Warfare in Polygamy Essay -- Marriage Spouse

Fighting in Polygamy Presentation Marriage is an all inclusive characteristic of human family relationship and social association. It most likely grew from the get-go over the span of human social history. In human culture, a few societies have utilized union with complete some across the board capacities. A few people are hitched in light of adoration or sentiment. However, others are hitched for monetary security, financial commitment, legacy, or political explanation. In any case, regardless of these general highlights, various societies have created distinctive example of guidelines and customs that decide denials and inclinations for marriage accomplices. These guidelines and customs are likewise assisted with forming desires among life partners and parents in law Monogamy is the significant type of marriage and is firmly connected with most social orders of Europe and Asia, while polygyny is found in conventional social orders, for example, Africa. As indicated by The History of Human Marriage, monogamy, consistently the transcendent type of marriage, has been increasingly pervasive at the least phases of development than at to some degree higher stages; while, at a still higher stage, polygyny has once more, by and large, respected monogamy (Westermarck, 505). However, some polygyny can be found in further developed social orders, for example, Eurasia. Different locales that are related with polygyny incorporate Circum-Mediterranean, Insular Pacific, North America, and South America. In any case, the level of event is totally different in every general public. Since polygyny in various society fills an alternate need, the causation for interest in aggregate battling in polygyny of various society will be unique. For example, in Africa, plural marriage is unmistakably progressively broad. Agreeing the Factors of Polygamy in African... ...ly bolster that the causation for ladies to take an interest in aggregate battling will separate across social orders and nations. Reference DorJahn, V. The Factors of Polygamy in African Demography. Continuity and Change in African Cultures.In Herskovits, M., and Bascom, W. (eds.), Chicago: 1959, p. 125-158. Goody, Jack. Polygyny, Economy and the Role of Women. The Character Of Kinship.Cambridge University Press, London: 1973, p.175-189. Spencer, Paul. Polygyny as a Measure of Social Differentiation in Africa. ASA Essay in Social Anthropology.Institute For the Study of Human Issues Publisher, Philadelphia: v.3, 1980, p.117-160. Westermarck, E. the History of Human Marriage.London, 1893. White, Douglas R. Reexamining Polygyny Current Anthropology.The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, The U.S., V 29, No 4, 1988, p. 529-571.

How did Transportation Change During the Industrial Revolution

How did Transportation Change During the Industrial Revolution? The universe had experienced two modern upsets. The primary unrest started during the 1700s. What's more, the second upset occurred during the 1860s. Both of the upsets were the greater part of import periods throughout the entire existence of human culture since they impacted about each aspect of life and especially brought the universe completely new sorts of travels. Steam motor, conduit, course, and railroad experienced mostly improvement during the primary upheaval, and the second transformation brought the advancements of vehicle and plane ; both they played an essential capacity in the advancement of travel ever. The steam motor was one of the most basic constituents that had been concocted during the principal mechanical upset. It contributed a group to the improvement of travel. Thomas Newcomen was the main person who concocted the steam motor. In any case, the utilization of the steam motor was costly and non productive. ( World History content release ) Until 1765, James Watt, probably the best supporter of travel, improved the steam motor to be increasingly effective and expend less fuel by adding a different capacitor to Newcomen’s motor. Watt’s improvement had spared around 75 for each centum of the fuel that had aforesaid been utilized by the motor. ( Kendra Bolon ) After the improvement, the steam motor had been utilized freely on different travels, for example, steam boat and steam motor. The steam motor non just improved the way of shipping, however alongside the personal satisfaction. For delineation, individuals could pass by taking locomotor and steam transport. Mo reover, they could lounge the life by watching the scene during the outing. Thusly, the steam motor was the most staggering travel known to man. Roadss, trenches, and railways were three significant constituents of travel improved during the primary modern upset. People groups utilized the streets as the fundamental way to move the products starting with one topographic point then onto the next. Roadss were in downright awful fix before the principal unrest, and it were non productive for individuals to move merchandise. ( World History content version ) John MacAdam, Thomas Telford, and John Metcalfe all built up the new streets building methods. Thomas Telford made new establishments in streets with enormous level rocks. John MacAdam outfitted roadbeds with a bed of huge rocks ; subsequently, individuals could move merchandise on a showery twenty-four hours. Channel was another basic part of travels, which permitted merchandise to be shipped through a progression of semisynthetic conduits. Shipping products by trench brought down the dangers of besotted stocks during way. Moreover, a trench flatboat could move a greater num ber of stocks than different signifiers of travel during that cut. Waterway other than cost less cash for moving product. For the ground of shipping overwhelming merchandise from topographic point to topographic point, the advancement of railroad started in 1800, which made an incredible spring in moving designing in mankind's history. The improved steam motor drove the running locomotor with nicely controlled procedure of turn overing. The improvement of railways permitted the towns and metropoliss to turn rapidly. In the mid-18Thursday, Abraham Darby made a plate way of performers Fe on tracks that permitted the heaters working and ready to raise the Fe command post. In 1789, William Jessop built up a â€Å"L† molded rail which held the wagon on the way. Merchandise could be moved inside a short total of clasp, which assisted with encouraging the rural and angling enterprises. The motor was equipped for moving ternary aggregate of products contrasted with the pony pulled wa gons. ( Mrs. Abiah Darby ) The advancement of course, channel, and railroad changed the way of moving, the entirety and separation of moving merchandise expanded fundamentally and influenced how individuals lived thusly. The vehicle and plane were the two most mind boggling signifiers of travels that were been concocted during the second mechanical unrest during the 1860s. Vehicle was significant signifier of travel since it influenced the entire universe. The vehicle was first concocted by Karl Benz in 1886. Later on, in 1908, Henry Ford made the vehicle ease for individuals by introducing the sequential construction system. ( World History content release ) Automobile empowered individuals to head out wherever they needed to at any clasp. It’s the most advantageous instrument for individuals to travel. With respect to the next of import advancement, plane, was worked in 1903 by Wilbur and Orville Wright. ( World History content release ) Around 400 BC, Archytas was presumed as the principal individual planned and assembled the primary car winging gadget. While the Wright siblings made the principal fruitful endeavor to move a grown-up male rose via plane. The primary plane flew obviously at even speed, and plummeted without hurt. In spite of the fact that the flight kept going just 59 seconds, it denoted an of import beginning of the airplane business. The visual part of vehicle changed the entire universe completely in that it gave a helpful and minimal effort way to move and travel for individuals. The imaginative movement of plane widens the range and separation of the travel, which may transports riders and products across mainlands and land. These two advancements both carried significant impact to individuals. In choice, during the first and second mechanical insurgencies, travel had experienced sensational adjustment and improvement. It non just brought viable and productive way of moving, yet alongside affected and formed people’s life, about each aspect in people’s everyday life. With the advancement of building, travel advanced. The steam motor prompted the utilization of locomotor and steamer, which expanded moving limit and accordingly encouraged more creation machines for manufacture in different enterprises. Exchange expansion was cultivated by the introduction of trenches, improved streets and railways. The advancement of vehicle grounded the fundamental way of travel for individuals while the plane gave a quicker way from topographic point to topographic point. The first and second modern unrest denoted a defining moment in mankind's history, and travel played a basic capacity affecting people’s life socially and financially. Book reference: Bolon, Kendra.The Steam Engine. N.p. : Kendra Bolon, 2001. N. pag. hypertext move convention:/www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/. Web. Bustamante, Crystal. Transportation during the Industrial Revolution. N.p. : Crystal Bustamante, 2009. N. pag. Web. 26 Jan. 2009. Bulter, Scott, Keats, Thedawnbringer, Hedleygb, and Peter. How has movement changed since the Industrial Revolution? N.p. : n.p. , n.d. N. pag. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. Mechanical unrest examine. N.p. : HTML5 UP, n.d. N. pag. Web.v Mack, Pamela E. Transportation. N.p. : n.p. , 2002. N. pag. Web. 27 Sept. 2002. Roadss, Canals and Railways †the Transport insurgency. N.p. : n.p. , UK. N. pag. Web. 2013. The Industrial Revolution: 1750-1900. N.p. : n.p. , n.d. N. pag.KCCIS. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. Transportation. N.p. : n.p. , n.d. N. pag. Web. 22 Nov. 2013.

Fort Worth, Largest Texas City with No Payday Regulation, Considers Its Options - OppLoans

Fort Worth, Largest Texas City with No Payday Regulation, Considers Its Options - OppLoans Fort Worth, Largest Texas City with No Payday Regulation, Considers Its Options Fort Worth, Largest Texas City with No Payday Regulation, Considers Its OptionsInside Subprime: September 18, 2019By Jessica EastoFort Worth, Texas, is the largest city in the state with no payday loan regulation on the books. Over the past several years, 70 cities in Texas have enacted legislation to limit payday loans and auto title loans. These short-term, high-dollar loans are often criticized for targeting vulnerable populationsâ€"those who are unbanked or lack enough credit to qualify for traditional loan productsâ€"with predatory practices and terms.  Payday lenders often charge feesâ€"typically $10 to $30 for every $100 borrowed, which can be charged again if the borrower can’t pay the loan off in time and “rolls it over.” This frequently traps borrowers in a cycle of debt. Many states put caps on these fees, but Texas has none, which is one of the major issues critics have with payday loans in the state.Today, Fort Worth is the only major city in Texas to have not addr essed the issue, and it is considering its options with five plans recently presented by city staff. These included:Educating vulnerable populations on the dangers of payday loans.Creating a community loans pool to mitigate the risks of lending to credit-poor borrowers.Adopting payday loan regulation similar to those that have been adopted by other Texas cities, based on a draft ordinance created by the Texas Municipal League.Look into statewide payday legislation.Limit payday loan company within the state by making changes to zoning and permit codes.“These businesses are predatory to our most vulnerable citizens,” said Councilman Dennis Shingleton. “We got to find a way to regulate, educate and service those vulnerable.”Current state regulation requires licensing, data collection, and legal disclosures, but according to the Fort Worth newspaper, “laws addressing the cycle of debt facing many people have fallen apart in past legislative sessions.”In 2011, Dallas was the first city to enact regulation in the payday loan industry. Arlington passed an ordinance in 2015, as did Hurst, Euless, and Bedford in 2016.  Many councilmembers were eager to support regulatory measures, but Mayor Betsy Price was more cautious, favoring the financial education, baking pool, and zoning options over the ordinance, citing concerns over enforcement.Payday loans “do exist because there is unfortunately a need, and we need to figure out how to counter that with education,” she said.Learn more about payday loans, scams, and cash advances by checking out our city and state financial guides, including Austin, El Paso, Houston, San Antonio, and Waco.Visit OppLoans on YouTube | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn

Walt Disney Parks And Resorts Essay - 1046 Words

Introduction Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is a premier enterprise operating out of Florida. This organization started back in 1971 by founders Walt and Roy Disney. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is the most visited theme park in the world. Over 50 million people visit these parks and resorts year round. The organization is not only known for the services they provide, but the economic impact and the programs offered to their employees. This writing assignment, I will elaborate on how this company affects the economy, production, attitudes and motivation of their workers. Economic Impact One of the many ways Disney affect the economy is by employing thousands of people. Currently, the company has over 160,000 employees worldwide and counting. According to Walt Disney World Fun Facts, the parks and resorts cover nearly 45 squares miles of land, the resort itself is the size of San Francisco. However, one of the most amazing things about the land Disney owns, one-third is for conservati on (Disney World Fun Facts, 2016). Economic success at this magnitude do not happen overnight, but with vision and making the right decisions. One thing Disney had to consider early on was the impact their decisions would make economically. According to Townsend (2002), â€Å"The economic way of thinking improves on common sense by looking beneath surface appearances. Faced with a problem, an economist thinks in terms of variables rather than fixed quantities, seeking systematic relationshipsShow MoreRelatedWalt Disney Parks and Resorts3974 Words   |  16 Pageshttp://www.blurtit.com/q200168.html http://www.blurtit.com/q200168.html Disney Theme Park to India Disney Theme Park to India Abstract: This report is aim to analyze profitable adventure of The Walt Disney Company to set up Disneyland theme park in India. As one of main emerging markets in Asia, India might be the next destination for The Walt Disney Company to target on. Therefore, this report uses a series of marketing tools to demonstrate the macro-environment and micro-environmentRead MoreWalt Disney Parks and Resorts4564 Words   |  19 PagesExecutive Summary Walt Disney is an international company founded in 1923 by brothers Roy and Walt Disney. The corporate headquarters and primary production facilities are located at The Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, California, the area where Disney was initially created. Today Disney is one of the largest and most reputable companies in the film and entertainment industry earning $43 billion in revenues in 2007. Walt Disney Company earns revenues in four strategic areas including consumer productsRead MoreWalt Disney Parks and Resorts1956 Words   |  8 PagesWalt Disney Co. faced the challenge of building a theme park in Europe. Disney s mode of entry in Japan had been licensing. However, the firm chose direct investment in its European theme park, owning 49% with the remaining 51% held publicly. Besides the mode of entry, another important element in Disney s decision was exactly where in Europe to locate. There are many factors in the site selection decision, and a company carefully must define and evaluate the criteria for choosing a location.Read MoreWalt Disney Parks and Resorts4079 Words   |  17 Pagesin the World is Disney? | Disney Theme Park New Destination | Contents 1. Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 2. Business, Disney and Culture 5 2.1 Importance of culture for Business 5 2.2 Importance of culture for Disney expansion 6 2.3 Cultural considerations for Malasiya 6 2.4 Recommendations: 7 3. Candidate City Background: 8 3.1 Candidate cities for Disney expansion: 8 3.1.1 Sharm Elsheik 8 3.1.2 Kuala Lumpur 8 3.1.3 Johannesburg 9 4. Disney Selection criteriaRead MoreWalt Disney Parks and Resorts3667 Words   |  15 PagesKuala-Lumpur – Malaysia 6 Disney selection criteria 6 KT decision analysis ( In Appendences) 7 Situational analysis 8 Dunker diagram (In Appendences) 9 Business, Disney and Culture 10 Disney and Success 11 Recommendation 12 Conclusion 13 References 14 Appendences 15 Mind Map 15 KT Decision Calculations 17 Dunker Diagram 18 Executive Summary Attached is a report that compares the three candidate cities that we as a group chose to host a new Disney theme park (Expansion). The citiesRead MoreWalt Disney Parks Resorts Management Strategy Essay1454 Words   |  6 PagesWalt Disney Parks and Resorts Management Strategy amp; Policy For my final paper I chose to discuss The Walt Disney Company. Since the Company is so large and made up of four primary business segments, I decided to focus on one particular segment: Parks and Resorts. This segment is composed of the theme parks, cruise-line, and vacation club resorts. The Walt Disney Company Parks and Resorts strive to be the leader in innovative and creative family entertainment in the world. The mission ofRead MoreGeneral Definitions. Before Going Into The Background Of1504 Words   |  7 PagesDefinitions Before going into the background of the Walt Disney Company and its theme parks, it is necessary to define some terms that are used throughout the paper. These terms are defined as the researcher understands them as a former cast member of the Walt Disney Company. The first term that needs to be defined is â€Å"guest†. Instead of calling people who visit their theme parks customers, the Walt Disney Company refers to visitors of their theme parks as guests. This is to keep up with the show andRead MoreDisney : Disney s Strongest Presence1007 Words   |  5 PagesDisney Offices/Locations Disney’s strongest presence is in the United States. However, with operations in more than 40 countries, approximately 166,000 employees and cast members around the world, Disney sets the standard for the future of entertainment. Whether it s Disney or Marvel, ESPN or PIXAR – in China or the United States, India or Argentina, Russia or the United Kingdom, the people of The Walt Disney Company create content and experiences in ways that are relevant to the many culturesRead MoreWalt Disneys The Disney Company1586 Words   |  7 PagesCompany in Brief The Walt Disney Company all began when Walt Disney made his way to California with his â€Å"pilot† film of Alice’s Wonderland to sell â€Å"Alice Comedies† to a distributor. He was contracted to distribute â€Å"Alice Comedies† on October 16,1923 which is the beginning of the â€Å"Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio† which later became the Disney Company. For the first couple of decades the Disney Company was only geared toward one business segment, studio entertainment. Walt had the desire to branchRead MoreErm Research Report On Walt Disney Company Essay1585 Words   |  7 PagesThe Walt Disney Company â€Æ' ERM Research report – The Walt Disney Company I. COMPANY BACKGROUND The mission of The Walt Disney Company is to be one of the world’s leading producers and providers of entertainment and information. Using our portfolio of brands to differentiate our content, services and consumer products, we seek to develop the most creative, innovative and profitable entertainment experiences and related products in the world. According to the â€Å"2015-Annual-Report† of the Walt Disney

Operations Management - 986 Words

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT Select two organisations that you are familiar with – one with a service output and one with a product output, and compare and contrast these organisations with respect to the following aspects: 1.1 The process of transformation of inputs to outputs 1.2 Process and Capacity design 1.3 Supply Chain management 1.4 Scheduling Operations Management refers to the management of the production system that transforms inputs into finished goods and services, (http://csuponoma.edu/weber). Net MBA Business Knowledge Centre adds on to say that an operation is composed of processes designed to add value by transforming inputs into useful outputs. Jay Heizer and Barry Render define operations management as a set†¦show more content†¦Inputs Transformation Process Output .Malambe fruit .Mixing Malambe fruit with water .Malambe .Labour .removing Malambe fruit seeds through sieving juice. .Water .adding sugar to the liquid Malambe .Sugar .Bottling .Sieve .Bottles MALSWITCH’s internet is fast, reliable and secure. MALSWITCH strives to provide the best service so as to meet their customers’ expectations. MALSWITCH achieves this by recruiting the best personnel and training them to keep up with technology. MALSWITCH designs and tests its service before rolling it out to analyze if it meets the requirements of its customers. MALSWITCH’s after sale support service is quick. MALSWITCH uses the following as its inputs; skilled labour in the form of engineers and technical marketers. The other input is equipment like towers, electrical power, servers, cables, transmission equipment, switches, routers and server applications. The transformation process includes asking customers what they want, designing network, testing the network, installing network, connecting transmission equipment through cables, micro wave wireless channels to central internet server and allShow MoreRelatedOperations Management : Operation Management1355 Words   |  6 PagesOperations Management Introduction Operations management is the activity of managing the resources that create and deliver services and products. The operations function is the part of the organization that is responsible for this activity. Every organization has an operations function because every organization creates some type of services and/or products. However, not all types of organization will necessarily call the operations function by this name. Operations managers are the people who haveRead MoreOperation Management - Cadburyworld2493 Words   |  10 Pagestechnology to streamline the operation process) and facility costs (old and outdated facilities) at lowest possible. In return, they have to compromise low costs with their other objectives. The unskilled staffs and outdated facilities are compromised with the quality in the core process. For example, the brief video (facility) in the packaging plant is outdated and requires commentary notes from some guides. However, the unskilled guides are not familiar with the operations so they need to read fromRead MoreOperation Management And Operations Management2148 Words   |  9 PagesOperation management Introduction Being an operations manager is not an easy task, it involves good control and responsibilities for the major activities within the organisations in order to achieve goals that might be in form of services or in form of goods. The operation management roles may be different from business to business depending on the size and resources available, each organisation has its own operations functions, and in order to produces goods or services they have to convert theRead MoreImportance Of Production And Operations Management2317 Words   |  10 Pagesthe production and operation of enterprises. In order to remain competitive, companies in different countries have different factors of competitive advantage. A clear competitive advantage is the key to gain success in production and operation management. An effective operations management is the foundation of enterprise competitive advantage and the fundamental guarantee to realize corporate strategy. This essay deals with the importance of production and operations management in the enterprise,Read MoreOperations Management : Operation Management Essay2171 Words   |  9 PagesOperation Management Operations administration concentrates on precisely dealing with the procedures to create and circulate items and administrations. Operations administration is the procedure, which joins and changes different assets utilized as a part of the creation/operations subsystem of the association into quality included item/benefits in a controlled way according to the arrangements of the association. In this way, it is that part of an association, which is worried with the changeRead MoreOperation Management2751 Words   |  12 PagesTABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OPERATION MANAGEMENT 3 1.1. DEFINITION OF OPERATION MANAGEMENT 3 1.2. THE ROLE OF OPERATION MANAGER 3 1.3. RELATIONSHIP OF OPERATION MANAGEMENT WITH OTHER CORE FUNCTIONS 3 2. CASE STUDIES 3 2.1. HEATHROW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 3 2.2. NESTLÉ UK CHOCOLATE FACTORY 3 3. MAJOR UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE STUDY 3 4. CONCLUSIONS 3 REFERENCES 3 1. Operation Management For the success of an organization, the management crew plays a major role. An organizational structure is based on differentRead MoreOperation Management2436 Words   |  10 PagesOPERATION MANAGEMENT IS IMPORTANT TO ALL BUSINESS To be able produce specialized managers capable of fulfilling strategic tasks within business and government enterprises the need for the practice of operations management cannot be forgone. Operations management is very significant in business operations since it forms the heart of the organisation by controlling the system of operation. Operations management deals with the design, operation, and enhancement of the systems that generate and deliverRead MoreOperations Management Chapter 18 Manual1950 Words   |  8 PagesChApter 18 Management of Waiting Lines Teaching Notes Some of the math and calculations can be left out in order to focus more clearly on the concepts of waiting lines. For example, all infinite source problems, including single channel (except constant service time) can be handled using the infinite source queuing table. In the past, queuing presented students with a good bit of computational requirements, and because of that, students frequently lost sight of the underlying concepts. WithRead MoreOperations Management1791 Words   |  8 PagesQUESTION 1 Operations management must be managed properly in order to improve an organization’s productivity and profitability. In the Cadbury World case, several micro and macro processes are involved and those processes bring some impacts to Cadbury World. Thus, Cadbury World must possess a sustainable micro and macro processes to achieve the best outcome and performance. Micro processes that involved are easily to manage compared to macro processes because macro processes are hard to manageRead MoreOperation Management769 Words   |  4 Pagesand whether it is relevant to continue certain operations * Better management of the outsourced activity – In theory, you can choose a supplier that is a leader in the field * Market discipline – You can align your costs with those of suppliers in the field * Technology – In theory, you gain access to state-of-the-art technologies * Flexibility – The resources no longer used in one area can be redirected to the companys core operations Here are some disadvantages of producing new

The Problem Of Trafficking Of Kids - 1417 Words

Trafficking in people, particularly in ladies, and kids has turned into a matter of genuine national and universal concern. Ladies and kids – young men what s more young ladies – have been presented to uncommon vulnerabilities business misuse of these vulnerabilities has turned into an enormous composed wrongdoing and a multimillion dollar business. Countries are endeavoring to battle this exchange human wretchedness through administrative, official, legal and social activity. Trafficking of kids is an overall wonder influencing extensive quantities of young men and young ladies commonplace. Kids and their families are frequently attracted by the guarantee of better livelihood and a more prosperous life a long way from their homes. Others†¦show more content†¦A hefty portion of the families in India are not able to bear the cost of the fundamental necessities of life, which constrains the folks to auction their kids to posses, and the groups to endeavor them. H aving more or less 50% of those in India living under the neediness line, this results in edgy measures being taken to profit they can. As there aren t even average vocation opportunities accessible, folks will do anything from clearing the avenues to offering their children, regardless of the possibility that it just makes them a couple of rupees. The truth of the matter is that youngsters, especially young ladies, are more defenseless than grown-ups, making them a less demanding target and a thing for groups. They are looked upon as more expendable than whatever is left of the populace which makes them accessible as articles to be sold. An alternate reason for sexual misuse is that individuals far and wide discover delight in the results of this ill-use, along these lines creating an interest for it. Political uprisings lead to an interest for warriors, and as youngsters are more helpless, they are compelled to recruit and utilize their bodies as reparations. MANIFESTATIONS OF CHILD TRAFFICKING: †¢ LABOUR - Bonded work - Domestic work - Agricultural work - Construction work - Carpet

The Secondary Education in Britain free essay sample

In the UK, students enter the secondary school by taking the 11 plus exam at the age of 11. Private schools and public schools are the 2 types of British secondary schools. Public School is totally free and private school will cost a lot. But Private schools are usually much better than public schools no matter in facilities or teachers. But in China most secondary schools are public schools, which is better than private schools. British secondary education lasts seven years and it can divide into two stages. One stage is before the age of 16 and the second stage is 16 to 18. The first stage is the period of compulsory education in the UK. British students have to learn many subjects during the secondary education before the age of 14, and then take the Key stage 3 exam. Students from the age of 14, they need to learn the core courses such as English, mathematics and science classes, but also need to learn four to five elective courses. Two years later, when they are 16th, they will take the GCSE exam. But in China, the first three years of secondary education is compulsory education. During this period, Chinese students have no choice to choose courses which they are interested in. They have to learn all the courses which Entrance Exam to Senior High Schools required. So Chinese students usually have much express of examination. After British students complete the first stage of secondary education, they can choose continue their study or go to work. Of course, most of the students choose the first choice. If they do this, usually they will have two more years to take the A-Level courses. A wide range of subjects opened in the A-Level courses such as business, legal, media and politics etc. Finally they will take an exam to enter the university and finish their secondary education. But it is easier than the College Entrance Examination in China. Chinese students can choose Science or liberal art. But they still need to learn all the subjects of the college entrance examination required. They don’t have a lot of self-selective. Therefore, the secondary education in the UK and China has a lot difference, but they both have their own advantages and disadvantages. The Compulsory education British compulsory education is 11 years, which two years longer than it is in China. And all the tuition of British compulsory education is paid by the government, but in China students have to pay some small parts of it like the cost of the kooks. In China, the compulsory education finished at the age of 15. The government will not pay for their further study; this may result in some of the students in poor families cannot enter junior high school. They cannot find a suitable job with such a young age. It both increased the pressure to individual families but also to the whole society. Longer compulsory education means that British students can get a better education. It not only can solve these problems, but also have a lot of benefits: Firstly, it can relieve some of the pressure on employment. Longer compulsory education can make some people’s employment time delay for years, to avoid the employment peak period and relieve the pressure on employment. Secondly, the children in poor families can get knowledge assets. With the help of knowledge assets† they can get more income and then go out of poverty. Thirdly, it can improve the quality of all the people. Longer compulsory education can give all the school-age children better education. Result or process? In China, the assessment of student test scores only. In China, the score is the only way to assess the students. In other words, the only standard which decided the university they will go to is the College Entrance Examination scores. Therefore, with the education system in China, some students become abnormal: Academic performance is very good, but the other ability is almost a zero. The original intention of education is to make students smarter, but if the students pay all of attention on their scores, and lost the interest of the subject, it will make the students stupid. But British education always pays more attention to the comprehensive development of students. British schools have fewer exams. However, students have a lot of coursework and presentations. This kind of coursework usually focused on practical problems, and always need teamwork. It is very helpful to improve the students’ abilities of express and create. Young people’s knowledge composition The different education made the young people have different knowledge composition in different countries. Secondary education opened in the UK has a wide range of courses. With the grade increased, students can gradually find which subjects that they are interested in or they are not good, and then the next semester, they could give up a subject that not interested in or not good at, and keep their favorite subjects. This is just like a pyramid; Students can fully demonstrate their own interests and hobbies with their learning initiative. On the other hand, it is very helpful for future university study. At the same time, this kind of course selection can help students limited their concentrate on their favorite courses and can improve their efficiency of learning. But in China, students in secondary education have to take all the subjects which the College Entrance Examination required. So they may have to learn some courses which they are not interested in. But this kind of education made the foundation of the Chinese students very solid. In other words, Chinese secondary education pays more attention to comprehensive education. So, Chinese students always have comprehensive knowledge. But they are lack of creative ability. If there is a competition, the championship always belongs to China. Conclusion Overall, British secondary education system is pretty perfect. Student study in the UK can cultivate an interest easily. They can choose their favorite courses and learn a really useful knowledge that would be helpful to their whole life. Reference A survey by HM Inspectors of Schools, (1979), Aspects of secondary education in England, [online]. Available on http://www. educationengland. org. uk/documents/hmi-secondary/index. html Becky Francis and Louise Archer, (10 November 2003), British–Chinese pupils’ and parents’ constructions of the value of education, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 89–108 Montreal, (November 2008), The UK Education System: a summary input to the Canada UK Colloquia. Organization of the education system in the United Kingdom –England, Wales and Northern Ireland, UKENG/WLS/NIR

Fas 157 Summary Analysis Essay Example

Fas 157 Summary Analysis Essay Project Summary Background The objective of this project is to provide guidance to entities on how they should measure the fair value of assets and liabilities when required by other Standards. This project will not change when fair value measurement is required by IFRSs. Discussion at the September 2005 IASB Meeting At the September 2005 meeting, the IASB added the Fair Value Measurements topic to its agenda. The aim of the project is to provide guidance to entities on how they should measure the fair value of assets and liabilities when required by other Standards. This project will not change when fair value measurement is required by IFRSs. Discussion at the November 2005 IASB Meeting The staff conducted an education session on the FASBs working draft of a final Statement on Fair Value Measurements. In addition, the staff reviewed the scope of FASBs Fair Value Measurements project as it relates to IFRSs and the issues and questions to be addressed in preparing an IASB Exposure Draft and related Invitation to Comment. No decisions were made. At a previous meeting, the Board decided to issue the FASBs final Statement on Fair Value Measurements as an IASB Exposure Draft with an Invitation to Comment. The appendices in the FASB document dealing with consequential amendments and references to US GAAP pronouncements will be replaced with proposed consequential amendments and references to IFRSs. The Board further decided that there should be limited changes to the FASBs document. Instead, the Invitation to Comment should discuss any areas where the Board disagrees with the FASBs conclusions along with the basis for the disagreement. We will write a custom essay sample on Fas 157 Summary Analysis specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Fas 157 Summary Analysis specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Fas 157 Summary Analysis specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The staff expects these areas to be identified during Board deliberations during the December 2005 and January 2006 meetings whilst aiming toward issuance of the IASB Exposure Draft by April 2006. Discussion at the December 2005 IASB Meeting Definition of fair value The staff presented a paper identifying and comparing the differences between the definitions of fair value in the FASBs draft Fair Value Measurements (FVM) standard to the definition in IFRS. This comparison was meant to assist the Board in concluding whether or not to replace the current IFRS definition of fair value with the FVM standard definition. The staffs overall recommendation was to replace the current IFRS definition of fair value with the definition of fair value in the FVM standard. However, the staff made it clear that it was not stating that this definition be applied to all instances where fair value is currently used in IFRS. This scoping issue is the subject for a separate discussion that would span several Board meetings. The Board discussed in detail, the various components of the current and proposed definition of fair value in the context of the staffs analysis. Although the Board was in overall agreement to proceed with the proposed definition in the FVM standard, the following points were noted: †¢ Certain Board members wanted to see the various issues discussed pulled together and presented in some logical manner that would clarify how fair value is approached. As noted below, the Board was concerned that the proposed definition would cause confusion where this was not the intention. Some Board members were concerned about changing amount to price as this would change the meaning of fair value. This concern seemed to emanate around the treatment of transaction costs. †¢ The explicit discussion of exit values in the draft guidance was seen by some as problematic. Illustrations were provided indicating that at the time of the transaction; the agreed price constitutes both an entry and ex it value for that specific asset or liability. Others indicated that it was their belief that the current fair value definition already encompasses an exit value notion. Following on from this issue, the notion of marketplace participants is believed by some Board members to be a less superior phrase to the widely accepted knowledgeable, willing parties notion which is more readily understood to apply to a transaction between two parties without the necessity of the existence of a market. The FASBs rationale for introducing the marketplace participants notion as a means of excluding to the greatest extent possible, any entity specific factors when determining fair value, was noted. The Board will be asked to debate the meaning of the reference market notion at subsequent meetings. Scope of the Fair Value Measurements Project The Board considered a paper setting out on a Standard by Standard basis, which individual standards should be scoped in or out of this project. That paper was organised into three sections: †¢ Standards that require fair value measurement †¢ Standards that require fair value measurement by reference to another standard †¢ Standards that do not require fair value measurement Within each of these sections, the staff made various proposals for the Boards consideration. Overall, the staff recommended not modifying as part of this project existing reliability clauses and practicability exceptions. The staff concluded that such modifications could result in significant changes to current practice and that any changes should be considered on a standard-by-standard basis separately from this project. Standards that require fair value measurement The following standards were noted as requiring assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value in certain circumstances: †¢ (a) IAS 11 Construction Contracts †¢ (b) IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment (c) IAS 17 Leases †¢ (d) IAS 18 Revenue †¢ (e) IAS 19 Employee Benefits †¢ (f) IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance †¢ (g) IAS 26 Accounting and Reporting by Retirement Benefit Plans †¢ (h) IAS 33 Earnings per Share †¢ (i) IAS 36 Impairment of Assets †¢ (j) IAS 38 Intangible Assets †¢ (k) IAS 39 Financial In struments: Recognition and Measurement †¢ (l) IAS 40 Investment Property †¢ (m) IAS 41 Agriculture †¢ (n) IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards †¢ (o) IFRS 2 Share-based Payment (p) IFRS 3 Business Combinations and the June 2005 Exposure Draft †¢ (q) IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations The Board agreed with the staff recommendations (as set out in the observer notes) for each standard except in the following instances: †¢ IAS 18 the staff concluded that in the instances where an entity received services for dissimilar goods or services, the measurement objective is not consistent with the draft FVM standard and therefore IAS 18 should be excluded from the scope. The Board noted this issue but indicated a preference to include IAS 18 within the scope of the FVM Standard as this is a minor part of the fair value requirements in IAS 18. The confusion caused in the market if the Board were to exclude IAS 18 from the project would be undesirable. †¢ IFRS 2 due to the grant date model, the Board noted the issue that may arise where an entity measures a share-based payment transaction by reference to the equity instruments granted, not the goods or services received. However, the Board decided to include IFRS 2 within the scope of the FVM Standard on the same basis as for IAS 18. Standards that require fair value measurement by reference to another standard †¢ (a) IAS 2 Inventory †¢ (b) IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates †¢ (c) IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements †¢ (d) IAS 28 Investment in Associates †¢ (e) IAS 31 Interests in Joint Ventures (f) IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation and Disclosure †¢ (g) IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts †¢ (h) IFRS 7 Financial Instruments The Board agreed with the staff recommendation that discussion of the above is not necessary as these standards do not contain any additional requirements to measure assets or liabilities at fair value. Standards that do not require fair value measurement †¢ (a) IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements †¢ (b) IAS 7 Cash Flow Statements (c) IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accoun ting Estimates and Errors †¢ (d) IAS 10 Events After the Balance Sheet Date †¢ (e) IAS 12 Income Taxes †¢ (f) IAS 14 Segment Reporting †¢ (g) IAS 23 Borrowing Costs †¢ (h) IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures †¢ (i) IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies †¢ (j) IAS 30 Disclosures in the Financial Statements of Banks and Similar Financial Institutions †¢ (k) IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting (l) IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets †¢ (m) IFRS 6 Exploration for and Evaluations of Mineral Reserves With regard to IAS 37, the Board concurred with the staff that the measurement principles therein are consistent with fair value principles in many respects and went further to state that when the amendments to IAS 37 are finalised, it would add explicit reference to fair value to clarify this issue. Discussion at the February 2006 IASB Meeting This was a brief session to inform the Board about recent tentative decisions of the FASB on its fair value measurement standard. No observer notes were provided for this session. The FASB discussed the fair value hierarchy at its last meeting. FASBs exposure draft had proposed a five-level fair value hierarchy. The FASB has come to the conclusion that it is difficult to distinguish levels two to four in the hierarchy. They have therefore reduced the hierarchy to three levels. The FASB has not made other changes to its proposed fair value guidance. The staff said that discussion will continue in March. Discussion at the May 2006 IASB Meeting Principles of the fair value measurement project The following principles were put to the Board as those forming the foundation of the fair value measurement project: †¢ The objective of a fair value measurement is to determine the price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability in a transaction between market participants at the measurement date. †¢ The definition of fair value and its measurement objective should be consistent for all fair value measurements required by IFRS. A fair value measurement should reflect market views of the attributes of the asset or liability being measured and should not include views of the reporting entity that differ from market expectations. †¢ A fair value measurement should consider the utility of the asset or liability being measured. As such, the fair value measurement should consider the location and the condi tion of the asset or liability at its measurement date. The Board concurred with the staff that the above principles form the foundation of the fair value measurement project. Revised definition of fair value In the staffs view, the FASBs revised definition of fair value is substantively similar to the one tentatively approved by the IASB in December 2005. Based on that, the IASB agreed that the revised definition is consistent with the measurement objective. However, some Board members expressed concern about the change to a price rather than amount. In addition, the revised definition is based on an exit price notion that does not consider prices that exist other than the exit price. As a consequence, other Board members noted that the current definition will require measurement based on a hypothetical market that, for some types of assets and liabilities, cannot be calibrated with reality and in most cases will result in day 1 gains or losses, which constituents are uncomfortable with. Revised fair value hierarchy The draft fair value measurement statement indicates that valuation techniques used to measure fair value shall maximise the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The hierarchy prioritises the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value based on their observable or unobservable nature. The revised three-level hierarchy is summarised as follows: †¢ Level 1 inputs are observable inputs that reflect quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date. †¢ Level 2 inputs are observable inputs other than quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets at the measurement date. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs, for example, inputs derived through extrapolation or interpolation that cannot be corroborated by observable data. However, the fair value measurement objective remains the same. Therefore, unobservable inputs should be adjusted for entity information that is inconsistent with market expectations. Unobservable inputs should also consider the risk premium a market participant (buyer) would demand to assume the inherent uncertainty in the unobservable input. IFRSs currently does not have a single hierarchy that applies to all fair value measures. Instead individual standards indicate preferences for certain inputs and measures of fair value over others, but this guidance is not consistent among all IFRSs. The Board agreed with the staffs conclusion that the revised hierarchy in the draft fair value measurement statement is consistent with the principles discussed above and that the hierarchy in the draft fair value measurement statement represents an improvement over the disparate and inconsistent guidance currently in IFRSs. Unit of account and fair value measurements The Board agreed that it is not appropriate or practical to provide detailed guidance on the unit of account within the fair value measurement project. Determining the appropriate unit of account is a critical element of accounting and is not always consistent from one asset or liability to another or from one type of transaction to another. Determination of which market The Board agreed with the FASBs conclusion to adopt the principal market view. While this will result in a change from the most advantageous view currently in IFRS, the principal market view more accurately reflects the fair value measurement objective and provides a more representative measure of fair value by giving preference to highly liquid markets over less liquid markets. Transaction price presumption At the December 2005 meeting, the IASB tentatively agreed the fair value measurement objective was an exit price. The December discussion highlighted the conceptual difference between transaction price (what an entity would pay to buy an asset or receive to assume a liability) and an exit price objective (what an entity would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability). The staff concluded that an entity cannot presume an entry price to be equal to an exit price without considering factors specific to the transaction and the asset or liability. As a consequence, the staff plans to bring a separate discussion of day 1 gains or losses to the Board at a future meeting. The Board shared the concerns of the staff that if a transaction price were presumed to be fair value on initial measurement, entities might not sufficiently consider the differences between an entry transaction price and an exit fair value. As such, IFRSs should require an entity to consider factors specific to the transaction and the asset or liability in assessing if the transaction price represents fair value. Fair value within the bid-ask spread Entities often transact somewhere between the bid and ask pricing points, particularly if the entity is a market maker or an influential investor. However, application of the rule in IAS 39 results in consistency across entities without consideration of entity specific factors that may influence where within the bid-ask spread the entity is likely to transact. Further, the rule creates a bright-line in quoted markets, thus limiting the use of judgement and subjectivity in the fair value measurement. The Board agreed to add a discussion to the invitation to comment that communicates agreement with the principle in the draft fair value measurement statement. The discussion would state that it is not appropriate to use a consistently applied pricing convention as a practical expedient to fair value. This recommendation would result in both a change to existing IFRSs as well as a departure from the FASBs draft fair value measurement statement. Transaction and transportation costs in measuring fair value The definitions of transaction type costs vary in IFRSs, though such costs are consistently excluded from fair value measurements. Currently, IFRSs are not clear (with the exception of IAS 41) whether transportation costs are an attribute of the asset or liability, and as such should be included in the fair value measurement. The draft fair value measurement statement defines transaction costs as the incremental direct costs to transact in the principal or most advantageous market. Incremental direct costs are costs that result directly from, and are essential to, a transaction involving an asset (or liability). Incremental direct costs are costs that would not be incurred by the entity if the decision to sell or dispose of the asset (or transfer the liability) was not made. In the draft fair value measurement statement, the FASB concluded the fair value measurement of the asset or liability shall include only those costs that are an attribute of the asset or liability. The FASB concluded transaction costs are an attribute of the transaction, not an attribute of the asset or liability. Therefore the fair value measurement of the asset or liability shall not include transaction costs. The staff agreed with the conclusions in the draft FVM statement regarding transportation and transaction costs. However, the staff concluded that the discussion of what types of costs are attributes of the asset or liability could be more robust as it is difficult to decipher justification for different treatment of transaction costs and transportation costs in the current discussion in the draft FVM statement. As such, the staff recommended, and the Board agreed that the invitation to comment should include a question on the sufficiency of the discussion of costs that are attributes of an asset or liability, such as transportation costs. Discussion at the June 2006 IASB Meeting The Board continued its discussion of Fair Value Measurements (FVM), and reviewed the current project plan and due process steps. In addition, the Board had a preliminary discussion on accounting for day-one gains. Project Plan and Due Process The Board was briefly updated on the developments from the last FASB meeting at which the Fair Value Measurements project was discussed. The Fair Value Measurement project was added to the IASBs agenda in September 2005. At that time, the Board decided that they would expose the FASBs final FVM standard as an IASB exposure draft, not modifying it other than change US GAAP references to the appropriate IFRS references. Since then, the staff has become aware of concerns raised by IASB constituents. These include: †¢ As the FVM project could change how fair value is measured, some think that proceeding directly to an IASB exposure draft based on the final FASB document could potentially short-cut the IASBs due process requirements. †¢ As the FASB document applies a different concept of fair value from that of older IFRSs, constituents have problems with the conceptual reasons for changing to an exit price objective of fair value, particularly when an entity have no intention to sell an asset. As fair value is being increasingly used, fundamental questions regarding relevance and reliability need to be debated prior to completion of the project. Due to these concerns, the staff presented the Board with two alternative solutions: †¢ The first alternative was a modified plan which still would include issuing the FASB document as an exposure draft, in addition to conducting field visits and round-table discussions to get input from constituents. †¢ The second alt ernative was to issue the FASB document as a discussion paper, deliberate this, and then issue an exposure draft. This would allow the Board more time and more flexibility to address the concerns raised by constituents and hopefully a better standard, even if this route will be a longer one. The Board expressed sympathy for the concerns raised by the constituents, and the majority of Board members agreed that this would require a shift from the current project plan to alternative two which is to issue the FASB document as a discussion paper. However some Board members thought that the second alternative should be avoided as this would delay the issuing of a final standard too long. Alternative two will result in a final IFRS in late 2008 or early 2009. Some Board members thought that it would be crucial to communicate with constituents that this move away from the current project plan and towards the discussion paper route would take more time, but that it would be done to ensure the interest of constituents. The Board voted in favour of alternative two, resulting in a discussion paper being issued based on the FASB document. The Board noted that a final plan could not be put together before the final FASB document is issued. As long as the FASB have not issued their final document including, e. . their application guidance, the IASB will not have a public document accessible for issuing as the IASBs discussion paper. Day-one Gains and Losses Fair value, as defined in the FASBs document is an exit price. As a result of the Boards tentative approval of the exit price definition of fair value, in circumstances where an asset or a liability is required to be measu red at fair value on initial recognition, a day-one gain or loss may be recorded. The staff believes the existing guidance in IAS 39 is inconsistent with the exit price notion as tentatively approved by the Board, and therefore needs amendment. The Board was asked whether they would consider: †¢ To make only consequential amendments to conform IAS 39 with the guidance in the Fair Value Measurement statement and to leave the current guidance on recognition of day-one gains and losses in IAS 39. †¢ Making consequential amendments and change the existing guidance in IAS 39. The Board decided that they would not make any amendments right now, but rather put a question in the discussion paper whether this should be dealt with in a separate project or as a part of the Fair Value Measurement project. September 2006: FASB issues fair value measurement standard On 15 September 2006, the US Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 Fair Value Measurements. FAS 157 provides enhanced guidance for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities. It applies whenever other standards require (or permit) assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value. FAS 157 does not expand the use of fair value in any new circumstances. Click for: †¢ FASB News Release (PDF 19k) Special issue of the Heads Up Newsletter Summarising FAS 157 (PDF 218k) Some points about FAS 157: †¢ 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 in the market in which the reporting entity transacts. †¢ Fair value should be based on the assumptions market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability. †¢ FAS 157 establishes a fair va lue hierarchy that prioritises the information used to develop those assumptions. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority to unobservable data, for example, the reporting entitys own data. †¢ Fair value measurements would be separately disclosed by level within the fair value hierarchy. †¢ FAS 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after 15 November 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. †¢ FAS 157 may be downloaded from FASBs Website without charge. The IASB has on its agenda a project on fair value measurement. It is one of the convergence projects with the FASB. This means that the IASB and the FASB plan to have similar, if not identical, definitions and guidance relating to fair value measurements. The IASB plans to issue a discussion paper in the fourth quarter of 2006 that will: †¢ indicate the IASBs preliminary views on the provisions of FAS 157; †¢ identify differences between FAS 157 and fair value measurement guidance in existing IFRSs; and †¢ invite comments on the provisions of FAS 157 and on the IASBs preliminary views about those provisions. Discussion at the September 2006 IASB Meeting The staff noted that FAS 157 Fair Value Measurements was issued on 15 September 2006 (see IAS Plus News Story of 19 September 2006). The IASB staff can now complete the preparation of an IASB Discussion Paper on Fair Value Measurements, which will comprise: †¢ FAS 157; †¢ excerpts of existing FVM guidance in IFRSs; and †¢ an Invitation to Comment that expresses the Boards preliminary views and requests constituent input on certain matters Non-performance risk The Board noted that IFRSs currently do not discuss non-performance risk in relation to the fair value of liabilities. IAS 39 requires the fair value of a financial liability to reflect the credit quality of the instrument. Reflecting credit quality in the fair value measurement of a financial liability effectively causes the fair value measurement to reflect the risk that the obligation will not be fulfilled. FAS 157 extends this principle to the fair value measurement of both financial and non-financial liabilities. It was noted that non-financial liabilities include both credit risk (which related to the financial component) and non-performance risk (which related to the activity). After some discussion, the Board agreed to include a preliminary view in the invitation to comment agreeing with the concept that the fair value of a liability should reflect the non-performance risk relating to that liability (in addition to credit risk). Issues in the Invitation to Comment Entry and exit prices The Board agreed that the Invitation to Comment should discuss the concepts of entry and exit prices without stating a preliminary view. The Discussion Paper will address two views without stating a preference. The discussion note that the notion of a price established between a willing buyer and a willing seller matters only when one is shifting markets. In many IASB standards, fair value is used to mean an exit price; in a few (such as IFRS 3, IAS 39, and IAS 41), the phrase is used to mean an entry price. Board members found using the same phrase to communicate two different measurement objectives confusing. Board members noted that they might need to reassess the measurement objective in IFRS 3, IAS 39, and IAS 41 should they adopt the approach in FAS 157 paragraph 17(d), which allows the use of a price other than the transaction price to represent fair value if the transaction occurred in a market other than the principal or most advantageous market. The staff proposed wording on the fly, which they will bring back to the Board. Principal or most advantageous market IAS 39 requires an entity to use the most advantageous active market in measuring the fair value of a financial asset or liability when multiple markets exist, whereas IAS 41 Agriculture requires an entity to use the most relevant market. By comparison, the FAS 157 requires an entity use the principal market for the asset or liability. In the absence of a principal market for the asset or liability, the entity uses the most advantageous market. 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. The Board reconfirmed their view taken in May 2006, namely: When multiple markets exist for an asset or liability, the fair value measure should be based on the principal market for that asset or liability. If there is no principal market, the most advantageous market should be used. In both instances, the principal or most advantageous market should be determined from the perspective of the reporting entity. A question will be asked on this topic in the Invitation to Comment. Calling level 3 measurements fair value The Board noted that FAS 157 establishes a three level hierarchy for categorising and prioritising inputs for fair value measurements. Level 3 of the hierarchy is unobservable inputs for the asset or liability (that is, they are not observable in a market). Unobservable inputs are used to measure fair value only to the extent that observable inputs are not available. These inputs reflect the reporting entitys own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability (including assumptions about risk). When Level 3 measures are used, FAS 157 prescribes additional disclosures. The Board agreed that the disclosure requirements in FAS 157 highlight sufficiently the nature of the fair value measurement so that users of financial statements can develop a view of the potential uncertainty of that measurement. Therefore, it would not be necessary to include in the Discussion Paper a discussion of whether measurements comprised of significant Level 3 inputs should be labelled something other than fair value. Block premiums and discounts The Board agreed to address the issue of whether block premiums and discounts should be discussed in the Discussion Paper. Such premiums or discounts may arise when a larger-than-normal quantity of an asset or liability is being sold in a market. Board members noted that the requirement to use the Price x Quantity formula is limited to Level 1 measures, and that this opens the treatment of block purchases and sales to abuse, since it could be argued that these should be measured using Level 2 or 3 inputs. Board members also agreed that there is a need to distinguish illiquidity caused by the size of the block from that caused by the thinness of the market. The staff will draft a question on this issue for inclusion in the Invitation to Comment. Day 1 gains and losses The Board noted that an exit price measurement objective could have significant implications on certain fair value measurements in IFRSs, particularly in IAS 39 on initial Fas 157 Summary Analysis Essay Example Fas 157 Summary Analysis Essay Project Summary Background The objective of this project is to provide guidance to entities on how they should measure the fair value of assets and liabilities when required by other Standards. This project will not change when fair value measurement is required by IFRSs. Discussion at the September 2005 IASB Meeting At the September 2005 meeting, the IASB added the Fair Value Measurements topic to its agenda. The aim of the project is to provide guidance to entities on how they should measure the fair value of assets and liabilities when required by other Standards. This project will not change when fair value measurement is required by IFRSs. Discussion at the November 2005 IASB Meeting The staff conducted an education session on the FASBs working draft of a final Statement on Fair Value Measurements. In addition, the staff reviewed the scope of FASBs Fair Value Measurements project as it relates to IFRSs and the issues and questions to be addressed in preparing an IASB Exposure Draft and related Invitation to Comment. No decisions were made. At a previous meeting, the Board decided to issue the FASBs final Statement on Fair Value Measurements as an IASB Exposure Draft with an Invitation to Comment. The appendices in the FASB document dealing with consequential amendments and references to US GAAP pronouncements will be replaced with proposed consequential amendments and references to IFRSs. The Board further decided that there should be limited changes to the FASBs document. Instead, the Invitation to Comment should discuss any areas where the Board disagrees with the FASBs conclusions along with the basis for the disagreement. We will write a custom essay sample on Fas 157 Summary Analysis specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Fas 157 Summary Analysis specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Fas 157 Summary Analysis specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The staff expects these areas to be identified during Board deliberations during the December 2005 and January 2006 meetings whilst aiming toward issuance of the IASB Exposure Draft by April 2006. Discussion at the December 2005 IASB Meeting Definition of fair value The staff presented a paper identifying and comparing the differences between the definitions of fair value in the FASBs draft Fair Value Measurements (FVM) standard to the definition in IFRS. This comparison was meant to assist the Board in concluding whether or not to replace the current IFRS definition of fair value with the FVM standard definition. The staffs overall recommendation was to replace the current IFRS definition of fair value with the definition of fair value in the FVM standard. However, the staff made it clear that it was not stating that this definition be applied to all instances where fair value is currently used in IFRS. This scoping issue is the subject for a separate discussion that would span several Board meetings. The Board discussed in detail, the various components of the current and proposed definition of fair value in the context of the staffs analysis. Although the Board was in overall agreement to proceed with the proposed definition in the FVM standard, the following points were noted: †¢ Certain Board members wanted to see the various issues discussed pulled together and presented in some logical manner that would clarify how fair value is approached. As noted below, the Board was concerned that the proposed definition would cause confusion where this was not the intention. Some Board members were concerned about changing amount to price as this would change the meaning of fair value. This concern seemed to emanate around the treatment of transaction costs. †¢ The explicit discussion of exit values in the draft guidance was seen by some as problematic. Illustrations were provided indicating that at the time of the transaction; the agreed price constitutes both an entry and ex it value for that specific asset or liability. Others indicated that it was their belief that the current fair value definition already encompasses an exit value notion. Following on from this issue, the notion of marketplace participants is believed by some Board members to be a less superior phrase to the widely accepted knowledgeable, willing parties notion which is more readily understood to apply to a transaction between two parties without the necessity of the existence of a market. The FASBs rationale for introducing the marketplace participants notion as a means of excluding to the greatest extent possible, any entity specific factors when determining fair value, was noted. The Board will be asked to debate the meaning of the reference market notion at subsequent meetings. Scope of the Fair Value Measurements Project The Board considered a paper setting out on a Standard by Standard basis, which individual standards should be scoped in or out of this project. That paper was organised into three sections: †¢ Standards that require fair value measurement †¢ Standards that require fair value measurement by reference to another standard †¢ Standards that do not require fair value measurement Within each of these sections, the staff made various proposals for the Boards consideration. Overall, the staff recommended not modifying as part of this project existing reliability clauses and practicability exceptions. The staff concluded that such modifications could result in significant changes to current practice and that any changes should be considered on a standard-by-standard basis separately from this project. Standards that require fair value measurement The following standards were noted as requiring assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value in certain circumstances: †¢ (a) IAS 11 Construction Contracts †¢ (b) IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment (c) IAS 17 Leases †¢ (d) IAS 18 Revenue †¢ (e) IAS 19 Employee Benefits †¢ (f) IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance †¢ (g) IAS 26 Accounting and Reporting by Retirement Benefit Plans †¢ (h) IAS 33 Earnings per Share †¢ (i) IAS 36 Impairment of Assets †¢ (j) IAS 38 Intangible Assets †¢ (k) IAS 39 Financial In struments: Recognition and Measurement †¢ (l) IAS 40 Investment Property †¢ (m) IAS 41 Agriculture †¢ (n) IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards †¢ (o) IFRS 2 Share-based Payment (p) IFRS 3 Business Combinations and the June 2005 Exposure Draft †¢ (q) IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations The Board agreed with the staff recommendations (as set out in the observer notes) for each standard except in the following instances: †¢ IAS 18 the staff concluded that in the instances where an entity received services for dissimilar goods or services, the measurement objective is not consistent with the draft FVM standard and therefore IAS 18 should be excluded from the scope. The Board noted this issue but indicated a preference to include IAS 18 within the scope of the FVM Standard as this is a minor part of the fair value requirements in IAS 18. The confusion caused in the market if the Board were to exclude IAS 18 from the project would be undesirable. †¢ IFRS 2 due to the grant date model, the Board noted the issue that may arise where an entity measures a share-based payment transaction by reference to the equity instruments granted, not the goods or services received. However, the Board decided to include IFRS 2 within the scope of the FVM Standard on the same basis as for IAS 18. Standards that require fair value measurement by reference to another standard †¢ (a) IAS 2 Inventory †¢ (b) IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates †¢ (c) IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements †¢ (d) IAS 28 Investment in Associates †¢ (e) IAS 31 Interests in Joint Ventures (f) IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation and Disclosure †¢ (g) IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts †¢ (h) IFRS 7 Financial Instruments The Board agreed with the staff recommendation that discussion of the above is not necessary as these standards do not contain any additional requirements to measure assets or liabilities at fair value. Standards that do not require fair value measurement †¢ (a) IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements †¢ (b) IAS 7 Cash Flow Statements (c) IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accoun ting Estimates and Errors †¢ (d) IAS 10 Events After the Balance Sheet Date †¢ (e) IAS 12 Income Taxes †¢ (f) IAS 14 Segment Reporting †¢ (g) IAS 23 Borrowing Costs †¢ (h) IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures †¢ (i) IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies †¢ (j) IAS 30 Disclosures in the Financial Statements of Banks and Similar Financial Institutions †¢ (k) IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting (l) IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets †¢ (m) IFRS 6 Exploration for and Evaluations of Mineral Reserves With regard to IAS 37, the Board concurred with the staff that the measurement principles therein are consistent with fair value principles in many respects and went further to state that when the amendments to IAS 37 are finalised, it would add explicit reference to fair value to clarify this issue. Discussion at the February 2006 IASB Meeting This was a brief session to inform the Board about recent tentative decisions of the FASB on its fair value measurement standard. No observer notes were provided for this session. The FASB discussed the fair value hierarchy at its last meeting. FASBs exposure draft had proposed a five-level fair value hierarchy. The FASB has come to the conclusion that it is difficult to distinguish levels two to four in the hierarchy. They have therefore reduced the hierarchy to three levels. The FASB has not made other changes to its proposed fair value guidance. The staff said that discussion will continue in March. Discussion at the May 2006 IASB Meeting Principles of the fair value measurement project The following principles were put to the Board as those forming the foundation of the fair value measurement project: †¢ The objective of a fair value measurement is to determine the price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability in a transaction between market participants at the measurement date. †¢ The definition of fair value and its measurement objective should be consistent for all fair value measurements required by IFRS. A fair value measurement should reflect market views of the attributes of the asset or liability being measured and should not include views of the reporting entity that differ from market expectations. †¢ A fair value measurement should consider the utility of the asset or liability being measured. As such, the fair value measurement should consider the location and the condi tion of the asset or liability at its measurement date. The Board concurred with the staff that the above principles form the foundation of the fair value measurement project. Revised definition of fair value In the staffs view, the FASBs revised definition of fair value is substantively similar to the one tentatively approved by the IASB in December 2005. Based on that, the IASB agreed that the revised definition is consistent with the measurement objective. However, some Board members expressed concern about the change to a price rather than amount. In addition, the revised definition is based on an exit price notion that does not consider prices that exist other than the exit price. As a consequence, other Board members noted that the current definition will require measurement based on a hypothetical market that, for some types of assets and liabilities, cannot be calibrated with reality and in most cases will result in day 1 gains or losses, which constituents are uncomfortable with. Revised fair value hierarchy The draft fair value measurement statement indicates that valuation techniques used to measure fair value shall maximise the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The hierarchy prioritises the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value based on their observable or unobservable nature. The revised three-level hierarchy is summarised as follows: †¢ Level 1 inputs are observable inputs that reflect quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date. †¢ Level 2 inputs are observable inputs other than quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets at the measurement date. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs, for example, inputs derived through extrapolation or interpolation that cannot be corroborated by observable data. However, the fair value measurement objective remains the same. Therefore, unobservable inputs should be adjusted for entity information that is inconsistent with market expectations. Unobservable inputs should also consider the risk premium a market participant (buyer) would demand to assume the inherent uncertainty in the unobservable input. IFRSs currently does not have a single hierarchy that applies to all fair value measures. Instead individual standards indicate preferences for certain inputs and measures of fair value over others, but this guidance is not consistent among all IFRSs. The Board agreed with the staffs conclusion that the revised hierarchy in the draft fair value measurement statement is consistent with the principles discussed above and that the hierarchy in the draft fair value measurement statement represents an improvement over the disparate and inconsistent guidance currently in IFRSs. Unit of account and fair value measurements The Board agreed that it is not appropriate or practical to provide detailed guidance on the unit of account within the fair value measurement project. Determining the appropriate unit of account is a critical element of accounting and is not always consistent from one asset or liability to another or from one type of transaction to another. Determination of which market The Board agreed with the FASBs conclusion to adopt the principal market view. While this will result in a change from the most advantageous view currently in IFRS, the principal market view more accurately reflects the fair value measurement objective and provides a more representative measure of fair value by giving preference to highly liquid markets over less liquid markets. Transaction price presumption At the December 2005 meeting, the IASB tentatively agreed the fair value measurement objective was an exit price. The December discussion highlighted the conceptual difference between transaction price (what an entity would pay to buy an asset or receive to assume a liability) and an exit price objective (what an entity would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability). The staff concluded that an entity cannot presume an entry price to be equal to an exit price without considering factors specific to the transaction and the asset or liability. As a consequence, the staff plans to bring a separate discussion of day 1 gains or losses to the Board at a future meeting. The Board shared the concerns of the staff that if a transaction price were presumed to be fair value on initial measurement, entities might not sufficiently consider the differences between an entry transaction price and an exit fair value. As such, IFRSs should require an entity to consider factors specific to the transaction and the asset or liability in assessing if the transaction price represents fair value. Fair value within the bid-ask spread Entities often transact somewhere between the bid and ask pricing points, particularly if the entity is a market maker or an influential investor. However, application of the rule in IAS 39 results in consistency across entities without consideration of entity specific factors that may influence where within the bid-ask spread the entity is likely to transact. Further, the rule creates a bright-line in quoted markets, thus limiting the use of judgement and subjectivity in the fair value measurement. The Board agreed to add a discussion to the invitation to comment that communicates agreement with the principle in the draft fair value measurement statement. The discussion would state that it is not appropriate to use a consistently applied pricing convention as a practical expedient to fair value. This recommendation would result in both a change to existing IFRSs as well as a departure from the FASBs draft fair value measurement statement. Transaction and transportation costs in measuring fair value The definitions of transaction type costs vary in IFRSs, though such costs are consistently excluded from fair value measurements. Currently, IFRSs are not clear (with the exception of IAS 41) whether transportation costs are an attribute of the asset or liability, and as such should be included in the fair value measurement. The draft fair value measurement statement defines transaction costs as the incremental direct costs to transact in the principal or most advantageous market. Incremental direct costs are costs that result directly from, and are essential to, a transaction involving an asset (or liability). Incremental direct costs are costs that would not be incurred by the entity if the decision to sell or dispose of the asset (or transfer the liability) was not made. In the draft fair value measurement statement, the FASB concluded the fair value measurement of the asset or liability shall include only those costs that are an attribute of the asset or liability. The FASB concluded transaction costs are an attribute of the transaction, not an attribute of the asset or liability. Therefore the fair value measurement of the asset or liability shall not include transaction costs. The staff agreed with the conclusions in the draft FVM statement regarding transportation and transaction costs. However, the staff concluded that the discussion of what types of costs are attributes of the asset or liability could be more robust as it is difficult to decipher justification for different treatment of transaction costs and transportation costs in the current discussion in the draft FVM statement. As such, the staff recommended, and the Board agreed that the invitation to comment should include a question on the sufficiency of the discussion of costs that are attributes of an asset or liability, such as transportation costs. Discussion at the June 2006 IASB Meeting The Board continued its discussion of Fair Value Measurements (FVM), and reviewed the current project plan and due process steps. In addition, the Board had a preliminary discussion on accounting for day-one gains. Project Plan and Due Process The Board was briefly updated on the developments from the last FASB meeting at which the Fair Value Measurements project was discussed. The Fair Value Measurement project was added to the IASBs agenda in September 2005. At that time, the Board decided that they would expose the FASBs final FVM standard as an IASB exposure draft, not modifying it other than change US GAAP references to the appropriate IFRS references. Since then, the staff has become aware of concerns raised by IASB constituents. These include: †¢ As the FVM project could change how fair value is measured, some think that proceeding directly to an IASB exposure draft based on the final FASB document could potentially short-cut the IASBs due process requirements. †¢ As the FASB document applies a different concept of fair value from that of older IFRSs, constituents have problems with the conceptual reasons for changing to an exit price objective of fair value, particularly when an entity have no intention to sell an asset. As fair value is being increasingly used, fundamental questions regarding relevance and reliability need to be debated prior to completion of the project. Due to these concerns, the staff presented the Board with two alternative solutions: †¢ The first alternative was a modified plan which still would include issuing the FASB document as an exposure draft, in addition to conducting field visits and round-table discussions to get input from constituents. †¢ The second alt ernative was to issue the FASB document as a discussion paper, deliberate this, and then issue an exposure draft. This would allow the Board more time and more flexibility to address the concerns raised by constituents and hopefully a better standard, even if this route will be a longer one. The Board expressed sympathy for the concerns raised by the constituents, and the majority of Board members agreed that this would require a shift from the current project plan to alternative two which is to issue the FASB document as a discussion paper. However some Board members thought that the second alternative should be avoided as this would delay the issuing of a final standard too long. Alternative two will result in a final IFRS in late 2008 or early 2009. Some Board members thought that it would be crucial to communicate with constituents that this move away from the current project plan and towards the discussion paper route would take more time, but that it would be done to ensure the interest of constituents. The Board voted in favour of alternative two, resulting in a discussion paper being issued based on the FASB document. The Board noted that a final plan could not be put together before the final FASB document is issued. As long as the FASB have not issued their final document including, e. . their application guidance, the IASB will not have a public document accessible for issuing as the IASBs discussion paper. Day-one Gains and Losses Fair value, as defined in the FASBs document is an exit price. As a result of the Boards tentative approval of the exit price definition of fair value, in circumstances where an asset or a liability is required to be measu red at fair value on initial recognition, a day-one gain or loss may be recorded. The staff believes the existing guidance in IAS 39 is inconsistent with the exit price notion as tentatively approved by the Board, and therefore needs amendment. The Board was asked whether they would consider: †¢ To make only consequential amendments to conform IAS 39 with the guidance in the Fair Value Measurement statement and to leave the current guidance on recognition of day-one gains and losses in IAS 39. †¢ Making consequential amendments and change the existing guidance in IAS 39. The Board decided that they would not make any amendments right now, but rather put a question in the discussion paper whether this should be dealt with in a separate project or as a part of the Fair Value Measurement project. September 2006: FASB issues fair value measurement standard On 15 September 2006, the US Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 Fair Value Measurements. FAS 157 provides enhanced guidance for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities. It applies whenever other standards require (or permit) assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value. FAS 157 does not expand the use of fair value in any new circumstances. Click for: †¢ FASB News Release (PDF 19k) Special issue of the Heads Up Newsletter Summarising FAS 157 (PDF 218k) Some points about FAS 157: †¢ 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 in the market in which the reporting entity transacts. †¢ Fair value should be based on the assumptions market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability. †¢ FAS 157 establishes a fair va lue hierarchy that prioritises the information used to develop those assumptions. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority to unobservable data, for example, the reporting entitys own data. †¢ Fair value measurements would be separately disclosed by level within the fair value hierarchy. †¢ FAS 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after 15 November 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. †¢ FAS 157 may be downloaded from FASBs Website without charge. The IASB has on its agenda a project on fair value measurement. It is one of the convergence projects with the FASB. This means that the IASB and the FASB plan to have similar, if not identical, definitions and guidance relating to fair value measurements. The IASB plans to issue a discussion paper in the fourth quarter of 2006 that will: †¢ indicate the IASBs preliminary views on the provisions of FAS 157; †¢ identify differences between FAS 157 and fair value measurement guidance in existing IFRSs; and †¢ invite comments on the provisions of FAS 157 and on the IASBs preliminary views about those provisions. Discussion at the September 2006 IASB Meeting The staff noted that FAS 157 Fair Value Measurements was issued on 15 September 2006 (see IAS Plus News Story of 19 September 2006). The IASB staff can now complete the preparation of an IASB Discussion Paper on Fair Value Measurements, which will comprise: †¢ FAS 157; †¢ excerpts of existing FVM guidance in IFRSs; and †¢ an Invitation to Comment that expresses the Boards preliminary views and requests constituent input on certain matters Non-performance risk The Board noted that IFRSs currently do not discuss non-performance risk in relation to the fair value of liabilities. IAS 39 requires the fair value of a financial liability to reflect the credit quality of the instrument. Reflecting credit quality in the fair value measurement of a financial liability effectively causes the fair value measurement to reflect the risk that the obligation will not be fulfilled. FAS 157 extends this principle to the fair value measurement of both financial and non-financial liabilities. It was noted that non-financial liabilities include both credit risk (which related to the financial component) and non-performance risk (which related to the activity). After some discussion, the Board agreed to include a preliminary view in the invitation to comment agreeing with the concept that the fair value of a liability should reflect the non-performance risk relating to that liability (in addition to credit risk). Issues in the Invitation to Comment Entry and exit prices The Board agreed that the Invitation to Comment should discuss the concepts of entry and exit prices without stating a preliminary view. The Discussion Paper will address two views without stating a preference. The discussion note that the notion of a price established between a willing buyer and a willing seller matters only when one is shifting markets. In many IASB standards, fair value is used to mean an exit price; in a few (such as IFRS 3, IAS 39, and IAS 41), the phrase is used to mean an entry price. Board members found using the same phrase to communicate two different measurement objectives confusing. Board members noted that they might need to reassess the measurement objective in IFRS 3, IAS 39, and IAS 41 should they adopt the approach in FAS 157 paragraph 17(d), which allows the use of a price other than the transaction price to represent fair value if the transaction occurred in a market other than the principal or most advantageous market. The staff proposed wording on the fly, which they will bring back to the Board. Principal or most advantageous market IAS 39 requires an entity to use the most advantageous active market in measuring the fair value of a financial asset or liability when multiple markets exist, whereas IAS 41 Agriculture requires an entity to use the most relevant market. By comparison, the FAS 157 requires an entity use the principal market for the asset or liability. In the absence of a principal market for the asset or liability, the entity uses the most advantageous market. 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. The Board reconfirmed their view taken in May 2006, namely: When multiple markets exist for an asset or liability, the fair value measure should be based on the principal market for that asset or liability. If there is no principal market, the most advantageous market should be used. In both instances, the principal or most advantageous market should be determined from the perspective of the reporting entity. A question will be asked on this topic in the Invitation to Comment. Calling level 3 measurements fair value The Board noted that FAS 157 establishes a three level hierarchy for categorising and prioritising inputs for fair value measurements. Level 3 of the hierarchy is unobservable inputs for the asset or liability (that is, they are not observable in a market). Unobservable inputs are used to measure fair value only to the extent that observable inputs are not available. These inputs reflect the reporting entitys own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability (including assumptions about risk). When Level 3 measures are used, FAS 157 prescribes additional disclosures. The Board agreed that the disclosure requirements in FAS 157 highlight sufficiently the nature of the fair value measurement so that users of financial statements can develop a view of the potential uncertainty of that measurement. Therefore, it would not be necessary to include in the Discussion Paper a discussion of whether measurements comprised of significant Level 3 inputs should be labelled something other than fair value. Block premiums and discounts The Board agreed to address the issue of whether block premiums and discounts should be discussed in the Discussion Paper. Such premiums or discounts may arise when a larger-than-normal quantity of an asset or liability is being sold in a market. Board members noted that the requirement to use the Price x Quantity formula is limited to Level 1 measures, and that this opens the treatment of block purchases and sales to abuse, since it could be argued that these should be measured using Level 2 or 3 inputs. Board members also agreed that there is a need to distinguish illiquidity caused by the size of the block from that caused by the thinness of the market. The staff will draft a question on this issue for inclusion in the Invitation to Comment. Day 1 gains and losses The Board noted that an exit price measurement objective could have significant implications on certain fair value measurements in IFRSs, particularly in IAS 39 on initial