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