highest and best use is a valuation concept that refers broadly to the use of an asset that would maximize the value of the asset or the group of assets in which the asset would be used by market participants. For some assets, in particular, nonﬁnancial assets, application of the highest-and-best-use concept could have a signiﬁcant effect on the fair value measurement. Examples 1–3 illustrate the application of the highest-and-best-use concept in situations in which nonﬁnancial assets are newly acquired.
Example 1—asset group
A7. The reporting entity, a strategic buyer, acquires a group of assets (Assets A, B, and C) in a business combination. Asset C is billing software developed by the acquired entity for its own use in conjunction with Assets A and B (related assets). The reporting entity measures the fair value of each of the assets individually, consistent with the speciﬁed unit of account for the assets. The reporting entity determines that each asset would provide maximum value to market participants principally through its use in combination with other assets as a group (highest and best use is in-use).
A8. In this instance, the market in which the reporting entity would sell the assets is the market in which it initially acquired the assets (that is, the “entry” and
“exit” markets from the perspective of the reporting entity are the same). Market participant buyers with whom the reporting entity would transact in that market have characteristics that are generally representative of both ﬁnancial buyers and strategic buyers and include those buyers that initially bid for the assets.13
As discussed below, differences between the indicated fair values of the individual assets relate principally to the use of the assets by those market participants within different asset groups:

FAS157

a. Strategic buyer asset group. The reporting entity, a strategic buyer, determines that strategic buyers have related assets that would enhance the value of the group within which the assets would be used (market participant synergies). Those assets include a substitute asset for Asset C (the billing software), which would be used for only a limited transition period and could not be sold standalone at the end of that period. Because strategic buyers have substitute assets, Asset C would not be used for its full remaining economic life. The indicated fair values of Assets A, B, and C within the strategic buyer asset group (reﬂecting the synergies resulting from the use of the assets within that group) are $360, $260, and $30, respectively. The indicated fair value of the assets as a group within the strategic buyer asset group is $650.
b. Financial buyer asset group. The reporting entity determines that ﬁnancial buyers do not have related or substitute assets that would enhance the value of the group within which the assets would be used. Because ﬁnancial buyers do not have substitute assets, Asset C (the billing software) would be used for its full remaining economic life. The indicated fair values of Assets A, B, and C within the ﬁnancial buyer asset group are
$300, $200, and $100, respectively. The indicated fair value of the assets as a group within the ﬁnancial buyer asset group is $600.
A9. The fair values of Assets A, B, and C would be determined based on the use of the assets as a group within the strategic buyer group ($360, $260, and
$30). Although the use of the assets within the strategic buyer group does not maximize the fair value of each of the assets individually, it maximizes the fair value of the assets as a group ($650).
Example 2—land
A10. The reporting entity acquires land in a business combination. The land is currently developed for industrial use as a site for a manufacturing facility. The current use of land often is presumed to be its highest and best use. However, nearby sites have recently been developed for residential use as sites for highrise condominiums. Based on that development and recent zoning and other changes to facilitate that development, the reporting entity determines that the

13While market participant buyers might be broadly classiﬁed as strategic and/or ﬁnancial buyers, there often will be differences among the market participant buyers within each of those groups, reﬂecting, for example, different uses for an asset and different operating strategies.

FAS157–19

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

land currently used as a site for a manufacturing facility could be developed as a site for residential use
(for high-rise condominiums).
A11. In this instance, the highest and best use of the land would be determined by comparing (a) the fair value of the manufacturing operation, which presumes that the land would continue to be used as currently developed for industrial use (in-use) and
(b) the value of the land as a vacant site for residential use, considering the demolition and other costs necessary to convert the land to a vacant site (inexchange). The highest and best use of the land would be determined based on the higher of those values.14 Example 3—IPR&D project
A12. The reporting entity acquires an in-process research and development (IPR&D) project in a business combination. The reporting entity does not intend to complete the IPR&D project. If completed, the IPR&D project would compete with one of its own IPR&D projects (to provide the next generation of the reporting entity’s commercialized technology).
Instead, the reporting entity intends to hold (lock up) the IPR&D project to prevent its competitors from obtaining access to the technology. The IPR&D project is expected to provide defensive value, principally by improving the prospects for the reporting entity’s own competing technology. For purposes of measuring the fair value of the IPR&D project at initial recognition, the highest and best use of the
IPR&D project would be determined based on its use by market participants. For example:

b. The highest and best use of the IPR&D project also would be in-use if, for competitive reasons, market participants would lock up the IPR&D project and that use would maximize the value of the group of assets in which the IPR&D project would be used (as a locked-up project). That might be the case if market participants have technology in a more advanced stage of development that would compete with the IPR&D project (if completed) and the IPR&D project would be expected to provide defensive value
(if locked up). The fair value of the IPR&D project, measured using an in-use valuation premise, would be determined based on the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the IPR&D project, assuming that the
IPR&D would be used (locked up) with its complementary assets as a group and that those complementary assets would be available to market participants.
c. The highest and best use of the IPR&D project would be in-exchange if market participants would discontinue the development of the
IPR&D project. That might be the case if the
IPR&D project is not expected to provide a market rate of return (if completed) and would not otherwise provide defensive value (if locked up).
The fair value of the IPR&D project, measured using an in-exchange valuation premise, would be determined based on the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the
IPR&D project standalone (which might be zero). Valuation Techniques

a. The highest and best use of the IPR&D project would be in-use if market participants would continue to develop the IPR&D project and that use would maximize the value of the group of assets in which the IPR&D project would be used.
That might be the case if market participants do not have similar technology (in development or commercialized). The fair value of the IPR&D project, measured using an in-use valuation premise, would be determined based on the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the IPR&D project, assuming that the
IPR&D would be used with its complementary assets as a group and that those complementary assets would be available to market participants.

A13. This Statement emphasizes that valuation techniques consistent with the market approach, income approach, and/or cost approach should be used to measure fair value. In some cases, a single valuation technique will be appropriate. In other cases, multiple valuation techniques will be appropriate. If multiple valuation techniques are used, the reporting entity should evaluate the results (respective indications of fair value), considering the reasonableness of the range indicated by those results. The fair value measurement is the point within that range that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances. Examples 4 and 5 illustrate the use of multiple valuation techniques. 14In situations involving real estate appraisal, the determination of highest and best use in the manner described above also might consider other factors relating to the manufacturing operation, including its assets and liabilities.

FAS157–20

Fair Value Measurements

Example 4—machine held and used
A14. The reporting entity tests for impairment an asset group that is held and used in operations. The asset group is impaired. The reporting entity measures the fair value of a machine that is used in the asset group as a basis for allocating the impairment loss to the assets of the group in accordance with FASB
Statement No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets. The machine, initially purchased from an outside vendor, was subsequently customized by the reporting entity for use in its operations. However, the customization of the machine was not extensive. The reporting entity determines that the asset would provide maximum value to market participants through its use in combination with other assets as a group (as installed or otherwise conﬁgured for use). Therefore, the highest and best use of the machine is in-use.
A15. The reporting entity determines that sufficient data are available to apply the cost approach and, because the customization of the machine was not extensive, the market approach. The income approach is not used because the machine does not have a separately identiﬁable income stream from which to develop reliable estimates of future cash ﬂows. Further, information about short-term and intermediateterm lease rates for similar used machinery that otherwise could be used to project an income stream
(lease payments over remaining service lives) is not available. The market and cost approaches are applied as follows:
a. Market approach. The market approach is applied using quoted prices for similar machines adjusted for differences between the machine (as customized) and the similar machines. The measurement reﬂects the price that would be received for the machine in its current condition (used) and location (installed and conﬁgured for use), thereby including installation and transportation costs. The fair value indicated by that approach ranges from $40,000 to $48,000.
b. Cost approach. The cost approach is applied by estimating the amount that currently would be required to construct a substitute (customized) machine of comparable utility. The estimate considers the condition of the machine (for example, physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and economic obsolescence) and includes installation costs. The fair value indicated by that approach ranges from $40,000 to $52,000.

FAS157

A16. The reporting entity determines that the fair value indicated by the market approach is more representative of fair value than the fair value indicated by the cost approach and, therefore, ascribes more weight to the results of the market approach. That determination is based on the relative reliability of the inputs, considering the degree of comparability between the machine and the similar machines. In particular: a. The inputs used in the market approach (quoted prices for similar machines) require relatively fewer and less subjective adjustments than the inputs used in the cost approach.
b. The range indicated by the market approach overlaps with, but is narrower than, the range indicated by the cost approach.
c. There are no known unexplained differences (between the machine and the similar machines) within that range.
The reporting entity further determines that the higher end of the range indicated by the market approach is most representative of fair value, largely because the majority of relevant data points in the market approach fall at or near the higher end of the range. Accordingly, the reporting entity determines that the fair value of the machine is $48,000.
Example 5—software asset
A17. The reporting entity acquires a group of assets.
The asset group includes an income-producing software asset internally developed for license to customers and its complementary assets (including a related database with which the software asset is used).
For purposes of allocating the cost of the group to the individual assets acquired, the reporting entity measures the fair value of the software asset. The reporting entity determines that the software asset would provide maximum value to market participants through its use in combination with other assets (its complementary assets) as a group. Therefore, the highest and best use of the software asset is in-use. (In this instance, the licensing of the software asset, in and of itself, does not render the highest and best use of the software asset in-exchange.)
A18. The reporting entity determines that in addition to the income approach, sufficient data might be available to apply the cost approach but not the market approach. Information about market transactions for comparable software assets is not available. The income and cost approaches are applied as follows:

FAS157–21

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

a. Income approach. The income approach is applied using a present value technique. The cash ﬂows used in that technique reﬂect the income stream expected to result from the software asset
(license fees from customers) over its economic life. The fair value indicated by that approach is
$15 million.
b. Cost approach. The cost approach is applied by estimating the amount that currently would be required to construct a substitute software asset of comparable utility (considering functional, technological, and economic obsolescence). The fair value indicated by that approach is $10 million.
A19. Through its application of the cost approach, the reporting entity determines that market participants would not be able to replicate a substitute software asset of comparable utility. Certain attributes of the software asset are unique, having been developed using proprietary information, and cannot be readily replicated. The reporting entity determines that the fair value of the software asset is $15 million, as indicated by the income approach.
Inputs to Valuation Techniques

ket for U.S. Treasury securities is a dealer market.
Dealer markets also exist for some other assets and liabilities, including other ﬁnancial instruments, commodities, and physical assets (for example, certain used equipment).
c. Brokered market. In a brokered market, brokers attempt to match buyers with sellers but do not stand ready to trade for their own account. In other words, brokers do not use their own capital to hold an inventory of the items for which they make a market. The broker knows the prices bid and asked by the respective parties, but each party is typically unaware of another party’s price requirements. Prices of completed transactions are sometimes available. Brokered markets include electronic communication networks, in which buy and sell orders are matched, and commercial and residential real estate markets.
d. Principal-to-principal market. Principal-toprincipal transactions, both originations and resales, are negotiated independently with no intermediary. Little information about those transactions may be released publicly.
Fair Value Hierarchy

A20. This Statement emphasizes that valuation techniques used to measure the fair value of an asset or liability should maximize the use of relevant observable inputs, that is, inputs that reﬂect the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of the reporting entity. Examples of markets in which inputs might be observable for some assets and liabilities (for example, ﬁnancial instruments) include the following:
a. Exchange market. In an active exchange market, closing prices are both readily available and generally representative of fair value. An example of such a market is the New York Stock Exchange.
b. Dealer market. In a dealer market, dealers stand ready to trade (either buy or sell for their own account), thereby providing liquidity by using their capital to hold an inventory of the items for which they make a market. Typically, bid and ask prices (representing the price the dealer is willing to pay and the price at which the dealer is willing to sell, respectively) are more readily available than closing prices. Over-the-counter markets
(where prices are publicly reported by the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations systems or by Pink Sheets
LLC) are dealer markets. For example, the mar-

A21. To increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements and related disclosures, this
Statement establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three broad levels. The level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement in its entirety falls is determined based on the lowest level input that is signiﬁcant to the measurement in its entirety.
Level 1 inputs
A22. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date. A Level 1 input will be available for many ﬁnancial assets and liabilities, some of which might be exchanged in multiple active markets
(for example, on different exchanges). Therefore, the emphasis within Level 1 is on determining both of the following:
a. The principal market for the asset or liability or, in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market for the asset or liability, considered from the perspective of the reporting entity; and

FAS157–22

Fair Value Measurements

b. Whether the reporting entity has the ability to access the price in that market for the asset or liability at the measurement date.
Example 6 illustrates the use of Level 1 inputs to measure the fair value of a ﬁnancial asset that trades in multiple active markets with different prices.
Example 6—Level 1 principal (or most advantageous) market
A23. A ﬁnancial asset is traded on two different exchanges with different prices. The reporting entity transacts in both markets and has the ability to access the price in those markets for the asset at the measurement date. In Market A, the price that would be received is $26, and transaction costs in that market are $3 (the net amount that would be received is
$23). In Market B, the price that would be received is
$25, and transaction costs in that market are $1 (the net amount that would be received in Market B is $24).
a. If Market A is the principal market for the asset
(the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset with the greatest volume and level of activity for the asset), the fair value of the asset would be measured using the price that would be received in that market ($26).
b. If neither market is the principal market for the asset, the fair value of the asset would be measured using the price in the most advantageous market. The most advantageous market is the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset with the price that maximizes the amount that would be received for the asset, considering transaction costs in the respective markets (that is, the net amount that would be received in the respective markets). Because the price in Market B adjusted for transaction costs would maximize the net amount that would be received for the asset ($24), the fair value of the asset would be measured using the price in that market ($25). Although transaction costs are considered in determining the most advantageous market, the price in that market used to measure the fair value of the asset is not adjusted for those costs.
Level 2 inputs
A24. Level 2 inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly through corroboration with observable market data

FAS157

(market-corroborated inputs). If the asset or liability has a speciﬁed (contractual) term, a Level 2 input must be observable for substantially the full term of the asset or liability. An adjustment to a Level 2 input that is signiﬁcant to the fair value measurement in its entirety might render the measurement a Level 3 measurement, depending on the level in the fair value hierarchy within which the inputs used to determine the adjustment fall. Examples of Level 2 inputs for particular assets and liabilities follow.
a. Receive-ﬁxed, pay-variable interest rate swap based on the LIBOR swap rate. A Level 2 input would include the LIBOR swap rate if that rate is observable at commonly quoted intervals for the full term of the swap.
b. Receive-ﬁxed, pay-variable interest rate swap based on a foreign-denominated yield curve. A
Level 2 input would include the swap rate based on a foreign- denominated yield curve that is observable at commonly quoted intervals for substantially the full term of the swap. That would be the case if the term of the swap is 10 years and that rate is observable at commonly quoted intervals for 9 years, provided that any reasonable extrapolation of the yield curve for year 10 would not be signiﬁcant to the fair value measurement of the swap in its entirety.
c. Receive-ﬁxed, pay-variable interest rate swap based on a speciﬁc bank’s prime rate. A Level 2 input would include the bank’s prime rate derived through extrapolation if the extrapolated values are corroborated by observable market data, for example, by correlation with an interest rate that is observable over substantially the full term of the swap.
d. Three-year option on exchange-traded shares. A
Level 2 input would include the implied volatility for the shares derived through extrapolation to year 3 if (1) prices for one- and two-year options on the shares are observable and (2) the extrapolated implied volatility of a three-year option is corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the option. In that case, the implied volatility could be derived by extrapolating from the implied volatility of the oneand two-year options on the shares and corroborated by the implied volatility for three-year options on comparable entities’ shares, provided that correlation with the one- and two-year implied volatilities is established.
e. Licensing arrangement. For a licensing arrangement that is acquired in a business combination and that was recently negotiated with an un-

FAS157–23

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

related party by the acquired entity (the party to the licensing arrangement), a Level 2 input would include the royalty rate at inception of the arrangement. f. Finished goods inventory at retail outlet. For ﬁnished goods inventory that is acquired in a business combination, a Level 2 input would include either a price to customers in a retail market or a wholesale price to retailers in a wholesale market, adjusted for differences between the condition and location of the inventory item and the comparable (similar) inventory items so that the fair value measurement reﬂects the price that would be received in a transaction to sell the inventory to another retailer that would complete the requisite selling efforts. Conceptually, the fair value measurement should be the same, whether adjustments are made to a retail price (downward) or to a wholesale price (upward). Generally, the price that requires the least amount of subjective adjustments should be used for the fair value measurement. g. Building held and used. A Level 2 input would include the price per square foot for the building
(a valuation multiple) derived from observable market data, for example, multiples derived from prices in observed transactions involving comparable (similar) buildings in similar locations.
h. Reporting unit. A Level 2 input would include a valuation multiple (for example, a multiple of earnings or revenue or a similar performance measure) derived from observable market data, for example, multiples derived from prices in observed transactions involving comparable (similar) businesses, considering operational, market, ﬁnancial, and nonﬁnancial factors.
Level 3 inputs
A25. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability, that is, inputs that reﬂect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability (including assumptions about risk) developed based on the best information available in the

circumstances. Assumptions about risk include the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique used to measure fair value (such as a pricing model) and/or the risk inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique.15 Examples of Level 3 inputs for particular assets and liabilities follow.
a. Long-dated currency swap. A Level 3 input would include interest rates in a speciﬁed currency that are not observable and cannot be corroborated by observable market data at commonly quoted intervals or otherwise for substantially the full term of the currency swap.
The interest rates in a currency swap are the swap rates calculated from the respective countries’ yield curves.
b. Three-year option on exchange-traded shares. A
Level 3 input would include historical volatility, that is, the volatility for the shares derived from the shares’ historical prices. Historical volatility typically does not represent current market participant expectations about future volatility, even if it is the only information available to price an option. c. Interest rate swap. A Level 3 input would include an adjustment to a mid-market consensus (nonbinding) price for the swap developed using data that are not directly observable and that cannot otherwise be corroborated by observable market data. d. Asset retirement obligation at initial recognition.
A Level 3 input would include expected cash ﬂows (adjusted for risk) developed using the reporting entity’s own data if there is no information reasonably available without undue cost and effort that indicates that market participants would use different assumptions. That Level 3 input would be used in a present value technique together with other inputs, for example (1) a riskfree interest rate or (2) a credit-adjusted risk-free rate if the effect of the reporting entity’s credit standing on the fair value of the liability is reﬂected in the discount rate rather than in the expected cash ﬂows.16

15A measurement (for example, a “mark-to-model” measurement) that does not include an adjustment for risk would not represent a fair value measurement if market participants would include one in pricing the related asset or liability.
16FASB Statement No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, illustrates the application of the expected present value technique to an asset retirement obligation measured at fair value at initial recognition under that Statement. (See Appendix C of Statement 143.)

FAS157–24

Fair Value Measurements

e. Reporting unit. A Level 3 input would include a ﬁnancial forecast (for example, of cash ﬂows or earnings) developed using the reporting entity’s own data if there is no information reasonably available without undue cost and effort that indicates that market participants would use different assumptions. Transaction Prices and Initial Fair Value
Measurements
A26. This Statement clariﬁes that in many cases the transaction price, that is, the price paid (received) for a particular asset (liability), will represent the fair value of that asset (liability) at initial recognition, but not presumptively.17 Example 7 illustrates situations in which the price in a transaction involving a derivative instrument might (and might not) represent the fair value of the instrument.
Example 7—interest rate swap at initial recognition A27. Entity A (a retail counterparty) enters into an interest rate swap in a retail market with Entity B (a securities dealer) for no initial consideration (transaction price is zero). Entity A transacts only in the retail market. Entity B transacts in the retail market (with retail counterparties) and in the inter-dealer market
(with securities dealer counterparties).
a. Entity A (retail counterparty). From the perspective of Entity A, the retail market in which it initially transacted is the principal market for the swap; if Entity A were to transfer its rights and obligations under the swap, it would do so with a securities dealer counterparty in that market. In that case, the transaction price (zero) would represent the fair value of the swap to Entity A at initial recognition, that is, the price that Entity A would receive (or pay) to sell (or transfer) the swap in a transaction with a securities dealer counterparty in the retail market (an exit price).18
That price would not be adjusted for any incre-

FAS157

mental (transaction) costs that would be charged by that securities dealer counterparty.
b. Entity B (securities dealer). From the perspective of Entity B, the inter-dealer market (not the retail market in which it initially transacted) is the principal market for the swap; if Entity B were to transfer its rights and obligations under the swap, it would do so with a securities dealer in that market. Because the market in which Entity B initially transacted is different from the principal market for the swap, the transaction price (zero) would not necessarily represent the fair value of the swap to Entity B at initial recognition.
Restricted Assets
A28. The effect on a fair value measurement of a restriction on the sale or use of an asset by a reporting entity will differ depending on whether the restriction would be considered by market participants in pricing the asset. Examples 8 and 9 illustrate the effect of restrictions in determining the fair value of an asset.
Example 8—restriction on sale of security
A29. The reporting entity holds a security of an issuer for which sale is legally restricted for a speciﬁed period. (For example, such a restriction could limit sale to qualifying investors, as may be the case under
Rule 144 or similar rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.) The restriction is speciﬁc to
(an attribute of) the security and, therefore, would transfer to market participants. In that case, the fair value of the security would be based on the quoted price for an otherwise identical unrestricted security of the same issuer that trades in a public market, adjusted to reﬂect the effect of the restriction. The adjustment would reﬂect the amount market participants would demand because of the risk relating to the inability to access a public market for the security for the speciﬁed period.19 The adjustment will vary depending on the nature and duration of the restriction, the extent to which buyers are limited by

17The guidance in this Statement applies for derivatives and other ﬁnancial instruments that are measured at fair value under FASB Statement
No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, including hybrid ﬁnancial instruments. Therefore, this Statement nulliﬁes the guidance in footnote 3 of EITF Issue No. 02-3, “Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and
Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities.”
18If the transaction price represents fair value at initial recognition and a pricing model will be used to measure fair value in subsequent periods, the model should be calibrated so that the model value at initial recognition equals the transaction price.
19The guidance in this Statement applies for equity securities with restrictions that terminate within one year that are measured at fair value under
FASB Statements No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, and No. 124, Accounting for Certain Investments
Held by Not-for-Proﬁt Organizations.

FAS157–25

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

the restriction (for example, there might be a large number of qualifying investors), and factors speciﬁc to both the security and the issuer (qualitative and quantitative).20 Example 9—restrictions on use of asset
A30. A donor contributes land in an otherwise developed residential area to a not-for-proﬁt neighborhood association (Association). The land is currently used as a playground. The donor speciﬁes that the land must continue to be used by the Association as a playground in perpetuity. Upon review of relevant documentation (legal and other), the Association determines that the ﬁduciary responsibility to meet the donor’s restriction would not otherwise transfer to market participants if the asset was to be sold by the
Association, that is, the donor restriction on the use of the land is speciﬁc to the Association. Absent the restriction on the use of the land by the Association, the land could be used as a site for residential development. In addition, the land has an easement for utility lines on a portion of the property.
a. Donor restriction on use of land. Because in this instance the donor restriction on the use of the land is speciﬁc to the Association, the restriction would not transfer to market participants. Therefore, the fair value of the land would be based on the higher of its fair value in-use as a playground or fair value in-exchange as a site for residential development, regardless of the restriction on the use of the land by the Association.21
b. Easement for utility lines. Because the easement for utility lines is speciﬁc to (an attribute of) the land, it would transfer to market participants.
Therefore, the fair value measurement of the land would consider the effect of the easement, regardless of whether highest and best use is in-use as a playground or in-exchange as a site for residential development.
Liabilities and Credit Risk
A31. Nonperformance risk relating to a liability includes the reporting entity’s credit risk. The reporting entity should consider the effect of its credit risk
(credit standing) on the fair value of the liability in all periods in which the liability is measured at fair value

because those who might hold the entity’s obligations as assets would consider the effect of the entity’s credit standing in determining the prices they would be willing to pay. For example, assume that Entity X and Entity Y each enter into a contractual obligation to pay cash ($500) to Entity Z in 5 years. Entity X has a AA credit rating and can borrow at 6 percent, while Entity Y has a BBB credit rating and can borrow at 12 percent. Entity X will receive about $374 in exchange for its promise (the present value of
$500 in 5 years at 6 percent). Entity Y will receive about $284 in exchange for its promise (the present value of $500 in 5 years at 12 percent). The fair value of the liability to each entity (the proceeds) incorporates that entity’s credit standing. Example 10 illustrates the effect of credit standing on the fair value of a ﬁnancial liability at initial recognition and in subsequent periods.
Example 10—structured note
A32. On January 1, 2007, Entity A, an investment bank with a AA credit rating, issues a ﬁve-year ﬁxed rate note to Entity B. The contractual principal amount to be paid by Entity A at maturity is linked to the S&P 500 index. No credit enhancements are issued in conjunction with or otherwise related to the contract (that is, no collateral is posted and there is no third-party guarantee). Entity A elects to account for the entire note at fair value in accordance with FASB
Statement No. 155, Accounting for Certain Hybrid
Financial Instruments. The fair value of the note (the obligation of Entity A) during 2007 is measured using an expected present value technique. Changes in fair value are discussed below.
a. Fair value at January 1, 2007. The expected cash ﬂows used in the expected present value technique are discounted at the risk-free rate (using the treasury yield curve at January 1, 2007), plus the current market observable AA corporate bond spread to treasuries adjusted (up or down) for Entity A’s speciﬁc credit risk (credit-adjusted riskfree rate). Therefore, the fair value of the obligation of Entity A at initial recognition considers nonperformance risk, including that entity’s credit risk (presumably, reﬂected in the proceeds).
b. Fair value at March 31, 2007. During March
2007, the credit spread for AA corporate bonds

20ASR No. 113, Statement Regarding “Restricted Securities,” provides related guidance.
21
The donor restriction, which is legally binding on the Association, would be indicated through classiﬁcation of the associated net assets (permanently restricted) and disclosure of the nature of the restriction in accordance with paragraphs 12 and 14 of FASB Statement No. 117, Financial Statements of Not-for-Proﬁt Organizations.

FAS157–26

Fair Value Measurements

widens, with no changes to the speciﬁc credit risk of Entity A. The expected cash ﬂows used in the expected present value technique are discounted at the risk-free rate (using the treasury yield curve at March 31, 2007), plus the current market observable AA corporate bond spread to treasuries, adjusted for Entity A’s speciﬁc credit risk (creditadjusted risk-free rate). Entity A’s speciﬁc credit risk is unchanged from initial recognition. Therefore, the fair value of the obligation of Entity A changes due to changes in credit spreads generally. Changes in credit spreads reﬂect current market participant assumptions about changes in nonperformance risk generally.
c. Fair value at June 30, 2007. As of June 30, 2007, there have been no changes to the AA corporate bond spreads. However, based on structured note issuances corroborated with other qualitative information, Entity A determines that its own speciﬁc credit worthiness has strengthened within the AA credit spread. The expected cash ﬂows used in the expected present value technique are discounted at the risk-free rate (using the treasury yield curve at June 30, 2007), plus the current market observable AA corporate bond spread to treasuries (unchanged from March 31, 2007), adjusted for Entity A’s speciﬁc credit risk (creditadjusted risk-free rate). Therefore, the fair value of the obligation of Entity A changes due to the change in its own speciﬁc credit risk within the
AA corporate bond spread.
Example 11—determining fair value when the volume and level of activity for the asset have signiﬁcantly decreased
Note: The conclusions reached in this example are based on the assumed, hypothetical facts and circumstances presented. Other approaches to determining fair value may be appropriate.
A32A. On January 1, 20X8 (the issuance date of the security), Entity A invested in a junior AAA-rated tranche of a residential mortgage-backed security.
The junior tranche is the third most senior of a total of seven tranches. The underlying collateral for the residential mortgage-backed security is unguaranteed
Alt-A nonconforming residential mortgage loans that

FAS157

were issued in the second half of 2006. At March 31,
20X9 (the measurement date), the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security is now
A-rated. This tranche of the residential mortgagebacked security was previously traded through a brokered market; however, trading volume was infrequent, with only a few transactions per month from
January 1, 20X8 through June 30, 20X8 and little, if any, trading activity during the nine months before
March 31, 20X9.
A32B. Entity A considers the guidance in paragraph
29A to determine whether there has been a signiﬁcant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security in which it has invested. After evaluating the signiﬁcance and relevance of the factors, Entity A concludes that the volume and level of activity for the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security have signiﬁcantly decreased. Entity A supported its judgment primarily on the basis of its observation that there was little, if any, trading activity for an extended period of time before the measurement date.
A32C. Because there is little, if any, trading activity to support a market approach valuation technique,
Entity A decides to use the discount rate adjustment technique described in Appendix B of this Statement to estimate fair value for its security at the measurement date.21a Entity A uses the contractual cash ﬂows from the residential mortgage-backed security.21b Entity A then estimates a discount rate
(that is, the market rate of return) that will be used to discount the contractual cash ﬂows. The available information that Entity A uses to estimate an appropriate market rate of return included:
a. The risk-free rate based on the rate of return on government debt securities
b. Estimated adjustments for differences between the available market data and the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security in which Entity A has invested. Entity A evaluates available market data about expected nonperformance and uncertainty risks (for example, default risk, collateral value risk, and liquidity risk) that market participants would consider in pricing the

21aSee paragraphs 20 and 21 of this Statement.
21bThe discount rate adjustment technique described in paragraphs B7−B11 of this Statement would not be appropriate when determining whether there has been an other-than-temporary impairment and/or a change in yield under EITF Issue No. 99- 20, “Recognition of Interest
Income and Impairment on Purchased Beneﬁcial Interests and Transferor’s Beneﬁcial Interests in Securitized Financial Assets Obtained in a
Transfer Accounted for as a Sale,” when that technique uses contractual cash ﬂows rather than most likely cash ﬂows.

FAS157–27

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

asset in an orderly transaction at the measurement date under current market conditions. In determining those adjustments, Entity A considered:
1. The credit spread for the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security at the issuance date implied by the original transaction price
2. The change in credit spread implied by any observed transactions from the issuance date to the measurement date for comparable residential mortgage-backed securities, or based on relevant indexes
3. The speciﬁc characteristics of the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security compared with comparable residential mortgage-backed securities or indexes, including the quality of the underlying assets
(that is, information about the performance of the underlying mortgage loans, such as delinquency and foreclosure rates, loss experience, and prepayment rates), seniority and subordination of the residential mortgage-backed security tranche held, and other relevant factors
4. Relevant reports issued by analysts and rating agencies 5. Quoted prices from third parties such as brokers or pricing services.
A32D. Entity A estimates that one indication of an appropriate market rate of return that market participants would use in pricing the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security is 12 percent
(1,200 basis points). This market rate of return was estimated as follows:
a. 300 basis points for the appropriate risk-free rate at March 31, 20X9.
b. Add: 250 basis points for the credit spread over the risk-free rate at issuance of Entity A’s junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security in January 20X8.
c. Add: 700 basis points for the estimated change in the credit spread over the risk-free rate for Entity
A’s junior tranche of the residential mortgagebacked security between January 1, 20X8 and
March 31, 20X9. This estimate was based on the

change in the most comparable index available for the period between January 1, 20X8 and
March 31, 20X9.
d. Subtract: 50 basis points (net) to adjust for differences between the index used to estimate the change in credit spreads and Entity A’s junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security. The referenced index consists of subprime mortgage loans, while Entity A’s residential mortgage-backed security consists of Alt-A mortgage loans, making it more attractive to market participants. However, the index does not reﬂect an appropriate liquidity risk premium for Entity
A’s junior tranche of the residential mortgagebacked security under current market conditions.
Thus, the 50 basis point adjustment is the net of 2 adjustments. 1. The ﬁrst adjustment is a 350 basis point subtraction, which was estimated by comparing the implied yield from the most recent transactions for the residential mortgage-backed security in June 20X8 with the implied yield in the index price on those same dates. There was no information available that indicated that the relationship between Entity A’s security and the index has changed.
2. The second adjustment is a 300 basis point addition, which is Entity A’s best estimate of the additional liquidity risk inherent in its security (the cash position) when compared with the index (the synthetic position). This estimate was derived after considering liquidity risk premiums implied in recent cash transactions for a range of similar securities.
A32E. As an additional indication of an appropriate market rate of return, Entity A also considers 2 recent indicative quotes (that is, nonbinding quotes) provided by reputable brokers for the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security that imply yields of 15 to 17 percent. Entity A conﬁrms that the quotes are not based on transactions, but it is unable to evaluate the valuation technique(s) or any other market data used to develop the quotes.

21c−21d

[These footnotes have been deleted. See Status page.]

FAS157–28

FAS157

Fair Value Measurements

A32F. Because Entity A has multiple indications of the appropriate rate of return that market participants would consider relevant in estimating fair value, it evaluates and weights, as appropriate, the respective indications of the appropriate rate of return, considering the reasonableness of the range indicated by the results. Entity A concludes that 13 percent is the point within the range of relevant inputs that is most representative of fair value under current market conditions. Entity A placed more weight on the 12 percent estimated market rate of return (that is, its own estimate) because (a) Entity A concluded that its own estimate appropriately incorporated nonperformance risk (for example, default risk and collateral value risk) and liquidity risk that market participants would use to estimate the selling price of the asset in an orderly transaction in the current market, and (b) the indications of an appropriate rate of return provided by the broker quotes were nonbinding quotes that were not based on transactions. Additionally, Entity A was not able to evaluate the valuation technique(s) or signiﬁcant inputs used to develop the quotes.
A32G. Because changing the selected market rate of return would change the fair value of Entity A’s junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security signiﬁcantly, Entity A voluntarily discloses that input and quantiﬁes the effect of using other reasonably possible discount rate estimates.
Fair Value Disclosures
A33. This Statement requires disclosures about the fair value of assets and liabilities recognized in the statement of ﬁnancial position in periods subsequent to initial recognition, whether the measurements are made on a recurring basis (for example, trading securities) or on a nonrecurring basis (for example, impaired assets).
Quantitative disclosures using a tabular format are required in all periods (interim and annual). Qualitative
(narrative) disclosures about the valuation techniques used to measure fair value are required in all annual periods. The disclosures required by paragraph 32(a)–(d) and paragraph 33(a) and (b) are illustrated below.
Assets Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis
A34. For assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis during the period, this Statement requires quantitative disclosures about the fair value measurements separately for each major category of assets and liabilities (paragraphs 32(a) and 32(b)). For assets, that information might be presented as follows:
($ in 000s)

Description
Trading securities:
Equity securities—real estate
Available-for-sale securities:
Residential mortgage-backed securities Derivatives
Venture capital investments
Total

Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
Quoted Prices in Active Signiﬁcant Other Signiﬁcant
Markets for Identical
Observable
Unobservable
Assets
Inputs
Inputs
12/31/XX
(Level 1)
(Level 2)
(Level 3)
$115

$105

$10

—

75
60
10

—
25
—

—
15
—

$75
20
10

$260

$205

$25

$30

(Note: For liabilities, a similar table should be presented.)
Assets Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis Using Signiﬁcant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
A35. For assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs
(Level 3) during the period, this Statement requires a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances,

FAS157–29

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, except for derivative assets and liabilities, which may be presented net (paragraphs 32(c) and 32(d)). For assets, the reconciliation might be presented as follows: Fair Value Measurements Using
Signiﬁcant Unobservable Inputs
(Level 3)

($ in 000s)
Residential
MortgageBacked
Securities

Derivatives

Venture Capital
Investments

Total

Beginning balance
Total gains or losses (realized/unrealized)
Included in earnings (or changes in net assets)
Included in other comprehensive income Purchases, issuances, and settlements
Transfers in and/or out of Level 3

$ 80

$14

$11

$105

—

11

(3)

8

(5)
—
—

4
(7)
(2)

—
2
0

(1)
(5)
(2)

Ending balance

$ 75

$20

$10

$105

The amount of total gains or losses for the period included in earnings (or changes in net assets) attributable to the change in unrealized gains or losses relating to assets still held at the reporting date

$—

$ 7

$ 2

$ 9

(Note: For liabilities, a similar table should be presented.)
Gains and losses (realized and unrealized) included in earnings (or changes in net assets) for the period (above) are reported in trading revenues and in other revenues as follows:
Trading
Revenues

Other
Revenues

Total gains or losses included in earnings (or changes in net assets) for the period (above)

$11

$(3)

Change in unrealized gains or losses relating to assets still held at reporting date

$ 7

$2

Assets Measured at Fair Value on a
Nonrecurring Basis
A36. For each major category of assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis

during the period, this Statement requires disclosures about the fair value measurements (paragraph 33(a) and (b)). That information might be presented as follows: FAS157–30

FAS157

Fair Value Measurements

($ in millions)

Description
Long-lived assets held and used
Goodwill
Long-lived assets held for sale

Fair Value Measurements Using

Year
Ended
12/31/XX

Quoted
Prices in
Active
Markets for
Identical
Assets
(Level 1)

$75
30
26

Signiﬁcant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level 2)

Signiﬁcant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)

$75
$30
26

Total
Gains
(Losses)
$(25)
(35)
(15)
$(75)

In accordance with the provisions of Statement 144, long-lived assets held and used with a carrying amount of $100 million were written down to their fair value of $75 million, resulting in an impairment charge of $25 million, which was included in earnings for the period.

to the techniques discussed herein. The present value technique used to measure fair value will depend on facts and circumstances speciﬁc to the asset or liability being measured (for example, whether comparable assets or liabilities can be observed in the market) and the availability of sufficient data.

In accordance with the provisions of Statement 142, goodwill with a carrying amount of $65 million was written down to its implied fair value of $30 million, resulting in an impairment charge of $35 million, which was included in earnings for the period.

The Components of a Present Value
Measurement

In accordance with the provisions of Statement 144, long-lived assets held for sale with a carrying amount of $35 million were written down to their fair value of $26 million, less cost to sell of $6 million (or
$20 million), resulting in a loss of $15 million, which was included in earnings for the period.
Appendix B
PRESENT VALUE TECHNIQUES
Introduction
B1. FASB Concepts Statement No. 7, Using Cash
Flow Information and Present Value in Accounting
Measurements, provides guidance for using present value techniques to measure fair value. That guidance focuses on a traditional or discount rate adjustment technique and an expected cash ﬂow (expected present value) technique. This appendix clariﬁes that guidance.22 This appendix neither prescribes the use of one speciﬁc present value technique nor limits the use of present value techniques to measure fair value

B2. Present value is a tool used to link uncertain future amounts (cash ﬂows or values) to a present amount using a discount rate (an application of the income approach) that is consistent with value maximizing behavior and capital market equilibrium. A fair value measurement of an asset or liability, using present value, should capture the following elements from the perspective of market participants as of the measurement date:
a. An estimate of future cash ﬂows for the asset or liability being measured.
b. Expectations about possible variations in the amount and/or timing of the cash ﬂows representing the uncertainty inherent in the cash ﬂows.
c. The time value of money, represented by the rate on risk-free monetary assets that have maturity dates or durations that coincide with the period covered by the cash ﬂows (risk-free interest rate).
For present value computations denominated in nominal U.S. dollars, the yield curve for U.S.
Treasury securities determines the appropriate risk-free interest rate. U.S. Treasury securities are deemed (default) risk free because they pose neither uncertainty in timing nor risk of default to the holder.

22

That guidance is included or otherwise referred to principally in paragraphs 39–46, 51, 62–71, 114, and 115 of Concepts Statement 7.

FAS157–31

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

d. The price for bearing the uncertainty inherent in the cash ﬂows (risk premium).
e. Other case-speciﬁc factors that would be considered by market participants.
f. In the case of a liability, the nonperformance risk relating to that liability, including the reporting entity’s (obligor’s) own credit risk.
General Principles
B3. Present value techniques differ in how they capture those elements. However, certain general principles govern the application of any present value technique: a. Cash ﬂows and discount rates should reﬂect assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability.
b. Cash ﬂows and discount rates should consider only factors attributed to the asset (or liability) being measured.
c. To avoid double counting or omitting the effects of risk factors, discount rates should reﬂect assumptions that are consistent with those inherent in the cash ﬂows.23
d. Assumptions about cash ﬂows and discount rates should be internally consistent. For example, nominal cash ﬂows (that include the effect of inﬂation) should be discounted at a rate that includes the effect of inﬂation. The nominal riskfree interest rate includes the effect of inﬂation.
Real cash ﬂows (that exclude the effect of inﬂation) should be discounted at a rate that excludes the effect of inﬂation. Similarly, after-tax cash ﬂows should be discounted using an after-tax discount rate. Pretax cash ﬂows should be discounted at a rate consistent with those cash ﬂows
(for example, a U.S. Treasury rate is quoted on a pretax basis, as is a LIBOR rate or a prevailing term loan rate).
e. Discount rates should be consistent with the underlying economic factors of the currency in which the cash ﬂows are denominated.
Risk and Uncertainty
B4. A fair value measurement, using present value, is made under conditions of uncertainty because the cash ﬂows used are estimates rather than known

amounts. In many cases, both the amount and timing of the cash ﬂows will be uncertain. Even contractually ﬁxed amounts, like the payments on a loan, will be uncertain if there is risk of default.
B5. Risk-averse market participants generally seek compensation for bearing the uncertainty inherent in the cash ﬂows of an asset or liability (risk premium).
A fair value measurement should include a risk premium reﬂecting the amount market participants would demand because of the risk (uncertainty) in the cash ﬂows. Otherwise, the measurement would not faithfully represent fair value. In some cases, determining the appropriate risk premium might be difficult. However, the degree of difficulty alone is not a sufficient basis on which to exclude a risk adjustment. B6. Present value techniques differ in how they adjust for risk and in the type of cash ﬂows they use.
For example, the discount rate adjustment technique uses a risk-adjusted discount rate and contractual, promised, or most likely cash ﬂows; Method 1 of the expected present value technique uses a risk-free rate and risk-adjusted expected cash ﬂows; and Method 2 of the expected present value technique uses a riskadjusted discount rate (which is different from the rate used in the discount rate adjustment technique) and expected cash ﬂows. Those present value techniques are discussed below.
Discount Rate Adjustment Technique
B7. The discount rate adjustment technique uses a single set of cash ﬂows from the range of possible estimated amounts, whether contractual or promised
(as is the case for a bond) or most likely cash ﬂows.
In all cases, those cash ﬂows are conditional upon the occurrence of speciﬁed events (for example, contractual or promised cash ﬂows for a bond are conditional on the event of no default by the debtor). The discount rate used in the discount rate adjustment technique is derived from observed rates of return for comparable assets or liabilities that are traded in the market. Accordingly, the contractual, promised, or most likely cash ﬂows are discounted at a rate that corresponds to an observed market rate associated with such conditional cash ﬂows (market rate of return). 23For example, a discount rate that reﬂects expectations about future defaults is appropriate if using contractual cash ﬂows of a loan (discount rate adjustment technique). That same rate would not be used if using expected (probability-weighted) cash ﬂows (expected present value technique) because the expected cash ﬂows already reﬂect assumptions about future defaults; instead, a discount rate that is commensurate with the risk inherent in the expected cash ﬂows should be used.

FAS157–32

Fair Value Measurements

B8. The application of the discount rate adjustment technique requires an analysis of market data for comparable assets or liabilities. Comparability is established by considering the nature of the cash ﬂows
(for example, whether the cash ﬂows are contractual or noncontractual and are likely to respond similarly to changes in economic conditions), as well as other factors (for example, credit standing, collateral, duration, restrictive covenants, and liquidity). Alternatively, if a single comparable asset or liability does not fairly reﬂect the risk inherent in the cash ﬂows of the asset or liability being measured, it may be possible to derive a discount rate using data for several comparable assets or liabilities in conjunction with the risk-free yield curve (a “build-up” approach).
B9. To illustrate a build-up approach, assume that
Asset A is a contractual right to receive $800 in
1 year (no timing uncertainty). There is an established market for comparable assets, and information about those assets, including price information, is available. Of those comparable assets:
a. Asset B is a contractual right to receive $1,200 in
1 year and has a market price of $1,083. Thus, the implied annual rate of return (1-year market rate of return) is 10.8 percent [($1,200/$1,083) – 1].
b. Asset C is a contractual right to receive $700 in
2 years and has a market price of $566. Thus, the implied annual rate of return (2-year market rate of return) is 11.2 percent [($700/$566)^0.5 – 1].
c. All three assets are comparable with respect to risk (dispersion of possible payoffs and credit).
B10. Based on the timing of the contractual payments to be received relative to Asset A (one year for
Asset B versus two years for Asset C), Asset B is deemed more comparable to Asset A. Using the contractual payment to be received for Asset A ($800) and the 1-year market rate derived from Asset B
(10.8 percent), the fair value of Asset A is $722
($800/1.108). Alternatively, in the absence of available market information for Asset B, the one-year market rate could be derived from Asset C using the build-up approach. In that case, the 2-year market rate indicated by Asset C (11.2 percent) would be adjusted to a 1-year market rate based on the term structure of the risk-free yield curve. Additional information and analysis also might be required to determine if the risk premium for one-year and two-year assets is the same. If it is determined that the risk premium for one-year and two-year assets is not the same, the two-year market rate of return would be further adjusted for that effect.

FAS157

B11. In applying the discount rate adjustment technique to ﬁxed claims, the adjustment for risk inherent in the cash ﬂows of the asset or liability being measured is included in the discount rate. In some applications of the discount rate adjustment technique to cash ﬂows that are other than ﬁxed claims, an adjustment to the cash ﬂows also may be necessary to achieve comparability with the observed asset or liability from which the discount rate is derived.
Expected Present Value Technique
B12. The expected present value technique uses as a starting point a set of cash ﬂows that, in theory, represents the probability-weighted average of all possible cash ﬂows (expected cash ﬂows). The resulting estimate is identical to expected value, which, in statistical terms, is the weighted average of a discrete random variable’s possible values where the respective probabilities are used as weights. Because all possible cash ﬂows are probability weighted, the resulting expected cash ﬂow is not conditional upon the occurrence of any speciﬁed event (as are the cash ﬂows used in the discount rate adjustment technique).
B13. In making an investment decision, risk-averse market participants would consider the risk inherent in the expected cash ﬂows. Portfolio theory distinguishes between two types of risk. The ﬁrst is risk speciﬁc to a particular asset or liability, also referred to as unsystematic (diversiﬁable) risk. The second is general market risk, also referred to as systematic
(nondiversiﬁable) risk. The systematic or nondiversiﬁable risk of an asset (or liability) refers to the amount by which the asset (or liability) increases the variance of a diversiﬁed portfolio when it is added to that portfolio. Portfolio theory holds that in a market in equilibrium, market participants will be compensated only for bearing the systematic or nondiversiﬁable risk inherent in the cash ﬂows. (In markets that are inefficient or out of equilibrium, other forms of return or compensation might be available.)
B14. Method 1 of the expected present value technique adjusts the expected cash ﬂows for the systematic (market) risk by subtracting a cash risk premium
(risk-adjusted expected cash ﬂows). These riskadjusted expected cash ﬂows represent a certaintyequivalent cash ﬂow, which is discounted at a riskfree interest rate. A certainty-equivalent cash ﬂow refers to an expected cash ﬂow (as deﬁned), adjusted for risk such that one is indifferent to trading a certain cash ﬂow for an expected cash ﬂow. For example, if one were willing to trade an expected cash ﬂow of

FAS157–33

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

$1,200 for a certain cash ﬂow of $1,000, the $1,000 is the certainty equivalent of the $1,200 (the $200 would represent the cash risk premium). In that case, one would be indifferent as to the asset held.
B15. In contrast, Method 2 of the expected present value technique adjusts for systematic (market) risk by adding a risk premium to the risk-free interest rate.
Accordingly, the expected cash ﬂows are discounted at a rate that corresponds to an expected rate associated with probability-weighted cash ﬂows (expected rate of return). Models used for pricing risky assets, such as the Capital Asset Pricing Model, can be used to estimate the expected rate of return. Because the discount rate used in the discount rate adjustment technique is a rate of return relating to conditional cash ﬂows, it likely will be higher than the discount rate used in Method 2 of the expected present value technique, which is an expected rate of return relating to expected or probability-weighted cash ﬂows.
B16. To illustrate Methods 1 and 2, assume that an asset has expected cash ﬂows of $780 in 1 year based on the possible cash ﬂows and probabilities shown below. The applicable risk-free interest rate for cash ﬂows with a 1-year horizon is 5 percent, and the systematic risk premium is 3 percent.
Possible
Cash Flows

Probability

$500
$800
$900
Expected cash ﬂows

15%
60%
25%

ProbabilityWeighted
Cash Flows
$75
$480
$225
$780

B17. In this simple illustration, the expected cash ﬂows ($780) represent the probability-weighted average of the 3 possible outcomes. In more realistic situations, there could be many possible outcomes. However, it is not always necessary to consider distributions of literally all possible cash ﬂows using complex models and techniques to apply the expected present value technique. Rather, it should be possible to develop a limited number of discrete sce-

narios and probabilities that capture the array of possible cash ﬂows. For example, a reporting entity might use realized cash ﬂows for some relevant past period, adjusted for changes in circumstances occurring subsequently (for example, changes in external factors, including economic or market conditions, industry trends, and competition as well as changes in internal factors impacting the entity more speciﬁcally), considering the assumptions of market participants. B18. In theory, the present value (fair value) of the asset’s cash ﬂows is the same ($722) whether determined under Method 1 or Method 2, as indicated below. Speciﬁcally:
a. Under Method 1, the expected cash ﬂows are adjusted for systematic (market) risk. In the absence of market data directly indicating the amount of the risk adjustment, such adjustment could be derived from an asset pricing model using the concept of certainty equivalents. For example, the risk adjustment (cash risk premium of $22) could be determined based on the systematic risk premium of 3 percent ($780 – [$780 × (1.05/1.08)]), which results in risk-adjusted expected cash ﬂows of $758 ($780 – $22). The $758 is the certainty equivalent of $780 and is discounted at the risk-free interest rate (5 percent). The present value (fair value) of the asset is $722 ($758/1.05).
b. Under Method 2, the expected cash ﬂows are not adjusted for systematic (market) risk. Rather, the adjustment for that risk is included in the discount rate. Thus, the expected cash ﬂows are discounted at an expected rate of return of 8 percent
(the 5 percent risk-free interest rate plus the 3 percent systematic risk premium). The present value
(fair value) of the asset is $722 ($780/1.08).
B19. When using an expected present value technique to measure fair value, either Method 1 or
Method 2 could be used. The selection of Method 1 or Method 2 will depend on facts and circumstances speciﬁc to the asset or liability being measured, the extent to which sufficient data are available, and the judgments applied.

FAS157–34

Fair Value Measurements

FAS157

Appendix C

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS

CONTENTS
Paragraph
Numbers
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Share-Based Payment Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leasing Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EITF Issue 02-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 114 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Opinion 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Practicability Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other Similar Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deﬁnition of Fair Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Principal (or Most Advantageous) Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Market Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Application to Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Highest and Best Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Application to Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nonperformance Risk and Credit Standing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interaction between Fair Value and Fair Market Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fair Value at Initial Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Valuation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Single versus Multiple Valuation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Consistency Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Present Value Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Multiperiod Excess Earnings Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inputs to Valuation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fair Value Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Level 1 Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adjustments to Quoted Prices in Active Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Financial Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Level 2 Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Level 3 Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inputs Based on Bid and Ask Prices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Disclosures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fair Value Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Level 3 Reconciliation for Recurring Fair Value Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amendment to Opinion 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Effective Date and Transition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Beneﬁts and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
International Financial Reporting Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FAS157–35

C1
C2–C7
C8–C24
C8
C9
C10–C17
C18
C19–C20
C21–C22
C23–C24
C25–C50
C27–C31
C32–C34
C35–C38
C36–C38
C39–C49
C40–C41
C42–C49
C50
C51–C52
C53–C62
C54–C56
C57
C58–C61
C62
C63
C64–C92
C66–C80
C68–C70
C71–C80
C81–C82
C83–C87
C88–C92
C93–C105
C95
C96–C100
C101–C104
C105
C106–C110
C111–C115
C116

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

Appendix C

over time and is dispersed among the accounting pronouncements that require fair value measurements.
Differences in that guidance have created inconsistencies that have added to the complexity in GAAP.
There also is limited conceptual guidance for addressing measurement issues in the Board’s conceptual framework.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND
BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
C1. This appendix summarizes considerations that
Board members deemed signiﬁcant in reaching the conclusions in this Statement. It includes the reasons for accepting certain views and rejecting others. Individual Board members gave greater weight to some factors than to others.
Background Information
C2. In many accounting pronouncements, the Board has concluded that fair value information is relevant, and users of ﬁnancial statements generally have agreed. Paragraph 47 of FASB Concepts Statement
No. 2, Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information, states, “To be relevant to investors, creditors, and others for investment, credit, and similar decisions, accounting information must be capable of making a difference in a decision by helping users to form predictions about the outcomes of past, present, and future events or to conﬁrm or correct expectations.” C3. Some have expressed concerns about the ability to apply the fair value measurement objective in
GAAP, including in response to the FASB Proposal,
Principles-Based Approach to U.S. Standard Setting, issued in October 2002.24 In large part, those concerns focus on the reliability of the measurements in the absence of quoted market prices, including concerns about the ability to verify the measurements.
Paragraph 59 of Concepts Statement 2 states, “The reliability of a measure rests on the faithfulness with which it represents what it purports to represent, coupled with an assurance for the user, which comes through veriﬁcation, that it has that representational quality.” C4. The Board believes that, in part, those concerns result because there is limited guidance for applying the fair value measurement objective in GAAP. The guidance that currently exists has evolved piecemeal

C5. In June 2003, the Board added the fair value measurement project to its agenda to address fair value measurement issues broadly.25 At that time, the Board agreed that, conceptually, the deﬁnition of fair value and its application in GAAP should be the same for all assets and liabilities. This Statement is the result of that project. This Statement deﬁnes fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. This Statement also simpliﬁes and codiﬁes the related guidance that currently exists for developing fair value measurements, eliminating differences that have added to the complexity in GAAP.
This Statement applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements, the Board having previously concluded in those pronouncements that fair value is the relevant measurement attribute. This Statement does not require any new fair value measurements.
C6. In June 2004, the Board issued an Exposure
Draft, Fair Value Measurements, and received comment letters from nearly 100 respondents. In September 2004, the Board held public roundtable meetings with some of those respondents to discuss signiﬁcant issues raised in the comment letters. In October 2005, the Board issued a proposed FASB Staff Position
(FSP) FAS 133-a, “Accounting for Unrealized Gains
(Losses) Relating to Derivative Instruments Measured at Fair Value under Statement 133,” to address related practice issues under EITF Issue No. 02-3,
“Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities,” raised by respondents to the Exposure Draft.
(See paragraphs C10−C17.) The Board received comment letters from 25 respondents (principally, ﬁnancial institutions).
C7. In developing this Statement, the Board considered comments from respondents to the Exposure

24In July 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published, “Study Pursuant to Section 108(d) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 on the Adoption by the United States Financial Reporting System of a Principles-Based Accounting System,” which encouraged a move to more “objectives-oriented” accounting standards.
25The Board has a separate project on its agenda to improve its conceptual framework.

FAS157–36

Fair Value Measurements

Draft and to proposed FSP FAS 133-a, as well as input from the Valuation Resource Group, the Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council, the
User Advisory Council, members of the Investor
Task Force, and other interested parties. In response, the Board reconsidered and/or clariﬁed certain aspects of the proposals in the Exposure Draft.
Scope
Share-Based Payment Transactions
C8. Accounting pronouncements that require fair value measurements but that are excluded from the scope of this Statement are limited to FASB Statement No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment, and its related interpretive accounting pronouncements that address share-based payment transactions.
The fair value measurement objective in Statement 123(R) is generally consistent with the fair value measurement objective in this Statement.
However, for certain share-based payment transactions with employees, the measurements at the grant date are fair-value-based measurements, not fair value measurements. Although some measurements in Statement 123(R) are fair value measurements, the
Board decided for practical reasons to exclude
Statement 123(R) in its entirety from the scope of this Statement.
Leasing Transactions
C9. In the Exposure Draft, the Board decided to exclude from the scope of this Statement FASB Statement No. 13, Accounting for Leases, and other accounting pronouncements that require fair value measurements for leasing transactions. At that time, the Board was concerned that applying the fair value measurement objective in this Statement to leasing transactions could have unintended consequences when considered together with longstanding valuation practices common within the leasing industry.
The Board decided to defer consideration of fair value measurement issues speciﬁc to those transactions. However, respondents indicated that the fair value measurement objective for leasing transactions is generally consistent with the fair value measurement objective in this Statement and that the guidance in this Statement should apply for the fair value measurements required for those transactions. Others in the leasing industry subsequently affirmed that view. Based on that input, the Board decided to include those accounting pronouncements in the scope of this Statement.

FAS157

EITF Issue 02-3
C10. In the Exposure Draft, the Board decided to exclude from the scope of this Statement the guidance in footnote 3 of Issue 02-3, which stated:
The FASB staff believes that, in the absence of (a) quoted market prices in an active market, (b) observable prices of other current market transactions, or (c) other observable data supporting a valuation technique, the transaction price represents the best information available with which to estimate fair value at the inception of the arrangement.
Therefore, in the FASB staff’s view an entity should not recognize an unrealized gain or loss at inception of a derivative instrument unless the fair value of that instrument is obtained from a quoted market price in an active market or is otherwise evidenced by comparison to other observable current market transactions or based on a valuation technique incorporating observable market data. For example, a valuation technique that includes extrapolated price curves with little or no observable market inputs for any signiﬁcant duration of the instrument should not result in an initial fair value estimate that differs from the transaction price for the instrument taken as a whole, because, in this example, the transaction price is the best evidence of the instrument’s fair value at that point in time.
C11. The guidance in footnote 3 of Issue 02-3 applied for derivatives (and other) instruments measured at fair value at initial recognition under FASB
Statement No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. That guidance precluded immediate recognition in earnings of an unrealized gain or loss, measured as the difference between the transaction price and the fair value of the instrument at initial recognition, if the fair value of the instrument was determined using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs. However, Issue 02-3 did not provide guidance for when to subsequently recognize that unrealized gain or loss in earnings. As a result, practice was diverse with regard to both the method and timing of revenue recognition. For example, some entities recognized the unrealized gain or loss in earnings when the fair value of the instrument was observable (generally, at or near the end of the contract). Other entities amortized the unrealized gain or loss in earnings over the term of the instrument. In

FAS157–37

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

the Exposure Draft, the Board acknowledged that issue but decided not to address that issue in this Statement because it raised recognition issues similar to those that were being addressed in its revenue recognition project.
C12. Respondents disagreed with that scope exclusion. They said that for many entities, in particular, ﬁnancial institutions, Issue 02-3 is signiﬁcant and that the Board should address related issues in this Statement, focusing on potential inconsistencies between the guidance in footnote 3 of Issue 02-3 and the related guidance proposed in the Exposure Draft. In response, the Board decided to address those issues separately in proposed FSP FAS 133-a.
C13. In proposed FSP FAS 133-a, the Board decided that an instrument should be measured at fair value under Statement 133 using the guidance in this
Statement and that an unrealized gain or loss should not be recognized in earnings until a minimum reliability threshold for the measurement is met. In reaching that decision, the Board concluded that for some entities, in particular, securities dealers that transact in different markets with different counterparties, the transaction price (an entry price) might not represent the fair value of the instrument (an exit price) at initial recognition. The Board agreed that, conceptually, an unrealized gain or loss at initial recognition should be immediately recognized in earnings. However, the Board observed that if the fair value of the instrument is measured using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs, some (or all) of the unrealized gain or loss might represent measurement error, raising concerns about the reliability of the measurement and the effect of the measurement on earnings.
Therefore, the minimum reliability threshold would have precluded recognition in earnings of an unrealized gain or loss at initial recognition if the fair value of the instrument is measured using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs. Instead, the unrealized gain or loss at initial recognition would have been recognized as a deferred credit or debit, separate from the instrument.
C14. Respondents to proposed FSP FAS 133-a generally agreed that the proposed FSP would represent an improvement over the related guidance in
Issue 02-3, largely because an instrument would be measured at its fair value at initial recognition and in all subsequent periods. However, many of those respondents expressed concerns that the minimum reliability threshold approach for revenue recognition would add to the complexity in GAAP. They in-

dicated that if the measurement objective is fair value, then ﬁnancial reporting should reﬂect that measurement and the consequences of using that measurement. C15. In response, the Board met with some respondents to develop an alternative approach focusing on expanded disclosures about fair value measurements using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs and the effect of the measurements on earnings for the period. The
Board discussed that alternative disclosure approach with certain users of ﬁnancial statements, including members of the Investor Task Force that concentrate on the investment banking, energy trading, and insurance industries, and members of the User Advisory
Council. Those users generally supported that disclosure approach (over the minimum reliability threshold approach). In particular, they indicated that the expanded disclosures would allow users of ﬁnancial statements to make more informed judgments and adjustments to their own models.
C16. Based on the input received, the Board decided not to impose the minimum reliability threshold in proposed FSP FAS 133-a. The Board agreed that the fair value measurement objective in this Statement should apply for fair value measurements at initial recognition under Statement 133 (an exit price objective). Consistent with that objective, this Statement clariﬁes that the measurements should be adjusted for risk, that is, the amount market participants would demand because of the risk (uncertainty) inherent in a particular valuation technique used to measure fair value (such as a pricing model) and/or the risk inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique (a risk premium notion). Accordingly, a measurement (for example, a “mark-to-model” measurement) that does not include an adjustment for risk would not represent a fair value measurement if market participants would include one in pricing the related asset or liability. C17. To improve transparency in ﬁnancial reporting, the Board decided to require expanded disclosures about fair value measurements using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs and the effects of such measurements on earnings. This Statement includes those expanded disclosure requirements (for all assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs) and nulliﬁes the guidance in footnote 3 of Issue 02-3.
Statement 114
C18. In the Exposure Draft, the Board decided to exclude FASB Statement No. 114, Accounting by

FAS157–38

Fair Value Measurements

Creditors for Impairment of a Loan, from the scope of this Statement. The Board clariﬁed that the measurement for impaired loans, determined using a present value technique, is not a fair value measurement. Respondents agreed. However, they noted that the practical expedient in Statement 114 (observable market price or the fair value of collateral if the loan is collateral-dependent) is a fair value measurement.
They said that when the practical expedient is used, the guidance in this Statement should apply. The
Board agreed and decided to include Statement 114 in the scope of this Statement as it relates to the practical expedient.
Opinion 21
C19. In this Statement, the Board affirmed that the measurement for receivables and payables in APB
Opinion No. 21, Interest on Receivables and Payables, determined using a present value technique, is a fair value measurement. The discount rate for contractual (promised) cash ﬂows described in that
Opinion (rate commensurate with the risk) embodies the same notion as the discount rate used in the traditional approach (or discount rate adjustment technique) described in FASB Concepts Statement No. 7,
Using Cash Flow Information and Present Value in
Accounting Measurements, and clariﬁed in this Statement. Paragraph 13 of Opinion 21 explains:
The objective is to approximate the rate which would have resulted if an independent borrower and an independent lender had negotiated a similar transaction under comparable terms and conditions with the option to pay the cash price upon purchase or to give a note for the amount of the purchase which bears the prevailing rate of interest to maturity. C20. Accordingly, the guidance for using present value techniques to measure fair value in this Statement applies for the measurements required under Opinion 21. It also applies for the similar measurements required under other accounting pronouncements. Practicability Exceptions
C21. The Board observed that some of the accounting pronouncements within the scope of this Statement permit practicability exceptions to fair value measurements in speciﬁed circumstances. Those practicability exceptions include the following:

FAS157

a. The use of a transaction price (an entry price) to measure fair value (an exit price) at initial recognition (guarantees under FASB Interpretation
No. 45, Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure
Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect
Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others, and ﬁnancial assets and liabilities under FASB Statement
No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of
Liabilities)
b. An exemption to the requirement to measure fair value if it is not practicable to do so (ﬁnancial instruments under FASB Statement No. 107, Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments, and ﬁnancial assets obtained and ﬁnancial liabilities incurred in a sale under Statement 140 and EITF Issue No. 85-40, “Comprehensive Review of Sales of Marketable Securities with Put
Arrangements”)
c. An exemption to the requirement to measure fair value if fair value is not reasonably determinable
(nonmonetary assets under APB Opinion No. 29,
Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions,
FASB Statement No. 153, Exchanges of Nonmonetary Assets, and EITF Issue No. 99-17,
“Accounting for Advertising Barter Transactions”; asset retirement obligations under FASB
Statement No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, and FASB Interpretation
No. 47, Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations; restructuring obligations under
FASB Statement No. 146, Accounting for Costs
Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities; and participation rights under FASB Statements
No. 87, Employers’Accounting for Pensions, and
No. 106, Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Beneﬁts Other Than Pensions)
d. An exemption to the requirement to measure fair value if fair value cannot be measured with sufficient reliability (contributions under FASB Statement No. 116, Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made, and AICPA
Audit and Accounting Guide, Not-for-Proﬁt
Organizations)
e. The use of certain of the measurement methods referred to in paragraph 37 of FASB Statement
No. 141, Business Combinations, that allow measurements other than fair value for certain assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination. C22. The Board acknowledged the inconsistencies created by those practicability exceptions. However, the Board decided for practical reasons not to address

FAS157–39

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

those inconsistencies in this Statement. The Board is addressing issues relating to some practicability exceptions in other agenda projects (for example, its business combinations project). Other practicability exceptions raise issues about what to measure at fair value that are beyond the scope of this Statement.
Other Similar Measurements
C23. This Statement does not apply under accounting pronouncements that permit measurements that are based on, or otherwise use, vendor-speciﬁc objective evidence of fair value. Those accounting pronouncements include AICPA Statement of
Position 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition, as modiﬁed by AICPA Statement of Position 98-9,
Modiﬁcation of SOP 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition, With Respect to Certain Transactions, and
EITF Issue No. 00-21, “Revenue Arrangements with
Multiple Deliverables.” In those accounting pronouncements, vendor-speciﬁc objective evidence of fair value refers to the price for a deliverable established by the reporting entity. Issue 00-21 further refers to the price for a deliverable established by a third-party vendor as a practical expedient to vendorspeciﬁc objective evidence of fair value. Conceptually, vendor-speciﬁc objective evidence of fair value is a measurement determined based on a transaction price (an entry price) that is different from a fair value measurement (an exit price), whether considered from the perspective of the reporting entity or a thirdparty vendor (as a practical expedient).
C24. This Statement also does not apply for the market value measurement that results when measuring inventories at the lower of cost or market under
ARB No. 43, Chapter 4, “Inventory Pricing.”
ARB 43, Chapter 4, places upper and lower limits on the measurement that may not result in a fair value measurement. Deﬁnition of Fair Value
C25. The deﬁnition of fair value in this Statement retains the exchange price notion contained, either explicitly or implicitly, in earlier deﬁnitions of fair value. However, this Statement clariﬁes that the exchange price is the price in an orderly transaction between market participants to sell the asset or transfer the liability in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability. The Board affirmed that the transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability is an orderly transaction, not a forced transaction (for example, if the seller is experiencing ﬁnan-

cial difficulty), that assumes exposure to the market for a period prior to the measurement date to allow for information dissemination and marketing in order to transact at the most advantageous price for the asset or liability at the measurement date. To convey that notion more clearly, the Board revised the deﬁnition of fair value in this Statement to refer to an orderly transaction, as do other deﬁnitions used in valuations for purposes other than ﬁnancial reporting that are similar to fair value (for example, fair market value). C26. The transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability is a hypothetical transaction at the measurement date, considered from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, the objective of a fair value measurement is to determine the price that would be received for the asset or paid to transfer the liability at the measurement date, that is, an exit price. The
Board concluded that an exit price objective is appropriate because it embodies current expectations about the future inﬂows associated with the asset and the future outﬂows associated with the liability from the perspective of market participants. The emphasis on inﬂows and outﬂows is consistent with the deﬁnitions of assets and liabilities in FASB Concepts Statement No. 6, Elements of Financial Statements. Paragraph 25 of Concepts Statement 6 deﬁnes assets in terms of future economic beneﬁts (future inﬂows).
Paragraph 35 of Concepts Statement 6 deﬁnes liabilities in terms of future sacriﬁces of economic beneﬁts (future outﬂows).
Principal (or Most Advantageous) Markets
C27. The Exposure Draft emphasized within
Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy that the price in the most advantageous market for the asset or liability should be used to measure the fair value of the asset or liability. The most advantageous market is the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the price that maximizes the amount that would be received for the asset or minimizes the amount that would be paid to transfer the liability, considering transaction costs in the respective markets. The Board concluded that a most advantageous market approach is reasonable based on the assumption that the goal of most entities is to maximize proﬁts or net assets. The most advantageous market approach embodies both the buying side and the selling side of rational economic behavior and is consistent with normal proﬁt motivations.

FAS157–40

Fair Value Measurements

C28. Respondents generally agreed with that most advantageous market approach. However, some respondents interpreted the related guidance within
Level 1 as requiring the use of prices in most advantageous markets over prices in principal markets, referring to possible conﬂicts with ASR No. 118, Accounting for Investment Securities by Registered
Investment Companies, and its principal market approach for registered funds. They noted that an approach that prioritizes prices in most advantageous markets over prices in principal markets would not be cost effective because it would require continuous evaluations of prices for multiple assets and liabilities as a basis for determining which of those prices are the most advantageous at the measurement date. The
Board agreed that its intent was not to require that entities continuously search across all possible markets in which transactions for the related asset or liability can be observed for the most advantageous price for the asset or liability. To convey its intent more clearly, the Board clariﬁed its view that generally the principal market for an asset or liability (the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the greatest volume and level of activity for the asset or liability) will represent the most advantageous market for the asset or liability. Accordingly, this Statement speciﬁes that if there is a principal market for the asset or liability
(determined under ASR 118 or otherwise), the fair value measurement should represent the price in that market (whether observable or otherwise determined using a valuation technique), even if the price in a different market is potentially more advantageous at the measurement date.
C29. Some respondents further indicated that to achieve consistency in applying the fair value measurement objective in this Statement, the principal (or most advantageous) market approach should not be limited to Level 1; it is a general principle that should apply broadly. The Board agreed and decided to expand the principal (or most advantageous) market approach so that it applies broadly. The Board observed that because different entities (and operating units within those entities) with different activities transact in different markets, the principal (or most advantageous) market for the same asset or liability might be different for different entities. Because ﬁnancial reporting is from the perspective of the reporting entity, the Board determined that an exit price should be determined based on the interaction of market participants (buyers and sellers) in the principal (or most

FAS157

advantageous) market considered from the perspective of the reporting entity, thereby allowing for differences between and among entities.
C30. The Board affirmed that the price in the principal (or most advantageous) market used to measure the fair value of an asset or liability should not be adjusted for transaction costs. Transaction costs refer to the incremental direct costs to transact in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability, similar to cost to sell as deﬁned in paragraph 35 of FASB Statement No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, and may differ, depending on how the reporting entity transacts. In other words, transaction costs are not an attribute of an asset or liability.
C31. In response to related issues raised by some respondents, the Board clariﬁed that transaction costs are different from transportation costs, that is, the costs that would be incurred to transport the asset or liability to (or from) its principal (or most advantageous) market. This Statement clariﬁes that if location is an attribute of the asset or liability (for example, a commodity), the price in the principal (or most advantageous) market used to measure the fair value of the asset or liability should be adjusted for those costs.
Market Participants
C32. This Statement emphasizes that a fair value measurement is a market-based measurement, not an entity-speciﬁc measurement. Therefore, a fair value measurement should be determined based on the assumptions that market participants—buyers and sellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability—would use in pricing the asset or liability. Paragraph 26 of Concepts Statement 7 explains: Among their many functions, markets are systems that transmit information in the form of prices. Marketplace participants attribute prices to assets and, in doing so, distinguish the risks and rewards of one asset from those of another. Stated differently, the market’s pricing mechanism ensures that unlike things do not appear alike and that like things do not appear to be different (a qualitative characteristic of accounting information). An observed market price encompasses the consensus view of all marketplace participants about an asset or liability’s utility, future cash ﬂows,

FAS157–41

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

the uncertainties surrounding those cash ﬂows, and the amount that marketplace participants demand for bearing those uncertainties. C33. To convey more clearly the idea of a measurement that is made from the perspective of market participants, this Statement clariﬁes the “willing parties” referred to in earlier deﬁnitions of fair value in the context of market participants, referring to buyers and sellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability that are independent of the reporting entity (unrelated), knowledgeable, and both able and willing to transact.
C34. In that context, some respondents questioned the extent to which market participants would be expected to be knowledgeable, referring to markets that are characterized by information asymmetry, where some market participants have information about an asset or liability that is not available to other market participants. The Board agreed that it would be reasonable to presume that a market participant that is both able and willing to transact for the asset or liability would undertake efforts necessary to become sufﬁciently knowledgeable about the asset or liability based on available information, including information obtained through usual and customary due diligence efforts, and would factor any related risk into the fair value measurement.
Application to Assets
C35. For an asset, a fair value measurement assumes the highest and best use of the asset by market participants. Highest and best use
C36. Highest and best use is a valuation concept used to value many assets (for example, real estate).
In broad terms, the highest and best use of an asset refers to the use of an asset that would maximize the fair value of the asset or the group of assets in which the asset would be used by market participants. Highest and best use is determined based on the use of the asset by market participants, even if the intended use of the asset by the reporting entity is different.
Paragraph 32(a) of Concepts Statement 7 explains:
The entity’s managers might intend a different use or settlement than that anticipated by others. For example, they might intend to operate a property as a bowling alley, even

though others in the marketplace consider its highest and best use to be a parking lot.
C37. This Statement incorporates that highest-andbest-use concept as a basis for selecting the valuation premise that should be used to measure the fair value of the asset. If the highest and best use of an asset is in-use, the fair value of the asset would be measured using an in-use valuation premise, reﬂecting the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the asset assuming that the asset would be used with other assets as a group and that those assets would be available to market participants. If the highest and best use of an asset is in-exchange, the fair value of the asset would be measured using an in-exchange valuation premise, reﬂecting the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the asset standalone. C38. In the context of the related guidance included in the Exposure Draft, some respondents referred to possible conﬂicts between the in-use valuation premise and the exchange notion encompassed within the deﬁnition of fair value. In this Statement, the Board clariﬁed that the exchange notion applies regardless of the valuation premise used to measure the fair value of an asset. Whether using an in-use or an in-exchange valuation premise, the measurement is a market-based measurement determined based on the use of an asset by market participants, not a value determined based solely on the use of an asset by the reporting entity (a value-in-use or entity-speciﬁc measurement). Application to Liabilities
C39. For a liability, a fair value measurement assumes that the liability is transferred to a market participant at the measurement date and that the nonperformance risk relating to that liability (that is, the risk that the obligation will not be fulﬁlled) is the same before and after its transfer.
The transfer
C40. Because the liability is transferred to a market participant, the liability continues; it is not settled with the counterparty. The Board acknowledged that in some cases, the reporting entity might not have the intent to transfer the liability to a third party. For example, the reporting entity might have advantages (or disadvantages) relative to the market that would make it more (or less) beneﬁcial for the reporting entity to perform or otherwise settle the liability using

FAS157–42

Fair Value Measurements

its own internal resources. However, the Board agreed that the fair value of the liability from the perspective of a market participant is the same regardless of how the reporting entity intends to settle the liability. Conceptually, a fair value measurement provides a market benchmark to use as a basis for assessing the reporting entity’s advantages (or disadvantages) in performance or settlement relative to the market. Speciﬁcally, when a liability is measured at fair value, the relative efficiency of the reporting entity in settling the liability using its own internal resources appears in earnings over the course of its settlement, not before.
C41. In the context of both assets and liabilities, paragraph 33 of Concepts Statement 7 explains:
If the entity measures an asset or liability at fair value, its comparative advantage or disadvantage will appear in earnings as it realizes assets or settles liabilities for amounts different [from] fair value. The effect on earnings appears when the advantage is employed to achieve cost savings or the disadvantage results in excess costs. In contrast, if the entity measures an asset or liability using a measurement other than fair value, its comparative advantage or disadvantage is embedded in the measurement of the asset or liability at initial recognition. If the offsetting entry is to revenue or expense, measurements other than fair value cause the future effects of this comparative advantage or disadvantage to be recognized in earnings at initial measurement.

FAS157

fair value. However, they expressed concerns about requiring that the reporting entity consider the effect of changes in its credit standing in liability remeasurements at fair value, noting that related issues are not clearly and consistently addressed in GAAP (including Statements 107 and 133).
C44. Paragraph 68 of Statement 107 states:
The Board acknowledges that, as for assets with no quoted prices, variations in the methods used to estimate the fair value of liabilities with no quoted prices might reduce the comparability of fair value information among entities. Some entities will estimate fair value by using an incremental rate of borrowing that considers changes in an entity’s own credit risk, while others will use a settlement rate that ignores at least part of those credit risk changes. However, the Board concluded that it should not, at this time, prescribe a single method to be used for all unquoted liabilities.
C45. Similarly, paragraph 316 of Statement 133 states: C42. Nonperformance risk includes (but may not be limited to) the reporting entity’s own credit risk. In the Exposure Draft, the Board concluded, as it did in
Concepts Statement 7, that a fair value measurement for a liability always considers the credit risk of the entity obligated to perform. Those who might hold the reporting entity’s obligations as assets would consider the effect of the entity’s credit risk in determining the prices they would be willing to pay. Therefore, this Statement clariﬁes that a fair value measurement for a liability should consider the effect of the reporting entity’s own credit risk (credit standing) on the fair value of the liability in all periods in which the liability is measured at fair value.

Some respondents to the Exposure Draft noted that Statement 107 permits an entity to choose whether to consider changes in its own creditworthiness in determining the fair value of its debt and asked for further guidance on that issue. The deﬁnition of fair value in Statement 125 says that in measuring liabilities at fair value by discounting estimated future cash ﬂows, an objective is to use discount rates at which those liabilities could be settled in an arm’s-length transaction. However, the FASB’s pronouncements to date have not broadly addressed whether changes in a debtor’s creditworthiness after incurrence of a liability should be reﬂected in measuring its fair value. Pending resolution of the broad issue of the effect of a debtor’s creditworthiness on the fair value of its liabilities, the
Board decided to use the deﬁnition in Statement 125 but not to provide additional guidance on reﬂecting the effects of changes in creditworthiness. C43. Respondents agreed that, conceptually, the effect of the reporting entity’s own credit standing should be considered in all liability measurements at

C46. Respondents’ concerns focused on the counterintuitive and potentially confusing reporting that could result from including the effect of changes in

Nonperformance risk and credit standing

FAS157–43

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

the reporting entity’s credit standing in liability remeasurements at fair value (“gains” for credit deterioration and “losses” for credit improvements). Respondents acknowledged that liabilities currently remeasured at fair value on a regular basis are limited largely to derivative liabilities under Statement 133.
However, they stated that issues related to credit standing and liability remeasurements will become more pervasive as more liabilities are remeasured at fair value on a regular basis (referring to other agenda projects, including the fair value option project). Respondents urged the Board to address related issues in this Statement.
C47. In its redeliberations, the Board noted that in
Concepts Statement 7, it considered issues related to credit standing and liability remeasurements similar to those referred to by respondents. Paragraphs 83–88 of Concepts Statement 7 explain:
The role of an entity’s credit standing in the accounting measurement of its liabilities has been a controversial question among accountants. The entity’s credit standing clearly affects the interest rate at which it borrows in the marketplace. The initial proceeds of a loan, therefore, always reﬂect the entity’s credit standing at that time. Similarly, the price at which others buy and sell the entity’s loan includes their assessment of the entity’s ability to repay. . . . However, some have questioned whether an entity’s ﬁnancial statements should reﬂect the effect of its credit standing (or changes in credit standing).
Some suggest that the measurement objective for liabilities is fundamentally different from the measurement objective for assets. In their view, ﬁnancial statement users are better served by liability measurements that focus on the entity’s obligation. They suggest a measurement approach in which ﬁnancial statements would portray the present value of an obligation such that two entities with the same obligation but different credit standing would report the same carrying amount. Some existing accounting pronouncements take this approach, most notably FASB Statements No. 87, Employers’
Accounting for Pensions, and No. 106, Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Beneﬁts Other Than Pensions.
However, there is no convincing rationale for why the initial measurement of some liabilities would necessarily include the effect

of credit standing (as in a loan for cash) while others might not (as in a warranty liability or similar item). Similarly, there is no rationale for why, in initial or fresh-start measurement, the recorded amount of a liability should reﬂect something other than the price that would exist in the marketplace. Consistent with its conclusions on fair value (refer to paragraph 30), the Board found no rationale for taking a different view in subsequent fresh-start measurements of an existing asset or liability than would pertain to measurements at initial recognition.
Some argue that changes in an entity’s credit standing are not relevant to users of ﬁnancial statements. In their view, a fresh-start measurement that reﬂects changes in credit standing produces accounting results that are confusing. If the measurement includes changes in credit standing, and an entity’s credit standing declines, the fresh-start measurement of its liabilities declines. That decline in liabilities is accompanied by an increase in owners’ equity, a result that they ﬁnd counterintuitive. How, they ask, can a bad thing (declining credit standing) produce a good thing
(increased owners’ equity)?
Like all measurements at fair value, freshstart measurement of liabilities can produce unfamiliar results when compared with reporting the liabilities on an amortized basis. A change in credit standing represents a change in the relative positions of the two classes of claimants (shareholders and creditors) to an entity’s assets. If the credit standing diminishes, the fair value of creditors’ claims diminishes. The amount of shareholders’ residual claim to the entity’s assets may appear to increase, but that increase probably is offset by losses that may have occasioned the decline in credit standing. Because shareholders usually cannot be called on to pay a corporation’s liabilities, the amount of their residual claims approaches, and is limited by, zero. Thus, a change in the position of borrowers necessarily alters the position of shareholders, and vice versa.
The failure to include changes in credit standing in the measurement of a liability ignores economic differences between liabilities. Consider the case of an entity that has two classes of borrowing. Class One was transacted when the entity had a strong credit

FAS157–44

Fair Value Measurements

standing and a correspondingly low interest rate. Class Two is new and was transacted under the entity’s current lower credit standing.
Both classes trade in the marketplace based on the entity’s current credit standing. If the two liabilities are subject to fresh-start measurement, failing to include changes in the entity’s credit standing makes the classes of borrowings seem different—even though the marketplace evaluates the quality of their respective cash ﬂows as similar to one another.
C48. The Board further noted that in the amendment to IAS 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and
Measurement—The Fair Value Option, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) considered similar issues in the context of a ﬁnancial liability. Paragraph BC89 of the IAS 39 amendment explains that in reaching its decision to include credit risk relating to a ﬁnancial liability in the measurement of that liability, the IASB noted that “. . . credit risk affects the value at which liabilities could be repurchased or settled. Accordingly, the fair value of a ﬁnancial liability reﬂects the credit risk relating to that liability.”
C49. In its redeliberations, the Board affirmed that, conceptually, credit standing is an essential component of a fair value measurement. A measurement that does not consider the effect of the reporting entity’s credit standing is not a fair value measurement.
The Board acknowledged the practical concerns about credit standing and liability remeasurements at fair value expressed by respondents. Some Board members share those concerns, especially considering situations in which the reporting entity is experiencing ﬁnancial difficulty and reports gains resulting from credit deterioration that cannot be immediately realized. However, the Board agreed that those concerns derive from a threshold issue that relates principally to the selection of the appropriate measurement attribute for liability remeasurements. The Board plans to continue to address the issue of which measurement attribute should be required for liability remeasurements in individual accounting pronouncements on a project-by-project basis.
Interaction between Fair Value and Fair
Market Value
C50. The Board agreed that the measurement objective encompassed in the deﬁnition of fair value used for ﬁnancial reporting purposes is generally consistent with similar deﬁnitions of fair market value used

FAS157

for valuation purposes. For example, the deﬁnition of fair market value in Internal Revenue Service Revenue Ruling 59-60 (the legal standard of value in many valuation situations) refers to “the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller when the former is not under any compulsion to buy and the latter is not under any compulsion to sell, both parties having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.” However, the
Board observed that the deﬁnition of fair market value relates principally to assets (property). Further, the deﬁnition has a signiﬁcant body of interpretive case law, developed in the context of tax regulation.
Because such interpretive case law, in the context of ﬁnancial reporting, may not be relevant, the Board chose not to adopt the deﬁnition of fair market value, and its interpretive case law, for ﬁnancial reporting purposes. Fair Value at Initial Recognition
C51. Respondents indicated that the guidance in the
Exposure Draft was ambiguous about when a price in an actual transaction that involves the reporting entity should be used to measure the fair value of an asset or liability at initial recognition. Many of those respondents referred to related practice issues under
Issue 02-3 (and its guidance in footnote 3 for fair value measurements at initial recognition). In its redeliberations, the Board considered that issue largely in the context of the related guidance in paragraphs 7 and 27 of Concepts Statement 7, which state:
At initial recognition, the cash or equivalent amount paid or received (historical cost or proceeds) is usually assumed to approximate fair value, absent evidence to the contrary. A transaction in the marketplace—an exchange for cash at or near to the date of the transaction—is the most common trigger for accounting recognition, and accountants typically accept actual exchange prices as fair value in measuring those transactions, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary. Indeed, the usual condition for using a measurement other than the exchange price is a conclusion that the stated price is not representative of fair value. [Footnote reference omitted.]
C52. In this Statement, the Board clariﬁed that in situations in which the reporting entity acquires an asset or assumes a liability in an exchange transaction, the transaction price represents the price paid to

FAS157–45

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

acquire the asset or received to assume the liability
(an entry price). The fair value of the asset or liability represents the price that would be received to sell the asset or paid to transfer the liability (an exit price).
Conceptually, entry and exit prices are different. Entities do not necessarily sell or otherwise dispose of assets at the prices paid to acquire them. Similarly, entities do not necessarily transfer liabilities at the prices paid to assume them. The Board agreed that in many cases the transaction price will equal the exit price and, therefore, represent the fair value of the asset or liability at initial recognition, but not presumptively
(a change to Concepts Statement 7). This Statement includes examples of factors the reporting entity should consider in determining whether a transaction price represents the fair value of the asset or liability at initial recognition. The Board plans to consider those factors in assessing the appropriate measurement attribute at initial recognition in individual accounting pronouncements on a project-by-project basis. Valuation Techniques
C53. This Statement emphasizes that valuation techniques used to measure fair value should be consistent with the market approach, income approach, and/or cost approach. The related guidance in the Exposure Draft contained references to the use of “multiple” valuation techniques consistent with all three valuation approaches whenever the information necessary to apply those techniques is available without undue “cost and effort.” In its redeliberations, the
Board reconsidered and/or clariﬁed certain aspects of that guidance.
Single versus Multiple Valuation Techniques
C54. Several respondents interpreted the related guidance in the Exposure Draft as requiring the use of multiple valuation techniques in all cases (except as otherwise indicated, for example, when valuing an asset or liability using quoted prices in an active market for identical assets or liabilities). They emphasized that in many cases, multiple valuation techniques would not be appropriate or cost beneﬁcial.
The Board affirmed that its intent was not to require the use of multiple valuation techniques. To convey its intent more clearly, the Board clariﬁed that, consistent with existing valuation practice, valuation techniques that are appropriate in the circumstances and for which sufficient data are available should be used to measure fair value. This Statement does not specify the valuation technique that should be used in

any particular circumstances. Determining the appropriateness of valuation techniques in the circumstances requires judgment.
C55. The Exposure Draft referred to the cost and effort involved in obtaining the information used in a particular valuation technique as a basis for determining whether to use that valuation technique.
Some respondents pointed out that the most appropriate valuation technique also might be the most costly valuation technique and that cost and effort should not be a basis for determining whether to use that valuation technique. Moreover, a cost-and-effort criterion likely would not be consistently applied.
The Board agreed and removed that cost-and-effort criterion from this Statement.
C56. The Board expects that in some cases, a single valuation technique will be used. In other cases, multiple valuation techniques will be used, and the results of those techniques evaluated and weighted, as appropriate, in determining fair value. The Board acknowledged that valuation techniques will differ, depending on the asset or liability and the availability of data. However, in all cases, the objective is to use the valuation technique (or combination of valuation techniques) that is appropriate in the circumstances and for which there are sufficient data.
Consistency Constraint
C57. This Statement emphasizes the need for consistency in the valuation technique(s) used to measure fair value. This Statement does not preclude a change in the valuation technique used to measure fair value or its application (for example, a change in its weighting when multiple valuation techniques are used), provided that the change results in a measurement that is equally or more representative of fair value in the circumstances. The Board decided that absent an error (for example, in the selection and/or application of a valuation technique), revisions resulting from a change in the valuation technique used or its application should be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate in accordance with the provisions of FASB Statement No. 154, Accounting
Changes and Error Corrections. The Board concluded that in those situations, the disclosure requirements in Statement 154 for a change in accounting estimate would not be cost beneﬁcial. Therefore, those disclosures are not required.
Present Value Techniques
C58. Valuation techniques consistent with the income approach include the present value techniques

FAS157–46

Fair Value Measurements

FAS157

discussed in Concepts Statement 7, speciﬁcally, the
(a) traditional approach (or discount rate adjustment technique) and (b) expected cash ﬂow approach (or expected present value technique). In this Statement, the Board clariﬁed aspects of the guidance for applying those present value techniques in Concepts
Statement 7.

Concepts Statement 7 unchanged would create conﬂicts between the Concepts Statements and Level A
GAAP that would be confusing. The Board acknowledged those concerns but concluded that it was not necessary to revise Concepts Statement 7 at this time.
The Board will consider the need to revise Concepts
Statement 7 in its conceptual framework project.

C59. Those clariﬁcations focus principally on the adjustment for risk (systematic or nondiversiﬁable risk) when using an expected present value technique. The Board understands that because Concepts
Statement 7 refers to the appropriate discount rate for expected cash ﬂows as the risk-free interest rate, the related guidance could be interpreted as requiring that the adjustment for risk be reﬂected only in the expected cash ﬂows. However, in many valuation situations, the adjustment for risk is reﬂected in the discount rate, that is, as an adjustment to the risk-free interest rate. The Board agreed that it was not its intent to preclude that approach. To convey its intent more clearly, the Board expanded the guidance in
Concepts Statement 7 to clarify that when using an expected present value technique, the adjustment for risk may be reﬂected in either:

Multiperiod Excess Earnings Method

a. The expected cash ﬂows, in which case the riskadjusted expected cash ﬂows should be discounted at a risk-free interest rate (Method 1); or
b. The discount rate, in which case the unadjusted expected cash ﬂows should be discounted at a risk-adjusted discount rate, that is, the risk-free interest rate, adjusted for risk (Method 2).
C60. In its discussions, the Board acknowledged, as it did in paragraph 68 of Concepts Statement 7, that
“. . . the appropriate risk premium consistent with fair value may be difficult to determine.” However, the
Board decided that the potential difficulty of determining the appropriate risk premium is not, in and of itself, a sufficient basis for excluding that adjustment
(in effect, permitting the use of no risk adjustment).
Risk is an essential element of any present value technique. Therefore, a fair value measurement, using present value, should include an adjustment for risk if market participants would include one in pricing the related asset or liability.
C61. This Statement incorporates the related guidance in Concepts Statement 7, as clariﬁed. (See Appendix B.) However, the Board decided not to revise
Concepts Statement 7 in this project to reﬂect conforming changes to that guidance. Some respondents indicated that leaving the conceptual guidance in

C62. In response to questions raised by some respondents, the Board clariﬁed that valuation techniques consistent with the income approach also include the multiperiod excess earnings method discussed in the AICPA Practice Aid, Assets Acquired in a Business Combination to Be Used in Research and Development Activities: A Focus on Software,
Electronic Devices, and Pharmaceutical Industries
(Practice Aid). However, for in-process research and development (IPR&D), the Board observed that the related guidance in the Practice Aid could be interpreted as permitting a fair value measurement using an in-exchange valuation premise (to value the
IPR&D standalone) in some situations in which this
Statement would require a fair value measurement using an in-use valuation premise (to value the
IPR&D within a group of assets). For example, that might be the case if, for competitive reasons, the reporting entity intends to hold (lock up) IPR&D acquired in a business combination that market participants would develop (and use within a group of assets). The Board agreed that the multiperiod excess earnings method should continue to be used under this Statement. However, consistent with the related guidance in this Statement, the valuation premise used for the fair value measurement should be determined based on the use of an asset by market participants, even if the intended use by the reporting entity is different.
Inputs to Valuation Techniques
C63. In this Statement, inputs refer broadly to the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk. The Board decided that a necessary input to a valuation technique is an adjustment for risk. The measurement should include an adjustment for risk whenever market participants would include one in pricing the related asset or liability (consistent with the risk premium notion in Concepts Statement 7, reconsidered in this Statement) so that the measurement reﬂects an exit price for the related asset or liability, that is, the price the reporting entity would

FAS157–47

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

receive (or pay) in a transaction to sell (or transfer) the related asset (or liability). In this Statement, the
Board focused on the need to adjust for the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique used to measure fair value, such as a pricing model (model risk) and/or the risk inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique (input risk).
Fair Value Hierarchy
C64. To increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements and related disclosures, this
Statement establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value into three broad levels, considering the relative reliability of the inputs. The availability of inputs might affect the valuation technique(s) used to measure fair value.
However, the fair value hierarchy focuses on the inputs, not the valuation techniques, thereby requiring judgment in the selection and application of valuation techniques.
C65. Many respondents generally agreed that prioritizing the inputs used to measure fair value is important and that the fair value hierarchy provides a useful construct for considering the relative reliability of fair value measurements. However, several respondents urged the Board to revise the fair value hierarchy initially proposed in the Exposure Draft to convey more clearly a continuum of inputs. The principal concerns focused on the use of the fair value hierarchy as a framework for disclosures about fair value measurements. In response, the Board subsequently revised the fair value hierarchy, as discussed below.
Level 1 Inputs
C66. Like the Exposure Draft, this Statement includes within Level 1 quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. The
Board affirmed its conclusion in other accounting pronouncements that quoted prices in active markets generally provide the most reliable evidence of fair value and should be used to measure fair value whenever available. For example, paragraph 57 of Statement 107 states:
The Board concluded that quoted market prices provide the most reliable measure of fair value. Quoted market prices are easy to obtain and are reliable and veriﬁable. They are used and relied upon regularly and are well understood by investors, creditors, and other users of ﬁnancial information. In recent

years, new markets have developed and some existing markets have evolved from thin to active markets, thereby increasing the ready availability of reliable fair value information.
C67. The Board also affirmed its decision in the Exposure Draft that a fair value measurement within
Level 1 should be based on a quoted price in an active market that the reporting entity has the ability to access for the asset or liability at the measurement date. Because a quoted price, alone, forms the basis for the measurement, the access requirement within
Level 1 limits discretion in pricing the asset or liability, including in situations in which there are multiple markets for the asset or liability with different prices and no single market represents a principal market for the asset or liability.
Adjustments to quoted prices in active markets
C68. The Exposure Draft emphasized that a quoted price (unadjusted) in an active market should be used to measure fair value whenever it is available. Some respondents interpreted the related guidance as requiring the use of a quoted price in an active market without regard to whether that price is readily available or representative of fair value. Those respondents referred to possible conﬂicts with ASR 118, which requires adjustments to a quoted price in those situations (fair value pricing). In its redeliberations, the Board affirmed that its intent was not to preclude adjustments to a quoted price if that price is not readily available or representative of fair value, noting that in those situations, the market for the particular asset or liability might not be active. To convey its intent more clearly, the Board clariﬁed that in those situations, the fair value of the asset or liability should be measured using the quoted price, as adjusted, but within a lower level of the fair value hierarchy. C69. A few respondents referred to situations in which an entity holds a large number of similar assets and liabilities (for example, debt securities) that are required to be measured at fair value and a quoted price in an active market is not readily accessible for each of those assets and liabilities. They indicated that in those situations, the fair value hierarchy should allow for practical considerations and tradeoffs in selecting the valuation technique used to measure fair value within Level 1, considering the number of assets and/or liabilities required to be measured in a ﬁnancial reporting period and the timing of that reporting. The Board subsequently revised

FAS157–48

Fair Value Measurements

the guidance within Level 1 to allow for the use of an alternative pricing method that does not rely exclusively on quoted prices (for example, matrix pricing) as a practical expedient in the limited situations referred to. However, when the practical expedient within Level 1 is used, the fair value measurement is a lower level measurement.

FAS157

ing unit, determined using P×Q. Therefore, those
Statements preclude the use of a blockage factor, even if the normal trading volume for one day is not sufficient to absorb the quantity held and placing orders to sell the position in a single transaction might affect the quoted price.
C73. Paragraph 58 of Statement 107 states:

C70. The Board observed that in some cases, signiﬁcant events (for example, principal-to-principal transactions, brokered trades, or announcements) might occur after the close of a market but before the measurement date. In those cases, a quoted price in that market might not be representative of fair value at the measurement date. The Board affirmed its view in the Exposure Draft that the reporting entity need not undertake all possible efforts to obtain information about after-hours trading or news events. However, the reporting entity should not ignore information that is available at the reporting date (for example, a large change in the price in another market after the close of the principal market in which the asset or liability trades). The Board agreed that entities should establish and consistently apply a policy for identifying those events that might affect fair value measurements. However, if a quoted price is adjusted for new information, the fair value measurement is a lower level measurement.
Financial instruments
C71. Prior to this Statement, the FASB, the AICPA
Accounting Standards Executive Committee (AcSEC), the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), and others considered issues relating to fair value measurements involving ﬁnancial instruments.
The threshold issue focused on whether the appropriate unit of account for a block position in an instrument that trades in an active market is (a) the individual trading unit, where the fair value measurement would be determined as the product of the quoted price for the individual instrument times the quantity held (P×Q), or (b) the block, where the fair value measurement would be determined using the quoted price, adjusted because of the size of the position relative to trading volume (blockage factor).
C72. In other FASB Statements (including Statements 107 and 133, and FASB Statements No. 115,
Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, and No. 124, Accounting for Certain
Investments Held by Not-for-Proﬁt Organizations), the Board decided that for a block, the fair value measurement should be based on the individual trad-

Although many respondents to the 1990 and 1987 Exposure Drafts agreed with the usefulness of disclosing quoted market prices derived from active markets, some argued that quoted prices from thin markets do not provide relevant measures of fair value, particularly when an entity holds a large amount of a thinly traded ﬁnancial instrument that could not be absorbed by the market in a single transaction. The Board considered this issue and reiterated its belief that quoted prices, even from thin markets, provide useful information because investors and creditors regularly rely on those prices to make their decisions. The Board noted that providing the liquidation value of a block of ﬁnancial instruments is not the objective of this
Statement. The Board also concluded that requiring the use of available quoted market prices would increase the comparability of the disclosures among entities.
C74. Similarly, paragraph 315 of Statement 133 states: The deﬁnition of fair value requires that fair value be determined as the product of the number of trading units of an asset times a quoted market price if available [as required by Statement 107]. . . . Some respondents to the Exposure Draft indicated that the guidance in Statement 107 (and implicitly the deﬁnition of fair value in this Statement) should be revised to require or permit consideration of a discount in valuing a large asset position. They asserted that an entity that holds a relatively large amount (compared with average trading volume) of a traded asset and liquidates the entire amount at one time likely would receive an amount less than the quoted market price. Although respondents generally focused on a discount, holding a relatively large amount of an asset might sometimes result in a premium over the market price for a single trading unit. The Board

FAS157–49

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

currently believes that the use of a blockage factor would lessen the reliability and comparability of reported estimates of fair value.

P×Q in the Guides to continue, thereby permitting the use of blockage factors by broker-dealers and certain investment companies that buy or sell securities in blocks.

C75. For broker-dealers and certain investment companies (investment companies other than registered funds subject to SEC reporting requirements that used blockage factors in ﬁnancial statements for ﬁscal years ending on or before May 31, 2000), the
AICPA Audit and Accounting Guides for those industries allowed an exception to the requirement of other FASB pronouncements to use P×Q to measure the fair value of a block. Speciﬁcally, the Guides permitted a fair value measurement using a blockage factor, where appropriate.

C78. Many respondents, in particular, brokerdealers, agreed with that decision. However, during its redeliberations, the Board discussed the need for expanded disclosures about blocks measured using blockage factors with representative preparers
(broker-dealers) and users (analysts that follow broker-dealers). Through those discussions, the
Board learned that for blocks held by broker-dealers, industry practice is often to sell the securities in multiple transactions involving quantities that might be large but that are not necessarily blocks; that is, the securities could be sold at the quoted price for an individual trading unit. Because of that selling practice, the majority of the Board decided that there was no compelling reason to allow the exception to P×Q in the Guides to continue under this Statement, noting that revised IAS 39 includes similar guidance in paragraph AG72, which states that “the fair value of a portfolio of ﬁnancial instruments is the product of the number of units of the instrument and its quoted market price.”

C76. In developing this Statement, the Board decided to address that inconsistency within GAAP.
The Board considered the earlier work completed by
AcSEC through its Blockage Factor Task Force, which was formed in 2000 to address issues speciﬁc to the use of blockage factors (discounts) by brokerdealers and investment companies. Based on its discussions with industry representatives (brokerdealers, mutual funds, and other investment companies) and a review of relevant academic research and market data, the task force affirmed that discounts involving large blocks exist, generally increasing as the size of the block to be traded (expressed as a percentage of the daily trading volume) increases but that the methods for measuring the blockage factors (discounts) vary among entities and are largely subjective.
C77. In the Exposure Draft, the Board acknowledged the diversity in practice with respect to the methods for measuring blockage factors (discounts).
However, the Board agreed that for entities that regularly buy and sell securities in blocks, the ﬁnancial reporting that would result when using P×Q to measure the fair value of a block position would not be representationally faithful of the underlying business activities. In particular, if a block is purchased at a discount to the quoted price, a fair value measurement using P×Q would give the appearance of a gain upon buying the block, followed by a reported loss on subsequently selling the block (at a discount to the quoted price). At that time, the Board understood that for blocks held by broker-dealers, industry practice was to also sell the securities in blocks. In view of that selling practice (in blocks), the Board decided that this Statement should allow the exception to

C79. In reaching that decision, the majority of the
Board affirmed its conclusions relating to the prohibition on the use of blockage factors in other FASB
Statements. In particular, the Board emphasized that when a quoted price in an active market for a security is available, that price should be used to measure fair value without regard to an entity’s intent to transact at that price. Basing the fair value on the quoted price results in comparable reporting. Adjusting the price for the size of the position introduces management intent (to trade in blocks) into the measurement, reducing comparability. Following the reasoning used in Statement 107, the quoted price provides useful information because investors regularly rely on quoted prices for decision making. Also, the decision to exchange a large position in a single transaction at a price lower than the price that would be available if the position were to be exchanged in multiple transactions (in smaller quantities) is a decision whose consequences should be reported when that decision is executed. Until that transaction occurs, the entity that holds the block has the ability to effect the transaction either in the block market or in another market
(the principal or more advantageous market for the individual trading unit).
C80. This Statement precludes the use of blockage factors and eliminates the exception to P×Q in the

FAS157–50

Fair Value Measurements

Guides for a ﬁnancial instrument that trades in an active market (within Level 1). In other words, the unit of account for an instrument that trades in an active market is the individual trading unit. This Statement amends Statements 107, 115, 124, 133, and 140 to remove the similar unit-of-account guidance in those accounting pronouncements, which referred to a fair value measurement using P×Q for an instrument that trades in any market, including a market that is not active, for example, a thin market (within Level 2). In this Statement, the Board decided not to specify the unit of account for an instrument that trades in a market that is not active. The Board plans to address unitof-account issues broadly in its conceptual framework project.
Level 2 Inputs
C81. The Exposure Draft limited the inputs within
Level 2 to quoted prices in active markets for similar assets or liabilities, adjusted for differences that are objectively determinable. Several respondents indicated that because all adjustments involve some degree of subjective judgment and estimation, Level 2 would be overly restrictive. The Board agreed and decided to broaden Level 2 to include all inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability.
C82. Observable inputs within Level 2 include inputs that are directly observable for the asset or liability (including quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities) as well as inputs that are not directly observable for the asset or liability but that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data through correlation or by other means
(market-corroborated inputs). The concept of market-corroborated inputs is intended to incorporate observable market data (such as interest rates and yield curves that are observable at commonly quoted intervals), based on an assessment of factors relevant to the asset or liability. The Board concluded that market-corroborated inputs are observable inputs and that fair value measurements using marketcorroborated inputs (within Level 2) should be distinguished from fair value measurements using unobservable inputs (within Level 3).
Level 3 Inputs
C83. The Exposure Draft included within a single level (Level 3) observable inputs other than quoted prices in active markets (for identical or similar assets or liabilities) together with all unobservable inputs

FAS157

(previously referred to as entity inputs). Several respondents observed that fair value measurements reported and disclosed within Level 3 would be overly broad. In particular, they indicated that the measurements would range widely in reliability and that including such a wide range in a single level could be misleading to users of ﬁnancial statements. Some fair value measurements would be objectively determined (using quoted inputs other than prices), while other fair value measurements would be more subjectively determined (using unobservable inputs).
The Board agreed and decided to limit Level 3 inputs to unobservable inputs.
C84. In reaching that decision, the Board affirmed its conclusion in other accounting pronouncements that unobservable inputs should be used to measure fair value to the extent that observable inputs are not available, allowing for situations in which there might be little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability at the measurement date. However, the fair value measurement objective remains the same—an exit price from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, unobservable inputs should reﬂect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability (including assumptions about risk) developed based on the best information available in the circumstances. C85. The Board agreed that in many cases, the best information available with which to develop unobservable inputs might be the reporting entity’s own data. The Board affirmed its view in Concepts Statement 7 (and other existing accounting pronouncements) that the reporting entity may use its own data to develop unobservable inputs, provided that there is no information reasonably available without undue cost and effort that indicates that market participants would use different assumptions in pricing the asset or liability. Paragraph 38 of Concepts Statement 7 explains: . . . an entity that uses cash ﬂows in accounting measurements often has little or no information about some or all of the assumptions that marketplace participants would use in assessing the fair value of an asset or a liability. In those situations, the entity must necessarily use the information that is available without undue cost and effort in developing cash ﬂow estimates. The use of an entity’s own assumptions about future cash ﬂows is

FAS157–51

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

compatible with an estimate of fair value, as long as there are no contrary data indicating that marketplace participants would use different assumptions. If such data exist, the entity must adjust its assumptions to incorporate that market information.
C86. In this Statement, the Board clariﬁed that the reporting entity need not undertake all possible efforts to obtain information about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability or otherwise establish the absence of contrary data indicating that market participants would use different assumptions. However, the reporting entity must not ignore information about market participant assumptions that is available within reasonable cost-beneﬁt constraints.
C87. Within Level 3, unobservable inputs relevant to the asset or liability should be used as a basis for replicating the actions of market participants in a hypothetical transaction for the asset or liability at the measurement date. The Board understands that for some, a measurement using a hypothetical construct that relies on unobservable inputs raises concerns about the resulting fair value measurement. In particular, some believe that a hypothetical construct might not faithfully represent an actual economic phenomenon and, as such, would seem to be of questionable relevance to users of ﬁnancial statements.
Some Board members share those concerns. However, the Board agreed that concerns about fair value measurements that are predicated on hypothetical transactions in hypothetical markets derive from a threshold issue that relates principally to the selection of the appropriate measurement attribute, an area of focus in the Board’s conceptual framework project.
The Board plans to continue to address the issue of which measurement attribute should be required in individual accounting pronouncements on a projectby-project basis.
Inputs Based on Bid and Ask Prices
C88. The Board observed that in some situations, inputs might be determined based on bid and ask prices, for example, in a dealer market where the bid price represents the price the dealer is willing to pay and the ask price represents the price at which the dealer is willing to sell. The related guidance in
ASR 118 provides entities (investment companies and broker-dealers) with ﬂexibility in selecting the bid-ask pricing method used to measure fair value.
Accordingly, the practice that has evolved under
ASR 118 is diverse.

C89. In the Exposure Draft, the Board agreed that a single bid-ask spread pricing method would maximize the consistency and comparability of fair value measurements within Level 1. At that time, the Board decided to require the use of bid prices for long positions (assets) and ask prices for short positions (liabilities), similar to the related guidance in paragraph BC99 of revised IAS 39, which states:
The Board conﬁrmed the proposal in the
Exposure Draft that the appropriate quoted market price for an asset held or liability to be issued is usually the current bid price and, for an asset to be acquired or liability held, the asking price. It concluded that applying midmarket prices to an individual instrument is not appropriate because it would result in entities recognising up-front gains or losses for the difference between the bid-ask price and the mid-market price.
C90. Respondents agreed that a single bid-ask spread pricing method would maximize the consistency and comparability of fair value measurements using bid and ask prices. However, many respondents stated that because different market participants transact at different prices within a bid-ask spread, the resulting measurements would not be relevant in all cases. Some of those respondents emphasized that for entities that enter into derivative instruments to manage risk, the bid-ask spread pricing method would create operational difficulties because many of those instruments are traded in active dealer markets and currently valued using other pricing methods (for example, mid-market prices or prices within a range of observable bid and ask prices). Other respondents indicated that the bid-ask spread pricing method within Level 1 would create inconsistencies between fair value measurements using bid and ask prices within Level 1 and fair value measurements using bid and ask prices within other levels of the fair value hierarchy. Respondents stated that this Statement should allow an approach consistent with the related guidance in ASR 118.
C91. In its redeliberations, the Board reconsidered the required bid-ask spread pricing method within
Level 1. The Board decided that the price within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances should be used to measure the fair value of the related asset or liability within all levels of the fair value hierarchy, provided that the price is consistently determined. In reaching that decision, the Board observed that in many situations,

FAS157–52

Fair Value Measurements

bid and ask prices establish the boundaries within which market participants would negotiate the price in the exchange for the related asset or liability. The
Board concluded that having clariﬁed the fair value measurement objective in this Statement, entities should use judgment in meeting that objective. Accordingly, bid-ask spread pricing methods appropriate under ASR 118 are appropriate under this Statement. The use of bid prices for long positions (assets) and ask prices for short positions (liabilities) is permitted but not required.
C92. Because the Exposure Draft would have required the use of bid prices for long positions (assets) and ask prices for short positions (liabilities), the
Board initially decided to specify the pricing for offsetting positions to preclude recognition of up-front gains or losses. Speciﬁcally, the Board decided to require the use of mid-market prices for the matched portion and bid and ask prices for the net open position, as appropriate, similar to the related guidance in paragraph BC100 of revised IAS 39. Because this
Statement does not require the use of bid prices for long positions (assets) and ask prices for short positions (liabilities), the Board decided not to include in this Statement the guidance for offsetting positions in the Exposure Draft.
Disclosures
C93. The Board observed that few of the accounting pronouncements that require fair value measurements also require disclosures about those measurements. Further, the required disclosures vary. The
Board decided that having established a framework for measuring fair value, this Statement should require expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. Because at initial recognition many assets and liabilities are measured in the statement of ﬁnancial position at amounts that approximate fair value (for example, in a business combination), the Board decided to limit the disclosures to fair value measurements in periods subsequent to initial recognition, whether the measurements are made on a recurring or nonrecurring basis.
C94. Some respondents disagreed with the Board’s decision to include expanded disclosures about fair value measurements in this Statement. They indicated that, instead, the Board should develop a comprehensive disclosure framework and reconsider all related disclosures currently required under existing accounting pronouncements in the context of that framework. Some of those respondents further indi-

FAS157

cated that the Board should consider disclosures about fair value (and changes in fair value) in its project on ﬁnancial statement presentation (formerly, ﬁnancial performance reporting by business enterprises). In the Exposure Draft, the Board considered the interaction between that project and the fair value measurement project. Based on input initially received from members of the User Advisory Council and others, the Board decided that until such time as a ﬁnal Statement in that project is issued, expanded disclosures about fair value measurements would provide information that is useful to users of ﬁnancial statements. The Board agreed that the issues raised by respondents indicate the need to reconsider or otherwise clarify some of the disclosure requirements initially proposed in the Exposure Draft, but not eliminate those requirements from this Statement altogether, noting that some entities (in particular, entities in the ﬁnancial services industry) already are making similar disclosures in SEC ﬁlings.
Fair Value Measurements
C95. The Board affirmed that the reporting entity should disclose information that enables users of its ﬁnancial statements to assess the extent to which fair value is used to measure assets and liabilities in periods subsequent to initial recognition and the inputs used for fair value measurements. In the Exposure
Draft, the Board concluded that information about the inputs used for fair value measurements would allow users of ﬁnancial statements to assess the relative reliability of the measurements. Many respondents generally agreed with those disclosures, subject to clariﬁcations to conform the disclosures to the levels within the fair value hierarchy, as revised. Therefore, the disclosures required by this Statement segregate fair value measurements using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1), signiﬁcant other observable inputs (Level 2), and signiﬁcant unobservable inputs (Level 3), separately for each major category of assets and liabilities. To improve consistency in the fair value measurements disclosed, this Statement speciﬁes that the level within the fair value hierarchy in which a fair value measurement in its entirety falls should be determined based on the lowest level input that is signiﬁcant to the measurement in its entirety.
Level 3 Reconciliation for Recurring Fair Value
Measurements
C96. The Board affirmed that the reporting entity should disclose information that enables users of its ﬁnancial statements to assess the effects of recurring

FAS157–53

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

fair value measurements on earnings (or changes in net assets) for the period. That disclosure is limited to recurring fair value measurements because similar disclosures for nonrecurring fair value measurements
(for example, impaired assets) are currently required under other accounting pronouncements.
C97. In the Exposure Draft, the Board decided that the disclosures for recurring fair value measurements should focus principally on earnings (or changes in net assets), separate from other comprehensive income, and the unrealized gains or losses included in earnings (or changes in net assets) for the period. In reaching that decision, the Board concluded that information about unrealized gains or losses included in earnings would allow users to broadly assess the quality of reported earnings. However, some respondents disagreed. They stated that disclosures about unrealized gains or losses, alone, would not be cost beneﬁcial and, in some cases, could be misleading. For example, users of ﬁnancial statements might conclude that unrealized gains or losses are of a lesser quality than realized gains or losses, which might not be the case. Also, because some entities do not currently capture that information, incremental systems changes (in some cases signiﬁcant) would be required to comply with the disclosures. Those respondents encouraged the Board to reconsider the disclosures. C98. Concurrent with its redeliberations of related issues in proposed FSP FAS 133-a, the Board discussed the need for expanded disclosures about fair value measurements with certain users of ﬁnancial statements, including members of the Investor Task
Force that concentrate on the investment banking, energy trading, and insurance industries, and members of the User Advisory Council. Those discussions focused on expanded disclosures about recurring fair value measurements using signiﬁcant unobservable inputs (within Level 3) and the effect of the measurements on earnings for the period. Those users strongly supported the expanded disclosures. They indicated that the expanded disclosures would allow users of ﬁnancial statements to make more informed judgments and segregate the effects of fair value measurements that are inherently subjective, enhancing their ability to assess the quality of earnings broadly. Based on that input, the Board concluded that expanded disclosures about recurring fair value measurements and the effect of the measurements on earnings (or changes in net assets) for the period,

separate from other comprehensive income, would provide useful information to users of ﬁnancial statements and should be required in this Statement.
C99. To balance the needs of users with the concerns of respondents, the Board discussed the expanded disclosures with some respondents (principally, ﬁnancial institutions). Those respondents indicated that expanded disclosures for recurring fair value measurements within Level 3 could be provided within reasonable cost-beneﬁt constraints if presented in the form of a reconciliation of beginning and ending balances that segregates all changes during the period for each major category of assets and liabilities, except as follows. They stated that because the same derivative can be an asset in one reporting period and a liability in the next reporting period, separate (gross) presentation for derivative assets and liabilities would not be cost beneﬁcial. In particular, systems changes would be needed to track and reconcile the information necessary to separately capture the related earnings effects. In considering that presentation issue, the Board agreed that the information conveyed by those disclosures would be more meaningful if presented separate (gross) rather than net.
However, the Board decided that presentation issues for derivatives disclosures should be considered in the context of its current project on derivatives disclosures. The Board decided to allow derivatives to be presented net for purposes of the reconciliation disclosure in this Statement.
C100. The reconciliation of beginning and ending balances of recurring fair value measurements within
Level 3 required in this Statement segregates changes from all sources, including total gains or losses recognized in earnings (or changes in net assets) during the period. The Board concluded (and respondents agreed) that disclosure of total gains or losses would provide needed context for disclosure of the change in unrealized gains or losses recognized in earnings
(or changes in net assets) during the period relating to the assets and liabilities measured within Level 3 that are still held at the end of the period. The Board further concluded that because subsequent changes in fair value reﬂect changes in economic conditions without regard to whether an entity has transacted, disclosure of total gains or losses would provide incremental information about changes in shareholder wealth due to changes in economic conditions that would further enable users of ﬁnancial statements to assess the effects of fair value measurements on earnings (or changes in net assets) for the period.

FAS157–54

Fair Value Measurements

Other Disclosures
C101. A few respondents stated that this Statement should standardize disclosures of the discount rate and assumptions used in valuation techniques to measure fair value. The Board affirmed its view in the Exposure Draft that standardizing those disclosures for all assets and liabilities measured at fair value (for example, requiring disclosure of assumptions used to measure fair value) would not be practical. By way of example, the Board referred to other accounting pronouncements in which it reached different decisions on whether to require disclosures about signiﬁcant assumptions. The Board noted that in some cases, an overwhelming volume of information would need to be disclosed for that information to be meaningful. Because sensitivity disclosures rely largely on those assumptions, the Board also decided not to require sensitivity disclosures (for example, market risk disclosures), as further suggested by some respondents. Instead, this Statement establishes broad disclosure objectives, which the Board expects to consider as a basis for requiring more speciﬁc disclosures in individual accounting pronouncements that require fair value measurements on a project-byproject basis.
C102. A few respondents also referred to the disclosures about the fair value of ﬁnancial instruments required by Statement 107. They suggested that the
Board consolidate those disclosures with the disclosures in this Statement. The Board disagreed. The disclosures required by Statement 107 are speciﬁc to ﬁnancial instruments, as deﬁned in that Statement, and extend beyond the measurements themselves.
Further, those disclosures apply regardless of whether a ﬁnancial instrument is recognized in the statement of ﬁnancial position and measured at fair value. The Board agreed that the disclosures required by this Statement should be encouraged for ﬁnancial instruments disclosed at fair value, including ﬁnancial instruments recognized in the statement of ﬁnancial position at amounts other than fair value (for example, loans carried at cost). Therefore, this
Statement amends Statement 107 to refer to the related disclosures in this Statement.
C103. A few respondents also referred to possible conﬂicts and overlap with SEC disclosure requirements within management discussion and analysis, noting that to varying degrees the disclosures required by this Statement would duplicate those and other industry-speciﬁc disclosures made outside the basic ﬁnancial statements. The Board affirmed its

FAS157

view in the Exposure Draft that the disclosures required by this Statement supplement related disclosures made outside the basic ﬁnancial statements.
The disclosures required by this Statement apply for all entities that hold assets and liabilities recognized in the statement of ﬁnancial position that are measured at fair value. Further, all entities should include those disclosures within the basic ﬁnancial statements. C104. The Board emphasized that consistent with its related codiﬁcation initiatives, the fair value information disclosed under this Statement should be combined and disclosed together with the fair value information disclosed under other pronouncements, including Statement 107 (for example, in a single fair value footnote), where practicable. The Board concluded that having those disclosures available in one place would enhance users’ understanding about fair value and the use of fair value in ﬁnancial reporting.
Amendment to Opinion 28
C105. In the Exposure Draft, the Board decided that the disclosures required by this Statement should be made in all interim periods. Some respondents emphasized that those disclosures in all interim periods would not be cost beneﬁcial. The Board acknowledged those concerns. However, the Board affirmed its conclusion in the Exposure Draft that fair value disclosures in interim periods would provide timely information to users about fair value measurements and factors affecting those measurements during the year. Moreover, increased information about fair value on an ongoing basis would enhance users’ understanding of fair value and the use of fair value in ﬁnancial reporting. Because of respondents’ concerns, the Board decided to limit the disclosures that are required in interim periods to quantitative disclosures. To communicate more clearly the information conveyed by those quantitative disclosures, the
Board decided to require tabular presentation (in all periods). In reaching that decision, the Board considered related research, which indicates that tabular presentation of ﬁnancial information is an important communications tool. This Statement amends APB
Opinion No. 28, Interim Financial Reporting, to require those disclosures in all interim periods. Qualitative disclosures, for example, narrative disclosure about the valuation techniques used to measure fair value, are required only in annual periods.

FAS157–55

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

Effective Date and Transition
C106. The Board decided that this Statement should be effective for ﬁnancial statements issued for ﬁscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those ﬁscal years. Because this
Statement applies under other accounting pronouncements that require fair value measurements and does not require any new fair value measurements, the
Board believes that the extended transition period under this Statement provides sufficient time for entities, their auditors, and users of ﬁnancial statements to prepare for implementation of the provisions of this Statement. The Board encourages earlier application, provided that the reporting entity has not yet issued ﬁnancial statements for that ﬁscal year (annual or interim).
C107. The Board agreed, as it did in the Exposure
Draft, that because the substantive guidance in this
Statement focuses broadly on the methods used to measure fair value, application of that guidance could result in a change in the method of applying an accounting principle. However, because the methods used to measure fair value are referred to generally, for example, in the context of inputs requiring both quantitative and qualitative assessments, the Board concluded that a change in the methods used to measure fair value would be inseparable from a change in the fair value measurements (that is, as new events occur or as new information is obtained, for example, through better insight or improved judgment). Therefore, the Board decided that the guidance in this Statement should be applied prospectively (similar to a change in accounting estimate) as of the beginning of the ﬁscal year in which this Statement is initially applied, except as discussed below.
C108. For the change in accounting for derivative
(or other) instruments under Issue 02-3, the Board concluded that application of the guidance in this
Statement would result in a change in the method of applying an accounting principle and that the change in the method would be separable from the change in the fair value measurements. Therefore, the Board decided that the guidance in this Statement should be applied retrospectively (similar to a change in accounting principle), but on a limited basis as of the beginning of the ﬁscal year in which this Statement is initially applied, considering the practical limitations involved in applying the change in method in all prior periods. Therefore, the difference between the carrying amount and the fair value of a derivative (or other instrument) that was measured at initial recog-

nition using the transaction price in accordance with the guidance in footnote 3 of Issue 02-3 prior to initial application of this Statement should be recognized as a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings (or other appropriate components of equity or net assets in the statement of ﬁnancial position) for that ﬁscal year, presented separately. C109. For the change in accounting for positions in ﬁnancial instruments (including blocks) held by broker-dealers and certain investment companies, the
Board agreed that application of the guidance in this
Statement would result in a change in the method of applying an accounting principle that would be separable from the change in fair value measurements.
The Board observed that because the information necessary to apply that change in accounting principle retrospectively to all prior periods presented should be available, the guidance in this Statement could be applied retrospectively (similar to a change in accounting principle) in all prior periods. However, the Board decided that three different transition approaches in this Statement (including two different transition approaches for ﬁnancial instruments) would be unduly burdensome. Therefore, the Board decided for practical reasons that the limited retrospective transition approach for the change in accounting under Issue 02-3 also should apply for the change in accounting for positions in ﬁnancial instruments (including blocks) held by broker-dealers and investment companies.
C110. To achieve comparability in future periods, all of the disclosures required by this Statement, including disclosures about the valuation techniques used to measure fair value required in annual periods only, are required in the ﬁrst interim period in which this Statement is initially applied. However, those disclosures need not be presented in periods prior to initial application of this Statement.
Beneﬁts and Costs
C111. The mission of the FASB is to establish and improve standards of ﬁnancial accounting and reporting to provide information that is useful to users of ﬁnancial statements (present and potential investors, creditors, donors, and other capital market participants) in making rational investment, credit, and similar resource allocation decisions. In fulﬁlling that mission, the Board endeavors to determine that a proposed standard will ﬁll a signiﬁcant need and that the costs imposed to meet that standard, as compared

FAS157–56

Fair Value Measurements

with other alternatives, are justiﬁed in relation to the overall beneﬁts of the resulting information. Although the costs to implement a new standard may not be borne evenly, users of ﬁnancial statements beneﬁt from improvements in ﬁnancial reporting, thereby facilitating the functioning of markets for capital and credit and the efficient allocation of resources in the economy.
C112. This Statement establishes a single deﬁnition of fair value and a framework for measuring fair value in GAAP. A single deﬁnition of fair value, together with a framework for measuring fair value, should result in increased consistency in application and, with respect to the resulting fair value measurements, increased comparability. Concepts Statement 2 emphasizes that providing comparable information enables users of ﬁnancial statements to identify similarities in and differences between two sets of economic events.
C113. This Statement also expands disclosures about fair value measurements, improving the quality of information provided to users of ﬁnancial statements. Providing information that is useful to users of ﬁnancial statements in making rational investment, credit, and similar decisions is the ﬁrst objective of ﬁnancial reporting in FASB Concepts Statement No. 1, Objectives of Financial Reporting by
Business Enterprises. In developing the disclosure requirements of this Statement, the Board obtained input from users, preparers, and other interested parties to ensure that the disclosures would be provided within reasonable cost-beneﬁt constraints. This Statement encourages entities to include the fair value information disclosed under this Statement together with the fair value information disclosed under other accounting pronouncements in one place, where practicable. The Board concluded that having that information available in one place would improve the quality of information provided to users of ﬁnancial

FAS157

statements about fair value measurements, thereby enhancing users’ understanding about fair value and the use of fair value in ﬁnancial reporting.
C114. In addition, the amendments made by this
Statement simplify and, where appropriate, codify the related guidance that currently exists for measuring fair value, eliminating differences that have added to the complexity in GAAP, consistent with the Board’s related codiﬁcation initiatives.
C115. Although the framework for measuring fair value builds on current practice and requirements, the
Board acknowledges that for some entities, certain methods required by this Statement may result in a change to practice. Further, some entities will need to make systems and operational changes, thereby incurring incremental costs. Some entities also might incur incremental costs in applying the requirements of this Statement. However, the Board believes that the beneﬁts resulting from increased consistency and comparability of fair value information and improved communication of that information to users of ﬁnancial statements will be ongoing. On balance, the Board concluded that this Statement will result in improved ﬁnancial reporting.
International Financial Reporting Standards
C116. Many International Financial Reporting
Standards require fair value measurements. Like the
FASB, the IASB has previously addressed issues related to fair value largely in the context of ﬁnancial instruments included in the scope of revised IAS 39.
The IASB currently has on its agenda a fair value measurements project to consider fair value measurement broadly, focusing on the deﬁnition of fair value and the framework for measuring fair value. As part of that project, the IASB plans to issue this Statement in the form of a preliminary views document for public comment.

FAS157–57

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

Appendix D

REFERENCES TO APB AND FASB PRONOUNCEMENTS
D1. This appendix lists APB and FASB pronouncements existing at the date of this Statement that refer to fair value. Those pronouncements that are amended by this Statement are indicated by an asterisk. (See
Appendix E.)
Pronouncement

Title

Opinion 18

The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock

Opinion 21*

Interest on Receivables and Payables

Opinion 28*

Interim Financial Reporting

Opinion 29*

Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions

Statement 15*

Accounting by Debtors and Creditors for Troubled Debt Restructurings

Statement 19*

Financial Accounting and Reporting by Oil and Gas Producing Companies

Statement 35*

Accounting and Reporting by Deﬁned Beneﬁt Pension Plans

Statement 45

Accounting for Franchise Fee Revenue

Statement 60*

Accounting and Reporting by Insurance Enterprises

Statement 61

Accounting for Title Plant

Statement 63*

Financial Reporting by Broadcasters

Statement 65*

Accounting for Certain Mortgage Banking Activities

Statement 66

Accounting for Sales of Real Estate

Statement 67*

Accounting for Costs and Initial Rental Operations of Real Estate Projects

Statement 68

Research and Development Arrangements

Statement 84

Induced Conversions of Convertible Debt

Statement 87*

Employers’Accounting for Pensions

Statement 106*

Employers’Accounting for Postretirement Beneﬁts Other Than Pensions

Statement 107*

Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Statement 114

Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan

Statement 115*

Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities

Statement 116*

Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made

Statement 124*

Accounting for Certain Investments Held by Not-for-Proﬁt Organizations

FAS157–58

Fair Value Measurements

Pronouncement

FAS157

Title

Statement 126

Exemption from Certain Required Disclosures about Financial Instruments for
Certain Nonpublic Entities

Statement 133*

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

Statement 136*

Transfers of Assets to a Not-for-Proﬁt Organization or Charitable Trust That
Raises or Holds Contributions for Others

Statement 138

Accounting for Certain Derivative Instruments and Certain Hedging Activities

Statement 140*

Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and
Extinguishments of Liabilities

Statement 141 *

Business Combinations

Statement 142*

Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

Statement 143*

Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations

Statement 144*

Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets

Statement 146*

Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities

Statement 149

Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities

Statement 150*

Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both
Liabilities and Equity

Statement 153

Exchanges of Nonmonetary Assets

Statement 156*

Accounting for Servicing of Financial Assets

Interpretation 9

Applying APB Opinions No. 16 and 17 When a Savings and Loan Association or a Similar Institution Is Acquired in a Business Combination Accounted for by the Purchase Method

Interpretation 45*

Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees,
Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others

Interpretation 46 (revised
December 2003)

Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities

Interpretation 47

Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations

Technical Bulletin 84-1

Accounting for Stock Issued to Acquire the Results of a Research and
Development Arrangement

Technical Bulletin 85-1

Accounting for the Receipt of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
Participating Preferred Stock

Technical Bulletin 85-5

Issues Relating to Accounting for Business Combinations

FAS157–59

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

Pronouncement

Title

Technical Bulletin 85-6

Accounting for a Purchase of Treasury Shares at a Price Signiﬁcantly in Excess of the Current Market Price of the Shares and the Income Statement
Classiﬁcation of Costs Incurred in Defending against a Takeover Attempt

FSP FAS 115-1 and 124-1

The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to
Certain Investments

FSP FAS 143-1

Accounting for Electronic Equipment Waste Obligations

FSP FAS 144-1

Determination of Cost Basis for Foreclosed Assets under FASB Statement
No. 15 and the Measurement of Cumulative Losses Previously Recognized under Paragraph 37 of FASB Statement No. 144

FSP FAS 150-1

Issuer’s Accounting for Freestanding Financial Instruments Composed of More
Than One Option or Forward Contract Embodying Obligations under FASB
Statement No. 150

FSP FAS 150-2

Accounting for Mandatorily Redeemable Shares Requiring Redemption by
Payment of an Amount That Differs from the Book Value of Those Shares under FASB Statement No. 150

FSP FAS 150-3

Effective Date, Disclosures, and Transition for Mandatorily Redeemable
Financial Instruments of Certain Nonpublic Entities and Certain Mandatorily
Redeemable Noncontrolling Interests under FASB Statement No. 150

FSP FAS 150-4

Issuers’ Accounting for Employee Stock Ownership Plans under FASB
Statement No. 150

FSP FIN 45-2

Whether FASB Interpretation No. 45 Provides Support for Subsequently
Accounting for a Guarantor’s Liability at Fair Value

FSP FIN 46(R)-2

Calculation of Expected Losses under FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)

FSP FIN 46(R)-3

Evaluating Whether as a Group the Holders of the Equity Investment at Risk
Lack the Direct or Indirect Ability to Make Decisions about an Entity’s
Activities through Voting Rights or Similar Rights under FASB Interpretation
No. 46(R)

FSP FIN 46(R)-5

Implicit Variable Interests under FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)

FSP FIN 46(R)-6

Determining the Variability to Be Considered in Applying FASB Interpretation
No. 46(R)

FSP FTB 85-4-1

Accounting for Life Settlement Contracts by Third-Party Investors

FSP AAG INV-1 and
SOP 94-4-1

Reporting of Fully Beneﬁt-Responsive Investment Contracts Held by Certain
Investment Companies Subject to the AICPA Investment Company Guide and
Deﬁned-Contribution Health and Welfare and Pension Plans

FAS157–60

Fair Value Measurements

FAS157

pendent lender had negotiated a similar transaction under comparable terms and conditions with the option to pay the cash price upon purchase or to give a note for the amount of the purchase which bears the prevailing rate of interest to maturity.

Appendix E

AMENDMENTS TO APB AND FASB
PRONOUNCEMENTS
E1. APB Opinion No. 21, Interest on Receivables and Payables, is amended as follows: [Added text is underlined and deleted text is struck out.]
a. Footnote 1 to paragraph 1:
Present value is the sum of the future payments discounted to the present date at an appropriate rate of interest. The Appendix contains a description of the valuation process.
b. Paragraph 13:
Determining an appropriate interest rate. The variety of transactions encountered precludes any speciﬁc interest rate from being applicable in all circumstances. However, some general guides may be stated. The choice of a rate may be affected by the credit standing of the issuer, restrictive covenants, the collateral, payment and other terms pertaining to the debt, and, if appropriate, the tax consequences to the buyer and seller. The prevailing rates for similar instruments of issuers with similar credit ratings will normally help determine the appropriate interest rate for determining the present value of a speciﬁc note at its date of issuance. In any event, the rate used for valuation purposes will normally be at least equal toshould be the rate at which the debtor can obtain ﬁnancing of a similar nature from other sources at the date of the transaction.
For purposes of this Opinion, Tthe objective is to approximate the rate which would have resulted if an independent borrower and an inde-

c. Paragraph 18:
Present value concepts—discount rate adjustment technique. Upon issuance of a note or bond, the issuer customarily records as a liability the face or principal amount of the obligation.
Ordinarily, the recorded liability also represents the amount which is to be repaid upon maturity of the obligation. The value recorded in the liability account, however, may be different from the proceeds received or the present value of the obligation at issuance if the market rate of interest differs from the coupon rate of interest. For example, consider the issuance of a $1,000, 20year bond which bears interest at 10% annually.
If we assume that 10% is an appropriate market rate of interest for such a bond, the proceeds at issuance will be $1,000. The bond payable would be recorded at $1,000 which represents the amount repayable at maturity and also the present value at issuance which is equal to the proceeds. However, under similar circumstances, if the prevailing market rate were more
(less) than 10%, a 20-year 10% bond with a face amount of $1,000 would usually have a value at issuance and provide cash proceeds of less
(more) than $1,000. The signiﬁcant point is that, upon issuance, a bond is valued at (1) the present value of the future coupon interest payments plus (2) the present value of the future principal payments (face amount). These two sets of future cash payments are discounted at the prevailing market rate of interest (for an equivalent se-

FAS157–61

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

curity) at the date of issuance of the debt. As the
8% and 12% columns show, premium or dis-

count arises when the prevailing market rate of interest differs from the coupon rate:
Assume prevailing market rate of
10%

2. Present value of payment of the face amount of $1,000 at the end of year 20
Present value and proceeds at date of issuance

E2. APB Opinion No. 28, Interim Financial Reporting, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 30(l) is added as follows:
The information about the use of fair value to measure assets and liabilities recognized in the statement of ﬁnancial position pursuant to paragraphs 32 and 33 of FASB Statement No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements.
E3. APB Opinion No. 29, Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 18 and its related footnote 5:
The Board concludes that in general accounting for nonmonetary transactions should be based on the fair values5 of the assets (or services) involved which is the same basis as that used in monetary transactions. Thus, the cost of a nonmonetary asset acquired in exchange for another nonmonetary asset is the fair value of the asset surrendered to obtain it, and a gain or loss should be recognized on the exchange. The fair value of the asset received should be used to measure the cost if it is more clearly evident than the fair value of the asset surrendered. Similarly, a nonmonetary asset received in a nonreciprocal transfer should be recorded at the fair value of the asset received. A transfer of a nonmonetary asset to a stockholder or to another entity in a nonreciprocal transfer should be recorded at the fair value of the asset transferred, and a gain or loss should be recognized on the disposition of the asset. The fair value of an entity’s own stock reacquired may be a more clearly evident measure of the fair value of the asset distributed in a nonreciprocal transfer if the transaction involves distribution of a nonmonetary asset to eliminate a disproportionate part of owners’ interests (that

12%

$ 851

$ 982

$747

149

215

104

$1,000

1. Present value of annual interest payments of $100 (the coupon rate of 10% of $1,000) for 20 years

8%

$1,197

$851

is, to acquire stock for the treasury or for retirement). If one of the parties in a nonmonetary transaction could have elected to receive cash instead of the nonmonetary asset, the amount of cash that could have been received may be evidence of the fair value of the nonmonetary assets exchanged. 5See paragraph 25 for determination of fair value.

b. Paragraph 20(a), as amended:
Fair Value Not Determinable. The fair value of neither the asset(s) received nor the asset(s) relinquished is determinable within reasonable limits (paragraph 25).
c. Paragraph 25:
Fair value of a nonmonetary asset transferred to or from an enterprise in a nonmonetary transaction should be determined by referring to estimated realizable values in cash transactions of the same or similar assets, quoted market prices, independent appraisals, estimated fair values of assets or services received in exchange, and other available evidence. If one of the parties in a nonmonetary transaction could have elected to receive cash instead of the nonmonetary asset, the amount of cash that could have been received may be evidence of the fair value of the nonmonetary assets exchanged.
E4. FASB Statement No. 13, Accounting for Leases, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 5(c):
Fair value of the leased property. The price for which the property could be sold in an arm’s length transaction between unrelated parties.The

FAS157–62

Fair Value Measurements

price that would be received to sell the property in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Market participants are buyers and sellers that are independent of the reporting entity, that is, they are not related parties at the measurement date. (See deﬁnition of related parties in leasing transactions in paragraph 5(a).) The following are examples of the determination of fair value:
[For ease of use, the remainder of this subparagraph, which is unaffected by this Statement, has been omitted.]
E5. FASB Statement No. 15, Accounting by Debtors and Creditors for Troubled Debt Restructurings, is amended as follows:
a. Footnote 2 to paragraph 7:

FAS157

5
Paragraphs 13, 15, and 19 indicate that the fair value of assets transferred or the fair value of an equity interest granted shall be used in accounting for a settlement of a payable in a troubled debt restructuring. That guidance is not intended to preclude using the fair value of the payable settled if more clearly evident than the fair value of the assets transferred or of the equity interest granted in a full settlement of a payable (paragraphs 13 and 15). (See paragraph 6 of FASB Statement No. 141, Business Combinations.) However, in a partial settlement of a payable (paragraph 19), the fair value of the assets transferred or of the equity interest granted shall be used in all cases to avoid the need to allocate the fair value of the payable between the part settled and the part still outstanding.
5aThis pronouncement was issued prior to FASB Concepts
Statement No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and Present
Value in Accounting Measurements, and therefore the term expected cash ﬂows does not necessarily have the same meaning as that term in Concepts Statement 7.
6Some factors that may be relevant in estimating the fair value of various kinds of assets are described in paragraphs 37 and 38 of Statement 141, paragraphs 12−14 of APB Opinion No. 21,
“Interest on Receivables and Payables,” and paragraph 25 of APB Opinion No. 29, “Accounting for Nonmonetary
Transactions.”

Deﬁned in paragraph 13.
c. Paragraph 28, as amended:
b. Paragraph 13 and its related footnote 6, as amended, and footnote 5a, as added previously:
A debtor that transfers its receivables from third parties, real estate, or other assets to a creditor to settle fully a payable shall recognize a gain on restructuring of payables. The gain shall be measured by the excess of (i) the carrying amount of the payable settled (the face amount increased or decreased by applicable accrued interest and applicable unamortized premium, discount, ﬁnance charges, or issue costs) over
(ii) the fair value of the assets transferred to the creditor.5 The fair value of the assets transferred is the amount that the debtor could reasonably expect to receive for them in a current sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. Fair value of assets shall be measured by their market value if an active market for them exists. If no active market exists for the assets transferred but exists for similar assets, the selling prices in that market may be helpful in estimating the fair value of the assets transferred. If no market price is available, a forecast of expected cash ﬂows5a may aid in estimating the fair value of assets transferred, provided the expected cash ﬂows are discounted at a rate commensurate with the risk involved.6

A creditor that receives from a debtor in full satisfaction of a receivable either (i) receivables from third parties, real estate, or other assets or
(ii) shares of stock or other evidence of an equity interest in the debtor, or both, shall account for those assets (including an equity interest) at their fair value at the time of the restructuring (see paragraph 13 for how to measure fair value).16
A creditor that receives long-lived assets that will be sold from a debtor in full satisfaction of a receivable shall account for those assets at their fair value less cost to sell, as that term is used in paragraph 34 of FASB Statement No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of
Long-Lived Assets. The excess of (i) the recorded investment in the receivable17 satisﬁed over (ii) the fair value of assets received (less cost to sell, if required above) is a loss to be recognized. For purposes of this paragraph, losses, to the extent they are not offset against allowances for uncollectible amounts or other valuation accounts, shall be included in measuring net income for the period.
E6. FASB Statement No. 19, Financial Accounting and Reporting by Oil and Gas Producing Companies, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 47(l)(i), as effectively amended:
If satisfaction of the retained production payment is reasonably assured. The seller of the

FAS157–63

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

property, who retained the production payment, shall record the transaction as a sale, with recognition of any resulting gain or loss. The retained production payment shall be recorded as a receivable, with interest accounted for in accordance with the provisions of APB Opinion
No. 21, “Interest on Receivables and Payables.”
The purchaser shall record as the cost of the assets acquired the cash consideration paid plus the present value (determined in accordance with APB Opinion No. 21) of the retained production payment, which shall be recorded as a payable. The oil and gas reserve estimates and production data, including those applicable to liquidation of the retained production payment, shall be reported by the purchaser of the property (paragraphs 59E–59L).
E7. FASB Statement No. 35, Accounting and Reporting by Deﬁned Beneﬁt Pension Plans, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 11, as amended, and its related footnotes 4a, as added previously, and 5:
Plan investments, whether equity or debt securities, real estate, or other (excluding insurance contracts) shall be presented at their fair value at the reporting date. The fair value of an investment is the amount that the plan could reasonably expect to receive for it in a current sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. Fair value shall be measured by the market price if there is an active market for the investment. If there is not an active market for an investment but there is such a market for similar investments, selling prices in that market may be helpful in estimating fair value. If a market price is not available, a forecast of expected cash ﬂows4a may aid in estimating fair value, provided the expected cash ﬂows are discounted at a rate commensurate with the risk involved.5
4aThis

pronouncement was issued prior to FASB Concepts
Statement No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and Present
Value in Accounting Measurements, and therefore the term expected cash ﬂows does not necessarily have the same meaning as that term in Concepts Statement 7.
5
For an indication of factors to be considered in determining the discount rate, see paragraphs 13 and 14 of APB Opinion
No. 21, Interest on Receivables and Payables. If signiﬁcant, tThe fair value of an investment shall be reduced by reﬂect the brokerage commissions and other costs normally incurred in a sale if those costs are signiﬁcant (similar to fair value less cost to sell).

E8. FASB Statement No. 60, Accounting and
Reporting by Insurance Enterprises, is amended as follows: a. Paragraph 19 and its related footnote 4a, as added previously: Real estate acquired in settling mortgage guaranty and title insurance claims shall be reported at fair value. , that is, the amount that reasonably could be expected to be received in a current sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
If no market price is available, the expected cash ﬂows4a (anticipated sales price less maintenance and selling costs of the real estate) may aid in estimating fair value provided the cash ﬂows are discounted at a rate commensurate with the risk involved. Real estate acquired in settling claims shall be separately reported in the balance sheet and shall not be classiﬁed as an investment. Subsequent reductions in the reported amount and realized gains and losses on the sale of real estate acquired in settling claims shall be recognized as an adjustment to claim costs incurred.
4a

This pronouncement was issued prior to FASB Concepts
Statement No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and Present
Value in Accounting Measurements, and therefore the term expected cash ﬂows does not necessarily have the same meaning as that term in Concepts Statement 7.

E9. FASB Statement No. 63, Financial Reporting by Broadcasters, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 4:
A licensee shall report the asset and liability for a broadcast license agreement either (a) at the present value of the liability calculated in accordance with the provisions of APB Opinion
No. 21, Interest on Receivables and Payables, fair value of the liability or (b) at the gross amount of the liability. If the present value approach is used If a present value technique is used to measure fair value, the difference between the gross and net liability shall be accounted for as interest in accordance with Opinion 21APB Opinion No. 21, Interest on
Receivables and Payables.
b. Paragraph 8:
Broadcasters may barter unsold advertising time for products or services. All barter transactions except those involving the exchange of advertising time for network programming3 shall

FAS157–64

Fair Value Measurements

be reported at the estimated fair value of the product or service received, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 25 of APB Opinion
No. 29, Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions. Barter revenue shall be reported when commercials are broadcast, and merchandise or services received shall be reported when received or used. If merchandise or services are received prior to the broadcast of the commercial, a liability shall be reported. Likewise, if the commercial is broadcast ﬁrst, a receivable shall be reported.
c. Paragraph 38:
For purposes of imputing interest in accordance with Opinion 21, it is assumed that the
$1,000,000 payment on July 31, 19X1 and the
$6,000,000 payments on January 1, 19X2 and
19X3 relate to ﬁlms A and B and the $6,000,000 payment on January 1, 19X4 relates to ﬁlms C and D. Other simplifying assumptions or methods of assigning the payments to the ﬁlms could be made.
[For ease of use, the remainder of this paragraph, which is unaffected by this Statement, has been omitted.]
d. Paragraph 39:
Asset and Liability Recognition (Present Value
ApproachFair Value Approach)
[For ease of use, the remainder of this paragraph, which is unaffected by this Statement, has been omitted.]
e. Paragraph 40:
Expense Recognition (Present Value ApproachFair Value Approach)
[For ease of use, the remainder of this paragraph, which is unaffected by this Statement, has been omitted.]
E10. FASB Statement No. 65, Accounting for Certain Mortgage Banking Activities, is amended as follows: a. Paragraph 4, as amended:
Mortgage loans held for sale shall be reported at the lower of cost or marketfair value, determined as of the balance sheet date. If a mortgage

FAS157

loan has been the hedged item in a fair value hedge, the loan’s “cost” basis used in lower-ofcost-or-marketfair value accounting shall reﬂect the effect of the adjustments of its carrying amount made pursuant to paragraph 22(b) of
Statement 133. The amount by which cost exceeds marketfair value shall be accounted for as a valuation allowance. Changes in the valuation allowances shall be included in the determination of net income of the period in which the change occurs. Mortgage-backed securities held by not-for-proﬁt organizations shall be reported at fair value in accordance with the provisions of FASB Statement No. 124, Accounting for Certain Investments Held by Not-for-Proﬁt
Organizations.
b. Paragraph 6, as amended:
A mortgage loan transferred to a long-terminvestment classiﬁcation shall be transferred at the lower of cost or marketfair value on the transfer date. Any difference between the carrying amount of the loan and its outstanding principal balance shall be recognized as an adjustment to yield by the interest method. 2 A mortgage loan shall not be classiﬁed as a longterm investment unless the mortgage banking enterprise has both the ability and the intent to hold the loan for the foreseeable future or until maturity. After the securitization of a mortgage loan held for sale, any retained mortgage-backed securities shall be classiﬁed in accordance with the provisions of FASB Statement No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and
Equity Securities. However, a mortgage banking enterprise must classify as trading any retained mortgage-backed securities that it commits to sell before or during the securitization process.
c. Paragraph 9, as amended:
The marketfair value of mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities held for sale shall be determined by type of loan. At a minimum, separate determinations of marketfair value for residential (one- to four-family dwellings) and commercial mortgage loans shall be made. Either the aggregate or individual loan basis may be used in determining the lower of cost or marketfair value for each type of loan. MarketFair value for loans subject to investor purchase

FAS157–65

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

commitments (committed loans) and loans held on a speculative basis (uncommitted loans)3 shall be determined separately as follows:
a. Committed Loans. Market value for mMortgage loans covered by investor commitments shall be based on fair valuesthe fair values of the loans.
b. Uncommitted Loans. MarketFair value for uncommitted loans shall be based on the market in which the mortgage banking enterprise normally operates. That determination would include consideration of the following: (1) [This subparagraph has been deleted.
See Status page.]
(2) Market prices and yields sought by the mortgage banking enterprise’s normal market outlets
(3) Quoted Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) security prices or other public market quotations for long-term mortgage loan rates
(4) Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) and Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) current delivery prices
c. Uncommitted Mortgage-Backed Securities.
Fair value for uncommitted mortgagebacked securities that are collateralized by a mortgage banking enterprise’s own loans ordinarily shall be based on the marketfair value of the securities. If the trust holding the loans may be readily terminated and the loans sold directly, fair value for the securities shall be based on the marketfair value of the loans or the securities, depending on the mortgage banking enterprise’s sales intent.
Fair value for other uncommitted mortgagebacked securities shall be based on published mortgage-backed securities yields.
d. Paragraph 10, as amended:
Capitalized costs of acquiring rights to service mortgage loans, associated with the purchase or origination of mortgage loans (paragraph 13 of
FASB Statement No. 140, Accounting for
Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and
Extinguishments of Liabilities), shall be excluded from the cost of mortgage loans for the purpose of determining the lower of cost or marketfair value.

e. Paragraph 12, as amended:
The carrying amount of mortgage loans to be sold to an affiliated enterprise shall be adjusted to the lower of cost or marketfair value of the loans as of the date management decides that a sale to an affiliated enterprise will occur. The date shall be determined based on, at a minimum, formal approval by an authorized representative of the purchaser, issuance of a commitment to purchase the loans, and acceptance of the commitment by the selling enterprise. The amount of any adjustment shall be charged to income. f. Paragraph 29, as amended:
The method used in determining the lower of cost or marketfair value of mortgage loans (that is, aggregate or individual loan basis) shall be disclosed. E11. FASB Statement No. 67, Accounting for Costs and Initial Rental Operations of Real Estate Projects, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 8 and its related footnote 6:
Accounting for costs of amenities shall be based on management’s plans for the amenities in accordance with the following:
a. If an amenity is to be sold or transferred in connection with the sale of individual units, costs in excess of anticipated proceeds shall be allocated as common costs because the amenity is clearly associated with the development and sale of the project. The common costs include expected future operating costs to be borne by the developer until they are assumed by buyers of units in a project.
b. If an amenity is to be sold separately or retained by the developer, capitalizable costs of the amenity in excess of its estimated fair value as of the expected date of its substantial physical completion shall be allocated as common costs. For the purpose of determining the amount to be capitalized as common costs, the amount of cost previously allocated to the amenity shall not be revised after the amenity is substantially completed and available for use. A later sale of the amenity at more or less than its estimated fair value as of the date of substantial physical

FAS157–66

Fair Value Measurements

completion, less any accumulated depreciation, results in a gain or loss that shall be included in net income in the period in which the sale occurs.
Costs of amenities shall be allocated among land parcels6 beneﬁted and for which development is probable. A land parcel may be considered to be an individual lot or unit, an amenity, or a phase.
The fair value of a parcel is affected by its physical characteristics, its highest and best use, and the time and cost required for the buyer to make such use of the property considering access, development plans, zoning restrictions, and market absorption factors.
6A land parcel may be considered to be an individual lot or unit,

an amenity, or a phase.

b. Paragraph 28 (glossary):
Fair Value
The amount in cash or cash equivalent value of other consideration that a real estate parcel would yield in a current sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller (i.e., selling price), that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. The fair value of a parcel is affected by its physical characteristics, its probable ultimate use, and the time required for the buyer to make such use of the property considering access, development plans, zoning restrictions, and market absorption factors. FAS157

or liquidation sale. Fair value shall be measured by the market price if an active market exists for the investment. If no active market exists for an investment but such a market exists for similar investments, selling prices in that market may be helpful in estimating fair value. If a market price is not available, a forecast of expected cash ﬂows11a may aid in estimating fair value, provided the expected cash ﬂows are discounted at a current rate commensurate with the risk involved.12 11a

This pronouncement was issued prior to FASB Concepts
Statement No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and Present
Value in Accounting Measurements, and therefore the term expected cash ﬂows does not necessarily have the same meaning as that term in Concepts Statement 7.
12
For an indication of factors to be considered in determining the discount rate, refer to paragraphs 13 and 14 of APB Opinion
No. 21, Interest on Receivables and Payables. If signiﬁcant, tThe fair value of an investment shall be reduced by reﬂect the brokerage commissions and other costs normally incurred in a sale if those costs are signiﬁcant (similar to fair value less cost to sell).

b. Paragraph 264 (glossary):
Fair value
The amount that a pension plan could reasonably expect to receive for an investment in a current sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale.
E13. FASB Statement No. 106, Employers’Accounting for Postretirement Beneﬁts Other Than Pensions, is amended as follows:

E12. FASB Statement No. 87, Employers’ Accounting for Pensions, is amended as follows:

a. Paragraph 65, as amended, and its related footnotes 20a, as added previously, and 21:

a. Paragraph 49, as amended, and its related footnotes 11a, as added previously, and 12:

For purposes of the disclosures required by paragraphs 5 and 8 of FASB Statement No. 132 (revised 2003), Employers’Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement Beneﬁts, plan investments, whether equity or debt securities, real estate, or other, shall be measured at their fair value as of the measurement date. The fair value of an investment is the amount that the plan could reasonably expect to receive for it in a current sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. Fair value shall be measured by the market price if an active market exists for the investment. If no active market exists for an investment but an active market exists for similar investments, selling prices in that market may be

For purposes of measuring the minimum liability required by the provisions of paragraph 36 and for purposes of the disclosures required by paragraphs 5 and 8 of FASB Statement No. 132
(revised 2003), Employers’ Disclosures about
Pensions and Other Postretirement Beneﬁts, plan investments, whether equity or debt securities, real estate, or other, shall be measured at their fair value as of the measurement date.
The fair value of an investment is the amount that the plan could reasonably expect to receive for it in a current sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller, that is, other than in a forced

FAS157–67

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

helpful in estimating fair value. If a market price is not available, a forecast of expected cash ﬂows20a may aid in estimating fair value, provided the expected cash ﬂows are discounted at a current rate commensurate with the risk involved.21 (Refer to paragraph 71.)
20a

This pronouncement was issued prior to FASB Concepts
Statement No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and Present
Value in Accounting Measurements, and therefore the term expected cash ﬂows does not necessarily have the same meaning as that term in Concepts Statement 7.
21For an indication of factors to be considered in determining the discount rate, refer to paragraphs 13 and 14 of APB Opinion
No. 21, Interest on Receivables and Payables. If signiﬁcant, tThe fair value of an investment shall be reduced by reﬂect the brokerage commissions and other costs normally incurred in a sale if those costs are signiﬁcant (similar to fair value less cost to sell).

b. Paragraph 518 (glossary):
Fair value
The amount that a plan could reasonably expect to receive for an investment in a current sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller, that is, other than a forced or liquidation sale.
E14. FASB Statement No. 107, Disclosures about
Fair Value of Financial Instruments, is amended as follows: a. Paragraph 5:
For purposes of this Statement, the fair value of a ﬁnancial instrument is the amount at which the instrument could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. If a quoted market price is available for an instrument, the fair value to be disclosed for that instrument is the product of the number of trading units of the instrument times that market price.
b. Paragraph 6:
Under the deﬁnition of fair value in paragraph 5, the quoted price for a single trading unit in the most active market is the basis for determining market price and reporting fair value. This is the case even if placing orders to sell all of an entity’s holdings of an asset or to buy back all of a liability might affect the price, or if a market’s normal volume for one day might not be sufficient to absorb the quantity held or owed by an entity. c. Paragraph 9:
Generally accepted accounting principles already require disclosure of or subsequent measurement at fair value for many classes of ﬁnancial instruments. Although the deﬁnitions or the methods of estimation of fair value vary to some extent, and various terms such as market value, current value, or mark-to-market are used, the amounts computed under those requirements satisfy the requirements of this Statement and tThose requirements are not superseded or modiﬁed by this Statement.
d. Paragraph 10, as amended:
An entity shall disclose, either in the body of the ﬁnancial statements or in the accompanying notes,3a the fair value of ﬁnancial instruments for which it is practicable to estimate that value.
Fair value disclosed in the notes shall be presented together with the related carrying amount in a form that makes it clear whether the fair value and carrying amount represent assets or liabilities and how the carrying amounts relate to what is reported in the statement of ﬁnancial position. An entity also shall disclose the method(s) and signiﬁcant assumptions used to estimate the fair value of ﬁnancial instruments.3aa
3a
If disclosed in more than a single note, one of the notes shall include a summary table. The summary table shall contain the fair value and related carrying amounts and cross-references to the location(s) of the remaining disclosures required by this
Statement, as amended.
3aa
For ﬁnancial instruments recognized at fair value in the statement of ﬁnancial position, the disclosure requirements of FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, also apply. e. Paragraph 11:
Quoted market prices, if available, are the best evidence of the fair value of ﬁnancial instruments. If quoted market prices are not available, management’s best estimate of fair value may be based on the quoted market price of a ﬁnancial instrument with similar characteristics or on valuation techniques (for example, the present value of estimated future cash ﬂows using a discount rate commensurate with the risks involved, option pricing models, or matrix pricing models). Appendix A of this Statement contains examples of procedures for estimating fair value. FAS157–68

Fair Value Measurements

f. Paragraphs 18–29 (Appendix A) are deleted. This appendix provided examples of procedures for estimating the fair value of ﬁnancial instruments.
g. Paragraph 30:
The examples that follow are guides to implementation of the disclosure requirements of this
Statement. Entities are not required to display the information contained herein in the speciﬁc manner illustrated. Alternative ways of disclosing the information are permissible as long as they satisfy the disclosure requirements of this
Statement. Paragraphs 12 and 21 of this Statement describe possible additional voluntary disclosures that may be appropriate in certain circumstances.In some cases, an entity’s management may decide to provide further information about the fair value of a ﬁnancial instrument. For example, an entity may want to explain that although the fair value of its longterm debt is less than the carrying amount, settlement at the reported fair value may not be possible or may not be a prudent management decision for other reasons, or the entity may want to state that potential taxes and other expenses that would be incurred in an actual sale or settlement are not taken into consideration.

FAS157

The fair value of an equity security is readily determinable if sales prices or bid-and-asked quotations are currently available on a securities exchange registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) or in the overthe-counter market, provided that those prices or quotations for the over-the-counter market are publicly reported by the National Association of
Securities Dealers Automated Quotations systems or by the National Quotation BureauPink
Sheets LLC. Restricted stock2 does not meet that deﬁnitionmeets that deﬁnition if the restriction terminates within one year.
2The

fair value of restricted stock shall be measured based on the quoted price of an otherwise identical unrestricted security of the same issuer, adjusted for the effect of the restriction, in accordance with the provisions of FASB Statement No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements.Restricted stock, for the purpose of this Statement, means equity securities for which sale is restricted by governmental or contractual requirement (other than in connection with being pledged as collateral) except if that requirement terminates within one year or if the holder has the power by contract or otherwise to cause the requirement to be met within one year. Any portion of the security that can be reasonably expected to qualify for sale within one year, such as may be the case under Rule 144 or similar rules of the SEC, is not considered restricted.

b. Paragraph 137 (glossary), as amended:
Fair value

h. Paragraph 31, section titled “Commitments to extend credit, standby letters of credit, and ﬁnancial guarantees written” of Note V:
Commitments to extend credit, standby letters of credit, and ﬁnancial guarantees written
The fair value of commitments is estimated using the fees currently charged to enter into similar agreements, taking into account the remaining terms of the agreements and the present creditworthiness of the counterparties. For ﬁxed-rate loan commitments, fair value also considers the difference between current levels of interest rates and the committed rates. The fair value of guarantees and letters of credit is based on fees currently charged for similar agreements or on the estimated cost to terminate them or otherwise settle the obligations with the counterparties at the reporting date.
E15. FASB Statement No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 3(a) and its related footnote 2:

FAS157–69

The amount at which an asset could be bought or sold in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and should be used as the basis for the measurement, if available. If a quoted market price is available, the fair value is the product of the number of trading units times that market price. If a quoted market price is not available, the estimate of fair value should be based on the best information available in the circumstances. The estimate of fair value should consider prices for similar assets and the results of valuation techniques to the extent available in the circumstances. Examples of valuation techniques include the present value of estimated expected future cash ﬂows using a discount rate commensurate with the risks involved, option-pricing models, matrix pricing, option-adjusted spread models, and fundamental analysis. Valuation techniques for measuring assets should be consistent with the objective of measuring fair value. Those

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

techniques should incorporate assumptions that market participants would use in their estimates of values, including assumptions about interest rates, default, prepayment, and volatility. E16. FASB Statement No. 116, Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 19:
Quoted market prices, if available, are the best evidence of the fair value of monetary and nonmonetary assets, including services. If quoted market prices are not available, fair value may be estimated based on quoted market prices for similar assets, independent appraisals, or valuation techniques, such as the present value of estimated future cash ﬂows. Contributions of services that create or enhance nonﬁnancial assets may be measured by referring to either the fair value of the services received or the fair value of the asset or of the asset enhancement resulting from the services. A major uncertainty about the existence of value may indicate that an item received or given should not be recognized.7
b. Paragraph 20:
The present value of estimated future cash ﬂows using a discount rate commensurate with the risks involved is an appropriate measure of fair value of unconditional promises to give cash .8
SIf a present value technique is used to measure the fair value of unconditional promises to give cash, subsequent accruals of the interest element shall be accounted for as contribution income by donees and contribution expense by donors.
Not-for-proﬁt organizations shall report the contribution income as an increase in either temporarily or permanently restricted net assets if the underlying promise to give is donor restricted.
8An entity may estimate the future cash ﬂows of a portfolio of

short-term promises resulting from a mass fund-raising appeal by using experience it gained from similar appeals.

c. Paragraph 184:
Mission G would recognize the contributed property as an asset and as support and measure that property at its fair value (paragraph 8). Information necessary to estimate the fair value of that property could be obtained from various sources, including (a) amounts recently paid for

similar properties in the locality, (b) estimates of the market value of the property by local appraisers or real estate brokers, (c) an estimate of the fair value of the property by the local tax assessor’s office, or (d) estimates of its replacement cost and estimates of its replacement cost adjusted to reﬂect the price that would be received for the contributed property (paragraph 19). This contribution is unrestricted support because the donated assets may be used for any purpose and Mission G does not have a policy of implying time restrictions on gifts of long-lived assets (paragraph 16). If Mission G’s policy is to imply a time restriction, the contribution is temporarily restricted support and the restriction expires over the useful life of the building. d. Paragraph 186:
If Museum H capitalizes its collections, Museum H would recognize the fair value of the contributed work of art received as revenue and capitalize it as an asset at its fair value (paragraphs 13 and 19). The staff of Museum H is qualiﬁed to estimate the fair value of the contributed painting and evidence of its fair value exists. If Museum H does not capitalize its collections, Museum H is precluded from recognizing the contribution (paragraph 13) and would provide the information required by paragraphs 26 and 27.
e. Paragraph 208:
The 19X0 communication between Individual R and Church S speciﬁed an intention to give. The ability to modify a will at any time prior to death is well established; thus in 19X0 Church S did not receive a promise to give and did not recognize a contribution received. When the probate court declares the will valid, Church S would recognize a receivable and revenue for an unconditional promise to give at the fair value of its interest in the estate (paragraphs 8, 20, and
19−21). If the promise to give contained in the valid will was instead conditioned on a future and uncertain event, Church S would recognize the contribution when the condition was substantially met. A conditional promise in a valid will would be disclosed in notes to ﬁnancial statements (paragraph 25).

FAS157–70

Fair Value Measurements

E17. FASB Statement No. 124, Accounting for Certain Investments Held by Not-for-Proﬁt Organizations, is amended as follows:

option-pricing models, matrix pricing, option-adjusted spread models, and fundamental analysis. Valuation techniques for measuring assets should be consistent with the objective of measuring fair value. Those techniques should incorporate assumptions that market participants would use in their estimates of values, including assumptions about interest rates, default, prepayment, and volatility. a. Paragraph 3(a) and its related footnote 3:
Sales prices or bid-and-asked quotations for the security are currently available on a securities exchange registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or in the over-thecounter market, provided that those prices or quotations for the over-the-counter market are publicly reported by the National Association of
Securities Dealers Automated Quotations systems or by Pink Sheets LLCthe National Quotation Bureau. Restricted stock3 does not meet that deﬁnition meets that deﬁnition if the restriction terminates within one year.
3

The fair value of restricted stock shall be measured based on the quoted price of an otherwise identical unrestricted security of the same issuer, adjusted for the effect of the restriction, in accordance with the provisions of FASB Statement No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements.For the purpose of this Statement, restricted stock means equity securities for which sale is restricted at acquisition by governmental or contractual requirement
(other than in connection with being pledged as collateral) except if that requirement terminates within one year or if the holder has the power by contract or otherwise to cause the requirement to be met within one year. Any portion of the security that can be reasonably expected to qualify for sale within one year, such as may be the case under Rule 144 or similar rules of the SEC, is not considered restricted.

b. Paragraph 112 (glossary), as amended:
Fair value
The amount at which an asset could be bought or sold in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and should be used as the basis for the measurement, if available. If a quoted market price is available, the fair value is the product of the number of trading units times that market price. If a quoted market price is not available, the estimate of fair value should be based on the best information available in the circumstances. The estimate of fair value should consider prices for similar assets and the results of valuation techniques to the extent available in the circumstances. Examples of valuation techniques include the present value of estimated expected future cash ﬂows using a discount rate commensurate with the risks involved,

FAS157

E18. FASB Statement No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 16A, as added previously:
Any difference between a transaction price and the estimated fair value at the inception of a hybrid ﬁnancial instrument for which the fair value election is applied shall not be recognized in earnings unless that estimated fair value is (a) obtained from a quoted market price in an active market, or (b) is evidenced by comparison to other observable current market transactions, or
(c) is based on a valuation technique incorporating observable market data.
b. Paragraph 17, as amended, and its related footnote 6c, as added previously:
An entity shall recognize all of its derivative instruments in its statement of ﬁnancial position as either assets or liabilities depending on the rights or obligations under the contracts. All derivative instruments shall be measured at fair value. The guidance in FASB Statement No. 107, Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments, as amended, shall apply in determining the fair value of a ﬁnancial instrument (derivative or hedged item). If expected future cash ﬂows are used to estimate fair value, those expected cash ﬂows6c shall be the best estimate based on reasonable and supportable assumptions and projections. All available evidence shall be considered in developing estimates of expected future cash ﬂows. The weight given to the evidence shall be commensurate with the extent to which the evidence can be veriﬁed objectively. If a range is estimated for either the amount or the timing of possible cash ﬂows, the likelihood of possible outcomes shall be considered in determining the best estimate of future cash ﬂows.

FAS157–71

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

6cThis

Statement was issued prior to FASB Concepts Statement No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and Present Value in
Accounting Measurements, and therefore the term expected cash ﬂows does not necessarily have the same meaning as that term does in Concepts Statement 7.

c. Paragraph 540 (glossary):
Fair value
The amount at which an asset (liability) could be bought (incurred) or sold (settled) in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and should be used as the basis for the measurement, if available. If a quoted market price is available, the fair value is the product of the number of trading units times that market price. If a quoted market price is not available, the estimate of fair value should be based on the best information available in the circumstances. The estimate of fair value should consider prices for similar assets or similar liabilities and the results of valuation techniques to the extent available in the circumstances. Examples of valuation techniques include the present value of estimated expected future cash ﬂows using discount rates commensurate with the risks involved, option-pricing models, matrix pricing, option-adjusted spread models, and fundamental analysis. Valuation techniques for measuring assets and liabilities should be consistent with the objective of measuring fair value. Those techniques should incorporate assumptions that market participants would use in their estimates of values, future revenues, and future expenses, including assumptions about interest rates, default, prepayment, and volatility. In measuring forward contracts, such as foreign currency forward contracts, at fair value by discounting estimated future cash ﬂows, an entity should base the estimate of future cash ﬂows on the changes in the forward rate (rather than the spot rate). In measuring ﬁnancial liabilities and nonﬁnancial derivatives that are liabilities at fair value by discounting estimated future cash ﬂows (or equivalent outﬂows of other assets), an objective is to use discount rates at which those liabilities could be settled in an arm’s-length transaction.

E19. FASB Statement No. 136, Transfers of Assets to a Not-for-Proﬁt Organization or Charitable Trust
That Raises or Holds Contributions for Others, is amended as follows:
a. Summary:
This Statement requires that a speciﬁed beneﬁciary recognize its rights to the assets held by a recipient organization as an asset unless the donor has explicitly granted the recipient organization variance power. Those rights are either an interest in the net assets of the recipient organization, a beneﬁcial interest, or a receivable. If the beneﬁciary and the recipient organization are ﬁnancially interrelated organizations, the beneﬁciary is required to recognize its interest in the net assets of the recipient organization and adjust that interest for its share of the change in net assets of the recipient organization. If the beneﬁciary has an unconditional right to receive all or a portion of the speciﬁed cash ﬂows from a charitable trust or other identiﬁable pool of assets, the beneﬁciary is required to recognize that beneﬁcial interest, measuring and subsequently remeasuring it at fair value, using a valuation technique such as the present value of the estimated expected future cash ﬂows. If the recipient organization is explicitly granted variance power, the speciﬁed beneﬁciary does not recognize its potential for future distributions from the assets held by the recipient organization. In all other cases, a beneﬁciary recognizes its rights as a receivable.
b. Paragraph 15:
A speciﬁed beneﬁciary shall recognize its rights to the assets (ﬁnancial or nonﬁnancial) held by a recipient organization as an asset unless the recipient organization is explicitly granted variance power. Those rights are either an interest in the net assets of the recipient organization, a beneﬁcial interest, or a receivable. If the beneﬁciary and the recipient organization are ﬁnancially interrelated organizations, the beneﬁciary shall recognize its interest in the net assets of the recipient organization and adjust that interest for its share of the change in net assets of the recipient organization.6 If the beneﬁciary has an unconditional right to receive all or a portion of the speciﬁed cash ﬂows from a charitable trust or other identiﬁable pool of assets, the beneﬁciary shall recognize that beneﬁcial interest, measuring and subsequently remeasuring it at fair

FAS157–72

Fair Value Measurements

value, using a valuation technique such as the present value of the estimated expected future cash ﬂows. In all other cases, a beneﬁciary shall recognize its rights to the assets held by a recipient organization as a receivable and contribution revenue in accordance with the provisions of
Statement 116 for unconditional promises to give.7
c. Paragraph 36:
This Statement does not establish standards for the trustee, National Bank (paragraph 9). Because Museum is unable to inﬂuence the operating or ﬁnancial decisions of the trustee, Museum and National Bank are not ﬁnancially interrelated organizations (paragraph 13(a)). Therefore,
Museum would recognize its asset (a beneﬁcial interest in the trust) and contribution revenue that increases temporarily restricted net assets
(paragraph 15). Museum would measure its beneﬁcial interest at fair value, using a valuation technique such as the present value of the estimated expected future cash receipts from the trust’s assets (paragraph 15). That value generally can be measured by the fair value of the assets contributed to the trust.
E20. FASB Statement No. 140, Accounting for
Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 11(c):
Initially measure at fair value assets obtained and liabilities incurred in a sale (paragraphs 68−70) or, if it is not practicable to estimate the fair value of an asset or a liability, apply alternative measures (paragraphs 71 and 72)
b. Paragraph 17(h), as amended:
If the entity has securitized ﬁnancial assets during any period presented and accounts for that transfer as a sale, for each major asset type (for example, mortgage loans, credit card receivables, and automobile loans):
(1) Its accounting policies for initially measuring the interests that continue to be held by the transferor, if any, and servicing assets or servicing liabilities, if any, including the methodology (whether quoted market price, prices based on sales of similar assets

FAS157

and liabilities, or prices based on valuation techniques) used in determining their fair value (paragraphs 68–70)
[For ease of use, the remainder of this subparagraph, which is unaffected by this Statement, has been omitted.]
c. Paragraph 17(i), as amended:
If the entity has interests that continue to be held by the transferor in ﬁnancial assets that it has securitized or servicing assets or liabilities relating to assets that it has securitized, at the date of the latest statement of ﬁnancial position presented, for each major asset type (for example, mortgage loans, credit card receivables, and automobile loans):
(1) Its accounting policies for subsequently measuring those retained interests, including the methodology (whether quoted market price, prices based on sales of similar assets and liabilities, or prices based on valuation techniques) used in determining their fair value (paragraphs 68–70)
(2) The key assumptions used in subsequently measuring the fair value of those interests
(including, at a minimum, quantitative information about discount rates, expected prepayments including the expected weighted-average life of prepayable ﬁnancial assets, and anticipated credit losses, including expected static pool losses,9 if applicable)9a 9
Expected static pool losses can be calculated by summing the actual and projected future credit losses and dividing the sum by the original balance of the pool of assets.
9aThe timing and amount of future cash ﬂows for retained interests in securitizations are commonly uncertain, especially if those interests are subordinate to more senior beneﬁcial interests. Thus, estimates of future cash ﬂows used for a fair value measurement depend heavily on assumptions about default and prepayment of all the assets securitized, because of the implicit credit or prepayment risk enhancement arising from the subordination. [For ease of use, the remainder of this subparagraph, which is unaffected by this Statement, has been omitted.]
d. Paragraph 63(b):
Initially measure servicing assets and servicing liabilities at fair value, if practicable (paragraphs 10, 11(b), 11(c), 71, and 68–72).

FAS157–73

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

e. Paragraphs 68–70 and the heading preceding paragraph 68 and footnotes 20 and 21 to paragraph 69, as amended:
Fair Value
68. The fair value of an asset (or liability) is the amount at which that asset (or liability) could be bought (or incurred) or sold (or settled) in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and shall be used as the basis for the measurement, if available. If a quoted market price is available, the fair value is the product of the number of trading units times that market price.
69. If quoted market prices are not available, the estimate of fair value shall be based on the best information available in the circumstances. The estimate of fair value shall consider prices for similar assets and liabilities and the results of valuation techniques to the extent available in the circumstances. Examples of valuation techniques include the present value of estimated future cash ﬂows,20 option-pricing models, matrix pricing, option-adjusted spread models, and fundamental analysis. Valuation techniques for measuring ﬁnancial assets and liabilities and servicing assets and liabilities shall be consistent with the objective of measuring fair value.
Those techniques shall incorporate assumptions that market participants would use in their estimates of values, future revenues, and future expenses, including assumptions about interest rates, default, prepayment, and volatility.21 In measuring ﬁnancial liabilities and servicing liabilities at fair value, the objective is to estimate the value of the assets required currently to
(a) settle the liability with the holder or (b) transfer a liability to an entity of comparable credit standing. 70. Estimates of expected future cash ﬂows, if used to estimate fair value, shall be based on reasonable and supportable assumptions and projections. All available evidence shall be considered in developing estimates of expected future cash ﬂows. The weight given to the evidence shall be commensurate with the extent to which the evidence can be veriﬁed objectively. If a range is estimated for either the amount or timing of possible cash ﬂows, the likelihood of pos-

sible outcomes shall be considered either directly, if applying an expected cash ﬂow approach, or indirectly through the risk-adjusted discount rate, if determining the best estimate of future cash ﬂows.
20

FASB Concepts Statement No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and Present Value in Accounting Measurements, discusses the use of present value techniques in measuring the fair value of an asset (or liability) in paragraphs 42−54 and 75−88. The
Board believes that an expected present value technique is superior to traditional “best estimate” techniques, especially in situations in which the timing or amount of estimated cash ﬂows is uncertain, as is often the case for interests that continue to be held by a transferor in transferred ﬁnancial assets. Concepts Statement 7 also discusses in paragraph 44 the steps needed to complete a proper search for the “rate commensurate with the risk” in applying the traditional technique.
21
The timing and amount of future cash ﬂows for interests in securitizations that continue to be held by a transferor are commonly uncertain, especially if those interests are subordinate to more senior beneﬁcial interests. Applying the present value approach depends heavily on assumptions about default and prepayment of all the assets securitized, because of the implicit credit or prepayment risk enhancement arising from the subordination. f. Paragraph 364 (glossary):
Fair value
Refer to paragraphs 68−70.
E21. FASB Statement No. 141, Business Combinations, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph F1 (glossary):
Fair value
The amount at which an asset (or liability) could be bought (or incurred) or sold (or settled) in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale.
E22. FASB Statement No. 142, Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 3:
Appendix A to this Statement provides implementation guidance on how intangible assets should be accounted for in accordance with this
Statement. Appendix A is an integral part of the standards provided in this Statement. Appendix B provides background information and the basis for the Board’s conclusions. Appendix C provides illustrations of some of the ﬁnancial

FAS157–74

Fair Value Measurements

statement disclosures that this Statement requires. Appendix D lists other accounting pronouncements superseded or amended by this Statement. Appendix E includes relevant excerpts from FASB Concepts Statement
No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and
Present Value in Accounting Measurements. Appendix F provides a glossary of terms used in this Statement.
b. Footnote 12 to paragraph 17:
The fair value of an intangible asset shall be estimated using the guidance in paragraphs 23–25
(except the guidance speciﬁc to estimating the fair value of a reporting unit).
c. Paragraph 19:
The ﬁrst step of the goodwill impairment test, used to identify potential impairment, compares the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount, including goodwill. The guidance in paragraphs 23−25 shall be used to determineThe guidance in paragraphs 23 and 25 shall be considered in determining the fair value of a reporting unit. If the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying amount, goodwill of the reporting unit is considered not impaired, thus the second step of the impairment test is unnecessary. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the second step of the goodwill impairment test shall be performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any.
d. Paragraph 23 and its related footnote 16:
The fair value of an asset (or liability) is the amount at which that asset (or liability) could be bought (or incurred) or sold (or settled) in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. Thus, the fair value of a reporting unit refers to the amount at which the unit as a whole could be bought or sold in a current transaction between willing parties. The fair value of a reporting unit refers to the price that would be received to sell the unit as a whole in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and shall be used as the basis for the measurement, if available.
However, the market price of an individual equity security (and thus the market capitalization

FAS157

of a reporting unit with publicly traded equity securities) may not be representative of the fair value of the reporting unit as a whole.16 Substantial value may arise from the ability to take advantage of synergies and other beneﬁts that ﬂow from control over another entity. Consequently, measuring the fair value of a collection of assets and liabilities that operate together in a controlled entity is different from measuring the fair value of that entity’s individual equity securities. An acquiring entity often is willing to pay more for equity securities that give it a controlling interest than an investor would pay for a number of equity securities representing less than a controlling interest. That control premium may cause the fair value of a reporting unit to exceed its market capitalization. The quoted market price of an individual equity security, therefore, need not be the sole measurement basis of the fair value of a reporting unit.
16

Substantial value may arise from the ability to take advantage of synergies and other beneﬁts that ﬂow from control over another entity. Consequently, measuring the fair value of a collection of assets and liabilities that operate together in a controlled entity is different from measuring the fair value of that entity’s individual equity securities. An acquiring entity often is willing to pay more for equity securities that give it a controlling interest than an investor would pay for a number of equity securities representing less than a controlling interest. That control premium may cause the fair value of a reporting unit to exceed its market capitalization.

e. Paragraph 24:
If quoted market prices are not available, the estimate of fair value shall be based on the best information available, including prices for similar assets and liabilities and the results of using other valuation techniques. A present value technique is often the best available technique with which to estimate the fair value of a group of net assets (such as a reporting unit). If a present value technique is used to measure fair value, estimates of future cash ﬂows used in that technique shall be consistent with the objective of measuring fair value. Those cash ﬂow estimates shall incorporate assumptions that marketplace participants would use in their estimates of fair value. If that information is not available without undue cost and effort, an entity may use its own assumptions. Those cash ﬂow estimates shall be based on reasonable and supportable assumptions and shall consider all available evidence. The weight given to the evidence shall be commensurate with the extent to which the evidence can be veriﬁed objectively. If a range is

FAS157–75

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

estimated for the amounts or timing of possible cash ﬂows, the likelihood of possible outcomes shall be considered. Concepts Statement 7 discusses the essential elements of a present value measurement (paragraph 23), provides examples of circumstances in which an entity’s cash ﬂows might differ from the market cash ﬂows (paragraph 32), and discusses the use of present value techniques in measuring the fair value of an asset or a liability (paragraphs 39–54 and 75–88). Appendix E of this Statement incorporates those paragraphs of Concepts Statement 7.
f. Appendix E is deleted. This appendix provided excerpts from FASB Concepts Statement No. 7,
Using Cash Flow Information and Present Value in Accounting Measurements.
g. Paragraph F1 (glossary):
Fair value
The amount at which an asset (or liability) could be bought (or incurred) or sold (or settled) in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale.

ity at fair value. That is because in Statement 5 uncertainty is used to decide whether to recognize a liability, whereas in Concepts Statement 7 uncertainties in the amount and timing of settlement are incorporated into the fair value measurement of the recognized liability. This Statement requires that all asset retirement obligations within the scope of this Statement be recognized when a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made.
7. The fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation is the amount at which that liability could be settled in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation transaction. Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and shall be used as the basis for the measurement, if available. If quoted market prices are not available, the estimate of fair value shall be based on the best information available in the circumstances, including prices for similar liabilities and the results of present value (or other valuation) techniques.
5Appendix F incorporates those paragraphs.

b. Paragraph 8 and its related footnotes 6 and 7:
E23. FASB Statement No. 143, Accounting for Asset
Retirement Obligations, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraphs 6 and 7 and footnote 5 to paragraph 6:
6. Statement 5 and FASB Concepts Statement
No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and
Present Value in Accounting Measurements, deal with uncertainty in different ways. Statement 5 deals with uncertainty about whether a loss has been incurred by setting forth criteria to determine when to recognize a loss contingency.
Concepts Statement 7 addresses measurement of liabilities and provides a measurement technique to deal with uncertainties about the amount and timing of the future cash ﬂows necessary to settle the liability. Paragraphs 55–61 of
Concepts Statement 75 discuss, in detail, the relationship between the fair value measurement objective and expected cash ﬂow approach that is articulated in Concepts Statement 7 and accounting for contingencies under Statement 5.
The guidance in Statement 5 and FASB Interpretation No. 14, Reasonable Estimation of the
Amount of a Loss, are not applicable to a liability for which the objective is to measure that liabil-

An expected present value technique6 will usually be the only appropriate is often the best available technique with which to estimate the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation.6a An entity, when using that technique, shall discount the expected cash ﬂows using a credit-adjusted risk-free rate. Thus, the effect of an entity’s credit standing is reﬂected in the discount rate rather than in the expected cash ﬂows. If a present value technique is used to estimate fair value, estimates of future cash ﬂows used in that technique shall be consistent with the objective of measuring fair value.7 Concepts
Statement 7 discusses two present value techniques: a traditional approach, in which a single set of estimated cash ﬂows and a single interest rate (a rate commensurate with the risk) are used to estimate fair value, and an expected cash ﬂow approach, in which multiple cash ﬂow scenarios that reﬂect the range of possible outcomes and a credit-adjusted risk-free rate are used to estimate fair value. Although either present value technique could theoretically be used for a fair value measurement, the expected cash ﬂow approach will usually be the only appropriate technique

FAS157–76

Fair Value Measurements

for an asset retirement obligation. As discussed in paragraph 44 of Concepts Statement 7, proper application of a traditional approach entails analysis of at least two liabilities—one that exists in the marketplace and has an observable interest rate and the liability being measured. The appropriate rate of interest for the cash ﬂows being measured must be inferred from the observable rate of interest of some other liability, and to draw that inference the characteristics of the cash ﬂows must be similar to those of the liability being measured. It would be rare, if ever, that there would be an observable rate of interest for a liability that has cash ﬂows similar to an asset retirement obligation being measured. In addition, an asset retirement obligation will usually have uncertainties in both timing and amount. In that circumstance, employing a traditional present value technique, where uncertainty is incorporated into the rate, will be difficult, if not impossible. 6Appendix

F incorporates paragraphs 39–54 and 75–88 of
Concepts Statement 7 that discuss present value techniques.
6aProper application of a discount rate adjustment technique entails analysis of at least two liabilities—the liability that exists in the marketplace and has an observable interest rate and the liability being measured. The appropriate rate of interest for the cash ﬂows being measured must be inferred from the observable rate of interest of some other liability, and to draw that inference the characteristics of the cash ﬂows must be similar to those of the liability being measured. Rarely, if ever, would there be an observable rate of interest for a liability that has cash ﬂows similar to an asset retirement obligation being measured.
In addition, an asset retirement obligation usually will have uncertainties in both timing and amount. In that circumstance, employing a discount rate adjustment technique, where uncertainty is incorporated into the rate, will be difficult, if not impossible. 7Appendix F incorporates paragraph 23 of Concepts Statement 7 that discusses the essential elements of a fair value measurement. c. Paragraph 9 and its related footnote 8:
The cash ﬂows used in estimates of fair value shall incorporate assumptions that marketplace participants would use in their estimates of fair value whenever that information is available without undue cost and effort. Otherwise, an entity may use its own assumptions.8 Those estimates shall be based on reasonable and supportable assumptions and shall consider all available evidence. The weight given to the evidence shall be commensurate with the extent to which the evidence can be veriﬁed objectively. If a range is estimated for the timing or the amount of possible cash ﬂows, the likelihood of possible out-

FAS157

comes shall be considered. An entity, when using the expected cash ﬂow technique, shall discount the estimated cash ﬂows using a creditadjusted risk-free rate. Thus, the effect of the entity’s credit standing is reﬂected in the discount rate rather than in the estimated cash ﬂows.
8Paragraph

32 of Concepts Statement 7 (included in Appendix F) provides reasons why an entity’s assumptions may differ from those expected by others in the marketplace.

d. Footnote 12 to paragraph 14:
The subsequent measurement provisions require an entity to identify undiscounted estimated cash ﬂows associated with the initial measurement of a liability. Therefore, an entity that obtains an initial measurement of fair value from a market price or from a technique other than the expected cash ﬂow approach described in Concepts Statement 7 an expected present value technique must determine the undiscounted cash ﬂows and estimated timing of those cash ﬂows that are embodied in that fair value amount for purposes of applying the subsequent measurement provisions. Appendix E includes an example of the subsequent measurement of a liability that is initially obtained from a market price. e. Paragraph A19:
The objective of the initial measurement of a liability for an asset retirement obligation shall be fair value. Quoted market prices are the best representation of fair value. When market prices are not available, the amount of the liability must be estimated using some other measurement technique. The use of an expected present value technique in measuring the fair value of a liability is discussed in Concepts Statement 7.
f. Paragraph A20 and its related footnote 17:
In estimating the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation using an expected present value technique, an entity shall begin by estimating the expected cash ﬂows that reﬂect, to the extent possible, a marketplace assessment of the cost and timing of performing the required retirement activities. The measurement objective is to determine the amount a third party17 would demand to assume the obligation.
Considerations in estimating those expected cash ﬂows include developing and incorporating

FAS157–77

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

explicit assumptions, to the extent possible, about all of the following:
a. The costs that a third party would incur in performing the tasks necessary to retire the asset b. Other amounts that a third party would include in determining the price of settlementthe transfer, including, for example, inﬂation, overhead, equipment charges, proﬁt margin, and advances in technology
c. The extent to which the amount of a third party’s costs or the timing of its costs would vary under different future scenarios and the relative probabilities of those scenarios
d. The price that a third party would demand and could expect to receive for bearing the uncertainties and unforeseeable circumstances inherent in the obligation, sometimes referred to as a market-risk premium.
It is expected that uncertainties about the amount and timing of future cash ﬂows can be accommodated by using the expected cash ﬂowpresent value technique and therefore will not prevent the determination of a reasonable estimate of fair value.
17In

this context, a third party is meant to encompass participants (or hypothetical participants) that provide settlement of asset retirement obligations in a market.

g. Paragraph A21 and its related footnotes 18 and 19:
An entity shall discount estimates of futureexpected cash ﬂows using an interest rate that equates to a risk-free interest rate adjusted for the effect of its credit standing (a credit-adjusted risk-free rate).18 The risk-free interest rate is the interest rate on monetary assets that are essentially risk free and that have maturity dates that coincide with the expected timing of the estimated cash ﬂows required to satisfy the asset retirement obligation.19 Concepts Statement 7 illustrates an adjustment to the risk-free interest rate to reﬂect the credit standing of the entity, but acknowledges that aAdjustments for default risk can be reﬂected in either the discount rate or the estimatedexpected cash ﬂows. The Board believes that in most situations, an entity will know the adjustment required to the risk-free interest rate to reﬂect its credit standing. Consequently, it would be easier and less complex to reﬂect that adjustment in the discount rate. In addition, be-

cause of the requirements in paragraph 15 relating to upward and downward adjustments in expected cash ﬂowscash ﬂow estimates, it is essential to the operationality of this Statement that the credit standing of the entity be reﬂected in the interestdiscount rate. For those reasons, the Board chose to require that the risk-free rate be adjusted for the credit standing of the entity to determine the discount rate.
18
In determining the adjustment for the effect of its credit standing, an entity should consider the effects of all terms, collateral, and existing guarantees that would affect the amount required to settle on the fair value of the liability.
19
In the United States, the risk-free rate is the rate for zerocoupon U.S. Treasury instruments.

h. Paragraph A26:
Revisions to a previously recorded asset retirement obligation will result from changes in the assumptions used to estimate the expected cash ﬂows required to settle the asset retirement obligation, including changes in estimated probabilities, amounts, and timing of the settlement of the asset retirement obligation, as well as changes in the legal requirements of an obligation. Any changes that result in upward revisions to the undiscounted estimatedexpected cash ﬂows shall be treated as a new liability and discounted at the current rate. Any downward revisions to the undiscounted estimatedexpected cash ﬂows will result in a reduction of the asset retirement obligation. For downward revisions, the amount of the liability to be removed from the existing accrual shall be discounted at the credit-adjusted risk-free rate that was used at the time the obligation to which the downward revision relates was originally recorded (or the historical weighted-average rate if the year(s) to which the downward revision applies cannot be determined). i. Paragraph C1:
This appendix includes four examples that illustrate the recognition and measurement provisions of this Statement. Example 1 illustrates
(a) initial measurement of a liability for an asset retirement obligation using an expected present value technique, (b) subsequent measurement assuming that there are no changes in estimatedexpected cash ﬂows, and (c) settlement of the asset retirement obligation liability (ARO liability) at the end of its term. Example 2 is similar to

FAS157–78

Fair Value Measurements

Example 1. However, Example 2 illustrates subsequent measurement of an ARO liability after a change in estimatedexpected cash ﬂows.
Example 3 highlights the recognition and measurement provisions of this Statement for an
ARO liability that is incurred over more than one reporting period. Example 4 illustrates accounting for asset retirement obligations that are conditional and that have a low likelihood of enforcement. j. Paragraph C3(d):
A contractor would typically demand and receive a premium (market risk premium) for bearing the uncertainty and unforeseeable cir-

FAS157

cumstances inherent in “locking in” today’s price for a project that will not occur for
10 years. The entity estimates the amount of that premium to be 5 percent of the estimated inﬂation-adjusted cash ﬂowsexpected cash ﬂows adjusted for inﬂation.
k. Paragraph C4:
On December 31, 2012, the entity settles its asset retirement obligation by using its internal workforce at a cost of $351,000. Assuming no changes during the 10-year period in the expected cash ﬂows used to estimate the obligation, the entity would recognize a gain of
$89,619 on settlement of the obligation:

Labor
Allocated overhead and equipment charges (80 percent of labor)
Total costs incurred
ARO liability

$195,000
156,000
351,000
440,619

Gain on settlement of obligation

$ 89,619

Initial Measurement of the ARO Liability at January 1, 2003
Expected
Cash Flows
1/1/03
Expected labor costs
Allocated overhead and equipment charges (.80 × $131,250)
Contractor’s markup [.20 × ($131,250 + $105,000)]

$131,250
105,000
47,250

Expected cash ﬂows before inﬂation adjustment
Inﬂation factor assuming 4 percent rate for 10 years

283,500
1.4802

Expected cash ﬂows adjusted for inﬂation
Market-risk premium (.05 × $419,637)

419,637
20,982

Expected cash ﬂows adjusted for market risk

$440,619

Expected Ppresent value using credit-adjusted risk-free rate of 8.5 percent for 10 years

$194,879

[For ease of use, the rest of this example, which is unaffected by this Statement, has been omitted.]

FAS157–79

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

vised estimate of expected cash ﬂows for labor costs is as follows:

l. Paragraph C6:
On December 31, 2004, the entity revises its estimate of labor costs to reﬂect an increase of
10 percent in the marketplace. In addition, it revises the probability assessments related to those labor costs. The change in labor costs results in an upward revision to the undiscountedexpected cash ﬂows; consequently, the incremental expected cash ﬂows are discounted at the current credit-adjusted risk-free rate of 8 percent. All other assumptions remain unchanged. The re-

Cash Flow
Estimate
$110,000
137,500
192,500

Probability
Assessment
30%
45
25

Expected
Cash Flows
$ 33,000
61,875
48,125
$143,000

m. Paragraph C7:
[For ease of use, only the portion of this example affected by this Statement has been reproduced.]

Subsequent Measurement of the ARO Liability Reﬂecting a Change in Labor Cost Estimate as of December 31, 2004
Revised
Incremental
Expected
Cash Flows
12/31/04
Incremental expected labor costs ($143,000 – $131,250)
Allocated overhead and equipment charges (.80 × $11,750)
Contractor’s markup [.20 × ($11,750 + $9,400)]

$11,750
9,400
4,230

Expected cash ﬂows before inﬂation adjustment
Inﬂation factor assuming 4 percent rate for 8 years

25,380
1.3686

Expected cash ﬂows adjusted for inﬂation
Market-risk premium (.05 × $34,735)

34,735
1,737

Expected cash ﬂows adjusted for market risk

$36,472

Expected Ppresent value of incremental liability using credit-adjusted risk-free rate of
8 percent for 8 years

$19,704

FAS157–80

FAS157

Fair Value Measurements

n. Paragraph C8:
Example 3 depicts an entity that places a nuclear utility plant into service on December 31, 2003.
The entity is legally required to decommission the plant at the end of its useful life, which is estimated to be 20 years. Based on the requirements of this Statement, the entity recognizes a liability for an asset retirement obligation and capitalizes an amount for an asset retirement cost over the life of the plant as contamination occurs. The following schedule reﬂects the undiscounted expected cash ﬂows and respective credit-adjusted risk-free rates used to measure each portion of the liability through December 31, 2005, at which time the plant is 90 percent contaminated.

Date

Undiscounted
Expected
Cash Flows

12/31/03
12/31/04
12/31/05

$23,000
1,150
1,900

Credit-Adjusted
Risk-Free Rate
9.0%
8.5
9.2

cash ﬂows that were used to measure those portions of the liability recognized on December 31, 2003, and December 31, 2004. Because the change results in an upward revision to the undiscounted estimated cash ﬂows, the incremental estimated cash ﬂow is discounted at the current credit-adjusted risk-free rate of 9.2 percent. As a result, $2,300 (10 percent of $23,000) plus $115 (10 percent of $1,150) plus $1,900
(resulting from contamination in 2005), which totals $4,315 of incremental undiscounted cash ﬂows are discounted at the then current creditadjusted risk-free rate of 9.2 percent and recorded as a liability on December 31, 2005., which results in an upward revision to the expected cash ﬂows. Accordingly, the incremental expected cash ﬂows of $2,415 [$2,300 (10 percent of $23,000) plus $115 (10 percent of
$1,150)] are discounted at the then-current credit-adjusted risk-free rate of 9.2 percent and recorded as a liability on December 31, 2005.
[For ease of use, only the portion of this example affected by this Statement has been reproduced.]

o. Paragraph C9:
On December 31, 2005, the entity increases by
10 percent its estimate of undiscounted expected

Date Incurred
12/31/03
Initial measurement of the ARO liability:
Expected cash ﬂows adjusted for market risk
Credit-adjusted risk-free rate
Discount period in years
Expected present value
Measurement of incrementalrevision in expected cash ﬂows occurring on December 31, 2005:
IncrementalRevision in expected cash ﬂows (increase of
10 percent) [($23,000 × 10%) + ($1,150 × 10%)]
Credit-adjusted risk-free rate at December 31, 2005
Discount period remaining in years
Expected present value

FAS157–81

$23,000
9.00%
20
$4,104

12/31/04

$1,150
8.50%
19
$244

12/31/05

$1,900
9.20%
18
$390

$2,415
9.20%
18
$495

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

Carrying Amount of Liability Incurred in 2005
Plus Effect of Change in EstimatedExpected Cash Flows

Year

Liability
Balance
1/1

New
Liability

Liability
Balance
12/31

$390

$885

Change in
Cash Flow
Estimate

New
Liability

Total
Carrying
Amount
12/31

$495

2005

Change in
Cash Flow
Estimate
$495

Accretion
(9.2%)

$4,104
244
390

$4,104
4,717
6,026

Carrying Amount of Total Liability

Year

Liability
Balance
1/1

Accretion

2003
2004
2005

$4,104
4,717

$369
424

p. Paragraph C11:
At the end of the ﬁrst year, 20 percent of the timber has been harvested. The lessee estimates that the fair value ofpossible cash ﬂows associated with performing reforestation activities in
4 years for the portion of the land that has been harvested will be $300,000. When estimating the fair value of the ARO liability to be recorded
(using an expected present value technique), the lessee incorporates the probability that the restoration provisions will not be enforced:
Possible
Cash Flows
Estimate
$300,000
0

Probability
Assessment
10%
90

Expected
Cash Flows
$30,000
0
$30,000

Expected Ppresent value using credit-adjusted risk-free rate of
8.5 percent for 4 years

$21,647

r. Appendix F is deleted. This appendix provided excerpts from Concepts Statement 7.
E24. FASB Statement No. 144, Accounting for the
Impairment or Disposal of LongLived Assets, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 22 and its related footnote 12:
The fair value of an asset (liability) is the amount at which that asset (liability) could be bought (incurred) or sold (settled) in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale.12 Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and shall be used as the basis for the measurement, if available. However, in many instances, quoted market prices in active markets will not be available for the long-lived assets (asset groups) covered by this Statement.
In those instances, the estimate of fair value shall be based on the best information available, including prices for similar assets (groups) and the results of using other valuation techniques.

q. Paragraph C12:
12

During the term of the lease, the lessee should reassess the likelihood that the lessor will require reforestation. For example, if the lessee subsequently determines that the likelihood of the lessor electing the reforestation option has increased, that change will result in a change in the estimate of future expected cash ﬂows and be accounted for as illustrated in Example 2.

The fair value of an asset or a disposal group refers to the amount at which the group as a whole could be bought or sold in a current single transaction. Therefore, the fair value of the group would not necessarily equate to the sum of the fair values of the individual assets and liabilities of the group.

b. Paragraph 23 and its related footnote 13:
A present value technique is often the best available valuation technique with which to estimate

FAS157–82

Fair Value Measurements

the fair value of a long-lived asset (asset group).
Paragraphs 39–54 of FASB Concepts Statement
No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and
Present Value in Accounting Measurements, discuss the use of two present value techniques to measure the fair value of an asset (liability).13
The ﬁrst is expected present value, in which multiple cash ﬂow scenarios that reﬂect the range of possible outcomes and a risk-free rate are used to estimate fair value. The second is traditional present value, in which a single set of estimated cash ﬂows and a single interest rate (a rate commensurate with the risk) are used to estimate fair value. Either present value technique can be used for a fair value measurement. However, fFor long-lived assets (asset groups) that have uncertainties both in timing and amount, an expected present value technique will often be the appropriate technique with which to estimate fair value. (Example 4 of Appendix A illustrates the use of that technique.)
13

Appendix E incorporates those paragraphs of Concepts
Statement 7.

c. Paragraph 24 and its related footnote 14:
If a present value technique is used, estimates of future cash ﬂows shall be consistent with the objective of measuring fair value. Assumptions that marketplace participants would use in their estimates of fair value shall be incorporated whenever that information is available without undue cost and effort.14 Otherwise, the entity may use its own assumptions.
14

Concepts Statement 7 discusses the essential elements of a present value measurement (paragraph 23) and provides reasons why an entity’s estimates of cash ﬂows might differ from those used by marketplace participants (paragraph 32). Appendix E incorporates those paragraphs.

FAS157

d. Paragraph A6:
At December 31, 20X2, a manufacturing facility with a carrying amount of $48 million is tested for recoverability. At that date, 2 courses of action to recover the carrying amount of the facility are under consideration—sell in 2 years or sell in 10 years (at the end of its remaining useful life). of 10 years. The facility has identiﬁable cash ﬂows that are largely independent of the cash ﬂows of other assets.
e. Paragraph A7:
As indicated in the following table, the possible cash ﬂows associated with each of those courses of action are $41 million and $48.7 million, respectively. They are developed based on entityspeciﬁc assumptions about future sales (volume and price) and costs in varying scenarios that consider the likelihood that existing customer relationships will continue, changes in economic
(market) conditions, and other relevant factors.The following table shows the range and probability of possible estimated cash ﬂows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the facility assuming that (a) it is sold at the end of 2 years or (b) it is sold at the end of 10 years. Among other things, the range of possible estimated cash ﬂows considers future sales levels (volume and price) and associated manufacturing costs in varying scenarios that consider
(a) the likelihood that existing customer relationships will continue and (b) future economic
(market) conditions. The probability assessments consider all information available without undue cost and effort. Such assessments are by their nature subjective and, in many situations, may be limited to management’s best judgment about the probabilities of the best, worst, and most-likely scenarios.

FAS157–83

FAS157

Course of
Action

FASB Statement of Standards

Cash
Flows
Estimate
(Use)

Cash Flows
Estimate
(Disposition)

Cash Flows
Estimate
(Total)

Probability
Assessment

Possible Cash
Flows
(ProbabilityWeighted)
Cash Flows

(in $ millions)
Sell in 2 years

$ 8
11
13

$30
30
30

$38
41
43

20%
50
30

$ 7.6
20.5
12.9
$41.0

Sell in 10 years

36
48
55

1
1
1

37
49
56

20
50
30

$ 7.4
24.5
16.8
$48.7

f. Paragraph A8:
In computing the future cash ﬂows used to test the facility for recoverability, the entity concludes that there is (a) a 60 percent probability that the facility will be sold at the end of 2 years and (b) a 40 percent probability that the facility will continue to be used for its remaining estimated useful life of 10 years.As further indicated in the following table, there is a 60 percent

Course of Action

probability that the facility will be sold in 2 years and a 40 percent probability that the facility will be sold in 10 years. The following table shows the computation of future cash ﬂows based on the probability of those alternative courses of action.27 As shown, those futurethe expected cash ﬂows are $44.1 million (undiscounted). Therefore, the carrying amount of the facility of
$48 million would not be recoverable.

Possible
Cash Flows
(ProbabilityWeighted)
Cash Flows

Probability
Assessment
(Course of Action)

Expected
Cash Flows
(Undiscounted)

(in $ millions)
Sell in 2 years
Sell in 10 years

$41.0
48.7

60%
40

$24.6
19.5
$44.1

g. Paragraph A11 and its related footnote 28:
This example illustrates the application of an expected present value technique to estimate the fair value of a long-lived asset in an impairment situation.the absence of an observable market price (paragraph 23).28 It is based on the facts provided for the manufacturing facility in
Example 2.

28Present

value is the current measure of an estimated future cash inﬂow, discounted at an interest rate for the number of periods between today and the date of the estimated cash ﬂow.
The present value of $X in n periods in the future and discounted at interest of i per period is computed using the formula X / (1 + i)n. Because all of the risks are considered in the estimates of cash ﬂows, the entity discounts the expected cash ﬂows for each year using the risk-free rate of interest. The riskfree rate of interest is the interest rate on monetary assets that are essentially risk free and that have maturity dates that coincide with the expected timing of the cash ﬂow. In the United

FAS157–84

Fair Value Measurements

States, the risk-free rate is the rate for zero-coupon U.S. Treasury instruments. A yield curve for U.S. Treasury instruments may be used to determine the appropriate risk-free rates of interest. ketplace participants include one) would not produce a measurement that faithfully represents fair value.
There are many techniques for estimating a risk adjustment, including matrix pricing, option-adjusted spread models, and fundamental analysis. However, in many cases a reliable estimate of the market risk premium may not be obtainable or the amount may be small relative to potential measurement error in the estimated cash ﬂows. In such situations, the present value of expected cash ﬂows, discounted at a risk-free rate of interest, may be the best available estimate of fair value in the circumstances.

h. Paragraph A12 and its related footnote 29:
Consistent with an objective of measuring fair value, the entity’s estimates of future cash ﬂows used to test the manufacturing facility for recoverability in Example 2 are adjusted to incorporate assumptions that, based on available information, marketplace participants would use in their estimates of the fair value of the asset. The net effect of those adjustments is to increase the entity’s estimates of future cash ﬂows (on an undiscounted basis) by approximately 15 percent.29
29In

this example, a reliable estimate of the market risk premium is not available. Paragraph 62 of FASB Concepts Statement No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and Present Value in
Accounting Measurements, explains:
An estimate of fair value should include the price that marketplace participants are able to receive for bearing the uncertainties in cash ﬂows—the adjustment for risk—if the amount is identiﬁable, measurable, and signiﬁcant. An arbitrary adjustment for risk, or one that cannot be evaluated by comparison to marketplace information, introduces an unjustiﬁed bias into the measurement. On the other hand, excluding a risk adjustment (if it is apparent that mar-

Year

FAS157

i. Paragraph A13:
The following table shows by year the computation of the expected cash ﬂows used in the measurement. They reﬂect the possible cash ﬂows
(probability-weighted) used to test the manufacturing facility for recoverability in Example 2, adjusted for relevant marketplace assumptions, which increases the possible cash ﬂows in total by approximately 15 percent.range and probability of possible cash ﬂows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the facility over its remaining useful life of 10 years
(Example 2), adjusted for market assumptions.
It also shows by year the computation of expected cash ﬂows.

TotalPossible
Cash Flows
Estimate (Market)

Probability
Assessment

Expected
Cash Flows
(Undiscounted)

(in $ millions)
1

$4.6
6.3
7.5

20%
50
30

$ .9
3.2
2.3
$6.4

2

$4.6
6.3
7.5

20%
50
30

$ .9
3.2
2.3
$6.4

3

$4.3
5.8
6.7

20%
50
30

$ .9
2.9
2.0
$5.8

4

$4.3
5.8
6.7

20%
50
30

$ .9
2.9
2.0
$5.8

FAS157–85

FAS157

Year

FASB Statement of Standards

TotalPossible
Cash Flows
Estimate (Market)

Probability
Assessment

Expected
Cash Flows
(Undiscounted)

(in $ millions)
5

$4.0
5.4
6.4

20%
50
30

$ .8
2.7
1.9
$5.4

6

$4.0
5.4
6.4

20%
50
30

$ .8
2.7
1.9
$5.4

7

$3.9
5.1
5.6

20%
50
30

$ .8
2.6
1.7
$5.1

8

$3.9
5.1
5.6

20%
50
30

$ .8
2.6
1.7
$5.1

9

$3.9
5.0
5.5

20%
50
30

$ .8
2.5
1.7
$5.0

10

$4.9
6.0
6.5

20%
50
30

$1.0
3.0
2.0
$6.0

j. Paragraph A14:
The following table shows the computation of the expected present value; that is, the sum of the present values of the expected cash ﬂows by year, each discounted at a risk-free interest rate determined from the yield curve for U.S. Treasury instruments.29a The following table shows the computation of the present value of the expected cash ﬂows; that is, the sum of the present values of the expected cash ﬂows by year, which

are calculated by discounting those cash ﬂows at a risk-free rate. As shown, the expected present value is $42.3 million, which is less than the carrying amount of $48 million. In accordance with paragraph 7, the entity would recognize an impairment loss of $5.7 million ($48 million less
$42.3 million).
29aIn

this example, a market risk premium is included in the expected cash ﬂows; that is, the cash ﬂows are certainty equivalent cash ﬂows.

FAS157–86

FAS157

Fair Value Measurements

Year

Expected
Cash Flows
(Undiscounted)

Risk-Free Rate of Interest

Expected
Present Value

Expected
Present Value

(in $ millions)
1

$ 6.4

5.0%

$ 6.1

2

6.4

5.1

5.8

3

5.8

5.2

5.0

4

5.8

5.4

4.7

5

5.4

5.6

4.1

6

5.4

5.8

3.9

7

5.1

6.0

3.4

8

5.1

6.2

3.2

9

5.0

6.4

2.9

10

6.0

6.6

3.2

$56.4

$42.3

k. Appendix E is deleted. This appendix provided excerpts from Concepts Statement 7.
E25. FASB Statement No. 146, Accounting for
Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 5:
The fair value of a liability is the amount at which that liability could be settled in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation transaction.
Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and shall be used as the basis for the measurement, if available. If quoted market prices are not available, the estimate of fair value shall be based on the best information available in the circumstances, including prices for similar liabilities and the results of using other valuation techniques. (Certain valuation techniques are discussed in
Appendix A.)

$42.3

exit or disposal activity. For a liability that has uncertainties both in timing and amount, an expected present value technique generally will be the appropriate technique.For a liability, fair value represents the amount that a willing third party of comparable credit standing would demand and could expect to receive to assume all of the duties, uncertainties, and risks inherent in the transferor’s obligation, including a proﬁt element or risk premium.13
13Paragraph

62 of FASB Concepts Statement No. 7, Using
Cash Flow Information and Present Value in Accounting Measurements, explains:

b. Paragraph A2 and its related footnote 13:
The objective of initial measurement of a liability for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity is fair value (paragraph 3). A present value technique is often the best available valuation technique with which to estimate the fair value of a liability for a cost associated with an

FAS157–87

An estimate of fair value should include the price that marketplace participants are able to receive for bearing the uncertainties in cash ﬂows—the adjustment for risk—if the amount is identiﬁable, measurable, and signiﬁcant. An arbitrary adjustment for risk, or one that cannot be evaluated by comparison to marketplace information, introduces an unjustiﬁed bias into the measurement. On the other hand, excluding a risk adjustment (if it is apparent that marketplace participants include one) would not produce a measurement that faithfully represents fair value.
There are many techniques for estimating a risk adjustment, including matrix pricing, option-adjusted spread models, and fundamental analysis. However, in many cases a reliable estimate of the market risk premium may not be obtainable or the amount may be small relative to potential measurement error in the estimated cash ﬂows. In such situations, the present value of expected cash ﬂows, discounted at a risk-free rate of interest, may be the best available estimate of fair value in the circumstances.

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

would use different assumptions. If such data exist, the entity must adjust its assumptions to incorporate that market information.

c. Paragraph A4 and its related footnotes 14 and 15:
A present value technique often is the best available valuation technique with which to estimate the fair value of a liability. FASB Concepts
Statement No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and Present Value in Accounting Measurements, discusses two present value techniques.14 The ﬁrst technique is expected present value, in which multiple cash ﬂow scenarios that reﬂect the range of possible outcomes and a risk-free rate adjusted for the entity’s credit standing15 are used to estimate fair value. The second technique is traditional present value, in which a single set of estimated cash ﬂows and a single risk-adjusted interest rate are used to estimate fair value. In contrast to a traditional present value technique, which incorporates uncertainty in the amount and timing of cash ﬂows in the interest rate, an expected present value technique incorporates that uncertainty in the estimated cash ﬂows. Thus, an expected present value technique often will be the appropriate valuation technique if a liability for a cost associated with an exit or disposal activity has uncertainties in both the amount and timing of estimated cash ﬂows. 14Paragraph 23 of Concepts Statement 7 discusses the essential

elements of a present value measurement.
15When using an expected present value technique, the effect of an entity’s credit standing can be reﬂected in either the discount rate or the estimated cash ﬂows. However, it is usually easier and less complex to reﬂect that adjustment in the discount rate.

d. Paragraph A5 and its related footnote 16:
When using a present value technique, estimates of future cash ﬂows should incorporate assumptions that marketplace participants would use in their estimates of fair value whenever that information is available without undue cost and effort. Otherwise, an entity may use its own estimates of future cash ﬂows.16
16Paragraph 38 of Concepts Statement 7 explains:

As a practical matter, an entity that uses cash ﬂows in accounting measurements often has little or no information about some or all of the assumptions that marketplace participants would use in assessing the fair value of an asset or a liability. In those situations, an entity must necessarily use the information that is available without undue cost and effort in developing cash ﬂow estimates. The use of an entity’s own assumptions about future cash ﬂows is compatible with an estimate of fair value, as long as there are no contrary data indicating that marketplace participants

E26. FASB Statement No. 150, Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph D1 (glossary):
Fair value
The amount at which an asset (liability) could be bought (incurred) or sold (settled) in a current transaction between willing parties, that is, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. Additional guidance on determining fair value is provided in other FASB
Statements and FASB Concepts Statements.
E27. FASB Statement No. 156, Accounting for
Servicing of Financial Assets, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 3(c):
Fair value
See paragraphs 68−70 of Statement 140.
E28. FASB Interpretation No. 45, Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others, is amended as follows:
a. Paragraph 9(a):
When a guarantee is issued in a standalone arm’s-length transaction with an unrelated party, the liability recognized at the inception of the guarantee should be the premium received or receivable by the guarantor as a practical expedient. b. Paragraph 9(b):
When a guarantee is issued as part of a transaction with multiple elements with an unrelated party (such as in conjunction with selling an asset or entering into an operating lease), the liability recognized at the inception of the guarantee should be an estimate of the guarantee’s fair value. In that circumstance, guarantors should consider what premium would be required by the guarantor to issue the same guarantee in a standalone arm’s-length transaction with an unrelated party as a practical expedient. In the absence of observable transactions for identical or

FAS157–88

Fair Value Measurements

similar guarantees, expected present value measurement techniques as set forth in FASB
Concepts Statement No. 7, Using Cash Flow Information and Present Value in Accounting
Measurements, will likely provide the best estimate of fair value. Concepts Statement 7 states in its glossary that “expected present value refers to the sum of the probability-weighted present values in a range of estimated cash ﬂows, all discounted using the same interest rate convention.” The general principles in paragraph 41 of
Concepts Statement 7 are also relevant.
E29. Statement 133 Implementation Issue No. A23,
“Deﬁnition of a Derivative: Prepaid Interest Rate
Swaps,” is amended as follows:
a. First paragraph of the Background section:
A prepaid interest rate swap contract, as that term is used in this Issue, obligates one party to make periodic payments to another party that are based on a variable interest rate applied to an effective notional amount. It is characterized as an at-the-money interest rate swap contract for which the ﬁxed leg has been fully prepaid (at its fair value—a discounted amount), with the result that the party that receives the variable-legbased payments has no obligation whatsoever to make any future payments under the contract.
Under that characterization, the fair value of the ﬁxed leg and the fair value of the variable leg are equal and offsetting because the at-the-money interest rate swap contract has an overall fair value of zero.
E30. Statement 133 Implementation Issue No. B13,
“Embedded Derivatives: Accounting for Remarketable Put Bonds,” is amended as follows:
a. Third paragraph of Structure 1 of the Response section: Determination of the carrying value of the investor’s freestanding call option: The carrying value of the investor’s attached freestanding written call option to the investment bank should be its fair value in accordance with paragraph 17 of Statement 133. The initial fair value allocated to the call option by the investor should be based on the initial proceeds paid by the investment bank for the purchase of that option. The remaining proceeds would be allocated to the carrying amount of the puttable bond.

FAS157

b. Third paragraph of Structure 2 of the Response section: Determination of the carrying value of the investor’s freestanding written call option: The carrying value of the investor’s freestanding written call option to the investment bank should be its fair value in accordance with paragraph 17 of
Statement 133. The initial fair value allocated to the call option by the investor should be based on the initial proceeds paid by the investment bank for the purchase of that option. The remaining proceeds would be allocated to the carrying amount of the puttable bond.
c. Third paragraph of Structure 5 of the Response section: Determination of the carrying value of the investor’s freestanding written call option: The carrying value of the investor’s freestanding written call option to the investment bank should be its fair value in accordance with paragraph 17 of
Statement 133. In the remarketing format, the transfer of the purchased call option is concurrent with the issuance of the bond. Therefore, the initial fair value assigned to the call option should be based on the proceeds paid by the investment bank at the inception of the structure for the purchase of that option, and tThe remaining proceeds would be allocated to the carrying amount of the puttable bond. The debtor recognizes no gain or loss upon the transfer of the option to the investment bank.
d. Third paragraph of Structure 6 of the Response section: Determination of the carrying value of the investor’s freestanding written call option: The carrying value of the investor’s freestanding written call option to the investment bank should be its fair value in accordance with paragraph 17 of
Statement 133 with the remaining proceeds allocated to the carrying amount of the puttable bond. In the assignment format, the transfer of the purchased call option by the debtor to the investment bank may not be concurrent with the issuance of the bond. If the transfer of the purchased call option is concurrent with the issuance of the bond, consistent with the remarketing format, the initial fair value assigned to the call option should be based on the initial proceeds paid by the investment bank at the inception of the structure for the purchase of that option, with the remaining proceeds allocated to

FAS157–89

FAS157

FASB Statement of Standards

the carrying amount of the puttable bond. The debtor recognizes no gain or loss upon the transfer of the call option. In transactions involving a delay between the issuance of the bond and the transfer of the assignable call option to the investment bank, the allocation of the initial proceeds to the carrying value of the option would be equal to the fair value of the option based on a market quote. Presumably, that market quote would be equal to the amount that would be paid by a third party (such as the investment bank) to purchase the call option under current market conditions. The remaining proceeds would be allocated to the carrying amount of the puttable bond. During any period of time between the initial issuance of the bond and the transfer of the call option to the investment bank, the call option must be measured at fair value with changes in value recognized in earnings as required by paragraph 18 of Statement 133. As a result of the requirement to measure the call option at fair value during the time period before it is assigned to the investment bank, the debtor would not recognize a gain or loss upon the assignment because the proceeds paid by the investment bank would be the option’s current fair value on the date of the assignment, which would be the option’s carrying amount at that point in time. Any change in the fair value of the option during the time period before it is assigned to the investment bank would be attributable to the passage of time and changes in market conditions.
E31. Statement 133 Implementation Issue No. B35,
“Embedded Derivatives: Application of Statement 133 to a Not-for-Proﬁt Organization’s Obligation Arising from an Irrevocable Split-Interest Agreement,” is amended as follows:
a. Second paragraph of the Response section:
The NFP organization’s liability for its obligation under a split-interest agreement would typically not meet the deﬁnition of a derivative instrument in its entirety because it would not meet the criterion in paragraph 6(b). That criterion requires the contract to have no initial net investment or an initial net investment that is smaller than would be required for other types of contracts that would be expected to have a similar response to changes in market factors. In

contrast, the initial net investment for the liability recognized for typical split-interest agreements is its fair value (generally measured at the present value of the estimated future payments).
If the NFP organization’s liability for its obligation under the split-interest agreement does not in its entirety meet the deﬁnition of a derivative instrument in paragraph 6, that liability must be analyzed to determine whether it contains provisions that constitute an embedded derivative instrument that warrants separate accounting under paragraph 12. Generally, the liability representing an obligation under a split-interest agreement contains an embedded derivative that warrants separate accounting if the payments are variable and the agreement is period-certain
(rather than life-contingent) unless a fair value election is made pursuant to Statement 155.
The following examples, although not allinclusive, provide an understanding of the applicability of paragraph 12 to various split-interest agreements. E32. Statement 133 Implementation Issue No. I2,
“Disclosures: Near-Term Reclassiﬁcation of Gains and Losses That Are Reported in Accumulated Other
Comprehensive Income,” is amended as follows:
a. Second paragraph of the Background section:
When interest rate or commodity swaps are used for cash ﬂow hedges, in effect a single derivative is being used to hedge multiple hedged forecasted transactions because a swap involves multiple cash ﬂows (like a series of forward contracts). For instance, a ﬁve-year interest rate swap may be designated as the hedging instrument to hedge the variability in cash ﬂows for each of the resets in a ﬁve-year variable-rate borrowing. The fair value of a swap may be the net of both positive discounted cash ﬂows (that is, the right to receive future payments) and negative discounted cash ﬂows (that is, the obligation to make future payments). This could happen, for example, if nearby forward rates were below the ﬁxed rate on the swap and far-term forward rates were above the ﬁxed rate on the swap, in which case an entity could have an expectation of having to make cash outﬂows on the swap for nearby exposures and to receive cash inﬂows on the swap for the far-term exposures.

FAS157–90

Financial Accounting

Similar Documents

Financial Accounting

Financial Accounting

Financial Accounting

Financial Accounting

Financial and Accounting

Financial Accounting

Financials & Accounting

Financial Accounting

Financial Accounting

Financial Accounting

Financial Accounting

Financial Accounting

Financial Accounting

Financial Accounting

Financial Accounting

Popular Essays