Anda di halaman 1dari 254

May 2011

International Financial Reporting Standard

IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement

International Financial Reporting Standard 13 Fair Value Measurement

IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement is issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0)20 7246 6410 Fax: +44 (0)20 7246 6411 Email: iasb@ifrs.org Web: www.ifrs.org The IASB, the IFRS Foundation, the authors and the publishers do not accept responsibility for loss caused to any person who acts or refrains from acting in reliance on the material in this publication, whether such loss is caused by negligence or otherwise. Copyright 2011 IFRS Foundation IFRS 13 and its accompanying documents are published in three parts. ISBN for this part: 978-1-907877-22-3 ISBN for complete publication (three parts): 978-1-907877-21-6 International Financial Reporting Standards (including International Accounting Standards and SIC and IFRIC Interpretations), Exposure Drafts, and other IASB publications are copyright of the IFRS Foundation. The approved text of International Financial Reporting Standards and other IASB publications is that published by the IASB in the English language. Copies may be obtained from the IFRS Foundation. Please address publications and copyright matters to: IFRS Foundation Publications Department, 1st Floor, 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0)20 7332 2730 Fax: +44 (0)20 7332 2749 Email: publications@ifrs.org Web: www.ifrs.org All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated, reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form either in whole or in part or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the IFRS Foundation.

The IFRS Foundation logo/the IASB logo/Hexagon Device, IFRS Foundation, eIFRS, IAS, IASB, IASC Foundation, IASCF, IFRS for SMEs, IASs, IFRIC, IFRS, IFRSs, International Accounting Standards, International Financial Reporting Standards and SIC are Trade Marks of the IFRS Foundation.

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

CONTENTS
paragraphs INTRODUCTION

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT


OBJECTIVE SCOPE MEASUREMENT Definition of fair value The asset or liability The transaction Market participants The price Application to non-financial assets Application to liabilities and an entitys own equity instruments Application to financial assets and financial liabilities with offsetting positions in market risks or counterparty credit risk Fair value at initial recognition Valuation techniques Inputs to valuation techniques Fair value hierarchy DISCLOSURE APPENDICES A B C D Defined terms Application guidance Effective date and transition Amendments to other IFRSs 14 58 990 910 1114 1521 2223 2426 2733 3447 4856 5760 6166 6771 7290 9199

APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF IFRS 13 ISSUED IN MAY 2011 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS (see separate booklet) APPENDIX Amendments to the Basis for Conclusions on other IFRSs ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES (see separate booklet) APPENDIX Amendments to the guidance on other IFRSs

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

International Financial Reporting Standard 13 Fair Value Measurement (IFRS 13) is set out in paragraphs 199 and Appendices AD. All the paragraphs have equal authority. Paragraphs in bold type state the main principles. Terms defined in Appendix A are in italics the first time they appear in the IFRS. Definitions of other terms are given in the Glossary for International Financial Reporting Standards. IFRS 13 should be read in the context of its objective and the Basis for Conclusions, the Preface to International Financial Reporting Standards and the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors provides a basis for selecting and applying accounting policies in the absence of explicit guidance.

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Introduction
Overview
IN1 International Financial Reporting Standard 13 Fair Value Measurement (IFRS 13): (a) (b) (c) IN2 defines fair value; sets out in a single IFRS a framework for measuring fair value; and requires disclosures about fair value measurements.

The IFRS applies to IFRSs that require or permit fair value measurements or disclosures about fair value measurements (and measurements, such as fair value less costs to sell, based on fair value or disclosures about those measurements), except in specified circumstances. The IFRS is to be applied for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013. Earlier application is permitted. The IFRS explains how to measure fair value for financial reporting. It does not require fair value measurements in addition to those already required or permitted by other IFRSs and is not intended to establish valuation standards or affect valuation practices outside financial reporting.

IN3 IN4

Reasons for issuing the IFRS


IN5 Some IFRSs require or permit entities to measure or disclose the fair value of assets, liabilities or their own equity instruments. Because those IFRSs were developed over many years, the requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements were dispersed and in many cases did not articulate a clear measurement or disclosure objective. As a result, some of those IFRSs contained limited guidance about how to measure fair value, whereas others contained extensive guidance and that guidance was not always consistent across those IFRSs that refer to fair value. Inconsistencies in the requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements have contributed to diversity in practice and have reduced the comparability of information reported in financial statements. IFRS 13 remedies that situation.

IN6

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

IN7

Furthermore, in 2006 the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the US national standard-setter, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), published a Memorandum of Understanding, which has served as the foundation of the boards efforts to create a common set of high quality global accounting standards. Consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding and the boards commitment to achieving that goal, IFRS 13 is the result of the work by the IASB and the FASB to develop common requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements in accordance with IFRSs and US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Main features
IN8 IFRS 13 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (ie an exit price). That definition of fair value emphasises that fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement. When measuring fair value, an entity uses the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability under current market conditions, including assumptions about risk. As a result, an entitys intention to hold an asset or to settle or otherwise fulfil a liability is not relevant when measuring fair value. The IFRS explains that a fair value measurement requires an entity to determine the following: (a) (b) the particular asset or liability being measured; for a non-financial asset, the highest and best use of the asset and whether the asset is used in combination with other assets or on a stand-alone basis; the market in which an orderly transaction would take place for the asset or liability; and the appropriate valuation technique(s) to use when measuring fair value. The valuation technique(s) used should maximise the use of relevant observable inputs and minimise unobservable inputs. Those inputs should be consistent with the inputs a market participant would use when pricing the asset or liability.

IN9

IN10

(c) (d)

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

International Financial Reporting Standard 13 Fair Value Measurement


Objective
1 This IFRS: (a) (b) (c) defines fair value; sets out in a single IFRS a framework for measuring fair value; and requires disclosures about fair value measurements.

Fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement. For some assets and liabilities, observable market transactions or market information might be available. For other assets and liabilities, observable market transactions and market information might not be available. However, the objective of a fair value measurement in both cases is the sameto estimate the price at which an orderly transaction to sell the asset or to transfer the liability would take place between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions (ie an exit price at the measurement date from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability). When a price for an identical asset or liability is not observable, an entity measures fair value using another valuation technique that maximises the use of relevant observable inputs and minimises the use of unobservable inputs. Because fair value is a market-based measurement, it is measured using the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk. As a result, an entitys intention to hold an asset or to settle or otherwise fulfil a liability is not relevant when measuring fair value. The definition of fair value focuses on assets and liabilities because they are a primary subject of accounting measurement. In addition, this IFRS shall be applied to an entitys own equity instruments measured at fair value.

Scope
5 This IFRS applies when another IFRS requires or permits fair value measurements or disclosures about fair value measurements (and measurements, such as fair value less costs to sell, based on fair value or disclosures about those measurements), except as specified in paragraphs 6 and 7.

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

The measurement and disclosure requirements of this IFRS do not apply to the following: (a) (b) (c) share-based payment transactions within the scope of IFRS 2 Share-based Payment; leasing transactions within the scope of IAS 17 Leases; and measurements that have some similarities to fair value but are not fair value, such as net realisable value in IAS 2 Inventories or value in use in IAS 36 Impairment of Assets.

The disclosures required by this IFRS are not required for the following: (a) (b) plan assets measured at fair value in accordance with IAS 19 Employee Benefits; retirement benefit plan investments measured at fair value in accordance with IAS 26 Accounting and Reporting by Retirement Benefit Plans; and assets for which recoverable amount is fair value less costs of disposal in accordance with IAS 36.

(c) 8

The fair value measurement framework described in this IFRS applies to both initial and subsequent measurement if fair value is required or permitted by other IFRSs.

Measurement Definition of fair value


9 This IFRS defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.

10

Paragraph B2 describes the overall fair value measurement approach.

The asset or liability


11 A fair value measurement is for a particular asset or liability. Therefore, when measuring fair value an entity shall take into account the characteristics of the asset or liability if market participants would take those characteristics into account when pricing the asset or liability at the measurement date. Such characteristics include, for example, the following: (a) the condition and location of the asset; and

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(b)

restrictions, if any, on the sale or use of the asset.

12

The effect on the measurement arising from a particular characteristic will differ depending on how that characteristic would be taken into account by market participants. The asset or liability measured at fair value might be either of the following: (a) (b) a stand-alone asset or liability (eg a financial instrument or a non-financial asset); or a group of assets, a group of liabilities or a group of assets and liabilities (eg a cash-generating unit or a business).

13

14

Whether the asset or liability is a stand-alone asset or liability, a group of assets, a group of liabilities or a group of assets and liabilities for recognition or disclosure purposes depends on its unit of account. The unit of account for the asset or liability shall be determined in accordance with the IFRS that requires or permits the fair value measurement, except as provided in this IFRS.

The transaction
15 A fair value measurement assumes that the asset or liability is exchanged in an orderly transaction between market participants to sell the asset or transfer the liability at the measurement date under current market conditions. A fair value measurement assumes that the transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability takes place either: (a) (b) in the principal market for the asset or liability; or in the absence of a principal market, in the most advantageous market for the asset or liability.

16

17

An entity need not undertake an exhaustive search of all possible markets to identify the principal market or, in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market, but it shall take into account all information that is reasonably available. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the market in which the entity would normally enter into a transaction to sell the asset or to transfer the liability is presumed to be the principal market or, in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market.

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

18

If there is a principal market for the asset or liability, the fair value measurement shall represent the price in that market (whether that price is directly observable or estimated using another valuation technique), even if the price in a different market is potentially more advantageous at the measurement date. The entity must have access to the principal (or most advantageous) market at the measurement date. Because different entities (and businesses within those entities) with different activities may have access to different markets, the principal (or most advantageous) market for the same asset or liability might be different for different entities (and businesses within those entities). Therefore, the principal (or most advantageous) market (and thus, market participants) shall be considered from the perspective of the entity, thereby allowing for differences between and among entities with different activities. Although an entity must be able to access the market, the entity does not need to be able to sell the particular asset or transfer the particular liability on the measurement date to be able to measure fair value on the basis of the price in that market. Even when there is no observable market to provide pricing information about the sale of an asset or the transfer of a liability at the measurement date, a fair value measurement shall assume that a transaction takes place at that date, considered from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. That assumed transaction establishes a basis for estimating the price to sell the asset or to transfer the liability.

19

20

21

Market participants
22 An entity shall measure the fair value of an asset or a liability using the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability, assuming that market participants act in their economic best interest.

23

In developing those assumptions, an entity need not identify specific market participants. Rather, the entity shall identify characteristics that distinguish market participants generally, considering factors specific to all the following: (a) (b) the asset or liability; the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability; and

IFRS Foundation

10

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(c)

market participants with whom the entity would enter into a transaction in that market.

The price
24 Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction in the principal (or most advantageous) market at the measurement date under current market conditions (ie an exit price) regardless of whether that price is directly observable or estimated using another valuation technique.

25

The price in the principal (or most advantageous) market used to measure the fair value of the asset or liability shall not be adjusted for transaction costs. Transaction costs shall be accounted for in accordance with other IFRSs. Transaction costs are not a characteristic of an asset or a liability; rather, they are specific to a transaction and will differ depending on how an entity enters into a transaction for the asset or liability. Transaction costs do not include transport costs. If location is a characteristic of the asset (as might be the case, for example, for a commodity), the price in the principal (or most advantageous) market shall be adjusted for the costs, if any, that would be incurred to transport the asset from its current location to that market.

26

Application to non-financial assets


Highest and best use for non-financial assets
27 A fair value measurement of a non-financial asset takes into account a market participants ability to generate economic benefits by using the asset in its highest and best use or by selling it to another market participant that would use the asset in its highest and best use.

28

The highest and best use of a non-financial asset takes into account the use of the asset that is physically possible, legally permissible and financially feasible, as follows: (a) A use that is physically possible takes into account the physical characteristics of the asset that market participants would take into account when pricing the asset (eg the location or size of a property). A use that is legally permissible takes into account any legal restrictions on the use of the asset that market participants would take into account when pricing the asset (eg the zoning regulations applicable to a property).

(b)

11

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

(c)

A use that is financially feasible takes into account whether a use of the asset that is physically possible and legally permissible generates adequate income or cash flows (taking into account the costs of converting the asset to that use) to produce an investment return that market participants would require from an investment in that asset put to that use.

29

Highest and best use is determined from the perspective of market participants, even if the entity intends a different use. However, an entitys current use of a non-financial asset is presumed to be its highest and best use unless market or other factors suggest that a different use by market participants would maximise the value of the asset. To protect its competitive position, or for other reasons, an entity may intend not to use an acquired non-financial asset actively or it may intend not to use the asset according to its highest and best use. For example, that might be the case for an acquired intangible asset that the entity plans to use defensively by preventing others from using it. Nevertheless, the entity shall measure the fair value of a non-financial asset assuming its highest and best use by market participants.

30

Valuation premise for non-financial assets


31 The highest and best use of a non-financial asset establishes the valuation premise used to measure the fair value of the asset, as follows: (a) The highest and best use of a non-financial asset might provide maximum value to market participants through its use in combination with other assets as a group (as installed or otherwise configured for use) or in combination with other assets and liabilities (eg a business). (i) If the highest and best use of the asset is to use the asset in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities, the fair value of the asset is the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the asset assuming that the asset would be used with other assets or with other assets and liabilities and that those assets and liabilities (ie its complementary assets and the associated liabilities) would be available to market participants. Liabilities associated with the asset and with the complementary assets include liabilities that fund working capital, but do not include liabilities used to fund assets other than those within the group of assets.

(ii)

IFRS Foundation

12

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(iii) Assumptions about the highest and best use of a non-financial asset shall be consistent for all the assets (for which highest and best use is relevant) of the group of assets or the group of assets and liabilities within which the asset would be used. (b) The highest and best use of a non-financial asset might provide maximum value to market participants on a stand-alone basis. If the highest and best use of the asset is to use it on a stand-alone basis, the fair value of the asset is the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the asset to market participants that would use the asset on a stand-alone basis.

32

The fair value measurement of a non-financial asset assumes that the asset is sold consistently with the unit of account specified in other IFRSs (which may be an individual asset). That is the case even when that fair value measurement assumes that the highest and best use of the asset is to use it in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities because a fair value measurement assumes that the market participant already holds the complementary assets and the associated liabilities. Paragraph B3 describes the application of the valuation premise concept for non-financial assets.

33

Application to liabilities and an entitys own equity instruments


General principles
34 A fair value measurement assumes that a financial or non-financial liability or an entitys own equity instrument (eg equity interests issued as consideration in a business combination) is transferred to a market participant at the measurement date. The transfer of a liability or an entitys own equity instrument assumes the following: (a) A liability would remain outstanding and the market participant transferee would be required to fulfil the obligation. The liability would not be settled with the counterparty or otherwise extinguished on the measurement date. An entitys own equity instrument would remain outstanding and the market participant transferee would take on the rights and responsibilities associated with the instrument. The instrument

(b)

13

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

would not be cancelled or otherwise extinguished on the measurement date.

35

Even when there is no observable market to provide pricing information about the transfer of a liability or an entitys own equity instrument (eg because contractual or other legal restrictions prevent the transfer of such items), there might be an observable market for such items if they are held by other parties as assets (eg a corporate bond or a call option on an entitys shares). In all cases, an entity shall maximise the use of relevant observable inputs and minimise the use of unobservable inputs to meet the objective of a fair value measurement, which is to estimate the price at which an orderly transaction to transfer the liability or equity instrument would take place between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions.

36

Liabilities and equity instruments held by other parties as assets


37 When a quoted price for the transfer of an identical or a similar liability or entitys own equity instrument is not available and the identical item is held by another party as an asset, an entity shall measure the fair value of the liability or equity instrument from the perspective of a market participant that holds the identical item as an asset at the measurement date.

38

In such cases, an entity shall measure the fair value of the liability or equity instrument as follows: (a) (b) using the quoted price in an active market for the identical item held by another party as an asset, if that price is available. if that price is not available, using other observable inputs, such as the quoted price in a market that is not active for the identical item held by another party as an asset. if the observable prices in (a) and (b) are not available, using another valuation technique, such as: (i) an income approach (eg a present value technique that takes into account the future cash flows that a market participant would expect to receive from holding the liability or equity instrument as an asset; see paragraphs B10 and B11). a market approach (eg using quoted prices for similar liabilities or equity instruments held by other parties as assets; see paragraphs B5B7).

(c)

(ii)

IFRS Foundation

14

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

39

An entity shall adjust the quoted price of a liability or an entitys own equity instrument held by another party as an asset only if there are factors specific to the asset that are not applicable to the fair value measurement of the liability or equity instrument. An entity shall ensure that the price of the asset does not reflect the effect of a restriction preventing the sale of that asset. Some factors that may indicate that the quoted price of the asset should be adjusted include the following: (a) The quoted price for the asset relates to a similar (but not identical) liability or equity instrument held by another party as an asset. For example, the liability or equity instrument may have a particular characteristic (eg the credit quality of the issuer) that is different from that reflected in the fair value of the similar liability or equity instrument held as an asset. The unit of account for the asset is not the same as for the liability or equity instrument. For example, for liabilities, in some cases the price for an asset reflects a combined price for a package comprising both the amounts due from the issuer and a third-party credit enhancement. If the unit of account for the liability is not for the combined package, the objective is to measure the fair value of the issuers liability, not the fair value of the combined package. Thus, in such cases, the entity would adjust the observed price for the asset to exclude the effect of the third-party credit enhancement.

(b)

Liabilities and equity instruments not held by other parties as assets


40 When a quoted price for the transfer of an identical or a similar liability or entitys own equity instrument is not available and the identical item is not held by another party as an asset, an entity shall measure the fair value of the liability or equity instrument using a valuation technique from the perspective of a market participant that owes the liability or has issued the claim on equity.

41

For example, when applying a present value technique an entity might take into account either of the following: (a) the future cash outflows that a market participant would expect to incur in fulfilling the obligation, including the compensation that a market participant would require for taking on the obligation (see paragraphs B31B33). the amount that a market participant would receive to enter into or issue an identical liability or equity instrument, using the

(b)

15

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the identical item (eg having the same credit characteristics) in the principal (or most advantageous) market for issuing a liability or an equity instrument with the same contractual terms.

Non-performance risk
42 The fair value of a liability reflects the effect of non-performance risk. Non-performance risk includes, but may not be limited to, an entitys own credit risk (as defined in IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures). Non-performance risk is assumed to be the same before and after the transfer of the liability.

43

When measuring the fair value of a liability, an entity shall take into account the effect of its credit risk (credit standing) and any other factors that might influence the likelihood that the obligation will or will not be fulfilled. That effect may differ depending on the liability, for example: (a) whether the liability is an obligation to deliver cash (a financial liability) or an obligation to deliver goods or services (a non-financial liability). the terms of credit enhancements related to the liability, if any.

(b) 44

The fair value of a liability reflects the effect of non-performance risk on the basis of its unit of account. The issuer of a liability issued with an inseparable third-party credit enhancement that is accounted for separately from the liability shall not include the effect of the credit enhancement (eg a third-party guarantee of debt) in the fair value measurement of the liability. If the credit enhancement is accounted for separately from the liability, the issuer would take into account its own credit standing and not that of the third party guarantor when measuring the fair value of the liability.

Restriction preventing the transfer of a liability or an entitys own equity instrument


45 When measuring the fair value of a liability or an entitys own equity instrument, an entity shall not include a separate input or an adjustment to other inputs relating to the existence of a restriction that prevents the transfer of the item. The effect of a restriction that prevents the transfer of a liability or an entitys own equity instrument is either implicitly or explicitly included in the other inputs to the fair value measurement.

IFRS Foundation

16

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

46

For example, at the transaction date, both the creditor and the obligor accepted the transaction price for the liability with full knowledge that the obligation includes a restriction that prevents its transfer. As a result of the restriction being included in the transaction price, a separate input or an adjustment to an existing input is not required at the transaction date to reflect the effect of the restriction on transfer. Similarly, a separate input or an adjustment to an existing input is not required at subsequent measurement dates to reflect the effect of the restriction on transfer.

Financial liability with a demand feature


47 The fair value of a financial liability with a demand feature (eg a demand deposit) is not less than the amount payable on demand, discounted from the first date that the amount could be required to be paid.

Application to financial assets and financial liabilities with offsetting positions in market risks or counterparty credit risk
48 An entity that holds a group of financial assets and financial liabilities is exposed to market risks (as defined in IFRS 7) and to the credit risk (as defined in IFRS 7) of each of the counterparties. If the entity manages that group of financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of its net exposure to either market risks or credit risk, the entity is permitted to apply an exception to this IFRS for measuring fair value. That exception permits an entity to measure the fair value of a group of financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of the price that would be received to sell a net long position (ie an asset) for a particular risk exposure or to transfer a net short position (ie a liability) for a particular risk exposure in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. Accordingly, an entity shall measure the fair value of the group of financial assets and financial liabilities consistently with how market participants would price the net risk exposure at the measurement date. An entity is permitted to use the exception in paragraph 48 only if the entity does all the following: (a) manages the group of financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of the entitys net exposure to a particular market risk (or risks) or to the credit risk of a particular counterparty in accordance with the entitys documented risk management or investment strategy;

49

17

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

(b)

provides information on that basis about the group of financial assets and financial liabilities to the entitys key management personnel, as defined in IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures; and is required or has elected to measure those financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value in the statement of financial position at the end of each reporting period.

(c)

50

The exception in paragraph 48 does not pertain to financial statement presentation. In some cases the basis for the presentation of financial instruments in the statement of financial position differs from the basis for the measurement of financial instruments, for example, if an IFRS does not require or permit financial instruments to be presented on a net basis. In such cases an entity may need to allocate the portfolio-level adjustments (see paragraphs 5356) to the individual assets or liabilities that make up the group of financial assets and financial liabilities managed on the basis of the entitys net risk exposure. An entity shall perform such allocations on a reasonable and consistent basis using a methodology appropriate in the circumstances. An entity shall make an accounting policy decision in accordance with IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors to use the exception in paragraph 48. An entity that uses the exception shall apply that accounting policy, including its policy for allocating bid-ask adjustments (see paragraphs 5355) and credit adjustments (see paragraph 56), if applicable, consistently from period to period for a particular portfolio. The exception in paragraph 48 applies only to financial assets and financial liabilities within the scope of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement or IFRS 9 Financial Instruments.

51

52

Exposure to market risks


53 When using the exception in paragraph 48 to measure the fair value of a group of financial assets and financial liabilities managed on the basis of the entitys net exposure to a particular market risk (or risks), the entity shall apply the price within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances to the entitys net exposure to those market risks (see paragraphs 70 and 71). When using the exception in paragraph 48, an entity shall ensure that the market risk (or risks) to which the entity is exposed within that group of financial assets and financial liabilities is substantially the same. For example, an entity would not combine the interest rate risk

54

IFRS Foundation

18

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

associated with a financial asset with the commodity price risk associated with a financial liability because doing so would not mitigate the entitys exposure to interest rate risk or commodity price risk. When using the exception in paragraph 48, any basis risk resulting from the market risk parameters not being identical shall be taken into account in the fair value measurement of the financial assets and financial liabilities within the group. 55 Similarly, the duration of the entitys exposure to a particular market risk (or risks) arising from the financial assets and financial liabilities shall be substantially the same. For example, an entity that uses a 12-month futures contract against the cash flows associated with 12 months worth of interest rate risk exposure on a five-year financial instrument within a group made up of only those financial assets and financial liabilities measures the fair value of the exposure to 12-month interest rate risk on a net basis and the remaining interest rate risk exposure (ie years 25) on a gross basis.

Exposure to the credit risk of a particular counterparty


56 When using the exception in paragraph 48 to measure the fair value of a group of financial assets and financial liabilities entered into with a particular counterparty, the entity shall include the effect of the entitys net exposure to the credit risk of that counterparty or the counterpartys net exposure to the credit risk of the entity in the fair value measurement when market participants would take into account any existing arrangements that mitigate credit risk exposure in the event of default (eg a master netting agreement with the counterparty or an agreement that requires the exchange of collateral on the basis of each partys net exposure to the credit risk of the other party). The fair value measurement shall reflect market participants expectations about the likelihood that such an arrangement would be legally enforceable in the event of default.

Fair value at initial recognition


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

19

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

58

In many cases the transaction price will equal the fair value (eg that might be the case when on the transaction date the transaction to buy an asset takes place in the market in which the asset would be sold). When determining whether fair value at initial recognition equals the transaction price, an entity shall take into account factors specific to the transaction and to the asset or liability. Paragraph B4 describes situations in which the transaction price might not represent the fair value of an asset or a liability at initial recognition. If another IFRS requires or permits an entity to measure an asset or a liability initially at fair value and the transaction price differs from fair value, the entity shall recognise the resulting gain or loss in profit or loss unless that IFRS specifies otherwise.

59

60

Valuation techniques
61 An entity shall use valuation techniques that are appropriate in the circumstances and for which sufficient data are available to measure fair value, maximising the use of relevant observable inputs and minimising the use of unobservable inputs.

62

The objective of using a valuation technique is to estimate the price at which an orderly transaction to sell the asset or to transfer the liability would take place between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. Three widely used valuation techniques are the market approach, the cost approach and the income approach. The main aspects of those approaches are summarised in paragraphs B5B11. An entity shall use valuation techniques consistent with one or more of those approaches to measure fair value. In some cases a single valuation technique will be appropriate (eg when valuing an asset or a liability using quoted prices in an active market for identical assets or liabilities). In other cases, multiple valuation techniques will be appropriate (eg that might be the case when valuing a cash-generating unit). If multiple valuation techniques are used to measure fair value, the results (ie respective indications of fair value) shall be evaluated considering the reasonableness of the range of values indicated by those results. A fair value measurement is the point within that range that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances. If the transaction price is fair value at initial recognition and a valuation technique that uses unobservable inputs will be used to measure fair value in subsequent periods, the valuation technique shall be calibrated so that at initial recognition the result of the valuation technique equals the

63

64

IFRS Foundation

20

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

transaction price. Calibration ensures that the valuation technique reflects current market conditions, and it helps an entity to determine whether an adjustment to the valuation technique is necessary (eg there might be a characteristic of the asset or liability that is not captured by the valuation technique). After initial recognition, when measuring fair value using a valuation technique or techniques that use unobservable inputs, an entity shall ensure that those valuation techniques reflect observable market data (eg the price for a similar asset or liability) at the measurement date. 65 Valuation techniques used to measure fair value shall be applied consistently. However, a change in a valuation technique or its application (eg a change in its weighting when multiple valuation techniques are used or a change in an adjustment applied to a valuation technique) is appropriate if the change results in a measurement that is equally or more representative of fair value in the circumstances. That might be the case if, for example, any of the following events take place: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 66 new markets develop; new information becomes available; information previously used is no longer available; valuation techniques improve; or market conditions change.

Revisions resulting from a change in the valuation technique or its application shall be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate in accordance with IAS 8. However, the disclosures in IAS 8 for a change in accounting estimate are not required for revisions resulting from a change in a valuation technique or its application.

Inputs to valuation techniques


General principles
67 Valuation techniques used to measure fair value shall maximise the use of relevant observable inputs and minimise the use of unobservable inputs.

68

Examples of markets in which inputs might be observable for some assets and liabilities (eg financial instruments) include exchange markets, dealer markets, brokered markets and principal-to-principal markets (see paragraph B34).

21

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

69

An entity shall select inputs that are consistent with the characteristics of the asset or liability that market participants would take into account in a transaction for the asset or liability (see paragraphs 11 and 12). In some cases those characteristics result in the application of an adjustment, such as a premium or discount (eg a control premium or non-controlling interest discount). However, a fair value measurement shall not incorporate a premium or discount that is inconsistent with the unit of account in the IFRS that requires or permits the fair value measurement (see paragraphs 13 and 14). Premiums or discounts that reflect size as a characteristic of the entitys holding (specifically, a blockage factor that adjusts the quoted price of an asset or a liability because the markets normal daily trading volume is not sufficient to absorb the quantity held by the entity, as described in paragraph 80) rather than as a characteristic of the asset or liability (eg a control premium when measuring the fair value of a controlling interest) are not permitted in a fair value measurement. In all cases, if there is a quoted price in an active market (ie a Level 1 input) for an asset or a liability, an entity shall use that price without adjustment when measuring fair value, except as specified in paragraph 79.

Inputs based on bid and ask prices


70 If an asset or a liability measured at fair value has a bid price and an ask price (eg an input from a dealer market), the price within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances shall be used to measure fair value regardless of where the input is categorised within the fair value hierarchy (ie Level 1, 2 or 3; see paragraphs 7290). The use of bid prices for asset positions and ask prices for liability positions is permitted, but is not required. This IFRS does not preclude the use of mid-market pricing or other pricing conventions that are used by market participants as a practical expedient for fair value measurements within a bid-ask spread.

71

Fair value hierarchy


72 To increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements and related disclosures, this IFRS establishes a fair value hierarchy that categorises into three levels (see paragraphs 7690) the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 inputs) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 inputs).

IFRS Foundation

22

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

73

In some cases, the inputs used to measure the fair value of an asset or a liability might be categorised within different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In those cases, the fair value measurement is categorised in its entirety in the same level of the fair value hierarchy as the lowest level input that is significant to the entire measurement. Assessing the significance of a particular input to the entire measurement requires judgement, taking into account factors specific to the asset or liability. Adjustments to arrive at measurements based on fair value, such as costs to sell when measuring fair value less costs to sell, shall not be taken into account when determining the level of the fair value hierarchy within which a fair value measurement is categorised. The availability of relevant inputs and their relative subjectivity might affect the selection of appropriate valuation techniques (see paragraph 61). However, the fair value hierarchy prioritises the inputs to valuation techniques, not the valuation techniques used to measure fair value. For example, a fair value measurement developed using a present value technique might be categorised within Level 2 or Level 3, depending on the inputs that are significant to the entire measurement and the level of the fair value hierarchy within which those inputs are categorised. If an observable input requires an adjustment using an unobservable input and that adjustment results in a significantly higher or lower fair value measurement, the resulting measurement would be categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. For example, if a market participant would take into account the effect of a restriction on the sale of an asset when estimating the price for the asset, an entity would adjust the quoted price to reflect the effect of that restriction. If that quoted price is a Level 2 input and the adjustment is an unobservable input that is significant to the entire measurement, the measurement would be categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

74

75

Level 1 inputs
76 Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the entity can access at the measurement date. A quoted price in an active market provides the most reliable evidence of fair value and shall be used without adjustment to measure fair value whenever available, except as specified in paragraph 79.

77

23

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

78

A Level 1 input will be available for many financial assets and financial liabilities, some of which might be exchanged in multiple active markets (eg on different exchanges). Therefore, the emphasis within Level 1 is on determining both of the following: (a) the principal market for the asset or liability or, in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market for the asset or liability; and whether the entity can enter into a transaction for the asset or liability at the price in that market at the measurement date.

(b) 79

An entity shall not make an adjustment to a Level 1 input except in the following circumstances: (a) when an entity holds a large number of similar (but not identical) assets or liabilities (eg debt securities) that are measured at fair value and a quoted price in an active market is available but not readily accessible for each of those assets or liabilities individually (ie given the large number of similar assets or liabilities held by the entity, it would be difficult to obtain pricing information for each individual asset or liability at the measurement date). In that case, as a practical expedient, an entity may measure fair value using an alternative pricing method that does not rely exclusively on quoted prices (eg matrix pricing). However, the use of an alternative pricing method results in a fair value measurement categorised within a lower level of the fair value hierarchy. when a quoted price in an active market does not represent fair value at the measurement date. That might be the case if, for example, significant events (such as transactions in a principal-to-principal market, trades in a brokered market or announcements) take place after the close of a market but before the measurement date. An entity shall establish and consistently apply a policy for identifying those events that might affect fair value measurements. However, if the quoted price is adjusted for new information, the adjustment results in a fair value measurement categorised within a lower level of the fair value hierarchy. when measuring the fair value of a liability or an entitys own equity instrument using the quoted price for the identical item traded as an asset in an active market and that price needs to be adjusted for factors specific to the item or the asset (see paragraph 39). If no adjustment to the quoted price of the asset

(b)

(c)

IFRS Foundation

24

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

is required, the result is a fair value measurement categorised within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. However, any adjustment to the quoted price of the asset results in a fair value measurement categorised within a lower level of the fair value hierarchy. 80 If an entity holds a position in a single asset or liability (including a position comprising a large number of identical assets or liabilities, such as a holding of financial instruments) and the asset or liability is traded in an active market, the fair value of the asset or liability shall be measured within Level 1 as the product of the quoted price for the individual asset or liability and the quantity held by the entity. That is the case even if a markets normal daily trading volume is not sufficient to absorb the quantity held and placing orders to sell the position in a single transaction might affect the quoted price.

Level 2 inputs
81 82 Level 2 inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. If the asset or liability has a specified (contractual) term, a Level 2 input must be observable for substantially the full term of the asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include the following: (a) (b) (c) quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets. quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability, for example: (i) (ii) (iii) (d) 83 interest rates and yield curves observable at commonly quoted intervals; implied volatilities; and credit spreads.

market-corroborated inputs.

Adjustments to Level 2 inputs will vary depending on factors specific to the asset or liability. Those factors include the following: (a) (b) the condition or location of the asset; the extent to which inputs relate to items that are comparable to the asset or liability (including those factors described in paragraph 39); and

25

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

(c) 84

the volume or level of activity in the markets within which the inputs are observed.

An adjustment to a Level 2 input that is significant to the entire measurement might result in a fair value measurement categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy if the adjustment uses significant unobservable inputs. Paragraph B35 describes the use of Level 2 inputs for particular assets and liabilities.

85

Level 3 inputs
86 87 Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability. Unobservable inputs shall be used to measure fair value to the extent that relevant observable inputs are not available, thereby allowing for situations in which there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability at the measurement date. However, the fair value measurement objective remains the same, ie an exit price at the measurement date from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, unobservable inputs shall reflect the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk. Assumptions about risk include the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique used to measure fair value (such as a pricing model) and the risk inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. A measurement that does not include an adjustment for risk would not represent a fair value measurement if market participants would include one when pricing the asset or liability. For example, it might be necessary to include a risk adjustment when there is significant measurement uncertainty (eg when there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity when compared with normal market activity for the asset or liability, or similar assets or liabilities, and the entity has determined that the transaction price or quoted price does not represent fair value, as described in paragraphs B37B47). An entity shall develop unobservable inputs using the best information available in the circumstances, which might include the entitys own data. In developing unobservable inputs, an entity may begin with its own data, but it shall adjust those data if reasonably available information indicates that other market participants would use different data or there is something particular to the entity that is not available to other market participants (eg an entity-specific synergy). An entity need

88

89

IFRS Foundation

26

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

not undertake exhaustive efforts to obtain information about market participant assumptions. However, an entity shall take into account all information about market participant assumptions that is reasonably available. Unobservable inputs developed in the manner described above are considered market participant assumptions and meet the objective of a fair value measurement. 90 Paragraph B36 describes the use of Level 3 inputs for particular assets and liabilities.

Disclosure
91 An entity shall disclose information that helps users of its financial statements assess both of the following: (a) for assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring or non-recurring basis in the statement of financial position after initial recognition, the valuation techniques and inputs used to develop those measurements. for recurring fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3), the effect of the measurements on profit or loss or other comprehensive income for the period.

(b)

92

To meet the objectives in paragraph 91, an entity shall consider all the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) the level of detail necessary to satisfy the disclosure requirements; how much emphasis to place on each of the various requirements; how much aggregation or disaggregation to undertake; and whether users of financial statements need additional information to evaluate the quantitative information disclosed.

If the disclosures provided in accordance with this IFRS and other IFRSs are insufficient to meet the objectives in paragraph 91, an entity shall disclose additional information necessary to meet those objectives. 93 To meet the objectives in paragraph 91, an entity shall disclose, at a minimum, the following information for each class of assets and liabilities (see paragraph 94 for information on determining appropriate classes of assets and liabilities) measured at fair value (including measurements based on fair value within the scope of this IFRS) in the statement of financial position after initial recognition:

27

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

(a)

for recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements, the fair value measurement at the end of the reporting period, and for non-recurring fair value measurements, the reasons for the measurement. Recurring fair value measurements of assets or liabilities are those that other IFRSs require or permit in the statement of financial position at the end of each reporting period. Non-recurring fair value measurements of assets or liabilities are those that other IFRSs require or permit in the statement of financial position in particular circumstances (eg when an entity measures an asset held for sale at fair value less costs to sell in accordance with IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations because the assets fair value less costs to sell is lower than its carrying amount). for recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements, the level of the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurements are categorised in their entirety (Level 1, 2 or 3). for assets and liabilities held at the end of the reporting period that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis, the amounts of any transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, the reasons for those transfers and the entitys policy for determining when transfers between levels are deemed to have occurred (see paragraph 95). Transfers into each level shall be disclosed and discussed separately from transfers out of each level. for recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements categorised within Level 2 and Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, a description of the valuation technique(s) and the inputs used in the fair value measurement. If there has been a change in valuation technique (eg changing from a market approach to an income approach or the use of an additional valuation technique), the entity shall disclose that change and the reason(s) for making it. For fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, an entity shall provide quantitative information about the significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement. An entity is not required to create quantitative information to comply with this disclosure requirement if quantitative unobservable inputs are not developed by the entity when measuring fair value (eg when an entity uses prices from prior transactions or third-party pricing information without adjustment). However, when providing this disclosure an entity cannot ignore quantitative unobservable inputs that are

(b)

(c)

(d)

IFRS Foundation

28

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

significant to the fair value measurement and are reasonably available to the entity. (e) for recurring fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, a reconciliation from the opening balances to the closing balances, disclosing separately changes during the period attributable to the following: (i) total gains or losses for the period recognised in profit or loss, and the line item(s) in profit or loss in which those gains or losses are recognised. total gains or losses for the period recognised in other comprehensive income, and the line item(s) in other comprehensive income in which those gains or losses are recognised. purchases, sales, issues and settlements (each of those types of changes disclosed separately). the amounts of any transfers into or out of Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, the reasons for those transfers and the entitys policy for determining when transfers between levels are deemed to have occurred (see paragraph 95). Transfers into Level 3 shall be disclosed and discussed separately from transfers out of Level 3.

(ii)

(iii) (iv)

(f)

for recurring fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, the amount of the total gains or losses for the period in (e)(i) included in profit or loss that is attributable to the change in unrealised gains or losses relating to those assets and liabilities held at the end of the reporting period, and the line item(s) in profit or loss in which those unrealised gains or losses are recognised. for recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, a description of the valuation processes used by the entity (including, for example, how an entity decides its valuation policies and procedures and analyses changes in fair value measurements from period to period). for recurring fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy: (i) for all such measurements, a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in

(g)

(h)

29

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

unobservable inputs if a change in those inputs to a different amount might result in a significantly higher or lower fair value measurement. If there are interrelationships between those inputs and other unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement, an entity shall also provide a description of those interrelationships and of how they might magnify or mitigate the effect of changes in the unobservable inputs on the fair value measurement. To comply with that disclosure requirement, the narrative description of the sensitivity to changes in unobservable inputs shall include, at a minimum, the unobservable inputs disclosed when complying with (d). (ii) for financial assets and financial liabilities, if changing one or more of the unobservable inputs to reflect reasonably possible alternative assumptions would change fair value significantly, an entity shall state that fact and disclose the effect of those changes. The entity shall disclose how the effect of a change to reflect a reasonably possible alternative assumption was calculated. For that purpose, significance shall be judged with respect to profit or loss, and total assets or total liabilities, or, when changes in fair value are recognised in other comprehensive income, total equity.

(i)

for recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements, if the highest and best use of a non-financial asset differs from its current use, an entity shall disclose that fact and why the non-financial asset is being used in a manner that differs from its highest and best use.

94

An entity shall determine appropriate classes of assets and liabilities on the basis of the following: (a) (b) the nature, characteristics and risks of the asset or liability; and the level of the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement is categorised.

The number of classes may need to be greater for fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy because those measurements have a greater degree of uncertainty and subjectivity. Determining appropriate classes of assets and liabilities for which disclosures about fair value measurements should be provided requires judgement. A class of assets and liabilities will often require greater disaggregation than the line items presented in the statement of financial position. However, an entity shall provide information sufficient to permit

IFRS Foundation

30

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

reconciliation to the line items presented in the statement of financial position. If another IFRS specifies the class for an asset or a liability, an entity may use that class in providing the disclosures required in this IFRS if that class meets the requirements in this paragraph. 95 An entity shall disclose and consistently follow its policy for determining when transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy are deemed to have occurred in accordance with paragraph 93(c) and (e)(iv). The policy about the timing of recognising transfers shall be the same for transfers into the levels as for transfers out of the levels. Examples of policies for determining the timing of transfers include the following: (a) (b) (c) 96 97 the date of the event or change in circumstances that caused the transfer. the beginning of the reporting period. the end of the reporting period.

If an entity makes an accounting policy decision to use the exception in paragraph 48, it shall disclose that fact. For each class of assets and liabilities not measured at fair value in the statement of financial position but for which the fair value is disclosed, an entity shall disclose the information required by paragraph 93(b), (d) and (i). However, an entity is not required to provide the quantitative disclosures about significant unobservable inputs used in fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy required by paragraph 93(d). For such assets and liabilities, an entity does not need to provide the other disclosures required by this IFRS. For a liability measured at fair value and issued with an inseparable third-party credit enhancement, an issuer shall disclose the existence of that credit enhancement and whether it is reflected in the fair value measurement of the liability. An entity shall present the quantitative disclosures required by this IFRS in a tabular format unless another format is more appropriate.

98

99

31

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

Appendix A Defined terms


This appendix is an integral part of the IFRS.
active market

A market in which transactions for the asset or liability take place with sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. A valuation technique that reflects the amount that would be required currently to replace the service capacity of an asset (often referred to as current replacement cost). The price paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability in an exchange transaction. The price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability.

cost approach

entry price exit price

expected cash flow The probability-weighted average (ie mean of the distribution) of possible future cash flows. fair value

The price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The use of a non-financial asset by market participants that would maximise the value of the asset or the group of assets and liabilities (eg a business) within which the asset would be used. Valuation techniques that convert future amounts (eg cash flows or income and expenses) to a single current (ie discounted) amount. The fair value measurement is determined on the basis of the value indicated by current market expectations about those future amounts.

highest and best use

income approach

IFRS Foundation

32

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

inputs

The assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk, such as the following: (a) the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique used to measure fair value (such as a pricing model); and the risk inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique.

(b)

Inputs may be observable or unobservable.


Level 1 inputs

Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the entity can access at the measurement date. Inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. Unobservable inputs for the asset or liability. A valuation technique that uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable (ie similar) assets, liabilities or a group of assets and liabilities, such as a business. Inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means.

Level 2 inputs

Level 3 inputs market approach

marketcorroborated inputs

33

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

market participants

Buyers and sellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability that have all of the following characteristics: (a) They are independent of each other, ie they are not related parties as defined in IAS 24, although the price in a related party transaction may be used as an input to a fair value measurement if the entity has evidence that the transaction was entered into at market terms. They are knowledgeable, having a reasonable understanding about the asset or liability and the transaction using all available information, including information that might be obtained through due diligence efforts that are usual and customary. They are able to enter into a transaction for the asset or liability. They are willing to enter into a transaction for the asset or liability, ie they are motivated but not forced or otherwise compelled to do so.

(b)

(c) (d)

most advantageous The market that maximises the amount that would be market received to sell the asset or minimises the amount that would

be paid to transfer the liability, after taking into account transaction costs and transport costs.
non-performance The risk that an entity will not fulfil an obligation. risk Non-performance risk includes, but may not be limited to, the entitys own credit risk. observable inputs Inputs that are developed using market data, such as publicly available information about actual events or transactions, and that reflect the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability. orderly transaction A transaction that assumes exposure to the market for a period before the measurement date to allow for marketing activities that are usual and customary for transactions involving such assets or liabilities; it is not a forced transaction (eg a forced liquidation or distress sale). principal market

The market with the greatest volume and level of activity for the asset or liability.

IFRS Foundation

34

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

risk premium

Compensation sought by risk-averse market participants for bearing the uncertainty inherent in the cash flows of an asset or a liability. Also referred to as a risk adjustment. The costs to sell an asset or transfer a liability in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability that are directly attributable to the disposal of the asset or the transfer of the liability and meet both of the following criteria: (a) (b) They result directly from and are essential to that transaction. They would not have been incurred by the entity had the decision to sell the asset or transfer the liability not been made (similar to costs to sell, as defined in IFRS 5).

transaction costs

transport costs

The costs that would be incurred to transport an asset from its current location to its principal (or most advantageous) market. The level at which an asset or a liability is aggregated or disaggregated in an IFRS for recognition purposes. Inputs for which market data are not available and that are developed using the best information available about the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability.

unit of account unobservable inputs

35

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

Appendix B Application guidance


This appendix is an integral part of the IFRS. It describes the application of paragraphs 199 and has the same authority as the other parts of the IFRS. B1 The judgements applied in different valuation situations may be different. This appendix describes the judgements that might apply when an entity measures fair value in different valuation situations.

The fair value measurement approach


B2 The objective of a fair value measurement is to estimate the price at which an orderly transaction to sell the asset or to transfer the liability would take place between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. A fair value measurement requires an entity to determine all the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) the particular asset or liability that is the subject of the measurement (consistently with its unit of account). for a non-financial asset, the valuation premise that is appropriate for the measurement (consistently with its highest and best use). the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability. the valuation technique(s) appropriate for the measurement, considering the availability of data with which to develop inputs that represent the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability and the level of the fair value hierarchy within which the inputs are categorised.

Valuation premise for non-financial assets (paragraphs 3133)


B3 When measuring the fair value of a non-financial asset used in combination with other assets as a group (as installed or otherwise configured for use) or in combination with other assets and liabilities (eg a business), the effect of the valuation premise depends on the circumstances. For example: (a) the fair value of the asset might be the same whether the asset is used on a stand-alone basis or in combination with other assets or

IFRS Foundation

36

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

with other assets and liabilities. That might be the case if the asset is a business that market participants would continue to operate. In that case, the transaction would involve valuing the business in its entirety. The use of the assets as a group in an ongoing business would generate synergies that would be available to market participants (ie market participant synergies that, therefore, should affect the fair value of the asset on either a stand-alone basis or in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities). (b) an assets use in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities might be incorporated into the fair value measurement through adjustments to the value of the asset used on a stand-alone basis. That might be the case if the asset is a machine and the fair value measurement is determined using an observed price for a similar machine (not installed or otherwise configured for use), adjusted for transport and installation costs so that the fair value measurement reflects the current condition and location of the machine (installed and configured for use). an assets use in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities might be incorporated into the fair value measurement through the market participant assumptions used to measure the fair value of the asset. For example, if the asset is work in progress inventory that is unique and market participants would convert the inventory into finished goods, the fair value of the inventory would assume that market participants have acquired or would acquire any specialised machinery necessary to convert the inventory into finished goods. an assets use in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities might be incorporated into the valuation technique used to measure the fair value of the asset. That might be the case when using the multi-period excess earnings method to measure the fair value of an intangible asset because that valuation technique specifically takes into account the contribution of any complementary assets and the associated liabilities in the group in which such an intangible asset would be used. in more limited situations, when an entity uses an asset within a group of assets, the entity might measure the asset at an amount that approximates its fair value when allocating the fair value of the asset group to the individual assets of the group. That might be the case if the valuation involves real property and the fair value of

(c)

(d)

(e)

37

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

improved property (ie an asset group) is allocated to its component assets (such as land and improvements).

Fair value at initial recognition (paragraphs 5760)


B4 When determining whether fair value at initial recognition equals the transaction price, an entity shall take into account factors specific to the transaction and to the asset or liability. For example, the transaction price might not represent the fair value of an asset or a liability at initial recognition if any of the following conditions exist: (a) The transaction is between related parties, although the price in a related party transaction may be used as an input into a fair value measurement if the entity has evidence that the transaction was entered into at market terms. The transaction takes place under duress or the seller is forced to accept the price in the transaction. For example, that might be the case if the seller is experiencing financial difficulty. The unit of account represented by the transaction price is different from the unit of account for the asset or liability measured at fair value. For example, that might be the case if the asset or liability measured at fair value is only one of the elements in the transaction (eg in a business combination), the transaction includes unstated rights and privileges that are measured separately in accordance with another IFRS, or the transaction price includes transaction costs. The market in which the transaction takes place is different from the principal market (or most advantageous market). For example, those markets might be different if the entity is a dealer that enters into transactions with customers in the retail market, but the principal (or most advantageous) market for the exit transaction is with other dealers in the dealer market.

(b)

(c)

(d)

IFRS Foundation

38

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Valuation techniques (paragraphs 6166) Market approach


B5 The market approach uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable (ie similar) assets, liabilities or a group of assets and liabilities, such as a business. For example, valuation techniques consistent with the market approach often use market multiples derived from a set of comparables. Multiples might be in ranges with a different multiple for each comparable. The selection of the appropriate multiple within the range requires judgement, considering qualitative and quantitative factors specific to the measurement. Valuation techniques consistent with the market approach include matrix pricing. Matrix pricing is a mathematical technique used principally to value some types of financial instruments, such as debt securities, without relying exclusively on quoted prices for the specific securities, but rather relying on the securities relationship to other benchmark quoted securities.

B6

B7

Cost approach
B8 The cost approach reflects the amount that would be required currently to replace the service capacity of an asset (often referred to as current replacement cost). From the perspective of a market participant seller, the price that would be received for the asset is based on the cost to a market participant buyer to acquire or construct a substitute asset of comparable utility, adjusted for obsolescence. That is because a market participant buyer would not pay more for an asset than the amount for which it could replace the service capacity of that asset. Obsolescence encompasses physical deterioration, functional (technological) obsolescence and economic (external) obsolescence and is broader than depreciation for financial reporting purposes (an allocation of historical cost) or tax purposes (using specified service lives). In many cases the current replacement cost method is used to measure the fair value of tangible assets that are used in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities.

B9

39

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

Income approach
B10 The income approach converts future amounts (eg cash flows or income and expenses) to a single current (ie discounted) amount. When the income approach is used, the fair value measurement reflects current market expectations about those future amounts. Those valuation techniques include, for example, the following: (a) (b) present value techniques (see paragraphs B12B30); option pricing models, such as the Black-Scholes-Merton formula or a binomial model (ie a lattice model), that incorporate present value techniques and reflect both the time value and the intrinsic value of an option; and the multi-period excess earnings method, which is used to measure the fair value of some intangible assets.

B11

(c)

Present value techniques


B12 Paragraphs B13B30 describe the use of present value techniques to measure fair value. Those paragraphs focus on a discount rate adjustment technique and an expected cash flow (expected present value) technique. Those paragraphs neither prescribe the use of a single specific present value technique nor limit the use of present value techniques to measure fair value to the techniques discussed. The present value technique used to measure fair value will depend on facts and circumstances specific to the asset or liability being measured (eg whether prices for comparable assets or liabilities can be observed in the market) and the availability of sufficient data.

The components of a present value measurement


B13 Present value (ie an application of the income approach) is a tool used to link future amounts (eg cash flows or values) to a present amount using a discount rate. A fair value measurement of an asset or a liability using a present value technique captures all the following elements from the perspective of market participants at the measurement date: (a) (b) an estimate of future cash flows for the asset or liability being measured. expectations about possible variations in the amount and timing of the cash flows representing the uncertainty inherent in the cash flows.

IFRS Foundation

40

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(c)

the time value of money, represented by the rate on risk-free monetary assets that have maturity dates or durations that coincide with the period covered by the cash flows and pose neither uncertainty in timing nor risk of default to the holder (ie a risk-free interest rate). the price for bearing the uncertainty inherent in the cash flows (ie a risk premium). other factors that market participants would take into account in the circumstances. for a liability, the non-performance risk relating to that liability, including the entitys (ie the obligors) own credit risk.

(d) (e) (f)

General principles
B14 Present value techniques differ in how they capture the elements in paragraph B13. However, all the following general principles govern the application of any present value technique used to measure fair value: (a) (b) (c) Cash flows and discount rates should reflect assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability. Cash flows and discount rates should take into account only the factors attributable to the asset or liability being measured. To avoid double-counting or omitting the effects of risk factors, discount rates should reflect assumptions that are consistent with those inherent in the cash flows. For example, a discount rate that reflects the uncertainty in expectations about future defaults is appropriate if using contractual cash flows of a loan (ie a discount rate adjustment technique). That same rate should not be used if using expected (ie probability-weighted) cash flows (ie an expected present value technique) because the expected cash flows already reflect assumptions about the uncertainty in future defaults; instead, a discount rate that is commensurate with the risk inherent in the expected cash flows should be used. Assumptions about cash flows and discount rates should be internally consistent. For example, nominal cash flows, which include the effect of inflation, should be discounted at a rate that includes the effect of inflation. The nominal risk-free interest rate includes the effect of inflation. Real cash flows, which exclude the effect of inflation, should be discounted at a rate that excludes the effect of inflation. Similarly, after-tax cash flows should be

(d)

41

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

discounted using an after-tax discount rate. Pre-tax cash flows should be discounted at a rate consistent with those cash flows. (e) Discount rates should be consistent with the underlying economic factors of the currency in which the cash flows are denominated.

Risk and uncertainty


B15 A fair value measurement using present value techniques is made under conditions of uncertainty because the cash flows used are estimates rather than known amounts. In many cases both the amount and timing of the cash flows are uncertain. Even contractually fixed amounts, such as the payments on a loan, are uncertain if there is risk of default. Market participants generally seek compensation (ie a risk premium) for bearing the uncertainty inherent in the cash flows of an asset or a liability. A fair value measurement should include a risk premium reflecting the amount that market participants would demand as compensation for the uncertainty inherent in the cash flows. Otherwise, the measurement would not faithfully represent fair value. In some cases determining the appropriate risk premium might be difficult. However, the degree of difficulty alone is not a sufficient reason to exclude a risk premium. Present value techniques differ in how they adjust for risk and in the type of cash flows they use. For example: (a) The discount rate adjustment technique (see paragraphs B18B22) uses a risk-adjusted discount rate and contractual, promised or most likely cash flows. Method 1 of the expected present value technique (see paragraph B25) uses risk-adjusted expected cash flows and a risk-free rate. Method 2 of the expected present value technique (see paragraph B26) uses expected cash flows that are not risk-adjusted and a discount rate adjusted to include the risk premium that market participants require. That rate is different from the rate used in the discount rate adjustment technique.

B16

B17

(b) (c)

Discount rate adjustment technique


B18 The discount rate adjustment technique uses a single set of cash flows from the range of possible estimated amounts, whether contractual or promised (as is the case for a bond) or most likely cash flows. In all cases, those cash flows are conditional upon the occurrence of specified events

IFRS Foundation

42

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(eg contractual or promised cash flows for a bond are conditional on the event of no default by the debtor). The discount rate used in the discount rate adjustment technique is derived from observed rates of return for comparable assets or liabilities that are traded in the market. Accordingly, the contractual, promised or most likely cash flows are discounted at an observed or estimated market rate for such conditional cash flows (ie a market rate of return). B19 The discount rate adjustment technique requires an analysis of market data for comparable assets or liabilities. Comparability is established by considering the nature of the cash flows (eg whether the cash flows are contractual or non-contractual and are likely to respond similarly to changes in economic conditions), as well as other factors (eg credit standing, collateral, duration, restrictive covenants and liquidity). Alternatively, if a single comparable asset or liability does not fairly reflect the risk inherent in the cash flows of the asset or liability being measured, it may be possible to derive a discount rate using data for several comparable assets or liabilities in conjunction with the risk-free yield curve (ie using a build-up approach). To illustrate a build-up approach, assume that Asset A is a contractual right to receive CU800* in one year (ie there is no timing uncertainty). There is an established market for comparable assets, and information about those assets, including price information, is available. Of those comparable assets: (a) Asset B is a contractual right to receive CU1,200 in one year and has a market price of CU1,083. Thus, the implied annual rate of return (ie a one-year market rate of return) is 10.8 per cent [(CU1,200/CU1,083) 1]. Asset C is a contractual right to receive CU700 in two years and has a market price of CU566. Thus, the implied annual rate of return (ie a two-year market rate of return) is 11.2 per cent [(CU700/CU566)^0.5 1]. All three assets are comparable with respect to risk (ie dispersion of possible pay-offs and credit).

B20

(b)

(c) B21

On the basis of the timing of the contractual payments to be received for Asset A relative to the timing for Asset B and Asset C (ie one year for Asset B versus two years for Asset C), Asset B is deemed more comparable to Asset A. Using the contractual payment to be received for Asset A (CU800) and the one-year market rate derived from Asset B (10.8 per cent), the fair value of Asset A is CU722 (CU800/1.108). Alternatively, in the absence of available market information for Asset B, the one-year market
In this IFRS monetary amounts are denominated in currency units (CU).

43

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

rate could be derived from Asset C using the build-up approach. In that case the two-year market rate indicated by Asset C (11.2 per cent) would be adjusted to a one-year market rate using the term structure of the risk-free yield curve. Additional information and analysis might be required to determine whether the risk premiums for one-year and two-year assets are the same. If it is determined that the risk premiums for one-year and two-year assets are not the same, the two-year market rate of return would be further adjusted for that effect. B22 When the discount rate adjustment technique is applied to fixed receipts or payments, the adjustment for risk inherent in the cash flows of the asset or liability being measured is included in the discount rate. In some applications of the discount rate adjustment technique to cash flows that are not fixed receipts or payments, an adjustment to the cash flows may be necessary to achieve comparability with the observed asset or liability from which the discount rate is derived.

Expected present value technique


B23 The expected present value technique uses as a starting point a set of cash flows that represents the probability-weighted average of all possible future cash flows (ie the expected cash flows). The resulting estimate is identical to expected value, which, in statistical terms, is the weighted average of a discrete random variables possible values with the respective probabilities as the weights. Because all possible cash flows are probability-weighted, the resulting expected cash flow is not conditional upon the occurrence of any specified event (unlike the cash flows used in the discount rate adjustment technique). In making an investment decision, risk-averse market participants would take into account the risk that the actual cash flows may differ from the expected cash flows. Portfolio theory distinguishes between two types of risk: (a) (b) unsystematic (diversifiable) risk, which is the risk specific to a particular asset or liability. systematic (non-diversifiable) risk, which is the common risk shared by an asset or a liability with the other items in a diversified portfolio.

B24

Portfolio theory holds that in a market in equilibrium, market participants will be compensated only for bearing the systematic risk inherent in the cash flows. (In markets that are inefficient or out of equilibrium, other forms of return or compensation might be available.)

IFRS Foundation

44

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

B25

Method 1 of the expected present value technique adjusts the expected cash flows of an asset for systematic (ie market) risk by subtracting a cash risk premium (ie risk-adjusted expected cash flows). Those risk-adjusted expected cash flows represent a certainty-equivalent cash flow, which is discounted at a risk-free interest rate. A certainty-equivalent cash flow refers to an expected cash flow (as defined), adjusted for risk so that a market participant is indifferent to trading a certain cash flow for an expected cash flow. For example, if a market participant was willing to trade an expected cash flow of CU1,200 for a certain cash flow of CU1,000, the CU1,000 is the certainty equivalent of the CU1,200 (ie the CU200 would represent the cash risk premium). In that case the market participant would be indifferent as to the asset held. In contrast, Method 2 of the expected present value technique adjusts for systematic (ie market) risk by applying a risk premium to the risk-free interest rate. Accordingly, the expected cash flows are discounted at a rate that corresponds to an expected rate associated with probability-weighted cash flows (ie an expected rate of return). Models used for pricing risky assets, such as the capital asset pricing model, can be used to estimate the expected rate of return. Because the discount rate used in the discount rate adjustment technique is a rate of return relating to conditional cash flows, it is likely to be higher than the discount rate used in Method 2 of the expected present value technique, which is an expected rate of return relating to expected or probability-weighted cash flows. To illustrate Methods 1 and 2, assume that an asset has expected cash flows of CU780 in one year determined on the basis of the possible cash flows and probabilities shown below. The applicable risk-free interest rate for cash flows with a one-year horizon is 5 per cent, and the systematic risk premium for an asset with the same risk profile is 3 per cent. Possible cash flows CU500 CU800 CU900 Expected cash flows Probability 15% 60% 25% Probability-weighted cash flows XCU75 CU480 CU225 CU780

B26

B27

45

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

B28

In this simple illustration, the expected cash flows (CU780) represent the probability-weighted average of the three possible outcomes. In more realistic situations, there could be many possible outcomes. However, to apply the expected present value technique, it is not always necessary to take into account distributions of all possible cash flows using complex models and techniques. Rather, it might be possible to develop a limited number of discrete scenarios and probabilities that capture the array of possible cash flows. For example, an entity might use realised cash flows for some relevant past period, adjusted for changes in circumstances occurring subsequently (eg changes in external factors, including economic or market conditions, industry trends and competition as well as changes in internal factors affecting the entity more specifically), taking into account the assumptions of market participants. In theory, the present value (ie the fair value) of the assets cash flows is the same whether determined using Method 1 or Method 2, as follows: (a) Using Method 1, the expected cash flows are adjusted for systematic (ie market) risk. In the absence of market data directly indicating the amount of the risk adjustment, such adjustment could be derived from an asset pricing model using the concept of certainty equivalents. For example, the risk adjustment (ie the cash risk premium of CU22) could be determined using the systematic risk premium of 3 per cent (CU780 [CU780 (1.05/1.08)]), which results in risk-adjusted expected cash flows of CU758 (CU780 CU22). The CU758 is the certainty equivalent of CU780 and is discounted at the risk-free interest rate (5 per cent). The present value (ie the fair value) of the asset is CU722 (CU758/1.05). Using Method 2, the expected cash flows are not adjusted for systematic (ie market) risk. Rather, the adjustment for that risk is included in the discount rate. Thus, the expected cash flows are discounted at an expected rate of return of 8 per cent (ie the 5 per cent risk-free interest rate plus the 3 per cent systematic risk premium). The present value (ie the fair value) of the asset is CU722 (CU780/1.08).

B29

(b)

B30

When using an expected present value technique to measure fair value, either Method 1 or Method 2 could be used. The selection of Method 1 or Method 2 will depend on facts and circumstances specific to the asset or liability being measured, the extent to which sufficient data are available and the judgements applied.

IFRS Foundation

46

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Applying present value techniques to liabilities and an entitys own equity instruments not held by other parties as assets (paragraphs 40 and 41)
B31 When using a present value technique to measure the fair value of a liability that is not held by another party as an asset (eg a decommissioning liability), an entity shall, among other things, estimate the future cash outflows that market participants would expect to incur in fulfilling the obligation. Those future cash outflows shall include market participants expectations about the costs of fulfilling the obligation and the compensation that a market participant would require for taking on the obligation. Such compensation includes the return that a market participant would require for the following: (a) (b) undertaking the activity (ie the value of fulfilling the obligation; eg by using resources that could be used for other activities); and assuming the risk associated with the obligation (ie a risk premium that reflects the risk that the actual cash outflows might differ from the expected cash outflows; see paragraph B33).

B32

For example, a non-financial liability does not contain a contractual rate of return and there is no observable market yield for that liability. In some cases the components of the return that market participants would require will be indistinguishable from one another (eg when using the price a third party contractor would charge on a fixed fee basis). In other cases an entity needs to estimate those components separately (eg when using the price a third party contractor would charge on a cost plus basis because the contractor in that case would not bear the risk of future changes in costs). An entity can include a risk premium in the fair value measurement of a liability or an entitys own equity instrument that is not held by another party as an asset in one of the following ways: (a) (b) by adjusting the cash flows (ie as an increase in the amount of cash outflows); or by adjusting the rate used to discount the future cash flows to their present values (ie as a reduction in the discount rate).

B33

An entity shall ensure that it does not double-count or omit adjustments for risk. For example, if the estimated cash flows are increased to take into account the compensation for assuming the risk associated with the obligation, the discount rate should not be adjusted to reflect that risk.

47

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

Inputs to valuation techniques (paragraphs 6771)


B34 Examples of markets in which inputs might be observable for some assets and liabilities (eg financial instruments) include the following: (a) Exchange markets. In an exchange market, closing prices are both readily available and generally representative of fair value. An example of such a market is the London Stock Exchange. Dealer markets. In a dealer market, dealers stand ready to trade (either buy or sell for their own account), thereby providing liquidity by using their capital to hold an inventory of the items for which they make a market. Typically bid and ask prices (representing the price at which the dealer is willing to buy and the price at which the dealer is willing to sell, respectively) are more readily available than closing prices. Over-the-counter markets (for which prices are publicly reported) are dealer markets. Dealer markets also exist for some other assets and liabilities, including some financial instruments, commodities and physical assets (eg used equipment). Brokered markets. In a brokered market, brokers attempt to match buyers with sellers but do not stand ready to trade for their own account. In other words, brokers do not use their own capital to hold an inventory of the items for which they make a market. The broker knows the prices bid and asked by the respective parties, but each party is typically unaware of another partys price requirements. Prices of completed transactions are sometimes available. Brokered markets include electronic communication networks, in which buy and sell orders are matched, and commercial and residential real estate markets. Principal-to-principal markets. In a principal-to-principal market, transactions, both originations and resales, are negotiated independently with no intermediary. Little information about those transactions may be made available publicly.

(b)

(c)

(d)

IFRS Foundation

48

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Fair value hierarchy (paragraphs 7290) Level 2 inputs (paragraphs 8185)


B35 Examples of Level 2 inputs for particular assets and liabilities include the following: (a) Receive-fixed, pay-variable interest rate swap based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) swap rate. A Level 2 input would be the LIBOR swap rate if that rate is observable at commonly quoted intervals for substantially the full term of the swap. Receive-fixed, pay-variable interest rate swap based on a yield curve denominated in a foreign currency. A Level 2 input would be the swap rate based on a yield curve denominated in a foreign currency that is observable at commonly quoted intervals for substantially the full term of the swap. That would be the case if the term of the swap is 10 years and that rate is observable at commonly quoted intervals for 9 years, provided that any reasonable extrapolation of the yield curve for year 10 would not be significant to the fair value measurement of the swap in its entirety. Receive-fixed, pay-variable interest rate swap based on a specific banks prime rate. A Level 2 input would be the banks prime rate derived through extrapolation if the extrapolated values are corroborated by observable market data, for example, by correlation with an interest rate that is observable over substantially the full term of the swap. Three-year option on exchange-traded shares. A Level 2 input would be the implied volatility for the shares derived through extrapolation to year 3 if both of the following conditions exist: (i) (ii) Prices for one-year and two-year options on the shares are observable. The extrapolated implied volatility of a three-year option is corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the option.

(b)

(c)

(d)

In that case the implied volatility could be derived by extrapolating from the implied volatility of the one-year and two-year options on the shares and corroborated by the implied volatility for three-year options on comparable entities shares, provided that correlation with the one-year and two-year implied volatilities is established.

49

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

(e)

Licensing arrangement. For a licensing arrangement that is acquired in a business combination and was recently negotiated with an unrelated party by the acquired entity (the party to the licensing arrangement), a Level 2 input would be the royalty rate in the contract with the unrelated party at inception of the arrangement. Finished goods inventory at a retail outlet. For finished goods inventory that is acquired in a business combination, a Level 2 input would be either a price to customers in a retail market or a price to retailers in a wholesale market, adjusted for differences between the condition and location of the inventory item and the comparable (ie similar) inventory items so that the fair value measurement reflects the price that would be received in a transaction to sell the inventory to another retailer that would complete the requisite selling efforts. Conceptually, the fair value measurement will be the same, whether adjustments are made to a retail price (downward) or to a wholesale price (upward). Generally, the price that requires the least amount of subjective adjustments should be used for the fair value measurement. Building held and used. A Level 2 input would be the price per square metre for the building (a valuation multiple) derived from observable market data, eg multiples derived from prices in observed transactions involving comparable (ie similar) buildings in similar locations. Cash-generating unit. A Level 2 input would be a valuation multiple (eg a multiple of earnings or revenue or a similar performance measure) derived from observable market data, eg multiples derived from prices in observed transactions involving comparable (ie similar) businesses, taking into account operational, market, financial and non-financial factors.

(f)

(g)

(h)

Level 3 inputs (paragraphs 8690)


B36 Examples of Level 3 inputs for particular assets and liabilities include the following: (a) Long-dated currency swap. A Level 3 input would be an interest rate in a specified currency that is not observable and cannot be corroborated by observable market data at commonly quoted intervals or otherwise for substantially the full term of the currency swap. The interest rates in a currency swap are the swap rates calculated from the respective countries yield curves.

IFRS Foundation

50

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(b)

Three-year option on exchange-traded shares. A Level 3 input would be historical volatility, ie the volatility for the shares derived from the shares historical prices. Historical volatility typically does not represent current market participants expectations about future volatility, even if it is the only information available to price an option. Interest rate swap. A Level 3 input would be an adjustment to a mid-market consensus (non-binding) price for the swap developed using data that are not directly observable and cannot otherwise be corroborated by observable market data. Decommissioning liability assumed in a business combination. A Level 3 input would be a current estimate using the entitys own data about the future cash outflows to be paid to fulfil the obligation (including market participants expectations about the costs of fulfilling the obligation and the compensation that a market participant would require for taking on the obligation to dismantle the asset) if there is no reasonably available information that indicates that market participants would use different assumptions. That Level 3 input would be used in a present value technique together with other inputs, eg a current risk-free interest rate or a credit-adjusted risk-free rate if the effect of the entitys credit standing on the fair value of the liability is reflected in the discount rate rather than in the estimate of future cash outflows. Cash-generating unit. A Level 3 input would be a financial forecast (eg of cash flows or profit or loss) developed using the entitys own data if there is no reasonably available information that indicates that market participants would use different assumptions.

(c)

(d)

(e)

Measuring fair value when the volume or level of activity for an asset or a liability has significantly decreased
B37 The fair value of an asset or a liability might be affected when there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for that asset or liability in relation to normal market activity for the asset or liability (or similar assets or liabilities). To determine whether, on the basis of the evidence available, there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability, an entity shall evaluate the significance and relevance of factors such as the following: (a) There are few recent transactions.

51

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

(b) (c) (d)

Price quotations are not developed using current information. Price quotations vary substantially either over time or among market-makers (eg some brokered markets). Indices that previously were highly correlated with the fair values of the asset or liability are demonstrably uncorrelated with recent indications of fair value for that asset or liability. There is a significant increase in implied liquidity risk premiums, yields or performance indicators (such as delinquency rates or loss severities) for observed transactions or quoted prices when compared with the entitys estimate of expected cash flows, taking into account all available market data about credit and other non-performance risk for the asset or liability. There is a wide bid-ask spread or significant increase in the bid-ask spread. There is a significant decline in the activity of, or there is an absence of, a market for new issues (ie a primary market) for the asset or liability or similar assets or liabilities. Little information is publicly available (eg for transactions that take place in a principal-to-principal market).

(e)

(f) (g)

(h) B38

If an entity concludes that there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability in relation to normal market activity for the asset or liability (or similar assets or liabilities), further analysis of the transactions or quoted prices is needed. A decrease in the volume or level of activity on its own may not indicate that a transaction price or quoted price does not represent fair value or that a transaction in that market is not orderly. However, if an entity determines that a transaction or quoted price does not represent fair value (eg there may be transactions that are not orderly), an adjustment to the transactions or quoted prices will be necessary if the entity uses those prices as a basis for measuring fair value and that adjustment may be significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. Adjustments also may be necessary in other circumstances (eg when a price for a similar asset requires significant adjustment to make it comparable to the asset being measured or when the price is stale). This IFRS does not prescribe a methodology for making significant adjustments to transactions or quoted prices. See paragraphs 6166 and B5B11 for a discussion of the use of valuation techniques when measuring fair value. Regardless of the valuation technique used, an

B39

IFRS Foundation

52

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

entity shall include appropriate risk adjustments, including a risk premium reflecting the amount that market participants would demand as compensation for the uncertainty inherent in the cash flows of an asset or a liability (see paragraph B17). Otherwise, the measurement does not faithfully represent fair value. In some cases determining the appropriate risk adjustment might be difficult. However, the degree of difficulty alone is not a sufficient basis on which to exclude a risk adjustment. The risk adjustment shall be reflective of an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. B40 If there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability, a change in valuation technique or the use of multiple valuation techniques may be appropriate (eg the use of a market approach and a present value technique). When weighting indications of fair value resulting from the use of multiple valuation techniques, an entity shall consider the reasonableness of the range of fair value measurements. The objective is to determine the point within the range that is most representative of fair value under current market conditions. A wide range of fair value measurements may be an indication that further analysis is needed. Even when there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability, the objective of a fair value measurement remains the same. Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction (ie not a forced liquidation or distress sale) between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. Estimating the price at which market participants would be willing to enter into a transaction at the measurement date under current market conditions if there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability depends on the facts and circumstances at the measurement date and requires judgement. An entitys intention to hold the asset or to settle or otherwise fulfil the liability is not relevant when measuring fair value because fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement.

B41

B42

Identifying transactions that are not orderly


B43 The determination of whether a transaction is orderly (or is not orderly) is more difficult if there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability in relation to normal market activity for the asset or liability (or similar assets or liabilities). In such

53

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

circumstances it is not appropriate to conclude that all transactions in that market are not orderly (ie forced liquidations or distress sales). Circumstances that may indicate that a transaction is not orderly include the following: (a) There was not adequate exposure to the market for a period before the measurement date to allow for marketing activities that are usual and customary for transactions involving such assets or liabilities under current market conditions. There was a usual and customary marketing period, but the seller marketed the asset or liability to a single market participant. The seller is in or near bankruptcy or receivership (ie the seller is distressed). The seller was required to sell to meet regulatory or legal requirements (ie the seller was forced). The transaction price is an outlier when compared with other recent transactions for the same or a similar asset or liability.

(b) (c) (d) (e)

An entity shall evaluate the circumstances to determine whether, on the weight of the evidence available, the transaction is orderly. B44 An entity shall consider all the following when measuring fair value or estimating market risk premiums: (a) If the evidence indicates that a transaction is not orderly, an entity shall place little, if any, weight (compared with other indications of fair value) on that transaction price. If the evidence indicates that a transaction is orderly, an entity shall take into account that transaction price. The amount of weight placed on that transaction price when compared with other indications of fair value will depend on the facts and circumstances, such as the following: (i) (ii) (iii) (c) the volume of the transaction. the comparability of the transaction to the asset or liability being measured. the proximity of the transaction to the measurement date.

(b)

If an entity does not have sufficient information to conclude whether a transaction is orderly, it shall take into account the transaction price. However, that transaction price may not represent fair value (ie the transaction price is not necessarily the

IFRS Foundation

54

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

sole or primary basis for measuring fair value or estimating market risk premiums). When an entity does not have sufficient information to conclude whether particular transactions are orderly, the entity shall place less weight on those transactions when compared with other transactions that are known to be orderly. An entity need not undertake exhaustive efforts to determine whether a transaction is orderly, but it shall not ignore information that is reasonably available. When an entity is a party to a transaction, it is presumed to have sufficient information to conclude whether the transaction is orderly.

Using quoted prices provided by third parties


B45 This IFRS does not preclude the use of quoted prices provided by third parties, such as pricing services or brokers, if an entity has determined that the quoted prices provided by those parties are developed in accordance with this IFRS. If there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability, an entity shall evaluate whether the quoted prices provided by third parties are developed using current information that reflects orderly transactions or a valuation technique that reflects market participant assumptions (including assumptions about risk). In weighting a quoted price as an input to a fair value measurement, an entity places less weight (when compared with other indications of fair value that reflect the results of transactions) on quotes that do not reflect the result of transactions. Furthermore, the nature of a quote (eg whether the quote is an indicative price or a binding offer) shall be taken into account when weighting the available evidence, with more weight given to quotes provided by third parties that represent binding offers.

B46

B47

55

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

Appendix C Effective date and transition


This appendix is an integral part of the IFRS and has the same authority as the other parts of the IFRS. C1 An entity shall apply this IFRS for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies this IFRS for an earlier period, it shall disclose that fact. This IFRS shall be applied prospectively as of the beginning of the annual period in which it is initially applied. The disclosure requirements of this IFRS need not be applied in comparative information provided for periods before initial application of this IFRS.

C2 C3

IFRS Foundation

56

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Appendix D Amendments to other IFRSs


This appendix sets out amendments to other IFRSs that are a consequence of the Board issuing IFRS 13. An entity shall apply the amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013. If an entity applies IFRS 13 for an earlier period, it shall apply the amendments for that earlier period. Amended paragraphs are shown with new text underlined and deleted text struck through.

Change in definition
D1 In IFRSs 1, 35 and 9 (issued in October 2010) the definition of fair value is replaced with: Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. (See IFRS 13.) In IASs 2, 16, 1821, 32 and 40 the definition of fair value is replaced with: Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. (See IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement.)

IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (as amended at September 2010)
D2 D3 Paragraph 19 is deleted. Paragraph 39J is added as follows: 39J IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, deleted paragraph 19, amended the definition of fair value in Appendix A and amended paragraphs D15 and D20. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

D4

Paragraphs D15 and D20 are amended as follows: D15 If a first-time adopter measures such an investment at cost in accordance with IAS 27, it shall measure that investment at one of the following amounts in its separate opening IFRS statement of financial position:

57

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

(b)

deemed cost. The deemed cost of such an investment shall be its: (i) fair value (determined in accordance with IAS 39) at the entitys date of transition to IFRSs in its separate financial statements; or

D20 Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs 7 and 9, an entity may apply the requirements in the last sentence paragraph AG76(a) of IAS 39 paragraph AG76 and in paragraph AG76A, in either of the following ways:

IFRS 2 Share-based Payment


D5 Paragraph 6A is added as follows: 6A This IFRS uses the term fair value in a way that differs in some respects from the definition of fair value in IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. Therefore, when applying IFRS 2 an entity measures fair value in accordance with this IFRS, not IFRS 13.

IFRS 3 Business Combinations


D6 Paragraphs 20, 29, 33 and 47 are amended as follows: 20 Paragraphs B41B45 provide guidance on measuring the fair value of particular identifiable assets and a non-controlling interest in an acquiree. Paragraphs 2431 specify the types of identifiable assets and liabilities that include items for which this IFRS provides limited exceptions to the measurement principle. The acquirer shall measure the value of a reacquired right recognised as an intangible asset on the basis of the remaining contractual term of the related contract regardless of whether market participants would consider potential contractual renewals in determining when measuring its fair value. Paragraphs B35 and B36 provide related application guidance. To determine the amount of goodwill in a business combination in which no consideration is transferred, the

29

33

IFRS Foundation

58

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

acquirer shall use the acquisition-date fair value of the acquirers interest in the acquiree determined using a valuation technique in place of the acquisition-date fair value of the consideration transferred (paragraph 32(a)(i)). 47 For example, unless an intervening event that changed its fair value can be identified, the sale of an asset to a third party shortly after the acquisition date for an amount that differs significantly from its provisional fair value determined measured at that date is likely to indicate an error in the provisional amount.

D7

Paragraph 64F is added as follows: 64F IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 20, 29, 33, 47, amended the definition of fair value in Appendix A and amended paragraphs B22, B40, B43B46, B49 and B64. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

D8

In Appendix B paragraphs B22 and B40, B43B46, B49 and B64 are amended as follows: B22 Because the consolidated financial statements represent the continuation of the financial statements of the legal subsidiary except for its capital structure, the consolidated financial statements reflect: (d) the amount recognised as issued equity interests in the consolidated financial statements determined by adding the issued equity interest of the legal subsidiary (the accounting acquirer) outstanding immediately before the business combination to the fair value of the legal parent (accounting acquiree) determined in accordance with this IFRS. However,

B40 The identifiability criteria determine whether an intangible asset is recognised separately from goodwill. However, the criteria neither provide guidance for measuring the fair value of an intangible asset nor restrict the assumptions used in estimating measuring the fair value of an intangible asset. For example, the acquirer would take into account the assumptions that market participants would consider use when

59

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

pricing the intangible asset, such as expectations of future contract renewals, in measuring fair value. B43 For To protect its competitive position, or for other reasons, the acquirer may intend not to use an acquired non-financial asset actively, for example, a research and development intangible asset, or it may not intend to use the asset in a way that is different from the way in which other market participants would use it according to its highest and best use. For example, that might be the case for an acquired research and development intangible asset that the acquirer plans to use defensively by preventing others from using it. Nevertheless, the acquirer shall measure the fair value of the non-financial asset at fair value determined in accordance with assuming its highest and best use by other market participants in accordance with the appropriate valuation premise, both initially and when measuring fair value less costs of disposal for subsequent impairment testing. This IFRS allows the acquirer to measure a non-controlling interest in the acquiree at its fair value at the acquisition date. Sometimes an acquirer will be able to measure the acquisition-date fair value of a non-controlling interest on the basis of a quoted price in an active market prices for the equity shares (ie those not held by the acquirer). In other situations, however, a quoted price in an active market price for the equity shares will not be available. In those situations, the acquirer would measure the fair value of the non-controlling interest using another valuation techniques. The fair values of the acquirers interest in the acquiree and the non-controlling interest on a per-share basis might differ. The main difference is likely to be the inclusion of a control premium in the per-share fair value of the acquirers interest in the acquiree or, conversely, the inclusion of a discount for lack of control (also referred to as a minority non-controlling interest discount) in the per-share fair value of the non-controlling interest if market participants would take into account such a premium or discount when pricing the non-controlling interest. In a business combination achieved without the transfer of consideration, the acquirer must substitute the acquisition-date fair value of its interest in the acquiree for the

B44

B45

B46

IFRS Foundation

60

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

acquisition-date fair value of the consideration transferred to measure goodwill or a gain on a bargain purchase (see paragraphs 3234). The acquirer should measure the acquisition-date fair value of its interest in the acquiree using one or more valuation techniques that are appropriate in the circumstances and for which sufficient data are available. If more than one valuation technique is used, the acquirer should evaluate the results of the techniques, considering the relevance and reliability of the inputs used and the extent of the available data. B49 A fair value measurement of a mutual entity should include the assumptions that market participants would make about future member benefits as well as any other relevant assumptions market participants would make about the mutual entity. For example, an estimated cash flow model a present value technique may be used to determine measure the fair value of a mutual entity. The cash flows used as inputs to the model should be based on the expected cash flows of the mutual entity, which are likely to reflect reductions for member benefits, such as reduced fees charged for goods and services. To meet the objective in paragraph 59, the acquirer shall disclose the following information for each business combination that occurs during the reporting period: (f) the acquisition-date fair value of the total consideration transferred and the acquisition-date fair value of each major class of consideration, such as: (iv) equity interests of the acquirer, including the number of instruments or interests issued or issuable and the method of determining measuring the fair value of those instruments or interests.

B64

(o) for each business combination in which the acquirer holds less than 100 per cent of the equity interests in the acquiree at the acquisition date:

61

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

(ii)

for each non-controlling interest in an acquiree measured at fair value, the valuation technique(s) and key model significant inputs used for determining to measure that value.

IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts


D9 Paragraph 41E is added as follows: 41E IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, amended the definition of fair value in Appendix A. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 13.

IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations


D10 Paragraph 44H is added as follows: 44H IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, amended the definition of fair value in Appendix A. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 13.

IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures (as amended at October 2009)


D11 Paragraph IN5C is added as follows: IN5C D12 In May 2011 the Board relocated the disclosures about fair value measurements to IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement.

Paragraph 3 is amended as follows: 3 This IFRS shall be applied by all entities to all types of financial instruments, except: (a) ... in those cases, entities shall apply the requirements of this IFRS and, for those interests measured at fair value, the requirements of IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. ...

D13 Paragraphs 2727B are deleted.

IFRS Foundation

62

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

D14

Paragraph 28 is amended as follows: 28 If the market for a financial instrument is not active, an entity establishes its fair value using a valuation technique (see paragraphs AG74AG79 of IAS 39). Nevertheless, the best evidence of fair value at initial recognition is the transaction price (ie the fair value of the consideration given or received), unless conditions described in paragraph AG76 of IAS 39 are met. It follows that there could be a difference between the fair value at initial recognition and the amount that would be determined at that date using the valuation technique. If such a difference exists, an entity shall disclose, by class of financial instrument: In some cases, an entity does not recognise a gain or loss on initial recognition of a financial asset or financial liability because the fair value is neither evidenced by a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability (ie a Level 1 input) nor based on a valuation technique that uses only data from observable markets (see paragraph AG76 of IAS 39). In such cases, the entity shall disclose by class of financial asset or financial liability: (a) its accounting policy for recognising in profit or loss the that difference between the fair value at initial recognition and the transaction price in profit or loss to reflect a change in factors (including time) that market participants would consider in setting a price take into account when pricing the asset or liability (see paragraph AG76A AG76(b) of IAS 39). ; and

(c) why the entity concluded that the transaction price was not the best evidence of fair value, including a description of the evidence that supports the fair value.

D15

Paragraph 29 is amended as follows: 29 Disclosures of fair value are not required: (b) for an investment in equity instruments that do not have a quoted market price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input), or derivatives linked to such equity instruments, that is measured at cost in

63

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

accordance with IAS 39 because its fair value cannot otherwise be measured reliably; or D16 Paragraph 44P is added as follows: 44P IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 3, 28, 29, B4 and B26 and Appendix A and deleted paragraphs 2727B. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

D17

In Appendix A the definition of other price risk is amended as follows:


other price risk

The risk that the fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because of changes in market prices (other than those arising from interest rate risk or currency risk), whether those changes are caused by factors specific to the individual financial instrument or its issuer, or by factors affecting all similar financial instruments traded in the market.

IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (issued November 2009)


D18 Paragraph 5.1.1 is amended as follows:
5.1.1 At initial recognition, an entity shall measure a financial asset at its fair value (see paragraphs 48, 48A and AG69AG82 of IAS 39) plus, in the case of a financial asset not at fair value through profit or loss, transaction costs that are directly attributable to the acquisition of the financial asset.

D19

Paragraph 5.1.1A is added as follows:


5.1.1A However, if the fair value of the financial asset at initial recognition differs from the transaction price, an entity shall apply paragraph B5.1 and paragraph AG76 of IAS 39.

D20

Paragraphs 5.2.1, 5.3.2, 8.2.5 and 8.2.11 are amended as follows:


5.2.1 After initial recognition, an entity shall measure a financial asset in accordance with paragraphs 4.14.5 at fair value (see paragraphs 48, 48A and AG69AG82 of IAS 39) or amortised cost. If, in accordance with paragraph 4.9, an entity reclassifies a financial asset so that it is measured at fair value, its fair value is determined measured at the reclassification date. Any gain or loss arising from a difference between the previous carrying amount and fair value is recognised in profit or loss.

5.3.2

IFRS Foundation

64

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

8.2.5

If an entity measures a hybrid contract at fair value in accordance with paragraph 4.4 or paragraph 4.5 but the fair value of the hybrid contract had not been determined measured in comparative reporting periods, the fair value of the hybrid contract in the comparative reporting periods shall be the sum of the fair values of the components (ie the non-derivative host and the embedded derivative) at the end of each comparative reporting period. If an entity previously accounted for an investment in an unquoted equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) (or a derivative that is linked to and must be settled by delivery of such an unquoted equity instrument) at cost in accordance with IAS 39, it shall measure that instrument at fair value at the date of initial application. ...

8.2.11

D21

Paragraph 8.1.3 is added as follows: 8.1.3 IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.3.2, 8.2.5, 8.2.11, B5.1, B5.4, B5.5, B5.7, C8, C20, C22, C27 and C28 and added paragraph 5.1.1A. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

D22

In Appendix A the introductory text is amended as follows: The following terms are defined in paragraph 11 of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation, or paragraph 9 of IAS 39 or Appendix A of IFRS 13 and are used in this IFRS with the meanings specified in IAS 32, or IAS 39 or IFRS 13: ...

D23

In Appendix B paragraph B5.1, the heading above paragraph B5.5 and paragraphs B5.5 and B5.7 are amended as follows: B5.1 The fair value of a financial asset at initial recognition is normally the transaction price (ie the fair value of the consideration given, see also IFRS 13 and paragraph AG76 of IAS 39). However, if part of the consideration given is for something other than the financial instrument, an entity shall measure the fair value of the financial instrument is estimated using a valuation technique (see paragraphs AG74AG79 of IAS 39). For example, the fair value of a long-term loan or receivable that carries no interest can be estimated measured as the present value of all future cash receipts discounted using the prevailing market rate(s) of interest for a similar instrument (similar as to currency, term, type of interest rate

65

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

and other factors) with a similar credit rating. Any additional amount lent is an expense or a reduction of income unless it qualifies for recognition as some other type of asset.

Investments in unquoted equity instruments (and contracts on those investments that must be settled by delivery of the unquoted equity instruments)
B5.5 ... That may be the case if insufficient more recent information is available to determine measure fair value, or if there is a wide range of possible fair value measurements and cost represents the best estimate of fair value within that range. ... In such cases, the entity must estimate measure fair value.

B5.7 D24

In Appendix C, in paragraph C8 the amendments to paragraph 29 of IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures are amended as follows: 29 Disclosures of fair value are not required: (b) for derivatives linked to investments in equity instruments that do not have a quoted market price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) that are measured at cost in accordance with IAS 39 because their fair value cannot otherwise be measured reliably; or

D25 In paragraph C20 the amendments to paragraph 1 of IAS 28 Investments in Associates are amended as follows:
1 This Standard shall be applied in accounting for investments in associates. However, it does not apply to investments in associates held by: (a) (b) venture capital organisations, or mutual funds, unit trusts and similar entities including investment-linked insurance funds

that are measured at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. An entity shall measure such investments at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9. An entity holding such an investment shall make the disclosures required by paragraph 37(f).

IFRS Foundation

66

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

D26

In paragraph C22 the amendments to paragraph 1 of IAS 31 Interests in Joint Ventures are amended as follows:
1 This Standard shall be applied in accounting for interests in joint ventures and the reporting of joint venture assets, liabilities, income and expenses in the financial statements of venturers and investors, regardless of the structures or forms under which the joint venture activities take place. However, it does not apply to venturers interests in jointly controlled entities held by: (a) (b) venture capital organisations, or mutual funds, unit trusts and similar entities including investment-linked insurance funds

that are measured at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. An entity shall measure such investments at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9. A venturer holding such an interest shall make the disclosures required by paragraphs 55 and 56.

D27

In paragraph C27 the amendments to paragraphs 9, 13 and 88 of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement are amended as follows:
9 ... It should be noted that IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement paragraphs 48, 48A, 49 and Appendix A paragraphs AG69AG82, which sets out the requirements for determining a reliable measure of measuring the fair value of a financial liability, apply equally to all items that are measured at fair value, whether by designation or otherwise, or whose fair value is disclosed. ...

13

If an entity is unable to determine measure reliably the fair value of an embedded derivative on the basis of its terms and conditions, the fair value of the embedded derivative is the difference between the fair value of the hybrid (combined) contract and the fair value of the host if those can be determined under this Standard. If the entity is unable to determine measure the fair value of the embedded derivative using this method, paragraph 12 applies and the hybrid (combined) contract is designated as at fair value through profit or loss.

67

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

88

A hedging relationship qualifies for hedge accounting under paragraphs 89102 if, and only if, all of the following conditions are met. ... (d) The effectiveness of the hedge can be reliably measured, ie the fair value or cash flows of the hedged item that are attributable to the hedged risk and the fair value of the hedging instrument can be reliably measured (see paragraph 47(a) and Appendix A paragraphs AG80 and AG81 for guidance on determining fair value).

D28

In paragraph C28 the amendments to paragraphs AG64, AG80, AG81 and AG96 of IAS 39 are amended as follows: AG64 The fair value of a financial liability on initial recognition is normally the transaction price (ie the fair value of the consideration received, see also paragraph AG76 and IFRS 13). However, if part of the consideration given or received is for something other than the financial liability, an entity shall measure the fair value of the financial liability is estimated, using a valuation technique (see paragraphs AG74AG79). The fair value of derivatives that are linked to and must be settled by delivery of unquoted equity instruments that do not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) (see paragraph 47(a)) is reliably measurable if (a) the variability in the range of reasonable fair value estimates measurements is not significant for that instrument or (b) the probabilities of the various estimates within the range can be reasonably assessed and used in estimating when measuring fair value. There are many situations in which the variability in the range of reasonable fair value estimates measurements of derivatives that are linked to and must be settled by delivery of unquoted equity instruments that do not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) (see paragraph 47(a)) is likely not to be significant. Normally it is possible to estimate measure the fair value of such derivatives that an entity has acquired from an outside party. However, if the range of reasonable fair value estimates measurements is significant and the probabilities of the

AG80

AG81

IFRS Foundation

68

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

various estimates cannot be reasonably assessed, an entity is precluded from measuring the instrument at fair value. AG96 A derivative that is linked to and must be settled by delivery of unquoted equity instruments that do not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) and is not carried at fair value because its fair value cannot otherwise be reliably measured (see paragraph 47(a)) cannot be designated as a hedging instrument.

IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (issued October 2010)


D29 Paragraph IN7 is amended as follows: IN7 In October 2010 the Board added to IFRS 9 the requirements for classification and measurement of financial liabilities: (b) Consistently with the requirements in IFRS 9 for investments in unquoted equity instruments that do not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) (and derivative assets linked to those investments), the exception from fair value measurement was eliminated for derivative liabilities that are linked to and must be settled by delivery of such an unquoted equity instrument. Under IAS 39, if those derivatives were not reliably measurable, they were required to be measured at cost. IFRS 9 requires them to be measured at fair value.

D30 Paragraphs 3.2.14, 4.3.7 and 5.1.1 are amended as follows: 3.2.14 When an entity allocates the previous carrying amount of a larger financial asset between the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised, the fair value of the part that continues to be recognised needs to be determined measured. When the entity has a history of selling parts similar to the part that continues to be recognised or other market transactions exist for such parts, recent prices of actual transactions provide the best estimate of its fair value. If an entity is unable to determine measure reliably the fair value of an embedded derivative on the basis of its terms and

4.3.7

69

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

conditions, the fair value of the embedded derivative is the difference between the fair value of the hybrid contract and the fair value of the host, if those can be determined under this IFRS. If the entity is unable to determine measure the fair value of the embedded derivative using this method, paragraph 4.3.6 applies and the hybrid contract is designated as at fair value through profit or loss.
5.1.1 At initial recognition, an entity shall measure a financial asset or financial liability at its fair value (see paragraphs 5.4.15.4.3 and B5.4.1B5.4.17) plus or minus, in the case of a financial asset or financial liability not at fair value through profit or loss, transaction costs that are directly attributable to the acquisition or issue of the financial asset or financial liability.

D31

Paragraph 5.1.1A is added as follows:


5.1.1A However, if the fair value of the financial asset or financial liability at initial recognition differs from the transaction price, an entity shall apply paragraph B5.1.2A.

D32

Paragraph 5.2.1 is amended as follows:


5.2.1 After initial recognition, an entity shall measure a financial asset in accordance with paragraphs 4.1.14.1.5 at fair value (see paragraphs 5.4.1, 5.4.2 and B5.4.1B5.4.17) or amortised cost (see paragraphs 9 and AG5AG8 of IAS 39).

D33 D34

The heading above paragraph 5.4.1 and paragraphs 5.4.15.4.3 are deleted. Paragraphs 5.6.2, 7.2.5, 7.2.11 and 7.2.12 are amended as follows:
5.6.2 If, in accordance with paragraph 4.4.1, an entity reclassifies a financial asset so that it is measured at fair value, its fair value is determined measured at the reclassification date. Any gain or loss arising from a difference between the previous carrying amount and fair value is recognised in profit or loss.

7.2.5

If an entity measures a hybrid contract at fair value in accordance with paragraph 4.1.4 or paragraph 4.1.5 but the fair value of the hybrid contract had not been determined measured in comparative reporting periods, the fair value of the hybrid contract in the comparative reporting periods shall be the sum of the fair values of the components (ie the non-derivative host and the embedded derivative) at the end of each comparative reporting period.

IFRS Foundation

70

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

7.2.11

If an entity previously accounted for an investment in an unquoted equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) (or a derivative asset that is linked to and must be settled by delivery of such an unquoted equity instrument) at cost in accordance with IAS 39, it shall measure that instrument at fair value at the date of initial application. ... If an entity previously accounted for a derivative liability that is linked to and must be settled by delivery of an unquoted equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) at cost in accordance with IAS 39, it shall measure that derivative liability at fair value at the date of initial application. ...

7.2.12

D35

Paragraph 7.1.3 is added as follows: 7.1.3 IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 3.2.14, 4.3.7, 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.4.1, 5.6.2, 7.2.5, 7.2.11, 7.2.12, amended the definition of fair value in Appendix A, amended paragraphs B3.2.11, B3.2.17, B5.1.1, B5.2.2, B5.4.8, B5.4.14, B5.4.16, B5.7.20, C3, C11, C26, C28, C30, C49 and C53, deleted paragraphs 5.4.2, B5.4.1B5.4.13 and added paragraphs 5.1.1A, B5.1.2A and B5.2.2A. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

D36

In Appendix B paragraphs B3.2.11, B3.2.17, B5.1.1 and B5.2.2 are amended as follows: B3.2.11 In estimating When measuring the fair values of the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised for the purposes of applying paragraph 3.2.13, an entity applies the fair value measurement requirements in paragraphs 5.4.15.4.3 and B5.4.1B5.4.13 IFRS 13 in addition to paragraph 3.2.14. This paragraph illustrates the application of the continuing involvement approach when the entitys continuing involvement is in a part of a financial asset.

B3.2.17

71

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

Assume an entity has a portfolio of prepayable loans The fair value of the loans at the date of the transaction is CU10,100 and the estimated fair value of the excess spread of 0.5 per cent is CU40. The entity calculates the gain or loss on the sale of the 90 per cent share of cash flows. Assuming that separate fair values of the 90 per cent part transferred and the 10 per cent part retained are not available at the date of the transfer, the entity allocates the carrying amount of the asset in accordance with paragraph 3.2.14 as follows:
Estimated fair Fair value Portion transferred Portion retained Total 9,090 1,010 10,100 Percentage Allocated carrying amount 9,000 1,000 10,000

90% 10%

B5.1.1

The fair value of a financial instrument at initial recognition is normally the transaction price (ie the fair value of the consideration given or received, see also paragraph B5.4.8 B5.1.2A and IFRS 13). However, if part of the consideration given or received is for something other than the financial instrument, an entity shall measure the fair value of the financial instrument is estimated using a valuation technique (see paragraphs B5.4.6B5.4.12). For example, the fair value of a long-term loan or receivable that carries no interest can be estimated measured as the present value of all future cash receipts discounted using the prevailing market rate(s) of interest for a similar instrument (similar as to currency, term, type of interest rate and other factors) with a similar credit rating. Any additional amount lent is an expense or a reduction of income unless it qualifies for recognition as some other type of asset.

D37

Paragraphs B5.1.2A and B5.2.2A are added as follows: B5.1.2A The best evidence of the fair value of a financial instrument at initial recognition is normally the transaction price (ie the fair

IFRS Foundation

72

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

value of the consideration given or received, see also IFRS 13). If an entity determines that the fair value at initial recognition differs from the transaction price as mentioned in paragraph 5.1.1A, the entity shall account for that instrument at that date as follows: (a) at the measurement required by paragraph 5.1.1 if that fair value is evidenced by a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability (ie a Level 1 input) or based on a valuation technique that uses only data from observable markets. An entity shall recognise the difference between the fair value at initial recognition and the transaction price as a gain or loss. in all other cases, at the measurement required by paragraph 5.1.1, adjusted to defer the difference between the fair value at initial recognition and the transaction price. After initial recognition, the entity shall recognise that deferred difference as a gain or loss only to the extent that it arises from a change in a factor (including time) that market participants would take into account when pricing the asset or liability.

(b)

B5.2.2A The subsequent measurement of a financial asset or financial liability and the subsequent recognition of gains and losses described in paragraph B5.1.2A shall be consistent with the requirements of this IFRS. D38 D39 Paragraphs B5.4.1B5.4.13 and their related headings are deleted. The heading above paragraph B5.4.14 and paragraphs B5.4.14, B5.4.16 and B5.7.20 are amended as follows:

Investments in unquoted equity instruments (and contracts on those investments that must be settled by delivery of the unquoted equity instruments)
B5.4.14 ... That may be the case if insufficient more recent information is available to determine measure fair value, or if there is a wide range of possible fair value measurements and cost represents the best estimate of fair value within that range. ... To the extent that any such relevant factors exist, they may indicate that cost might not be representative of fair value. In such cases, the entity must estimate measure fair value.

B5.4.16

73

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

B5.7.20

As with all estimates of fair value measurements, an entitys measurement method for determining the portion of the change in the liabilitys fair value that is attributable to changes in its credit risk must make maximum use of market relevant observable inputs and minimum use of unobservable inputs.

D40

In Appendix C, in paragraph C3 the amendments to paragraphs D15 and D20 of IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards are amended as follows: D15 If a first-time adopter measures such an investment at cost in accordance with IAS 27, it shall measure that investment at one of the following amounts in its separate opening IFRS statement of financial position: (b) deemed cost. The deemed cost of such an investment shall be its: (i) fair value (determined in accordance with IFRS 9) at the entitys date of transition to IFRSs in its separate financial statements; or

D20 Despite the requirements of paragraphs 7 and 9, an entity may apply the requirements in the last sentence of paragraph B5.4.8 and in paragraph B5.4.9 B5.1.2A(b) of IFRS 9, in either of the following ways: D41 In paragraph C11 the amendments to paragraph 28 of IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures are amended as follows: 28 If the market for a financial instrument is not active, an entity establishes its fair value using a valuation technique (see paragraphs B5.4.6B5.4.12 of IFRS 9). Nevertheless, the best evidence of fair value at initial recognition is the transaction price (ie the fair value of the consideration given or received), unless the conditions described in paragraph B5.4.8 of IFRS 9 are met. It follows that there could be a difference between the fair value at initial recognition and the amount that would be determined at that date using the valuation technique. If such a difference exists, an entity shall disclose, by class of financial instrument: In some cases, an entity does not recognise a gain

IFRS Foundation

74

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

or loss on initial recognition of a financial asset or financial liability because the fair value is neither evidenced by a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability (ie a Level 1 input) nor based on a valuation technique that uses only data from observable markets (see paragraph B5.1.2A of IFRS 9). In such cases, the entity shall disclose by class of financial asset or financial liability: (a) its accounting policy for recognising in profit or loss the that difference between the fair value at initial recognition and the transaction price in profit or loss to reflect a change in factors (including time) that market participants would consider in setting a price take into account when pricing the asset or liability (see paragraph B5.4.9 B5.1.2A(b) of IFRS 9). ; and

(c) why the entity concluded that the transaction price was not the best evidence of fair value, including a description of the evidence that supports the fair value.

D42

In paragraph C26 the amendments to paragraph 1 of IAS 28 Investments in Associates are amended as follows:
1 This Standard shall be applied in accounting for investments in associates. However, it does not apply to investments in associates held by: (a) (b) venture capital organisations, or mutual funds, unit trusts and similar entities including investment-linked insurance funds

that are measured at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. An entity shall measure such investments at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9. An entity holding such an investment shall make the disclosures required by paragraph 37(f).

D43

In paragraph C28 the amendments to paragraph 1 of IAS 31 Interests in Joint Ventures are amended as follows:
1 This Standard shall be applied in accounting for interests in joint ventures and the reporting of joint venture assets, liabilities, income and expenses in the financial statements of venturers and investors, regardless of the structures or forms under which the joint venture activities take place. However, it

75

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

does not apply to venturers interests in jointly controlled entities held by: (a) (b) venture capital organisations, or mutual funds, unit trusts and similar entities including investment-linked insurance funds

that are measured at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. An entity shall measure such investments at fair value through profit or loss in accordance with IFRS 9. A venturer holding such an interest shall make the disclosures required by paragraphs 55 and 56.

D44

In paragraph C30 the amendments to paragraph 23 of IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation are amended as follows: 23 One example is an entitys obligation under a forward contract to purchase its own equity instruments for cash. When the The financial liability is recognised initially at under IFRS 9, its fair value (the present value of the redemption amount), and is reclassified from equity.

D45

In paragraph C49 the amendments to paragraph A8 of IFRIC 2 Members Shares in Co-operative Entities and Similar Instruments are amended as follows: A8 Members shares in excess of the prohibition against redemption are financial liabilities. The co-operative entity measures this financial liability at fair value at initial recognition. Because these shares are redeemable on demand, the co-operative entity determines measures the fair value of such financial liabilities in accordance with paragraph 47 of IFRS 13 as required by paragraph 5.4.3 of IFRS 9, which states: The fair value of a financial liability with a demand feature (eg a demand deposit) is not less than the amount payable on demand Accordingly, the co-operative entity classifies as financial liabilities the maximum amount payable on demand under the redemption provisions.

D46

In paragraph C53 the amendments to paragraph 7 of IFRIC 19 Extinguishing Financial Liabilities with Equity Instruments are amended as follows: 7 If the fair value of the equity instruments issued cannot be reliably measured then the equity instruments shall be measured to reflect the fair value of the financial liability extinguished. In measuring the fair value of a financial liability extinguished that includes a demand feature

IFRS Foundation

76

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(eg a demand deposit), paragraph 5.4.3 47 of IFRS 9 IFRS 13 is not applied.

IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements


D47 Paragraphs 128 and 133 are amended as follows: 128 The disclosures in paragraph 125 are not required for assets and liabilities with a significant risk that their carrying amounts might change materially within the next financial year if, at the end of the reporting period, they are measured at fair value based on recently observed market prices a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Such fair values might change materially within the next financial year but these changes would not arise from assumptions or other sources of estimation uncertainty at the end of the reporting period. Other IFRSs require the disclosure of some of the assumptions that would otherwise be required in accordance with paragraph 125. For example, IAS 37 requires disclosure, in specified circumstances, of major assumptions concerning future events affecting classes of provisions. IFRS 7 IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement requires disclosure of significant assumptions (including the valuation technique(s) and inputs) the entity uses when measuring in estimating the fair values of financial assets and financial liabilities that are carried at fair value. IAS 16 requires disclosure of significant assumptions that the entity uses in estimating the fair values of revalued items of property, plant and equipment.

133

D48

Paragraph 139I is added as follows: 139I IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 128 and 133. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

IAS 2 Inventories
D49 Paragraph 7 is amended as follows: 7 Net realisable value refers to the net amount that an entity expects to realise from the sale of inventory in the ordinary course of business. Fair value reflects the amount for which the same inventory could be exchanged between knowledgeable

77

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

and willing buyers and sellers in the marketplace. Fair value reflects the price at which an orderly transaction to sell the same inventory in the principal (or most advantageous) market for that inventory would take place between market participants at the measurement date. The former is an entity-specific value; the latter is not. Net realisable value for inventories may not equal fair value less costs to sell. D50 Paragraph 40C is added as follows: 40C IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended the definition of fair value in paragraph 6 and amended paragraph 7. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors


D51 Paragraph 52 is amended as follows: 52 Therefore, retrospectively applying a new accounting policy or correcting a prior period error requires distinguishing information that (a) provides evidence of circumstances that existed on the date(s) as at which the transaction, other event or condition occurred, and would have been available when the financial statements for that prior period were authorised for issue

(b)

from other information. For some types of estimates (eg an estimate of a fair value measurement that uses significant unobservable not based on an observable price or observable inputs), it is impracticable to distinguish these types of information. When retrospective application or retrospective restatement would require making a significant estimate for which it is impossible to distinguish these two types of information, it is impracticable to apply the new accounting policy or correct the prior period error retrospectively. D52 Paragraph 54C is added as follows: 54C IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, amended paragraph 52. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 13.

IFRS Foundation

78

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

IAS 10 Events after the Reporting Period


D53 Paragraph 11 is amended as follows: 11 An example of a non-adjusting event after the reporting period is a decline in market fair value of investments between the end of the reporting period and the date when the financial statements are authorised for issue. The decline in market fair value does not normally relate to the condition of the investments at the end of the reporting period, but reflects circumstances that have arisen subsequently.

D54

Paragraph 23A is added as follows: 23A IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraph 11. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 13.

IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment


D55 Paragraph 26 is amended as follows: 26 The fair value of an asset for which comparable market transactions do not exist is reliably measurable if (a) the variability in the range of reasonable fair value estimates measurements is not significant for that asset or (b) the probabilities of the various estimates within the range can be reasonably assessed and used in estimating when measuring fair value. If an entity is able to determine measure reliably the fair value of either the asset received or the asset given up, then the fair value of the asset given up is used to measure the cost of the asset received unless the fair value of the asset received is more clearly evident.

D56 D57

Paragraphs 32 and 33 are deleted. Paragraphs 35 and 77 are amended as follows: 35 When an item of property, plant and equipment is revalued, any accumulated depreciation at the date of the revaluation is treated in one of the following ways: (a) restated proportionately with the change in the gross carrying amount of the asset so that the carrying amount of the asset after revaluation equals its revalued amount.

79

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

This method is often used when an asset is revalued by means of applying an index to determine its depreciated replacement cost (see IFRS 13).
77 If items of property, plant and equipment are stated at revalued amounts, the following shall be disclosed in addition to the disclosures required by IFRS 13:

(c) (d)

[deleted] the methods and significant assumptions applied in estimating the items fair values; [deleted] the extent to which the items fair values were determined directly by reference to observable prices in an active market or recent market transactions on arms length terms or were estimated using other valuation techniques;

D58 Paragraph 81F is added as follows: 81F IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended the definition of fair value in paragraph 6, amended paragraphs 26, 35 and 77 and deleted paragraphs 32 and 33. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

IAS 17 Leases
D59 Paragraph 6A is added as follows: 6A IAS 17 uses the term fair value in a way that differs in some respects from the definition of fair value in IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. Therefore, when applying IAS 17 an entity measures fair value in accordance with IAS 17, not IFRS 13.

IAS 18 Revenue
D60 Paragraph 42 is added as follows: 42 IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended the definition of fair value in paragraph 7. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 13.

IFRS Foundation

80

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

IAS 19 Employee Benefits


D61 D62 In the rubric, paragraphs 1161 is amended to paragraphs 1162. Paragraphs 50 and 102 are amended as follows: 50 Accounting by an entity for defined benefit plans involves the following steps: (c) 102 The fair value of any plan assets is deducted in determining the amount recognised in the statement of financial position in accordance with under paragraph 54. When no market price is available, the fair value of plan assets is estimated; for example, by discounting expected future cash flows using a discount rate that reflects both the risk associated with the plan assets and the maturity or expected disposal date of those assets (or, if they have no maturity, the expected period until the settlement of the related obligation). determining measuring the fair value of any plan assets (see paragraphs 102104);

D63

Paragraph 162 is added as follows: 162 IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended the definition of fair value in paragraph 7 and amended paragraphs 50 and 102. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance


D64 Paragraph 45 is added as follows: 45 IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended the definition of fair value in paragraph 3. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 13.

81

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates


D65 Paragraph 23 is amended as follows:
23 At the end of each reporting period:

(c) non-monetary items that are measured at fair value in a foreign currency shall be translated using the exchange rates at the date when the fair value was determined measured.

D66

Paragraph 60G is added as follows: 60G IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended the definition of fair value in paragraph 8 and amended paragraph 23. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

IAS 28 Investments in Associates (as amended at October 2009)


D67 Paragraphs 1 and 37 are amended as follows:
1 This Standard shall be applied in accounting for investments in associates. However, it does not apply to investments in associates held by: (a) (b) venture capital organisations, or mutual funds, unit trusts and similar entities including investment-linked insurance funds

that upon initial recognition are designated as at fair value through profit or loss or are classified as held for trading and accounted for in accordance with IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. For such Such investments shall be measured at fair value in accordance with IAS 39, an entity shall recognise with changes in fair value recognised in profit or loss in the period of the change. An entity holding such an investment shall make the disclosures required by paragraph 37(f). 37 The following disclosures shall be made: (a) the fair value of investments in associates for which there are published price quotations quoted market prices;

IFRS Foundation

82

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

D68

Paragraph 41G is added as follows: 41G IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 1 and 37. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

IAS 31 Interests in Joint Ventures (as amended at October 2009)


D69 Paragraph 1 is amended as follows:
1 This Standard shall be applied in accounting for interests in joint ventures and the reporting of joint venture assets, liabilities, income and expenses in the financial statements of venturers and investors, regardless of the structures or forms under which the joint venture activities take place. However, it does not apply to venturers interests in jointly controlled entities held by: (a) (b) venture capital organisations, or mutual funds, unit trusts and similar entities including investment-linked insurance funds

that upon initial recognition are designated as at fair value through profit or loss or are classified as held for trading and accounted for in accordance with IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. For such Such investments shall be measured at fair value in accordance with IAS 39, an entity shall recognise with changes in fair value recognised in profit or loss in the period of the change. A venturer holding such an interest shall make the disclosures required by paragraphs 55 and 56.

D70

Paragraph 58F is added as follows: 58F IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, amended paragraph 1. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 13.

IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation (as amended at September 2010)


D71 Paragraph 23 is amended as follows: 23 When the The financial liability is recognised initially under IAS 39, its fair value (at the present value of the redemption amount), and is reclassified from equity.

83

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

D72

Paragraph 97J is added as follows: 97J IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended the definition of fair value in paragraph 11 and amended paragraphs 23 and AG31. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

D73

In the Application Guidance paragraph AG31 is amended as follows: AG31 A common form of compound financial instrument is a debt instrument with an embedded conversion option, such as a bond convertible into ordinary shares of the issuer, and without any other embedded derivative features. Paragraph 28 requires the issuer of such a financial instrument to present the liability component and the equity component separately in the statement of financial position, as follows: (b) The equity instrument is an embedded option to convert the liability into equity of the issuer. The fair value of the option comprises its time value and its intrinsic value, if any. This option has value on initial recognition even when it is out of the money.

IAS 33 Earnings per Share


D74 Paragraphs 8 and 47A are amended as follows: 8 Terms defined in IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation are used in this Standard with the meanings specified in paragraph 11 of IAS 32, unless otherwise noted. IAS 32 defines financial instrument, financial asset, financial liability, and equity instrument and fair value, and provides guidance on applying those definitions. IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement defines fair value and sets out requirements for applying that definition. For share options and other share-based payment arrangements to which IFRS 2 Share-based Payment applies, the issue price referred to in paragraph 46 and the exercise price referred to in paragraph 47 shall include the fair value (measured in accordance with IFRS 2) of any goods or services to be supplied to the entity in the future under the share option or other share-based payment arrangement.

47A

IFRS Foundation

84

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

D75

Paragraph 74C is added as follows: 74C IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 8, 47A and A2. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

D76

In Appendix A paragraph A2 is amended as follows: A2 The issue of ordinary shares at the time of exercise or conversion of potential ordinary shares does not usually give rise to a bonus element. This is because the potential ordinary shares are usually issued for full fair value, resulting in a proportionate change in the resources available to the entity. In a rights issue, however, the exercise price is often less than the fair value of the shares. The theoretical ex-rights fair value per share is calculated by adding the aggregate market fair value of the shares immediately before the exercise of the rights to the proceeds from the exercise of the rights, and dividing by the number of shares outstanding after the exercise of the rights. Where the rights are to be publicly traded separately from the shares before the exercise date, fair value for the purposes of this calculation is established measured at the close of the last day on which the shares are traded together with the rights.

IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting (as amended at May 2010)


D77 D78 In the rubric paragraphs 149 is amended to paragraphs 150. Paragraph 16A(j) is added as follows:
16A In addition to disclosing significant events and transactions in accordance with paragraphs 1515C, an entity shall include the following information, in the notes to its interim financial statements, if not disclosed elsewhere in the interim financial report. The information shall normally be reported on a financial year-to-date basis. (j) for financial instruments, the disclosures about fair value required by paragraphs 9193(h), 9496, 98 and 99 of IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement and paragraphs 25, 26 and 2830 of IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures.

85

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

D79

Paragraph 50 is added as follows: 50 IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, added paragraph 16A(j). An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 13.

IAS 36 Impairment of Assets


D80 Paragraph 5 is amended as follows: 5 This Standard does not apply to financial assets within the scope of IAS 39, investment property measured at fair value in accordance with within the scope of IAS 40, or biological assets related to agricultural activity measured at fair value less costs to sell in accordance with within the scope of IAS 41. However, this Standard applies to assets that are carried at revalued amount (ie fair value at the date of the revaluation less any subsequent accumulated depreciation and subsequent accumulated impairment losses) in accordance with other IFRSs, such as the revaluation models in IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment and IAS 38 Intangible Assets. The only difference between an assets fair value and its fair value less costs of disposal is the direct incremental costs attributable to the disposal of the asset. Identifying whether a revalued asset may be impaired depends on the basis used to determine fair value: (a) if the assets fair value is its market value, the only difference between the assets fair value and its fair value less costs to sell is the direct incremental costs to dispose of the asset: (i) if If the disposal costs are negligible, the recoverable amount of the revalued asset is necessarily close to, or greater than, its revalued amount (ie fair value). In this case, after the revaluation requirements have been applied, it is unlikely that the revalued asset is impaired and recoverable amount need not be estimated. if the disposal costs are not negligible, the fair value less costs to sell of the revalued asset is necessarily less than its fair value. Therefore, the revalued asset will be impaired if its value in use is less than its revalued amount (ie fair value). In this case, after the revaluation requirements

(ii)

IFRS Foundation

86

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

have been applied, an entity applies this Standard to determine whether the asset may be impaired. (b) [deleted] if the assets fair value is determined on a basis other than its market value, its revalued amount (ie fair value) may be greater or lower than its recoverable amount. Hence, after the revaluation requirements have been applied, an entity applies this Standard to determine whether the asset may be impaired. If the disposal costs are not negligible, the fair value less costs of disposal of the revalued asset is necessarily less than its fair value. Therefore, the revalued asset will be impaired if its value in use is less than its revalued amount. In this case, after the revaluation requirements have been applied, an entity applies this Standard to determine whether the asset may be impaired.

(c)

D81

Paragraph 6 is amended as follows (as a consequence of the amendment to the definition of fair value less costs to sell, all references to fair value less costs to sell in IAS 36 are replaced with fair value less costs of disposal):
6 The following terms are used in this Standard with the meanings specified: An active market is a market where all the following conditions exist: (a) (b) (c) the items traded within the market are homogeneous; willing buyers and sellers can normally be found at any time; and prices are available to the public.

Fair value less costs to sell is the amount obtainable from the sale of an asset or cash-generating unit in an arms length transaction between knowledgeable, willing parties, less the costs of disposal is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. (See IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement.) D82 Paragraphs 12, 20 and 22 are amended as follows:
12 In assessing whether there is any indication that an asset may be impaired, an entity shall consider, as a minimum, the following indications:

87

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

External sources of information


(a) during the period, there are observable indications that the an assets market value has declined during the period significantly more than would be expected as a result of the passage of time or normal use.

20 It may be possible to determine measure fair value less costs to sell of disposal, even if there is not a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset is not traded in an active market. However, sometimes it will not be possible to determine measure fair value less costs to sell of disposal because there is no basis for making a reliable estimate of the amount obtainable from the sale of the asset in an arms length transaction between knowledgeable and willing parties price at which an orderly transaction to sell the asset would take place between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. In this case, the entity may use the assets value in use as its recoverable amount. Recoverable amount is determined for an individual asset unless either: (b) the assets value in use can be estimated to be close to its fair value less costs to sell of disposal and fair value less costs to sell of disposal can be determined measured.

22

D83 D84

Paragraphs 2527 are deleted. Paragraph 28 is amended as follows: 28 Costs of disposal, other than those that have been recognised as liabilities, are deducted in determining measuring fair value less costs to sell of disposal. Examples

D85

Paragraph 53A is added as follows: 53A Fair value differs from value in use. Fair value reflects the assumptions market participants would use when pricing the asset. In contrast, value in use reflects the effects of factors that may be specific to the entity and not applicable to entities

IFRS Foundation

88

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

in general. For example, fair value does not reflect any of the following factors to the extent that they would not be generally available to market participants: (a) additional value derived from the grouping of assets (such as the creation of a portfolio of investment properties in different locations); synergies between the asset being measured and other assets; legal rights or legal restrictions that are specific only to the current owner of the asset; and tax benefits or tax burdens that are specific to the current owner of the asset.

(b) (c) (d) D86

Paragraphs 78, 105, 111, 130 and 134 are amended as follows: 78 It may be necessary to consider some recognised liabilities to determine the recoverable amount of a cash-generating unit. This may occur if the disposal of a cash-generating unit would require the buyer to assume the liability. In this case, the fair value less costs to sell of disposal (or the estimated cash flow from ultimate disposal) of the cash-generating unit is the estimated selling price to sell for the assets of the cash-generating unit and the liability together, less the costs of disposal. To perform a meaningful comparison between the carrying amount of the cash-generating unit and its recoverable amount, the carrying amount of the liability is deducted in determining both the cash-generating units value in use and its carrying amount.
In allocating an impairment loss in accordance with paragraph 104, an entity shall not reduce the carrying amount of an asset below the highest of: (a) 111 In assessing whether there is any indication that an impairment loss recognised in prior periods for an asset other its fair value less costs to sell of disposal (if determinable measurable);

105

89

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

than goodwill may no longer exist or may have decreased, an entity shall consider, as a minimum, the following indications:

External sources of information


(a) 130 An entity shall disclose the following for each material impairment loss recognised or reversed during the period for an individual asset, including goodwill, or a cash-generating unit: (f) if recoverable amount is fair value less costs to sell of disposal, the basis used to determine measure fair value less costs to sell of disposal (such as whether fair value was determined measured by reference to a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset). An entity is not required to provide the disclosures required by IFRS 13. there are observable indications that the assets market value has increased significantly during the period.

134

An entity shall disclose the information required by (a)(f) for each cash-generating unit (group of units) for which the carrying amount of goodwill or intangible assets with indefinite useful lives allocated to that unit (group of units) is significant in comparison with the entitys total carrying amount of goodwill or intangible assets with indefinite useful lives: (c) the recoverable amount of the unit (or group of units) and the basis on which the units (group of units) recoverable amount has been determined (ie value in use or fair value less costs to sell of disposal). if the units (group of units) recoverable amount is based on value in use: (i) a description of each key assumption on which management has based its cash flow projections for the period covered by the most recent budgets/ forecasts. Key assumptions are those to which the units (group of units) recoverable amount is most sensitive.

(d)

(e) if the units (group of units) recoverable amount is based on fair value less costs to sell of disposal, the methodology

IFRS Foundation

90

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

valuation technique(s) used to determine measure fair value less costs to sell of disposal. An entity is not required to provide the disclosures required by IFRS 13. If fair value less costs to sell of disposal is not determined measured using an observable market a quoted price for the an identical unit (group of units), an entity shall disclose the following information shall also be disclosed: (i) a description of each key assumption on which management has based its determination of fair value less costs to sell of disposal. Key assumptions are those to which the units (group of units) recoverable amount is most sensitive.

(iiA) the level of the fair value hierarchy (see IFRS 13) within which the fair value measurement is categorised in its entirety (without giving regard to the observability of costs of disposal). if there has been a change in valuation technique, the change and the reason(s) for making it.

(iiB)

If fair value less costs to sell of disposal is determined measured using discounted cash flow projections, an entity shall disclose the following information shall also be disclosed: (iii) (iv) (v) the period over which management has projected cash flows. the growth rate used to extrapolate cash flow projections. the discount rate(s) applied to the cash flow projections.

D87

Paragraph 140I is added as follows: 140I IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 5, 6, 12, 20, 78, 105, 111, 130 and 134, deleted paragraphs 2527 and added paragraphs 25A and 53A. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

91

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

IAS 38 Intangible Assets


D88 Paragraph 8 is amended as follows:
8 The following terms are used in this Standard with the meanings specified: An active market is a market in which all the following conditions exist: (a) (b) (c) ... the items traded in the market are homogeneous; willing buyers and sellers can normally be found at any time; and prices are available to the public.

Fair value of an asset is the amount for which that asset could be exchanged between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. (See IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement.) D89 Paragraph 33 is amended as follows: 33 In accordance with IFRS 3 Business Combinations, if an intangible asset is acquired in a business combination, the cost of that intangible asset is its fair value at the acquisition date. The fair value of an intangible asset will reflect market participants expectations at the acquisition date about the probability that the expected future economic benefits embodied in the asset will flow to the entity.

D90

The heading above paragraph 35 is amended as follows:

Measuring the fair value of an i Intangible asset acquired in a business combination


D91 D92 Paragraphs 3941 are deleted. Paragraphs 47, 50, 75, 78, 82, 84 and 100 are amended as follows: 47 Paragraph 21(b) specifies that a condition for the recognition of an intangible asset is that the cost of the asset can be measured reliably. The fair value of an intangible asset for which comparable market transactions do not exist is reliably measurable if (a) the variability in the range of reasonable fair

IFRS Foundation

92

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

value estimates measurements is not significant for that asset or (b) the probabilities of the various estimates within the range can be reasonably assessed and used in estimating when measuring fair value. If an entity is able to determine measure reliably the fair value of either the asset received or the asset given up, then the fair value of the asset given up is used to measure cost unless the fair value of the asset received is more clearly evident. 50 Differences between the market fair value of an entity and the carrying amount of its identifiable net assets at any time may capture a range of factors that affect the fair value of the entity. However, such differences do not represent the cost of intangible assets controlled by the entity.
For the purpose of revaluations under this Standard, fair value shall be determined measured by reference to an active market.

75

78

It is uncommon for an active market with the characteristics described in paragraph 8 to exist for an intangible asset, although this may happen.
If the fair value of a revalued intangible asset can no longer be determined measured by reference to an active market, the carrying amount of the asset shall be its revalued amount at the date of the last revaluation by reference to the active market less any subsequent accumulated amortisation and any subsequent accumulated impairment losses.

82

84

If the fair value of the asset can be determined measured by reference to an active market at a subsequent measurement date, the revaluation model is applied from that date.
The residual value of an intangible asset with a finite useful life shall be assumed to be zero unless: (b) there is an active market (as defined in IFRS 13) for the asset and:

100

D93

Paragraph 124 is amended as follows:


124 If intangible assets are accounted for at revalued amounts, an entity shall disclose the following: (a) by class of intangible assets:

(iii)

the carrying amount paragraph 74; and

93

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

(b) (c)

the amount of shareholders; and .

[deleted] the methods and significant assumptions applied in estimating the assets fair values.

D94 D95

Paragraph 130E is deleted. Paragraph 130G is added as follows: 130G IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 8, 33, 47, 50, 75, 78, 82, 84, 100 and 124 and deleted paragraphs 3941 and 130E. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (as amended at October 2009)
D96 D97 The heading above paragraph IN18 and paragraphs IN18 and IN19 are deleted. Paragraph 9 is amended as follows:
9 The following terms are used in this Standard with the meanings specified: It should be noted that IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement paragraphs 48, 48A, 49 and Appendix A paragraphs AG69AG82, which sets out the requirements for determining a reliable measure of measuring the fair value of a financial asset or financial liability, apply equally to all items that are measured at fair value, whether by designation or otherwise, or whose fair value is disclosed. ...

Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction.* price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. (See IFRS 13.)
...

The footnote to the definition of fair value is deleted.

IFRS Foundation

94

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

D98

Paragraphs 13 and 28 are amended as follows: 13 If an entity is unable to determine measure reliably the fair value of an embedded derivative on the basis of its terms and conditions (for example, because the embedded derivative is based on an unquoted equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument, ie a Level 1 input), the fair value of the embedded derivative is the difference between the fair value of the hybrid (combined) instrument and the fair value of the host contract, if those can be determined under this Standard. If the entity is unable to determine measure the fair value of the embedded derivative using this method, paragraph 12 applies and the hybrid (combined) instrument is designated as at fair value through profit or loss. When an entity allocates the previous carrying amount of a larger financial asset between the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised, the fair value of the part that continues to be recognised needs to be determined measured. ...

28

D99

Paragraph 43A is added.


43A However, if the fair value of the financial asset or financial liability at initial recognition differs from the transaction price, an entity shall apply paragraph AG76.

D100

Paragraph 47 is amended as follows:


47 After initial recognition, an entity shall measure all financial liabilities at amortised cost using the effective interest method, except for: (a) financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss. Such liabilities, including derivatives that are liabilities, shall be measured at fair value except for a derivative liability that is linked to and must be settled by delivery of an unquoted equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) whose fair value cannot otherwise be reliably measured, which shall be measured at cost.

D101

Paragraphs 4849 are deleted.

95

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

D102

Paragraph 88 is amended as follows:


88 A hedging relationship qualifies for hedge accounting under paragraphs 89102 if, and only if, all of the following conditions are met. (d) The effectiveness of the hedge can be reliably measured, ie the fair value or cash flows of the hedged item that are attributable to the hedged risk and the fair value of the hedging instrument can be reliably measured (see paragraphs 46 and 47 and Appendix A paragraphs AG80 and AG81 for guidance on determining fair value).

D103

Paragraph 103Q is added as follows: 103Q IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 9, 13, 28, 47, 88, AG46, AG52, AG64, AG76, AG76A, AG80, AG81, AG84 and AG96, added paragraph 43A and deleted paragraphs 4849, AG69AG75, AG77AG79 and AG82. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

D104

In Appendix A paragraphs AG46, AG52 and AG64 are amended as follows: AG46 In estimating When measuring the fair values of the part that continues to be recognised and the part that is derecognised for the purposes of applying paragraph 27, an entity applies the fair value measurement requirements in IFRS 13 and paragraphs 4849 and AG69AG82 in addition to paragraph 28. This paragraph illustrates the application of the continuing involvement approach when the entitys continuing involvement is in a part of a financial asset.

AG52

IFRS Foundation

96

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Assume an entity has a portfolio of prepayable loans The fair value of the loans at the date of the transaction is CU10,100 and the estimated fair value of the excess spread of 0.5 per cent is CU40. The entity calculates the gain or loss on the sale of the 90 per cent share of cash flows. Assuming that separate fair values of the 90 per cent part transferred and the 10 per cent part retained are not available at the date of the transfer, the entity allocates the carrying amount of the asset in accordance with paragraph 28 as follows:
Estimated fair Fair value Portion transferred Portion retained Total 9,090 1,010 10,100 Percentage Allocated carrying amount 9,000 1,000 10,000

90% 10%

D105

Paragraph AG64 is amended as follows: AG64 The fair value of a financial instrument on initial recognition is normally the transaction price (ie the fair value of the consideration given or received, see also IFRS 13 and paragraph AG76). However, if part of the consideration given or received is for something other than the financial instrument, an entity shall measure the fair value of the financial instrument is estimated using a valuation technique (see paragraphs AG74AG79). For example, the fair value of a long-term loan or receivable that carries no interest can be estimated measured as the present value of all future cash receipts discounted using the prevailing market rate(s) of interest for a similar instrument (similar as to currency, term, type of interest rate and other factors) with a similar credit rating. Any additional amount lent is an expense or a reduction of income unless it qualifies for recognition as some other type of asset.

D106

Paragraphs AG69AG75 and their related headings are deleted.

97

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

D107

Paragraph AG76 is amended as follows: AG76 Therefore, a valuation technique (a) incorporates all factors that market participants would consider in setting a price and (b) is consistent with accepted economic methodologies for pricing financial instruments. Periodically, an entity calibrates the valuation technique and tests it for validity using prices from any observable current market transactions in the same instrument (ie without modification or repackaging) or based on any available observable market data. An entity obtains market data consistently in the same market where the instrument was originated or purchased. The best evidence of the fair value of a financial instrument at initial recognition is normally the transaction price (ie the fair value of the consideration given or received, see also IFRS 13). If an entity determines that the fair value at initial recognition differs from the transaction price as mentioned in paragraph 43A, the entity shall account for unless the fair value of that instrument at that date as follows: (a) at the measurement required by paragraph 43 if that fair value is evidenced by comparison with other observable current market transactions in the same instrument (ie without modification or repackaging) a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability (ie a Level 1 input) or based on a valuation technique whose variables include that uses only data from observable markets. An entity shall recognise the difference between the fair value at initial recognition and the transaction price as a gain or loss. in all other cases, at the measurement required by paragraph 43, adjusted to defer the difference between the fair value at initial recognition and the transaction price. After initial recognition, the entity shall recognise that deferred difference as a gain or loss only to the extent that it arises from a change in a factor (including time) that market participants would take into account when pricing the asset or liability.

(b)

D108

Paragraph AG76A is amended as follows: AG76A The subsequent measurement of the financial asset or financial liability and the subsequent recognition of gains and losses shall be consistent with the requirements of this Standard. The application of paragraph AG76 may result in no gain or loss

IFRS Foundation

98

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

being recognised on the initial recognition of a financial asset or financial liability. In such a case, IAS 39 requires that a gain or loss shall be recognised after initial recognition only to the extent that it arises from a change in a factor (including time) that market participants would consider in setting a price. D109 D110 Paragraphs AG77AG79 are deleted. Paragraphs AG80 and AG81 are amended as follows: AG80 The fair value of investments in equity instruments that do not have a quoted market price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) and derivatives that are linked to and must be settled by delivery of such an unquoted equity instrument (see paragraphs 46(c) and 47) is reliably measurable if (a) the variability in the range of reasonable fair value estimates measurements is not significant for that instrument or (b) the probabilities of the various estimates within the range can be reasonably assessed and used in estimating when measuring fair value. There are many situations in which the variability in the range of reasonable fair value estimates measurements of investments in equity instruments that do not have a quoted market price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) and derivatives that are linked to and must be settled by delivery of such an unquoted equity instrument (see paragraphs 46(c) and 47) is likely not to be significant. Normally it is possible to estimate measure the fair value of a financial asset that an entity has acquired from an outside party. However, if the range of reasonable fair value estimates measurements is significant and the probabilities of the various estimates cannot be reasonably assessed, an entity is precluded from measuring the instrument at fair value.

AG81

D111 D112

The heading above paragraph AG82 and paragraph AG82 are deleted. Paragraph AG96 is amended as follows: AG96 An investment in an unquoted equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input) is not carried at fair value because its fair value cannot otherwise be reliably measured or a derivative that is linked to and must be settled by delivery of such an unquoted equity instrument (see paragraphs 46(c) and 47) cannot be designated as a hedging instrument.

99

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

IAS 40 Investment Property


D113 Paragraph IN16 is amended as follows: IN16 In exceptional cases, when an entity has adopted the fair value model, there may be clear evidence when an entity first acquires an investment property (or when an existing property first becomes investment property following the completion of construction or development, or after a change in use) that its fair value will not be reliably determinable measurable on a continuing basis.

D114

Paragraphs 26, 29 and 32 are amended as follows: 26 Guidance on determining measuring the fair value of a property interest is set out for the fair value model in paragraphs 3335, 40, 41, 48, 50 and 52 and in IFRS 13. That guidance is also relevant to the determination measurement of fair value when that value is used as cost for initial recognition purposes. The fair value of an asset for which comparable market transactions do not exist is reliably measurable if (a) the variability in the range of reasonable fair value estimates measurements is not significant for that asset or (b) the probabilities of the various estimates within the range can be reasonably assessed and used in estimating when measuring fair value. If the entity is able to determine measure reliably the fair value of either the asset received or the asset given up, then the fair value of the asset given up is used to measure cost unless the fair value of the asset received is more clearly evident. This Standard requires all entities to determine measure the fair value of investment property, for the purpose of either measurement (if the entity uses the fair value model) or disclosure (if it uses the cost model). An entity is encouraged, but not required, to determine measure the fair value of investment property on the basis of a valuation by an independent valuer who holds a recognised and relevant professional qualification and has recent experience in the location and category of the investment property being valued.

29

32

D115

Paragraphs 3639 are deleted.

IFRS Foundation

100

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

D116

Paragraph 40 is amended as follows: 40 When measuring the The fair value of investment property in accordance with IFRS 13, an entity shall ensure that the fair value reflects, among other things, rental income from current leases and reasonable and supportable other assumptions that represent what knowledgeable, willing parties market participants would assume use when pricing the investment property about rental income from future leases in the light of under current market conditions. It also reflects, on a similar basis, any cash outflows (including rental payments and other outflows) that could be expected in respect of the property. Some of those outflows are reflected in the liability whereas others relate to outflows that are not recognised in the financial statements until a later date (eg periodic payments such as contingent rents).

D117 D118

Paragraphs 4247, 49, 51 and 75(d) are deleted. Paragraph 48 is amended as follows: 48 In exceptional cases, there is clear evidence when an entity first acquires an investment property (or when an existing property first becomes investment property after a change in use) that the variability in the range of reasonable fair value estimates measurements will be so great, and the probabilities of the various outcomes so difficult to assess, that the usefulness of a single estimate measure of fair value is negated. This may indicate that the fair value of the property will not be reliably determinable measurable on a continuing basis (see paragraph 53).

D119

The heading above paragraph 53 and paragraphs 53 and 53B are amended as follows:

Inability to determine measure fair value reliably


53 There is a rebuttable presumption that an entity can reliably determine measure the fair value of an investment property on a continuing basis. However, in exceptional cases, there is clear evidence when an entity first acquires an investment property (or when an existing property first becomes investment property after a change in use) that the fair value of the investment property is not reliably determinable measurable on a continuing basis. This arises when, and only when, the market for comparable market properties is inactive (eg there are few recent transactions, price quotations are not current or observed transaction prices indicate that the seller was forced

101

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

to sell) are infrequent and alternative reliable estimates measurements of fair value (for example, based on discounted cash flow projections) are not available. If an entity determines that the fair value of an investment property under construction is not reliably determinable measurable but expects the fair value of the property to be reliably determinable measurable when construction is complete, it shall measure that investment property under construction at cost until either its fair value becomes reliably determinable measurable or construction is completed (whichever is earlier). If an entity determines that the fair value of an investment property (other than an investment property under construction) is not reliably determinable measurable on a continuing basis, the entity shall measure that investment property using the cost model in IAS 16. The residual value of the investment property shall be assumed to be zero. The entity shall apply IAS 16 until disposal of the investment property.

53B

An entity that has measured an item of investment property under construction at fair value may not conclude that the fair value of the completed investment property cannot be determined measured reliably.

D120 D121

Paragraph 75(d) is deleted. Paragraphs 7880 are amended as follows:


78 In the exceptional cases referred to in paragraph 53, when an entity measures investment property using the cost model in IAS 16, the reconciliation required by paragraph 76 shall disclose amounts relating to that investment property separately from amounts relating to other investment property. In addition, an entity shall disclose: (b) 79 In addition to the disclosures required by paragraph 75, an entity that applies the cost model in paragraph 56 shall disclose: (e) the fair value of investment property. In the exceptional cases described in paragraph 53, when an entity cannot determine measure the fair value of the investment property reliably, it shall disclose: an explanation of why fair value cannot be determined measured reliably;

IFRS Foundation

102

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(ii) 80

an explanation of why fair value cannot be determined measured reliably; and

An entity that has previously applied IAS 40 (2000) and elects for the first time to classify and account for some or all eligible property interests held under operating leases as investment property shall recognise the effect of that election as an adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings for the period in which the election is first made. In addition: (a) if the entity has previously disclosed publicly (in financial statements or otherwise) the fair value of those property interests in earlier periods (determined measured on a basis that satisfies the definition of fair value in paragraph 5 and the guidance in paragraphs 3652 IFRS 13), the entity is encouraged, but not required:

D122

Paragraph 85B is amended as follows: 85B An entity is permitted to apply the amendments to investment property under construction from any date before 1 January 2009 provided that the fair values of investment properties under construction were determined measured at those dates.

D123

Paragraph 85C is added as follows: 85C IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended the definition of fair value in paragraph 5, amended paragraphs 26, 29, 32, 40, 48, 53, 53B, 7880 and 85B and deleted paragraphs 3639, 4247, 49, 51 and 75(d). An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

IAS 41 Agriculture
D124 D125 In the rubric paragraphs 160 is amended to paragraphs 161. Paragraph IN3 is amended as follows: IN3 There is a presumption that fair value can be measured reliably for a biological asset. However, that presumption can be rebutted only on initial recognition for a biological asset for which quoted market-determined prices or values are not available and for which alternative estimates of fair value measurements are determined to be clearly unreliable.

103

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

D126

Paragraphs 8, 15 and 16 are amended as follows:


8 The following terms are used in this Standard with the meanings specified: An active market is a market where all the following conditions exist: (a) (b) (c) ... the items traded within the market are homogeneous; willing buyers and sellers can normally be found at any time; and prices are available to the public.

Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. (See IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement.) 15 The determination of fair value measurement of for a biological asset or agricultural produce may be facilitated by grouping biological assets or agricultural produce according to significant attributes; for example, by age or quality. Entities often enter into contracts to sell their biological assets or agricultural produce at a future date. Contract prices are not necessarily relevant in determining measuring fair value, because fair value reflects the current market conditions in which a willing buyer and seller market participant buyers and sellers would enter into a transaction.

16

D127 D128

Paragraphs 9, 1721 and 23 are deleted. Paragraphs 25 and 30 are amended as follows: 25
30

An entity may use information regarding the combined assets to determine measure the fair value for of the biological assets.
There is a presumption that fair value can be measured reliably for a biological asset. However, that presumption can be rebutted only on initial recognition for a biological asset for which quoted market-determined prices or values are not available and for which alternative estimates of fair value measurements are determined to be clearly unreliable.

D129

Paragraphs 47 and 48 are deleted.

IFRS Foundation

104

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

D130

Paragraph 61 is added as follows: 61 IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 8, 15, 16, 25 and 30 and deleted paragraphs 9, 1721, 23, 47 and 48. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

IFRIC 2 Members Shares in Co-operative Entities and Similar Instruments (as amended at October 2009)
D131 D132 D133 In the rubric, paragraphs 114A is amended to paragraphs 116 Below the heading References a reference to IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement is added. Paragraph 16 is added as follows: 16 D134 IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraph A8. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 13.

In the Appendix paragraph A8 is amended as follows: A8 Members shares in excess of the prohibition against redemption are financial liabilities. The co-operative entity measures this financial liability at fair value at initial recognition. Because these shares are redeemable on demand, the co-operative entity determines measures the fair value of such financial liabilities as required by paragraph 49 of IAS 39 47 of IFRS 13, which states: The fair value of a financial liability with a demand feature (eg a demand deposit) is not less than the amount payable on demand Accordingly, the co-operative entity classifies as financial liabilities the maximum amount payable on demand under the redemption provisions.

IFRIC 4 Determining whether an Arrangement contains a Lease


D135 D136 Below the heading References a reference to IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement is added. In paragraph 15(a) fair value is footnoted as follows: * IAS 17 uses the term fair value in a way that differs in some respects from the definition of fair value in IFRS 13. Therefore, when applying IAS 17 an entity measures fair value in accordance with IAS 17, not IFRS 13.

105

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes


D137 D138 Below the heading References a reference to IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement is added. Paragraph 6 is amended as follows: 6 The consideration allocated to the award credits shall be measured by reference to their fair value, ie the amount for which the award credits could be sold separately.

D139

Paragraph 10B is added as follows: 10B IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraphs 6 and AG1AG3. An entity shall apply those amendments when it applies IFRS 13.

D140

In the Application Guidance paragraphs AG1AG3 are amended as follows: AG1 Paragraph 6 of the consensus requires the consideration allocated to award credits to be measured by reference to their fair value, ie the amount for which the award credits could be sold separately. If the fair value there is not directly observable a quoted market price for an identical award credit, it fair value must be estimated measured using another valuation technique. An entity may estimate measure the fair value of award credits by reference to the fair value of the awards for which they could be redeemed. The fair value of the award credits takes into account, as appropriate: (a) the amount of the discounts or incentives that would otherwise be offered to customers who have not earned award credits from an initial sale; and the proportion of award credits that are not expected to be redeemed by customers. ; and non-performance risk.

AG2

(b) (c)

If customers can choose from a range of different awards, the fair value of the award credits will reflects the fair values of the range of available awards, weighted in proportion to the frequency with which each award is expected to be selected. AG3 In some circumstances, other estimation valuation techniques may be available used. For example, if a third party will supply the awards and the entity pays the third party for each award

IFRS Foundation

106

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

credit it grants, it could estimate measure the fair value of the award credits by reference to the amount it pays the third party, adding a reasonable profit margin. Judgement is required to select and apply the estimation valuation technique that satisfies the requirements of paragraph 6 of the consensus and is most appropriate in the circumstances.

IFRIC 17 Distributions of Non-cash Assets to Owners


D141 D142 D143 In the rubric paragraphs 118 is amended to paragraphs 119. Below the heading References a reference to IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement is added. Paragraph 17 is amended as follows: 17 If, after the end of a reporting period but before the financial statements are authorised for issue, an entity declares a dividend to distribute a non-cash asset, it shall disclose: (c) the estimated fair value of the asset to be distributed as of the end of the reporting period, if it is different from its carrying amount, and the information about the method(s) used to determine measure that fair value required by IFRS 7 paragraph 2727B(a) paragraphs 93(b), (d), (g) and (i) and 99 of IFRS 13.

D144

Paragraph 19 is added as follows: 19 IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraph 17. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 13.

IFRIC 19 Extinguishing Financial Liabilities with Equity Instruments (as amended at September 2010)
D145 D146 D147 In the rubric paragraphs 114 is amended to paragraphs 115. Below the heading References a reference to IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement is added. Paragraph 7 is amended as follows: 7 If the fair value of the equity instruments issued cannot be reliably measured then the equity instruments shall be measured to

107

IFRS Foundation

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD MAY 2011

reflect the fair value of the financial liability extinguished. In measuring the fair value of a financial liability extinguished that includes a demand feature (eg a demand deposit), paragraph 49 47 of IAS 39 IFRS 13 is not applied. D148 Paragraph 15 is added as follows: 15 IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, amended paragraph 7. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies IFRS 13.

IFRS Foundation

108

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Approval by the Board of IFRS 13 issued in May 2011


International Financial Reporting Standard 13 Fair Value Measurement was approved for issue by the fifteen members of the International Accounting Standards Board. Sir David Tweedie Stephen Cooper Philippe Danjou Jan Engstrm Patrick Finnegan Amaro Luiz de Oliveira Gomes Prabhakar Kalavacherla Elke Knig Patricia McConnell Warren J McGregor Paul Pacter Darrel Scott John T Smith Tatsumi Yamada Wei-Guo Zhang Chairman

109

IFRS Foundation

May 2011 Basis for Conclusions International Financial Reporting Standard

IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement

Basis for Conclusions on IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement

This Basis for Conclusions accompanies IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement (see separate booklet) and is published by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0)20 7246 6410 Fax: +44 (0)20 7246 6411 Email: iasb@ifrs.org Web: www.ifrs.org The IASB, the IFRS Foundation, the authors and the publishers do not accept responsibility for loss caused to any person who acts or refrains from acting in reliance on the material in this publication, whether such loss is caused by negligence or otherwise. Copyright 2011 IFRS Foundation IFRS 13 and its accompanying documents are published in three parts. ISBN for this part: 978-1-907877-23-0 ISBN for complete publication (three parts): 978-1-907877-21-6 International Financial Reporting Standards (including International Accounting Standards and SIC and IFRIC Interpretations), Exposure Drafts, and other IASB publications are copyright of the IFRS Foundation. The approved text of International Financial Reporting Standards and other IASB publications is that published by the IASB in the English language. Copies may be obtained from the IFRS Foundation. Please address publications and copyright matters to: IFRS Foundation Publications Department, 1st Floor, 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0)20 7332 2730 Fax: +44 (0)20 7332 2749 Email: publications@ifrs.org Web: www.ifrs.org All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated, reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form either in whole or in part or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the IFRS Foundation.

The IFRS Foundation logo/the IASB logo/Hexagon Device, IFRS Foundation, eIFRS, IAS, IASB, IASC Foundation, IASCF, IFRS for SMEs, IASs, IFRIC, IFRS, IFRSs, International Accounting Standards, International Financial Reporting Standards and SIC are Trade Marks of the IFRS Foundation.

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

CONTENTS
paragraphs

BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS ON IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT


INTRODUCTION Overview Background SCOPE MEASUREMENT Definition of fair value The asset or liability The transaction Market participants The price Application to non-financial assets Application to liabilities Application to an entitys own equity instruments Application to financial assets and financial liabilities with offsetting positions in market risks or counterparty credit risk Fair value at initial recognition Valuation techniques Inputs to valuation techniques Fair value hierarchy DISCLOSURE Distinguishing between recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements Information about fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy Transfers between Levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy When an entity uses a non-financial asset in a way that differs from its highest and best use The categorisation within the level of the hierarchy for items that are not measured at fair value in the statement of financial position Assets with a recoverable amount that is fair value less costs of disposal BC1BC18 BC4BC8 BC9BC18 BC19BC26 BC27BC182 BC27BC45 BC46BC47 BC48BC54 BC55BC59 BC60BC62 BC63BC79 BC80BCZ103 BC104BC107 BC108BC131 BC132BC138 BC139BC148 BC149BC165 BC166BC182 BC183BC224 BC186 BC187BC210 BC211BC212 BC213BC214

BC215BC217 BC218BC221

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

Interim financial reporting EFFECTIVE DATE AND TRANSITION APPLICATION IN EMERGING AND TRANSITION ECONOMIES CONVERGENCE WITH US GAAP COST-BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS SUMMARY OF MAIN CHANGES FROM THE EXPOSURE DRAFT APPENDIX Amendments to the Basis for Conclusions on other IFRSs

BC222BC224 BC225BC230 BC231BC235 BC236BC238 BC239BC243 BC244

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Basis for Conclusions on IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement


This Basis for Conclusions accompanies, but is not part of, IFRS 13.

Introduction
BC1 This Basis for Conclusions summarises the considerations of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in reaching the conclusions in IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. It includes the reasons for accepting particular views and rejecting others. Individual IASB members gave greater weight to some factors than to others. IFRS 13 is the result of the IASBs discussions about measuring fair value and disclosing information about fair value measurements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs), including those held with the US national standard-setter, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), in their joint project on fair value measurement. As a result of those discussions, the FASB amended particular aspects of Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (which codified FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157)). The FASB separately developed a Basis for Conclusions summarising its considerations in reaching the conclusions resulting in those amendments.

BC2

BC3

Overview
BC4 Some IFRSs require or permit entities to measure or disclose the fair value of assets, liabilities or their own equity instruments. Because those IFRSs were developed over many years, the requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements were dispersed and in many cases did not articulate a clear measurement or disclosure objective. As a result, some of those IFRSs contained limited guidance about how to measure fair value, whereas others contained extensive guidance and that guidance was not always consistent across those IFRSs that refer to fair value. Inconsistencies in the requirements for measuring

BC5

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements have contributed to diversity in practice and have reduced the comparability of information reported in financial statements. BC6 To remedy that situation, the IASB added a project to its agenda with the following objectives: (a) to establish a single set of requirements for all fair value measurements required or permitted by IFRSs to reduce complexity and improve consistency in their application, thereby enhancing the comparability of information reported in financial statements; to clarify the definition of fair value and related guidance to communicate the measurement objective more clearly; to enhance disclosures about fair value measurements that will help users of financial statements assess the valuation techniques and inputs used to develop fair value measurements; and to increase the convergence of IFRSs and US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

(b) (c)

(d) BC7

IFRS 13 is the result of that project. IFRS 13 is a single source of fair value measurement guidance that clarifies the definition of fair value, provides a clear framework for measuring fair value and enhances the disclosures about fair value measurements. It is also the result of the efforts of the IASB and the FASB to ensure that fair value has the same meaning in IFRSs and in US GAAP and that their respective fair value measurement and disclosure requirements are the same (except for minor differences in wording and style; see paragraphs BC237 and BC238 for the differences between IFRS 13 and Topic 820). IFRS 13 applies to IFRSs that require or permit fair value measurements or disclosures. It does not introduce new fair value measurements, nor does it eliminate practicability exceptions to fair value measurements (eg the exception in IAS 41 Agriculture when an entity is unable to measure reliably the fair value of a biological asset on initial recognition). In other words, IFRS 13 specifies how an entity should measure fair value and disclose information about fair value measurements. It does not specify when an entity should measure an asset, a liability or its own equity instrument at fair value.

BC8

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Background
BC9 BC10 The IASB and the FASB began developing their fair value measurement standards separately. The FASB began working on its fair value measurement project in June 2003. In September 2005, during the FASBs redeliberations on the project, the IASB added to its agenda a project to clarify the meaning of fair value and to provide guidance for its application in IFRSs. In September 2006 the FASB issued SFAS 157 (now in Topic 820). Topic 820 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and requires disclosures about fair value measurements. In November 2006 as a first step in developing a fair value measurement standard, the IASB published a discussion paper Fair Value Measurements. In that discussion paper, the IASB used SFAS 157 as a basis for its preliminary views because of the consistency of SFAS 157 with the existing fair value measurement guidance in IFRSs and the need for increased convergence of IFRSs and US GAAP. The IASB received 136 comment letters in response to that discussion paper. In November 2007 the IASB began its deliberations for the development of the exposure draft Fair Value Measurement. In May 2009 the IASB published that exposure draft, which proposed a definition of fair value, a framework for measuring fair value and disclosures about fair value measurements. Because the proposals in the exposure draft were developed using the requirements of SFAS 157, there were many similarities between them. However, some of those proposals were different from the requirements of SFAS 157 and many of them used wording that was similar, but not identical, to the wording in SFAS 157. The IASB received 160 comment letters in response to the proposals in the exposure draft. One of the most prevalent comments received was a request for the IASB and the FASB to work together to develop common fair value measurement and disclosure requirements in IFRSs and US GAAP. In response to that request, the IASB and the FASB agreed at their joint meeting in October 2009 to work together to develop common requirements. The boards concluded that having common requirements for fair value measurement and disclosure would improve the comparability of financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRSs and US GAAP. In addition, they concluded that having common requirements would reduce diversity in the application of fair value measurement requirements and would

BC11

BC12

BC13

BC14

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

simplify financial reporting. To achieve those goals, the boards needed to ensure that fair value had the same meaning in IFRSs and US GAAP and that IFRSs and US GAAP had the same fair value measurement and disclosure requirements (except for minor differences in wording and style). Consequently, the FASB agreed to consider the comments received on the IASBs exposure draft and to propose amendments to US GAAP if necessary. BC15 The boards began their joint discussions in January 2010. They discussed nearly all the issues together so that each board would benefit from hearing the rationale for the other boards decisions on each issue. They initially focused on the following: (a) (b) differences between the requirements in Topic 820 and the proposals in the IASBs exposure draft; comments received on the IASBs exposure draft (including comments received from participants at the IASBs round-table meetings held in November and December 2009); and feedback received on the implementation of Topic 820 (eg issues discussed by the FASBs Valuation Resource Group).

(c) BC16

In March 2010 the boards completed their initial discussions. As a result of those discussions, in June 2010 the FASB issued a proposed Accounting Standards Update (ASU) Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820): Amendments for Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs and the IASB re-exposed a proposed disclosure of the unobservable inputs used in a fair value measurement (Measurement Uncertainty Analysis Disclosure for Fair Value Measurements). The IASB concluded that it was necessary to re-expose that proposal because in their discussions the boards agreed to require a measurement uncertainty analysis disclosure that included the effect of any interrelationships between unobservable inputs (a requirement that was not proposed in the May 2009 exposure draft and was not already required by IFRSs). The IASB received 92 comment letters on the re-exposure document. In September 2010, after the end of the comment periods on the IASBs re-exposure document and the FASBs proposed ASU, the boards jointly considered the comments received on those exposure drafts. The boards completed their discussions in March 2011.

BC17

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BC18

Throughout the process, the IASB considered information from the IFRS Advisory Council, the Analysts Representative Group and the IASBs Fair Value Expert Advisory Panel (see paragraph BC177) and from other interested parties.

Scope
BC19 The boards separately discussed the scope of their respective fair value measurement standards because of the differences between IFRSs and US GAAP in the measurement bases specified in other standards for both initial recognition and subsequent measurement. IFRS 13 applies when another IFRS requires or permits fair value measurements or disclosures about fair value measurements (and measurements, such as fair value less costs to sell, based on fair value or disclosures about those measurements), except in the following circumstances: (a) The measurement and disclosure requirements of IFRS 13 do not apply to the following: (i) (ii) (iii) share-based payment transactions within the scope of IFRS 2 Share-based Payment; leasing transactions within the scope of IAS 17 Leases; and measurements that have some similarities to fair value but are not fair value, such as net realisable value in accordance with IAS 2 Inventories and value in use in accordance with IAS 36 Impairment of Assets.

BC20

(b)

The disclosures required by IFRS 13 are not required for the following: (i) (ii) plan assets measured at fair value in accordance with IAS 19 Employee Benefits; retirement benefit plan investments measured at fair value in accordance with IAS 26 Accounting and Reporting by Retirement Benefit Plans; and assets for which recoverable amount is fair value less costs of disposal in accordance with IAS 36.

(iii)

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC21

The exposure draft proposed introducing a new measurement basis for IFRS 2, a market-based value. The definition of market-based value would have been similar to the exit price definition of fair value except that it would specify that the measurement does not take into account market participant assumptions for vesting conditions and reload features. Respondents pointed out that some items measured at fair value in IFRS 2 were consistent with the proposed definition of fair value, not with the proposed definition of market-based value, and were concerned that there could be unintended consequences of moving forward with a market-based value measurement basis in IFRS 2. The IASB agreed with those comments and concluded that amending IFRS 2 to distinguish between measures that are fair value and those based on fair value would require new measurement guidance for measures based on fair value. The IASB concluded that such guidance might result in unintended changes in practice with regard to measuring share-based payment transactions and decided to exclude IFRS 2 from the scope of IFRS 13. The IASB concluded that applying the requirements in IFRS 13 might significantly change the classification of leases and the timing of recognising gains or losses for sale and leaseback transactions. Because there is a project under way to replace IAS 17, the IASB concluded that requiring entities to make potentially significant changes to their accounting systems for the IFRS on fair value measurement and then for the IFRS on lease accounting could be burdensome. The exposure draft proposed that the disclosures about fair value measurements would be required for the fair value of plan assets in IAS 19 and the fair value of retirement benefit plan investments in IAS 26. In its project to amend IAS 19 the IASB decided to require an entity to disaggregate the fair value of the plan assets into classes that distinguish the risk and liquidity characteristics of those assets, subdividing each class of debt and equity instruments into those that have a quoted market price in an active market and those that do not. As a result, the IASB decided that an entity does not need to provide the disclosures required by IFRS 13 for the fair value of plan assets or retirement benefit plan investments. The exposure draft was not explicit about whether the measurement and disclosure requirements in the exposure draft applied to measurements based on fair value, such as fair value less costs to sell in IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations or IAS 41. In the boards discussions, they concluded that the measurement and disclosure requirements should apply to all measurements for which fair value is the underlying measurement basis (except that the disclosure

BC22

BC23

BC24

IFRS Foundation

10

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

requirements would not apply to assets with a recoverable amount that is fair value less costs of disposal in IAS 36; see paragraphs BC218BC221). Consequently, the boards decided to clarify that the measurement and disclosure requirements apply to both fair value measurements and measurements based on fair value. The boards also decided to clarify that the measurement and disclosure requirements do not apply to measurements that have similarities to fair value but are not fair value, such as net realisable value in accordance with IAS 2 or value in use in accordance with IAS 36. BC25 The boards decided to clarify that the measurement requirements apply when measuring the fair value of an asset or a liability that is not measured at fair value in the statement of financial position but for which the fair value is disclosed (eg for financial instruments subsequently measured at amortised cost in accordance with IFRS 9 Financial Instruments or IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement and for investment property subsequently measured using the cost model in accordance with IAS 40 Investment Property). The IASB decided that two of the proposals about scope in the exposure draft were not necessary: (a) The exposure draft proposed excluding financial liabilities with a demand feature in IAS 39 from the scope of an IFRS on fair value measurement. In the light of the comments received, the IASB confirmed its decision when developing IAS 39 that the fair value of financial liabilities with a demand feature cannot be less than the present value of the demand amount (see paragraphs BC101BC103) and decided to retain the term fair value for such financial liabilities. The exposure draft proposed replacing the term fair value with another term that reflects the measurement objective for reacquired rights in a business combination in IFRS 3 Business Combinations. In the redeliberations, the IASB concluded that because IFRS 3 already describes the measurement of reacquired rights as an exception to fair value, it was not necessary to change that wording.

BC26

(b)

11

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

Measurement Definition of fair value


Clarifying the measurement objective
BC27 IFRS 13 defines fair value as:
The price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.

BC28

IFRS 13 also provides a framework that is based on an objective to estimate the price at which an orderly transaction to sell the asset or to transfer the liability would take place between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions (ie an exit price from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability at the measurement date). That definition of fair value retains the exchange notion contained in the previous definition of fair value in IFRSs:
The amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction.

BC29

BC30

Like the previous definition of fair value, the revised definition assumes a hypothetical and orderly exchange transaction (ie it is not an actual sale or a forced transaction or distress sale). However, the previous definition of fair value: (a) (b) did not specify whether an entity is buying or selling the asset; was unclear about what is meant by settling a liability because it did not refer to the creditor, but to knowledgeable, willing parties; and did not state explicitly whether the exchange or settlement takes place at the measurement date or at some other date.

(c) BC31

The IASB concluded that the revised definition of fair value remedies those deficiencies. It also conveys more clearly that fair value is a market-based measurement, and not an entity-specific measurement, and that fair value reflects current market conditions (which reflect market participants, not the entitys, current expectations about future market conditions).

IFRS Foundation

12

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BC32

In determining how to define fair value in IFRSs, the IASB considered work done in its project to revise IFRS 3. In that project, the IASB considered whether differences between the definitions of fair value in US GAAP (an explicit exit price) and IFRSs (an exchange amount, which might be interpreted in some situations as an entry price) would result in different measurements of assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination. That was a particularly important issue because in many business combinations the assets and liabilities are non-financial. The IASB asked valuation experts to take part in a case study involving the valuation of the identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a sample business combination. The IASB learned that differences between an exit price and an exchange amount (which might be interpreted as an entry price in a business combination) were unlikely to arise, mainly because transaction costs are not a component of fair value in either definition. The IASB observed that although the definitions used different words, they articulated essentially the same concepts. However, the valuation experts identified potential differences in particular areas. The valuation experts told the IASB that an exit price for an asset acquired or a liability assumed in a business combination might differ from an exchange amount if: (a) an entitys intended use for an acquired asset is different from its highest and best use by market participants (ie when the acquired asset provides defensive value); or a liability is measured on the basis of settling it with the creditor rather than transferring it to a third party and the entity determines that there is a difference between those measurements. Paragraphs BC80BC82 discuss perceived differences between the settlement and transfer notions.

BC33

BC34

(b)

BC35

With respect to highest and best use, the IASB understood that the ways of measuring assets on the basis of their defensive value (ie the value associated with improving the prospects of the entitys other assets by preventing the acquired asset from being used by competitors) in accordance with US GAAP at the time IFRS 3 was issued were still developing. As a consequence, the IASB thought it was too early to assess the significance of any differences that might result. With respect to liabilities, it was also not clear at that time whether entities would use different valuation techniques to measure

13

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

the fair value of liabilities assumed in a business combination. In the development of IFRS 13, the IASB observed the discussions of the FASBs Valuation Resource Group to learn from the implementation of SFAS 157 and Topic 820 in US GAAP.

Fair value as a current exit price


BC36 The definition of fair value in IFRS 13 is a current exit price. That definition in and of itself is not a controversial issue. Many respondents thought the proposal to define fair value as a current, market-based exit price was appropriate because that definition retains the notion of an exchange between unrelated, knowledgeable and willing parties in the previous definition of fair value in IFRSs, but provides a clearer measurement objective. Other respondents thought an entry price would be more appropriate in some situations (eg at initial recognition, such as in a business combination). However, the issue of when fair value should be used as a measurement basis in IFRSs is controversial. There is disagreement about the following: (a) which assets and liabilities should be measured at fair value (eg whether fair value should be restricted to assets and liabilities with quoted prices in active markets that the entity intends to sell or transfer in the near term); when those assets and liabilities should be measured at fair value (eg whether the measurement basis should change when markets have become less active); and where any changes in fair value should be recognised.

BC37

(b)

(c) BC38

Although IFRS 13 does not address when fair value should be used as a measurement basis for a particular asset or liability or revisit when fair value has been used in IFRSs, the IASB did consider whether each use of the term fair value in IFRSs was consistent with an exit price definition (see paragraphs BC41BC45). Furthermore, IFRS 13 will inform the IASB in the future as it considers whether to require fair value as a measurement basis for a particular type of asset or liability. The IASB concluded that an exit price of an asset or a liability embodies expectations about the future cash inflows and outflows associated with the asset or liability from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability at the measurement date. An entity generates cash inflows from an asset by using the asset or by selling it. Even if an entity intends to generate cash inflows from an asset by using

BC39

IFRS Foundation

14

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

it rather than by selling it, an exit price embodies expectations of cash flows arising from the use of the asset by selling it to a market participant that would use it in the same way. That is because a market participant buyer will pay only for the benefits it expects to generate from the use (or sale) of the asset. Thus, the IASB concluded that an exit price is always a relevant definition of fair value for assets, regardless of whether an entity intends to use an asset or sell it. BC40 Similarly, a liability gives rise to outflows of cash (or other economic resources) as an entity fulfils the obligation over time or when it transfers the obligation to another party. Even if an entity intends to fulfil the obligation over time, an exit price embodies expectations of related cash outflows because a market participant transferee would ultimately be required to fulfil the obligation. Thus, the IASB concluded that an exit price is always a relevant definition of fair value for liabilities, regardless of whether an entity intends to fulfil the liability or transfer it to another party that will fulfil it. In developing the revised definition of fair value, the IASB completed a standard-by-standard review of fair value measurements required or permitted in IFRSs to assess whether the IASB or its predecessor intended each use of fair value to be a current exit price measurement basis. If it became evident that a current exit price was not the intention in a particular situation, the IASB would use another measurement basis to describe the objective. The other likely measurement basis candidate was a current entry price. For the standard-by-standard review, the IASB defined current entry price as follows:
The price that would be paid to buy an asset or received to incur a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants (including the amount imposed on an entity for incurring a liability) at the measurement date.

BC41

BC42

That definition of current entry price, like fair value, assumes a hypothetical orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It is not necessarily the same as the price an entity paid to acquire an asset or received to incur a liability, eg if that transaction was not at arms length. In discussions with interested parties, the IASB found that most people who assert that an asset or a liability should be measured using an entry price measurement basis, rather than an exit price measurement basis, would actually prefer to use the entitys actual transaction price (or cost), not the market-based current entry price defined above. The IASB observed that in some

15

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

cases there is not an actual transaction price (eg when a group of assets is acquired but the unit of account is an individual asset, or when a biological asset regenerates) and, as a result, an assumed, or hypothetical, price must be used. BC43 During the standard-by-standard review, the IASB asked various parties to provide information on whether, in practice, they interpreted fair value in a particular context in IFRSs as a current entry price or a current exit price. The IASB used that information in determining whether to define fair value as a current exit price, or to remove the term fair value and use the terms current exit price and current entry price depending on the measurement objective in each IFRS that used the term fair value. As a result of the standard-by-standard review, the IASB concluded that a current entry price and a current exit price will be equal when they relate to the same asset or liability on the same date in the same form in the same market. Therefore, the IASB considered it unnecessary to make a distinction between a current entry price and a current exit price in IFRSs with a market-based measurement objective (ie fair value), and the IASB decided to retain the term fair value and define it as a current exit price. The IASB concluded that some fair value measurement requirements in IFRSs were inconsistent with a current exit price or the requirements for measuring fair value. For those fair value measurements, IFRS 13 excludes the measurement from its scope (see paragraphs BC19BC26).

BC44

BC45

The asset or liability


BC46 IFRS 13 states that a fair value measurement takes into account the characteristics of the asset or liability, eg the condition and location of the asset and restrictions, if any, on its sale or use. Restrictions on the sale or use of an asset affect its fair value if market participants would take the restrictions into account when pricing the asset at the measurement date. That is consistent with the fair value measurement guidance already in IFRSs. For example: (a) IAS 40 stated that an entity should identify any differences between the property being measured at fair value and similar properties for which observable market prices are available and make the appropriate adjustments; and

IFRS Foundation

16

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(b) BC47

IAS 41 referred to measuring the fair value of a biological asset or agricultural produce in its present location and condition.

The IASB concluded that IFRS 13 should describe how to measure fair value, not what is being measured at fair value. Other IFRSs specify whether a fair value measurement considers an individual asset or liability or a group of assets or liabilities (ie the unit of account). For example: (a) IAS 36 states that an entity should measure the fair value less costs of disposal for a cash-generating unit when assessing its recoverable amount. In IAS 39 and IFRS 9 the unit of account is generally an individual financial instrument.

(b)

The transaction
BC48 The exposure draft proposed that the transaction to sell an asset or transfer a liability takes place in the most advantageous market to which the entity has access. That was different from the approach in Topic 820, which refers to the principal market for the asset or liability or, in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market for the asset or liability. The IASB concluded that in most cases the principal market for an asset or a liability will be the most advantageous market and that an entity need not continuously monitor different markets in order to determine which market is most advantageous at the measurement date. That proposal contained a presumption that the market in which the entity normally enters into transactions for the asset or liability is the most advantageous market and that an entity may assume that the principal market for the asset or liability is the most advantageous market. Many respondents agreed with the most advantageous market notion because most entities enter into transactions that maximise the price received to sell an asset or minimise the price paid to transfer a liability. Furthermore, they thought that a most advantageous market notion works best for all assets and liabilities, regardless of the level of activity in a market or whether the market for an asset or a liability is observable. However, some respondents were concerned about the difficulty with identifying and selecting the most advantageous market when an asset or a liability is exchanged in multiple markets throughout the world. Other respondents found the guidance confusing because it was not

BC49

BC50

17

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

clear whether the most advantageous market must be used or how the market in which the entity normally enters into transactions relates to the principal market or to the most advantageous market. In general, respondents preferred the approach in Topic 820. BC51 Although the boards think that in most cases the principal market and the most advantageous market would be the same, they concluded that the focus should be on the principal market for the asset or liability and decided to clarify the definition of the principal market. Some respondents to the exposure draft stated that the language in US GAAP was unclear about whether the principal market should be determined on the basis of the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability or on the volume or level of activity of the reporting entitys transactions in a particular market. Consequently, the boards decided to clarify that the principal market is the market for the asset or liability that has the greatest volume or level of activity for the asset or liability. Because the principal market is the most liquid market for the asset or liability, that market will provide the most representative input for a fair value measurement. As a result, the boards also decided to specify that a transaction to sell an asset or to transfer a liability takes place in the principal (or most advantageous) market, provided that the entity can access that market on the measurement date. In addition, the boards concluded that an entity normally enters into transactions in the principal market for the asset or liability (ie the most liquid market, assuming that the entity can access that market). As a result, the boards decided to specify that an entity can use the price in the market in which it normally enters into transactions, unless there is evidence that the principal market and that market are not the same. Consequently, an entity does not need to perform an exhaustive search for markets that might have more activity for the asset or liability than the market in which that entity normally enters into transactions. Thus, IFRS 13 addresses practical concerns about the costs of searching for the market with the greatest volume or level of activity for the asset or liability. The boards also concluded that the determination of the most advantageous market (which is used in the absence of a principal market) for an asset or a liability takes into account both transaction costs and transport costs. However, regardless of whether an entity measures fair value on the basis of the price in the principal market or

BC52

BC53

BC54

IFRS Foundation

18

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

in the most advantageous market, the fair value measurement takes into account transport costs, but not transaction costs (see paragraphs BC60BC62 for a discussion on transport and transaction costs). That is consistent with the proposal in the exposure draft.

Market participants
BC55 IFRS 13 states that a fair value measurement is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement. Therefore, a fair value measurement uses the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability. The previous definition of fair value in IFRSs referred to knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction. The IASB concluded that the previous definition expressed the same notion as the definition of fair value in IFRS 13, but that the previous definition was less clear. Thus, IFRS 13 defines market participants as buyers and sellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability who are independent of each other (ie they are not related parties), knowledgeable about the asset or liability, and able and willing to enter into a transaction for the asset or liability.

BC56

Independence
BC57 IFRS 13 states that market participants are independent of each other (ie they are not related parties). That is consistent with the proposal in the exposure draft. Given that proposal, some respondents noted that in some jurisdictions entities often have common ownership (eg state-owned enterprises or entities with cross ownership) and questioned whether transactions observed in those jurisdictions would be permitted as an input into a fair value measurement. The boards decided to clarify that the price in a related party transaction may be used as an input into a fair value measurement if the entity has evidence that the transaction was entered into at market terms. The boards concluded that this is consistent with IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures.

Knowledge
BC58 The exposure draft stated that market participants were presumed to be as knowledgeable as the entity about the asset or liability. Some respondents questioned that conclusion because they thought the entity might have access to information that is not available to other market participants (information asymmetry).

19

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC59

In the IASBs view, if a market participant is willing to enter into a transaction for an asset or a liability, it would undertake efforts, including usual and customary due diligence efforts, necessary to become knowledgeable about the asset or liability and would factor any related risk into the measurement.

The price
BC60 IFRS 13 states that the price used to measure fair value should not be reduced (for an asset) or increased (for a liability) by the costs an entity would incur when selling the asset or transferring the liability (ie transaction costs). Some respondents stated that transaction costs are unavoidable when entering into a transaction for an asset or a liability. However, the IASB noted that the costs may differ depending on how a particular entity enters into a transaction. Therefore, the IASB concluded that transaction costs are not a characteristic of an asset or a liability, but a characteristic of the transaction. That decision is consistent with the requirements for measuring fair value already in IFRSs. An entity accounts for those costs in accordance with relevant IFRSs. Transaction costs are different from transport costs, which are the costs that would be incurred to transport the asset from its current location to its principal (or most advantageous) market. Unlike transaction costs, which arise from a transaction and do not change the characteristics of the asset or liability, transport costs arise from an event (transport) that does change a characteristic of an asset (its location). IFRS 13 states that if location is a characteristic of an asset, the price in the principal (or most advantageous) market should be adjusted for the costs that would be incurred to transport the asset from its current location to that market. That is consistent with the fair value measurement guidance already in IFRSs. For example, IAS 41 required an entity to deduct transport costs when measuring the fair value of a biological asset or agricultural produce.

BC61

BC62

Application to non-financial assets


Distinguishing between financial assets, non-financial assets and liabilities
BC63 The exposure draft stated that the concepts of highest and best use and valuation premise would not apply to financial assets or to liabilities.

IFRS Foundation

20

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

The IASB reached that conclusion for the following reasons: (a) Financial assets do not have alternative uses because a financial asset has specific contractual terms and can have a different use only if the characteristics of the financial asset (ie the contractual terms) are changed. However, a change in characteristics causes that particular asset to become a different asset. The objective of a fair value measurement is to measure the asset that exists at the measurement date. Even though an entity may be able to change the cash flows associated with a liability by relieving itself of the obligation in different ways, the different ways of doing so are not alternative uses. Moreover, although an entity might have entity-specific advantages or disadvantages that enable it to fulfil a liability more or less efficiently than other market participants, those entity-specific factors do not affect fair value. Those concepts were originally developed within the valuation profession to value non-financial assets, such as land.

(b)

(c) BC64

Before the amendments to Topic 820, US GAAP specified that the concepts of highest and best use and valuation premise applied when measuring the fair value of assets, but it did not distinguish between financial assets and non-financial assets. The FASB agreed with the IASB that the concepts of highest and best use and valuation premise are relevant when measuring the fair value of non-financial assets, and are not relevant when measuring the fair value of financial assets or the fair value of liabilities. The boards also concluded that those concepts do not apply to an entitys own equity instruments because those arrangements, similar to financial instruments, typically have specific contractual terms. Paragraphs BC108BC131 describe the boards rationale in developing the requirements for measuring the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities with offsetting positions in market risks and counterparty credit risk. Some respondents to the FASBs proposed ASU were concerned that limiting the highest and best use concept to non-financial assets removed the concept of value maximisation by market participants, which they considered fundamental to a fair value measurement for financial assets and financial liabilities.

BC65

BC66

21

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC67

The boards decided to clarify that although there are no excess returns available from holding financial assets and financial liabilities within a portfolio (because in an efficient market, the price reflects the benefits that market participants would derive from holding the asset or liability in a diversified portfolio), a fair value measurement assumes that market participants seek to maximise the fair value of a financial or non-financial asset or to minimise the fair value of a financial or non-financial liability by acting in their economic best interest in a transaction to sell the asset or to transfer the liability in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability. Such a transaction might involve grouping assets and liabilities in a way in which market participants would enter into a transaction, if the unit of account in other IFRSs does not prohibit that grouping.

Highest and best use


BC68 Highest and best use is a valuation concept used to value many non-financial assets (eg real estate). The highest and best use of a non-financial asset must be physically possible, legally permissible and financially feasible. In developing the proposals in the exposure draft, the IASB concluded that it was necessary to describe those three criteria, noting that US GAAP at the time did not. Some respondents asked for further guidance about whether a use that is legally permissible must be legal at the measurement date, or if, for example, future changes in legislation can be taken into account. The IASB concluded that a use of an asset does not need to be legal at the measurement date, but must not be legally prohibited in the jurisdiction (eg if the government of a particular country has prohibited building or development in a protected area, the highest and best use of the land in that area could not be to develop it for industrial use). The illustrative examples that accompany IFRS 13 show how an asset can be zoned for a particular use at the measurement date, but how a fair value measurement can assume a different zoning if market participants would do so (incorporating the cost to convert the asset and obtain that different zoning permission, including the risk that such permission would not be granted). IFRS 13 states that fair value takes into account the highest and best use of an asset from the perspective of market participants. That is the case even if an entity acquires an asset but, to protect its competitive position or for other reasons, the entity does not intend to use it actively or does not intend to use the asset in the same way as other market participants (eg if an intangible asset provides defensive value

BC69

BC70

IFRS Foundation

22

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

because the acquirer holds the asset to keep it from being used by competitors). When revising IFRS 3 in 2008, the IASB decided that an entity must recognise such an asset at fair value because the intention of IFRS 3 was that assets, both tangible and intangible, should be measured at their fair values regardless of how or whether the acquirer intends to use them (see paragraph BC262 of IFRS 3). IFRS 13 sets out requirements for measuring the fair value of those assets. BC71 IFRS 13 does not require an entity to perform an exhaustive search for other potential uses of a non-financial asset if there is no evidence to suggest that the current use of an asset is not its highest and best use. The IASB concluded that an entity that seeks to maximise the value of its assets would use those assets at their highest and best use and that it would be necessary for an entity to consider alternative uses of those assets only if there was evidence that the current use of the assets is not their highest and best use (ie an alternative use would maximise their fair value). Furthermore, after discussions with valuation professionals, the IASB concluded that in many cases it would be unlikely for an assets current use not to be its highest and best use after taking into account the costs to convert the asset to the alternative use. When the IASB was developing the proposals in the exposure draft, users of financial statements asked the IASB to consider how to account for assets when their highest and best use within a group of assets is different from their current use by the entity (ie when there is evidence that the current use of the assets is not their highest and best use, and an alternative use would maximise their fair value). For example, the fair value of a factory is linked to the value of the land on which it is situated. The fair value of the factory would be nil if the land has an alternative use that assumes the factory is demolished. The IASB concluded when developing the exposure draft that measuring the factory at nil would not provide useful information when an entity is using that factory in its operations. In particular, users would want to see depreciation on that factory so that they could assess the economic resources consumed in generating cash flows from its operation. Therefore, the exposure draft proposed requiring an entity to separate the fair value of the asset group into its current use and fair value components.

BC72

23

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC73

Respondents found that proposal confusing and thought that calculating two values for a non-financial asset would be costly. As a result, the boards decided that when an entity uses a non-financial asset in a way that differs from its highest and best use (and that asset is measured at fair value), the entity must simply disclose that fact and why the asset is being used in a manner that differs from its highest and best use (see paragraphs BC213 and BC214).

Valuation premise Terminology


BC74 As an application of the highest and best use concept, the exposure draft identified two valuation premises that may be relevant when measuring the fair value of an asset: (a) The in-use valuation premise, which applies when the highest and best use of an asset is to use it with other assets or with other assets and liabilities as a group. The in-use valuation premise assumes that the exit price would be the price for a sale to a market participant that has, or can obtain, the other assets and liabilities needed to generate cash inflows by using the asset (complementary assets and the associated liabilities). The in-exchange valuation premise, which applies when the highest and best use of an asset is to use it on a stand-alone basis. It assumes that the sale would be to a market participant that uses the asset on a stand-alone basis.

(b)

BC75

Many respondents found the terms in use and in exchange confusing because they thought that the terminology did not accurately reflect the objective of the valuation premise (ie in both cases the asset is being exchanged, and both cases involve an assessment of how the asset will be used by market participants). In addition, some respondents stated that the in-use valuation premise could be confused with the term value in use, as defined in IAS 36. In response, the boards decided to remove the terms in use and in exchange and instead describe the objective of the valuation premise: the valuation premise assumes that an asset would be used either (a) in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities (formerly referred to as in use) or (b) on a stand-alone basis (formerly

BC76

IFRS Foundation

24

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

referred to as in exchange). Respondents to the FASBs proposed ASU generally supported that proposal. The boards concluded that the change improves the understandability of the valuation premise concept.

Valuation premise for a single non-financial asset


BC77 IFRS 13 states that the valuation premise assumes that the non-financial asset being measured at fair value is sold on its own (at the unit of account level) and should be measured accordingly, even if transactions in the asset are typically the result of sales of the asset as part of a group of assets or a business. Even when an asset is used in combination with other assets, the exit price for the asset is a price for that asset individually because a fair value measurement assumes that a market participant (buyer) of the asset already holds the complementary assets and the associated liabilities. Because the buyer is assumed to hold the other assets (and liabilities) necessary for the asset to function, that buyer would not be willing to pay more for the asset solely because it was sold as part of a group. That conclusion is consistent with the conclusion reached in IFRS 3 for measuring the fair value of the identifiable assets acquired in a business combination.

Valuation premise for specialised non-financial assets


BC78 Some respondents to the exposure draft expressed concerns about using an exit price notion for specialised non-financial assets that have a significant value when used together with other non-financial assets, for example in a production process, but have little value if sold for scrap to another market participant that does not have the complementary assets. They were concerned that an exit price would be based on that scrap value (particularly given the requirement to maximise the use of observable inputs, such as market prices) and would not reflect the value that an entity expects to generate by using the asset in its operations. However, IFRS 13 clarifies that this is not the case. In such situations, the scrap value for an individual asset would be irrelevant because the valuation premise assumes that the asset would be used in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities. Therefore, an exit price reflects the sale of the asset to a market participant that has, or can obtain, the complementary assets and the associated liabilities needed to use the specialised asset in its own operations. In effect, the market participant buyer steps into the shoes of the entity that holds that specialised asset.

25

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC79

It is unlikely in such a situation that a market price, if available, would capture the value that the specialised asset contributes to the business because the market price would be for an unmodified asset. When a market price does not capture the characteristics of the asset (eg if that price represents the use of the asset on a stand-alone basis, not installed or otherwise configured for use, rather than in combination with other assets, installed and configured for use), that price will not represent fair value. In such a situation, an entity will need to measure fair value using another valuation technique (such as an income approach) or the cost to replace or recreate the asset (such as a cost approach) depending on the circumstances and the information available.

Application to liabilities
General principles
BC80 The exposure draft proposed that a fair value measurement assumes that a liability is transferred to a market participant at the measurement date because the liability that is the subject of the fair value measurement remains outstanding (ie it is owed by the entity and is not settled with the counterparty or otherwise extinguished at the measurement date). Because the liability is assumed to be transferred to a market participant, the liability remains outstanding and the market participant transferee, like the entity, would be required to fulfil it. The same concept applies to an entitys own equity instrument, as discussed in paragraphs BC104BC107. In many cases, an entity might not intend (or be able) to transfer its liability to a third party. For example, an entity might have advantages relative to the market that would make it more beneficial for the entity to fulfil the liability using its own internal resources or the counterparty might not permit the liability to be transferred to another party. However, the IASB concluded that a fair value measurement provides a market benchmark to use as a basis for assessing an entitys advantages or disadvantages in performance or settlement relative to the market (for both assets and liabilities). Therefore, when a liability is measured at fair value, the relative efficiency of an entity in settling the liability using its own internal resources appears in profit or loss over the course of its settlement, and not before.

BC81

IFRS Foundation

26

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BC82

Furthermore, even if an entity is unable to transfer its liability to a third party, the IASB concluded that the transfer notion was necessary in a fair value measurement because that notion captures market participants expectations about the liquidity, uncertainty and other factors associated with the liability, whereas a settlement notion may not because it may incorporate entity-specific factors. In the IASBs view, the fair value of a liability from the perspective of a market participant that owes the liability is the same regardless of whether it is settled or transferred. That is because: (a) both a settlement and a transfer of a liability reflect all costs that would be incurred to fulfil the obligation, including the market-based profit an entity and a market participant transferee desire to earn on all their activities. an entity faces the same risks when fulfilling an obligation that a market participant transferee faces when fulfilling that obligation. Neither the entity nor the market participant transferee has perfect knowledge about the timing and amount of the cash outflows, even for financial liabilities. a settlement in a fair value measurement does not assume a settlement with the counterparty over time (eg as principal and interest payments become due), but a settlement at the measurement date. Accordingly, the settlement amount in a fair value measurement reflects the present value of the economic benefits (eg payments) the counterparty would have received over time.

(b)

(c)

As a result, the IASB concluded that similar thought processes are needed to estimate both the amount to settle a liability and the amount to transfer that liability. BC83 The exposure draft proposed that an entity could estimate the amount at which a liability could be transferred in a transaction between market participants by using the same methodology that would be used to measure the fair value of the liability held by another entity as an asset (ie the fair value of the corresponding asset). If the liability was traded as an asset, the observed price would also represent the fair value of the issuers liability. If there was no corresponding asset (eg as would be the case with a decommissioning liability), the fair value of the liability could be measured using a valuation technique, such as the present value of the future cash outflows that market participants would expect to incur in fulfilling the obligation.

27

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC84

That proposal was consistent with the approach in Topic 820 in US GAAP (in August 2009, after the IASBs exposure draft was published, the FASB amended Topic 820 to provide additional guidance about measuring the fair value of liabilities). However, Topic 820 provided more guidance than the IASBs exposure draft, including additional examples for applying that guidance. Because the guidance in Topic 820 was consistent with but not identical to the proposals in the IASBs exposure draft, the boards worked together to develop a combination of the two. The boards concluded that the objective of a fair value measurement of a liability when using a valuation technique (ie when there is not an observable market to provide pricing information about the transfer of the liability) is to estimate the price that would be paid to transfer the liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. Therefore, the boards decided to describe how an entity should measure the fair value of a liability when there is no observable market to provide pricing information about the transfer of a liability. For example, IFRS 13 states that an entity may measure the fair value of a liability by using a quoted price for an identical or a similar liability held by another party as an asset or by using another valuation technique (such as an income approach). The boards clarified that regardless of the approach used, when there is no observable market price for the transfer of a liability and the identical liability is held by another party as an asset, an entity measures the fair value of the liability from the perspective of a market participant that holds the identical liability as an asset at the measurement date. That approach is consistent with the exposure draft and US GAAP. Thus, in the boards view, the fair value of a liability equals the fair value of a properly defined corresponding asset (ie an asset whose features mirror those of the liability), assuming an exit from both positions in the same market. In reaching their decision, the boards considered whether the effects of illiquidity could create a difference between those values. The boards noted that the effects of illiquidity are difficult to differentiate from credit-related effects. The boards concluded that there was no conceptual reason why the liability value would diverge from the corresponding asset value in the same market because the contractual terms are the same, unless the unit of account for the liability is different from the unit of account for the asset or the quoted price for the asset relates to a similar (but not identical) liability held as an asset.

BC85

BC86

BC87

BC88

IFRS Foundation

28

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BC89

Furthermore, the boards concluded that in an efficient market, the price of a liability held by another party as an asset must equal the price for the corresponding asset. If those prices differed, the market participant transferee (ie the party taking on the obligation) would be able to earn a profit by financing the purchase of the asset with the proceeds received by taking on the liability. In such cases the price for the liability and the price for the asset would adjust until the arbitrage opportunity was eliminated. The exposure draft stated that when using a present value technique to measure the fair value of a liability that is not held by another party as an asset, an entity should include the compensation that a market participant would require for taking on the obligation. Topic 820 contained such a requirement. Respondents asked for clarification on the meaning of compensation that a market participant would require for taking on the obligation. Therefore, the boards decided to provide additional guidance about the compensation that market participants would require, such as the compensation for taking on the responsibility of fulfilling an obligation and for assuming the risk associated with an uncertain obligation (ie the risk that the actual cash outflows might differ from the expected cash outflows). The boards concluded that including this description will improve the application of the requirements for measuring the fair value of liabilities that are not held as assets. Some respondents to the FASBs proposed ASU requested clarification about applying risk premiums when measuring the fair value of a liability that is not held by another party as an asset (eg a decommissioning liability assumed in a business combination) when using a present value technique. They noted that the description of present value techniques described adjustments for risk as additions to the discount rate, which they agreed was consistent with asset valuation, but not necessarily consistent with liability valuation in the absence of a corresponding asset. The boards reasoned that from a market participants perspective, compensation for the uncertainty related to a liability results in an increase to the amount that the market participant would expect to receive for assuming the obligation. If that compensation was accounted for in the discount rate, rather than in the cash flows, it would result in a reduction of the discount rate used in the fair value measurement of the liability. Therefore, the boards concluded that, all else being equal, the risk associated with an asset decreases the fair value of that asset, whereas the risk associated with a liability increases the fair value of that liability. However, the boards decided not to prescribe how an entity
29 IFRS Foundation

BC90

BC91

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

would adjust for the risk inherent in an asset or a liability, but to state that the objective is to ensure that the fair value measurement takes that risk into account. That can be done by adjusting the cash flows or the discount rate or by adding a risk adjustment to the present value of the expected cash flows (which is another way of adjusting the cash flows).

Non-performance risk
BC92 IFRS 13 states that a fair value measurement assumes that the fair value of a liability reflects the effect of non-performance risk, which is the risk that an entity will not fulfil an obligation. Non-performance risk includes, but is not limited to, an entitys own credit risk (credit standing). That is consistent with the fair value measurement guidance already in IFRSs. For example, IAS 39 and IFRS 9 referred to making adjustments for credit risk if market participants would reflect that risk when pricing a financial instrument. However, there was inconsistent application of that principle because: (a) (b) IAS 39 and IFRS 9 refer to credit risk generally and do not specifically refer to the reporting entitys own credit risk; and there were different interpretations about how an entitys own credit risk should be reflected in the fair value of a liability using the settlement notion in the previous definition of fair value because it is unlikely that the counterparty would accept a different amount as settlement of the obligation if the entitys credit standing changed.

BC93

As a result, some entities took into account changes in their own credit risk when measuring the fair value of their liabilities, whereas other entities did not. Consequently, the IASB decided to clarify in IFRS 13 that the fair value of a liability includes an entitys own credit risk. In a fair value measurement, the non-performance risk related to a liability is the same before and after its transfer. Although the IASB acknowledges that such an assumption is unlikely to be realistic for an actual transaction (because in most cases the reporting entity transferor and the market participant transferee are unlikely to have the same credit standing), the IASB concluded that such an assumption was necessary when measuring fair value for the following reasons: (a) A market participant taking on the obligation would not enter into a transaction that changes the non-performance risk associated with the liability without reflecting that change in

BC94

IFRS Foundation

30

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

the price (eg a creditor would not generally permit a debtor to transfer its obligation to another party of lower credit standing, nor would a transferee of higher credit standing be willing to assume the obligation using the same terms negotiated by the transferor if those terms reflect the transferors lower credit standing). (b) Without specifying the credit standing of the entity taking on the obligation, there could be fundamentally different fair values for a liability depending on an entitys assumptions about the characteristics of the market participant transferee. Those who might hold the entitys obligations as assets would consider the effect of the entitys credit risk and other risk factors when pricing those assets (see paragraphs BC83BC89).

(c)

The FASB reached the same conclusions when developing SFAS 157 and ASU No. 2009-05 Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820): Measuring Liabilities at Fair Value. BC95 Few respondents questioned the usefulness of reflecting non-performance risk in the fair value measurement of a liability at initial recognition. However, many questioned the usefulness of doing so after initial recognition, because they reasoned that it would lead to counter-intuitive and potentially confusing reporting (ie gains for credit deterioration and losses for credit improvements). The IASB understands that these concerns are strongly held, but concluded that addressing them was beyond the scope of the fair value measurement project. The purpose of that project was to define fair value, not to determine when to use fair value or how to present changes in fair value. A measurement that does not consider the effect of an entitys non-performance risk is not a fair value measurement. The IASB addressed those concerns in developing IFRS 9 (issued in October 2010).

Liabilities issued with third-party credit enhancements


BC96 IFRS 13 includes requirements for measuring the fair value of a liability issued with an inseparable third-party credit enhancement from the issuers perspective. Those requirements are consistent with Topic 820. A credit enhancement (also referred to as a guarantee) may be purchased by an issuer that combines it with a liability, such as debt, and then issues the combined security to an investor. For example, debt may be issued with a financial guarantee from a third party that

BC97

31

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

guarantees the issuers payment obligations. Generally, if the issuer of the liability fails to meet its payment obligations to the investor, the guarantor has an obligation to make the payments on the issuers behalf and the issuer has an obligation to the guarantor. By issuing debt combined with a credit enhancement, the issuer is able to market its debt more easily and can either reduce the interest rate paid to the investor or receive higher proceeds when the debt is issued. BC98 The boards concluded that the measurement of a liability should follow the unit of account of the liability for financial reporting purposes. When the unit of account for such liabilities is the obligation without the credit enhancement, the fair value of the liability from the issuers perspective will not equal its fair value as a guaranteed liability held by another party as an asset. Therefore, the fair value of the guaranteed liability held by another party as an asset would need to be adjusted because any payments made by the guarantor in accordance with the guarantee result in a transfer of the issuers debt obligation from the investor to the guarantor. The issuers resulting debt obligation to the guarantor has not been guaranteed. Consequently, the boards decided that if the third-party credit enhancement is accounted for separately from the liability, the fair value of that obligation takes into account the credit standing of the issuer and not the credit standing of the guarantor.

Restrictions preventing transfer


BC99 A restriction on an entitys ability to transfer its liability to another party is a function of the requirement to fulfil the obligation and the effect of such a restriction normally is already reflected in the price. As a result, IFRS 13 states that the fair value of a liability should not be adjusted further for the effect of a restriction on its transfer if that restriction is already included in the other inputs to the fair value measurement. However, if an entity is aware that a restriction on transfer is not already reflected in the price (or in the other inputs used in the measurement), the entity would adjust those inputs to reflect the existence of the restriction. The boards concluded that there are two fundamental differences between the fair value measurement of an asset and the fair value measurement of a liability that justify different treatments for asset restrictions and liability restrictions. First, restrictions on the transfer of a liability relate to the performance of the obligation (ie the entity is legally obliged to satisfy the obligation and needs to do something to be relieved of the obligation), whereas restrictions on the transfer of an

BC100

IFRS Foundation

32

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

asset relate to the marketability of the asset. Second, nearly all liabilities include a restriction preventing the transfer of the liability, whereas most assets do not include a similar restriction. As a result, the effect of a restriction preventing the transfer of a liability, theoretically, would be consistent for all liabilities and, therefore, would require no additional adjustment beyond the factors considered in determining the original transaction price. The inclusion of a restriction preventing the sale of an asset typically results in a lower fair value for the restricted asset than for the non-restricted asset, all other factors being equal.

Measurement of financial liabilities with a demand feature


BC101 In developing IFRS 13, the IASB confirmed its decision in developing IAS 39 that the fair value of a financial liability with a demand feature cannot be less than the amount payable on demand, discounted from the first date that the amount could be required to be repaid. Some comments received on the exposure draft published in 2002 preceding IAS 39 requested clarification of how to measure the fair value of financial liabilities with a demand feature (eg demand deposits) when the fair value measurement option is applied or the liability is otherwise measured at fair value. In other words, could the fair value be less than the amount payable on demand, discounted from the first date that an amount could be required to be paid (the demand amount), such as the amount of the deposit discounted for the period that the entity expects the deposit to be outstanding? Some commentators believed that the fair value of financial liabilities with a demand feature is less than the demand amount, for reasons that include the consistency of such measurement with how those financial liabilities are treated for risk management purposes. In developing IAS 39 the IASB agreed that this issue should be clarified. It confirmed that the fair value of a financial liability with a demand feature is not less than the amount payable on demand, discounted from the first date that the amount could be required to be paid (this is now in paragraph 47 of IFRS 13). That conclusion is the same as in the original IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation (issued by the IASBs predecessor body, IASC, in 1995), which is now IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. The IASB noted that in many cases, the market price observed for such financial liabilities is the price at which they are originated between the

BCZ102

BCZ103

33

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

customer and the deposit-takerie the demand amount. It also noted that recognising a financial liability with a demand feature at less than the demand amount would give rise to an immediate gain on the origination of such a deposit, which the IASB believes is inappropriate.

Application to an entitys own equity instruments


BC104 The exposure draft and Topic 820 stated that although the definition of fair value refers to assets and liabilities, it also should be applied to an instrument measured at fair value that is classified in an entitys own shareholders equity. Respondents to the discussion paper asked for explicit guidance for measuring the fair value of such instruments because Topic 820 did not contain explicit guidance. Consequently, the boards decided to describe how an entity should measure the fair value of its own equity instruments (eg when an acquirer issues equity in consideration for an acquiree in a business combination). The exposure draft proposed requiring an entity to measure the fair value of its own equity instruments from the perspective of a market participant that holds the instrument as an asset. That was because the issuer of an equity instrument can exit from that instrument only if the instrument ceases to exist or if the entity repurchases the instrument from the holder. The FASB agreed with that conclusion. The boards also noted that some instruments may be classified as liabilities or equity, depending on the characteristics of the transaction and the characteristics of the instrument. Examples of such instruments include contingent consideration issued in a business combination in accordance with IFRS 3 and equity warrants issued by an entity in accordance with IAS 39 or IFRS 9. The boards concluded that the requirements for measuring the fair value of an entitys own equity instruments should be consistent with the requirements for measuring the fair value of liabilities. Consequently, the boards decided to clarify that the accounting classification of an instrument should not affect that instruments fair value measurement. The boards decided to clarify that the objective of a fair value measurement for liabilities and an entitys own equity instruments should be an exit price from the perspective of a market participant that holds the instrument as an asset at the measurement date if there

BC105

BC106

BC107

IFRS Foundation

34

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

is a corresponding asset, regardless of whether there is an observable market for the instrument as an asset. That decision is consistent with the boards decisions about the requirements for measuring the fair value of a liability.

Application to financial assets and financial liabilities with offsetting positions in market risks or counterparty credit risk
BC108 An entity that holds a group of financial assets and financial liabilities is exposed to market risks (ie interest rate risk, currency risk or other price risk) and to the credit risk of each of the counterparties. Financial institutions and similar entities that hold financial assets and financial liabilities often manage those instruments on the basis of the entitys net exposure to a particular market risk (or risks) or to the credit risk of a particular counterparty. The previous requirements in IFRSs and US GAAP for measuring the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities that are managed in this way were expressed differently. Therefore, the boards concluded that it is important that IFRSs and US GAAP express the requirements for measuring the fair value of those financial instruments in the same way. When applying IFRSs, entities applied IFRS 9 or IAS 39, which permitted an entity to take into account the effects of offsetting positions in the same market risk (or risks) when measuring the fair value of a financial asset or financial liability. Many entities were using the same approach for offsetting positions in the credit risk of a particular counterparty by analogy. When applying US GAAP, many entities applied the in-use valuation premise when measuring the fair value of such financial assets and financial liabilities. In other words, an entity would take into account how the fair value of each financial asset or financial liability might be affected by the combination of that asset or liability with other financial assets or financial liabilities held by the entity. Other entities applied the in-exchange valuation premise to the entitys net risk exposure and assumed that the transaction took place for the net position, not for the individual assets and liabilities making up that position. Those differing applications of the valuation premise arose because Topic 820 did not specify the valuation premise for financial assets.

BC109

BC110

BC111

35

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC112

In developing the exposure draft, the IASB concluded that the fair value of a financial asset reflects any benefits that market participants would derive from holding that asset within a diversified portfolio. An entity derives no incremental value from holding a financial asset within a portfolio. Furthermore, the IASB noted that the valuation premise related only to assets, not to liabilities, and as such could not be applied to portfolios of financial instruments that include financial liabilities. Therefore, the exposure draft proposed that the in-exchange valuation premise must be used to measure the fair value of a financial asset. The IASB also proposed an amendment to IAS 39 making it explicit that the unit of account for financial instruments is the individual financial instrument at all levels of the fair value hierarchy (Level 1, 2 or 3). The boards understand that although the approaches used to measure the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities were expressed differently in IFRSs and US GAAP, they resulted in similar fair value measurement conclusions in many cases. However, the FASB was aware that before the amendments Topic 820 was sometimes interpreted more broadly than the FASB intended, such as when an entity used the in-use valuation premise to measure the fair value of a group of financial assets when the entity did not have offsetting positions in a particular market risk (or risks) or counterparty credit risk. That interpretation led the IASB to propose requiring the in-exchange valuation premise for financial assets in its exposure draft. The IASBs proposal to require the fair value of a financial asset to be measured using the in-exchange valuation premise was one of the more controversial proposals in the exposure draft. That proposal, combined with a proposed amendment to IAS 39 about the unit of account for financial instruments, led respondents to believe that the fair value of financial assets cannot reflect the fact that those assets are held within a portfolio, even when an entity manages its financial instruments on the basis of the entitys net exposure, rather than its gross exposure, to market risks and credit risk. Respondents were concerned that the proposal in the exposure draft would separate the valuation of financial instruments for financial reporting from the entitys internal risk management practices. In addition, they were concerned about the systems changes that would be necessary to effect a change in practice. To preserve the relationship between financial reporting and risk management, some

BC113

BC114

BC115

IFRS Foundation

36

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

respondents asked whether they would be able to apply the bid-ask spread guidance to each of the individual instruments so that the sum of the fair values of the individual instruments equals the value of the net position. BC116 Other respondents suggested that the IASB should continue to allow the practice that has developed using paragraph AG72 of IAS 39, which stated:
When an entity has assets and liabilities with offsetting market risks, it may use mid-market prices as a basis for establishing fair values for the offsetting risk positions and apply the bid or asking price to the net open position as appropriate.

BC117

The previous requirements in IFRSs and US GAAP did not clearly specify the relationship between the fair value measurement of financial instruments and how an entity manages its net risk exposure. For example, Topic 820, IAS 39 and IFRS 9 did not explicitly address how the following meet the objective of a fair value measurement for financial instruments: (a) Entities typically do not manage their exposure to market risks and credit risk by selling a financial asset or transferring a financial liability (eg by unwinding a transaction). Instead, they manage their risk exposure by entering into a transaction for another financial instrument (or instruments) that would result in an offsetting position in the same risk. The resulting measurement represents the fair value of the net risk exposure, not the fair value of an individual financial instrument. The sum of the fair values of the individual instruments is not equal to the fair value of the net risk exposure. An entitys net risk exposure is a function of the other financial instruments held by the entity and of the entitys risk preferences (both of which are entity-specific decisions and, thus, do not form part of a fair value measurement). Market participants may hold different groups of financial instruments or may have different risk preferences, and it is those factors that are taken into account when measuring fair value. However, the boards understand that market participants holding that particular group of financial instruments and with those particular risk preferences would be likely to price those financial instruments similarly (ie using similar valuation techniques and similar market data). As a result, the market participants measurement of those financial instruments within that particular group is a market-based measurement,

(b)

37

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

and a measurement using an entitys risk preferences would not be a fair value measurement, but an entity-specific measurement. BC118 Consequently, the boards decided to permit an exception to the requirements in IFRS 13 and Topic 820 for measuring fair value when an entity manages its financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of the entitys net exposure to market risks or to the credit risk of a particular counterparty. Respondents to the FASBs proposed ASU generally supported that proposal and stated that it was consistent with current practice for measuring the fair value of such financial assets and financial liabilities. That exception permits an entity to measure the fair value of a group of financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of the price that would be received to sell a net long position (ie asset) for a particular risk exposure or to transfer a net short position (ie liability) for a particular risk exposure in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions, subject to specific requirements.

BC119

Evidence of managing financial instruments on the basis of the net risk exposure
BC120 IFRS 13 states that to use the exception, an entity must provide evidence that it consistently manages its financial instruments on the basis of its net exposure to market risks or credit risk. In addition, the entity must be required (or must have elected, for example, in accordance with the fair value option) to measure the financial instruments at fair value on a recurring basis. The boards concluded that if an entity does not manage its risk exposure on a net basis and does not manage its financial instruments on a fair value basis, the entity should not be permitted to measure the fair value of its financial instruments on the basis of the entitys net risk exposure. The boards decided to require an entity to provide evidence that it manages its net risk exposure consistently from period to period. The boards decided this because an entity that can provide evidence that it manages its financial instruments on the basis of its net risk exposure would do so consistently for a particular portfolio from period to period, and not on a net basis for that portfolio in some periods and on a gross basis in other periods. Some respondents to the FASBs proposed ASU found that requirement limiting because they noted that the composition of a portfolio changes continually as the

BC121

IFRS Foundation

38

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

entity rebalances the portfolio and changes its risk exposure preferences over time. Although the entity does not need to maintain a static portfolio, the boards decided to clarify that the entity must make an accounting policy decision (in accordance with IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors) to use the exception described in paragraphs BC118 and BC119. The boards also decided that the accounting policy decision could be changed if the entitys risk exposure preferences change. In that case the entity can decide not to use the exception but instead to measure the fair value of its financial instruments on an individual instrument basis. However, if the entity continues to value a portfolio using the exception, it must do so consistently from period to period.

Exposure to market risks


BC122 The boards decided that an entity could apply the bid-ask spread guidance to the entitys net position in a particular market risk (rather than to each individual financial instrument included in that position) only if the market risks that are being offset are substantially the same. Some respondents to the FASBs proposed ASU asked for additional guidance on what is meant by substantially the same given the different instruments and types of instruments that might make up a portfolio. In addition, they were concerned that the proposed requirement that the market risks be substantially the same meant that there could be no basis risk in the portfolio or, conversely, that the basis risk would not be reflected in the fair value measurement. Consequently, the boards decided to include additional guidance for determining whether market risks are substantially the same. The boards held discussions with several financial institutions that manage their financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of their net exposure to market risks. From those discussions, the boards concluded that when measuring fair value on the basis of an entitys net exposure to market risks, the entity should not combine a financial asset that exposes it to a particular market risk with a financial liability that exposes it to a different market risk that does not mitigate either of the market risk exposures that the entity faces. The boards also concluded that it is not necessary that the grouping of particular financial assets and financial liabilities results in an entity having no basis risk because the fair value measurement would take into account any basis risk. Furthermore, on the basis of their discussions with financial institutions, the boards concluded that an entity should not combine a financial asset that exposes it to a particular market risk

BC123

39

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

over a particular duration with a financial liability that exposes it to substantially the same market risk over a different duration without taking into account the fact that the entity is fully exposed to that market risk over the time period for which the market risks are not offset. If there is a time period in which a market risk is not offset, the entity may measure its net exposure to that market risk over the time period in which the market risk is offset and must measure its gross exposure to that market risk for the remaining time period (ie the time period in which the market risk is not offset).

Exposure to the credit risk of a particular counterparty


BC124 Because the bid-ask spread (which is the basis for making adjustments for an entitys exposure to market risk to arrive at the fair value of the net position) does not include adjustments for counterparty credit risk (see paragraph BC164), the boards decided to specify that an entity may take into account its net exposure to the credit risk of a particular counterparty when applying the exception. The boards decided that when measuring fair value, an entity may consider its net exposure to credit risk when it has entered into an arrangement with a counterparty that mitigates its credit risk exposure in the event of default (eg a master netting agreement). On the basis of their discussions with financial institutions the boards concluded that a fair value measurement reflects market participants expectations about the likelihood that such an arrangement would be legally enforceable. Some respondents to the FASBs proposed ASU asked whether the existence of a master netting agreement was necessary or whether other credit mitigating arrangements could be taken into account in the fair value measurement. The boards decided to clarify that in a fair value measurement, an entity must take into account other arrangements that mitigate credit risk, such as an agreement that requires the exchange of collateral on the basis of each partys net exposure to the credit risk of the other party, if market participants would expect such arrangements to be legally enforceable in the event of default.

BC125

BC126

IFRS Foundation

40

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BC127

The boards acknowledged that the group of financial assets and financial liabilities for which an entity manages its net exposure to a particular market risk (or risks) could differ from the group of financial assets and financial liabilities for which an entity manages its net exposure to the credit risk of a particular counterparty because it is unlikely that all contracts would be with the same counterparty.

Relationship between measurement and presentation


BC128 In some cases the basis for the presentation of financial instruments in the statement of financial position differs from the basis for the measurement of those financial instruments. For example, that would be the case if an IFRS does not require or permit financial instruments to be presented on a net basis. The FASBs proposed ASU stated that the exception would not apply to financial statement presentation (ie an entity must comply with the financial statement presentation requirements specified in other standards). The boards discussed the different approaches to measurement and presentation, particularly in the light of their currently differing requirements for offsetting financial assets and financial liabilities. In IAS 32 an entity may not use net presentation unless specific criteria are met, whereas in US GAAP many entities are able to use net presentation in their financial statements. However, the criteria for net presentation in US GAAP relate to credit risk, not to market risks. As a result, the presentation and measurement bases are different when an entity applies bid-ask adjustments on a net basis but is required to present fair value information on a gross basis (although generally the financial instruments with bid-ask adjustments would qualify for net presentation in US GAAP because of the existence of master netting agreements and other credit risk mitigating arrangements). The boards concluded that a relationship between presentation and measurement is not necessary and that adjustments for market risks or credit risk (ie portfolio-level adjustments) are a matter of measurement rather than presentation. They reasoned that fair value measurements are meant to reflect (a) the risk exposure faced by the entity and (b) how that risk exposure would be priced by market participants (which is one reason the boards decided to permit the exception; see paragraph BC117). When pricing financial instruments, a market participant would take into account the other instruments it holds to the extent that those instruments reduce or enhance its overall risk exposure. That is a consequence of requiring or permitting

BC129

BC130

41

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

financial instruments to be measured at fair value. The boards considerations for requiring net or gross presentation of financial instruments are different from those for requiring net or gross measurement. BC131 Some respondents asked for additional guidance for allocating the bid-ask and credit adjustments to the individual assets and liabilities that make up the group of financial assets and financial liabilities. Although any allocation method is inherently subjective, the boards concluded that a quantitative allocation would be appropriate if it was reasonable and consistently applied. Therefore, the boards decided not to require a particular method of allocation.

Fair value at initial recognition


BC132 The exposure draft proposed guidance for measuring fair value at initial recognition, using both observable and unobservable inputs (as appropriate). The exposure draft also proposed a list of indicators specifying when the transaction price might not be the best evidence of the fair value of an asset or a liability at initial recognition. Respondents generally agreed with the list of indicators, but thought that the wording used implied that those were the only indicators, rather than examples of indicators. They suggested that the IFRS on fair value measurement should use the wording in US GAAP. The boards agreed with respondents that the list of indicators was not exhaustive and decided to use the wording in Topic 820. Some respondents suggested that market inactivity should be included in the list of indicators. The boards concluded that market inactivity is not an indicator that the transaction price may not represent fair value, but an indicator that the entity should do further work to determine whether the transaction price represents fair value. The exposure draft did not address the recognition of a day 1 gain or loss but stated that an entity would recognise such gains or losses unless another IFRS specifies otherwise. For example, IAS 39 and IFRS 9 state that an entity cannot recognise a day 1 gain or loss for a financial instrument unless its fair value is evidenced by a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability or based on a valuation technique that uses only data from observable markets. In contrast, IFRS 3 and IAS 41 require the recognition of day 1 gains or losses even when fair value is measured using unobservable inputs.

BC133

BC134

BC135

IFRS Foundation

42

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BC136

The IASB concluded that fair value should be measured at initial recognition without regard to whether it would result in a gain or loss at initial recognition of the asset or liability. Respondents views ranged from the view that the transaction price is the best evidence of fair value at initial recognition unless the fair value is measured using only observable inputs (the approach in IAS 39 and IFRS 9) to the view that the transaction price might sometimes, but not always, represent fair value at initial recognition, and that the degree of observability of inputs is not always the best indicator of whether this is the case (the approach in US GAAP). Many respondents suggested that IFRSs and US GAAP should have the same requirements for recognising gains or losses at initial recognition. The boards concluded that determining whether to recognise a day 1 gain or loss was beyond the scope of the fair value measurement project. The boards noted that the measurement basis at initial recognition of financial instruments in IFRSs and US GAAP is not always the same, and so the boards could not address comparability at this time. As a result, the boards decided that an entity would refer to relevant IFRSs for the asset or liability when determining whether to recognise those amounts. The boards concluded that if the relevant IFRS does not specify whether and, if so, where to recognise those amounts, the entity should recognise them in profit or loss. Although the IASB did not change the recognition threshold, it amended IAS 39 and IFRS 9 to clarify that the fair value of financial instruments at initial recognition should be measured in accordance with IFRS 13 and that any deferred amounts arising from the application of the recognition threshold in IAS 39 and IFRS 9 are separate from the fair value measurement. In other words, the recognition threshold in IAS 39 and IFRS 9 is not a constraint when measuring fair value. Rather, it determines whether (and when) the resulting difference (if any) between fair value at initial recognition and the transaction price is recognised.

BC137

BC138

Valuation techniques
BC139 When measuring fair value, the objective of using a valuation technique is to estimate the price at which an orderly transaction would take place between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions.

43

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC140

To meet that objective, the exposure draft proposed that valuation techniques used to measure fair value should be consistent with the market approach, income approach or cost approach. Such valuation techniques are consistent with those already described in IFRSs and with valuation practice. Respondents generally agreed with the descriptions of the three valuation techniques. Some respondents questioned whether a cost approach is consistent with an exit price definition of fair value because they think that the cost to replace an asset is more consistent with an entry price than an exit price. The IASB noted that an entitys cost to replace an asset would equal the amount that a market participant buyer of that asset (that would use it similarly) would pay to acquire it (ie the entry price and the exit price would be equal in the same market). Thus, the IASB concluded that the cost approach is consistent with an exit price definition of fair value.

BC141

Single versus multiple valuation techniques


BC142 IFRS 13 does not contain a hierarchy of valuation techniques because particular valuation techniques might be more appropriate in some circumstances than in others. The IASB concluded that determining the appropriateness of valuation techniques in the circumstances requires judgement and noted that Topic 820 and the fair value measurement guidance already in IFRSs do not contain a hierarchy of valuation techniques. For example, IAS 41 acknowledged that in some cases the various approaches used by an entity might suggest different fair value conclusions for a biological asset or agricultural produce, but that the entity should consider the reasons for the differences to arrive at a fair value within a reasonable range.

Valuation adjustments
BC143 Some respondents asked for more explicit requirements about applying valuation adjustments (including risk adjustments related to the uncertainty inherent in the inputs used in a fair value measurement; see paragraphs BC149 and BC150). They found the descriptions of valuation adjustments in the IASBs Fair Value Expert Advisory Panels October 2008 report Measuring and disclosing the fair value of financial instruments in markets that are no longer active helpful (see paragraph BC177). In addition, regulators asked the IASB to

IFRS Foundation

44

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

address measurement uncertainty to ensure that fair value measurements are not overstated or understated in the statement of financial position, thus improving the quality of information available to users of financial statements. BC144 Although the exposure draft was not explicit with respect to valuation adjustments, it stated that an entity must use the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique or in the inputs to the valuation technique. That implicitly included measurement uncertainty. The boards noted that entities found the IASBs Fair Value Expert Advisory Panels report helpful when measuring the fair value of financial instruments during a period of market inactivity. As a result, the boards decided to describe the valuation adjustments that entities might need to make when using a valuation technique because market participants would make those adjustments when pricing a financial asset or financial liability under the market conditions at the measurement date, including adjustments for measurement uncertainty. Those valuation adjustments include the following: (a) an adjustment to a valuation technique to take into account a characteristic of an asset or a liability that is not captured by the valuation technique (the need for such an adjustment is typically identified during calibration of the value calculated using the valuation technique with observable market information). applying the point within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances. an adjustment to take into account non-performance risk (eg an entitys own credit risk or the credit risk of the counterparty to a transaction). an adjustment to take into account measurement uncertainty (eg when there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity when compared with normal market activity for the asset or liability, or similar assets or liabilities, and the entity has determined that the transaction price or quoted price does not represent fair value).

BC145

(b) (c)

(d)

45

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC146

The boards decided that it would be appropriate to apply such valuation adjustments if those adjustments are consistent with the objective of a fair value measurement. Valuation adjustments may help avoid an understatement or overstatement of a fair value measurement and should be applied when a valuation technique or the inputs to a valuation technique do not capture factors that market participants would take into account when pricing an asset or a liability at the measurement date, including assumptions about risk.

Consistency constraint
BC147 IFRS 13 emphasises the need for consistency in the valuation technique or techniques used to measure fair value. It does not preclude a change in valuation technique, provided that the change results in a measurement that is equally or more representative of fair value in the circumstances. The exposure draft proposed requiring an entity to disclose the effect of a change in valuation technique on a fair value measurement (similar to the disclosures required by IAS 8 for a change in valuation technique). Respondents did not support that proposal because they thought it would be difficult to determine whether a change in fair value was attributable to a change in the valuation technique used or attributable to changes in other factors (such as changes in the observability of the inputs used in the measurement). The IASB agreed with those respondents and decided that in the absence of an error (eg in the selection or application of a particular valuation technique), revisions resulting from a change in the valuation technique or its application should be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate in accordance with IAS 8. The IASB concluded that disclosing the effect of a change in valuation technique on the fair value measurement or requiring the disclosures in IAS 8 for a change in accounting estimate would not be cost-beneficial.

BC148

Inputs to valuation techniques


Assumptions about risk
BC149 In IFRS 13 inputs refer broadly to the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk. The IASB decided that a necessary input to a valuation technique is an adjustment for risk because market participants would make such an adjustment when pricing an asset or a liability. Therefore, including an adjustment for risk ensures that the

IFRS Foundation

46

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

measurement reflects an exit price for the asset or liability, ie the price that would be received in an orderly transaction to sell an asset or paid in an orderly transaction to transfer the liability at the measurement date under current market conditions. BC150 The IASB accepted that it might be difficult for an entity to quantify a risk adjustment in some cases, but concluded that this difficulty does not justify the exclusion of this input if market participants would take it into account. The exposure draft focused on the need to adjust for the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique used to measure fair value, such as a pricing model (model risk) and the risk inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique (input risk). That proposal was consistent with US GAAP.

Observable and unobservable inputs


BC151 IFRS 13 distinguishes between observable inputs and unobservable inputs, and requires an entity to maximise the use of relevant observable inputs and minimise the use of unobservable inputs (consistently with the fair value measurement guidance that was already in IFRSs). Respondents to the exposure draft expressed concerns about being required to use observable inputs during the global financial crisis that started in 2007 when the available observable inputs were not representative of the asset or liability being measured at fair value. Given that feedback, the IASB wanted to ensure that observability was not the only criterion applied when selecting the inputs to a valuation technique. Consequently, IFRS 13 focuses on relevant observable inputs because the IASB noted that in some cases the available observable inputs will require an entity to make significant adjustments to them given the characteristics of the asset or liability and the circumstances at the measurement date (eg market conditions).

Application of premiums and discounts in a fair value measurement


BC152 The exposure draft proposed an amendment to IAS 39 making it explicit that the unit of account for a financial instrument is the individual financial instrument at all levels of the fair value hierarchy. That proposal in effect would have prohibited the application of premiums and discounts related to the size of an entitys holding in a

47

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

fair value measurement categorised within any level of the fair value hierarchy for financial instruments within the scope of IAS 39. The IASB proposed that amendment for the following reasons: (a) (b) The unit of account for a financial instrument should not depend on an instruments categorisation within the fair value hierarchy. Market participants will enter into a transaction to sell a financial instrument that maximises the fair value of an asset or minimises the fair value of a liability. An entitys decision to sell at a less advantageous price because it sells an entire holding rather than each instrument individually is a factor specific to that reporting entity.

BC153

Before the amendments to Topic 820, US GAAP generally prohibited any adjustment to a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability for a fair value measurement categorised within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy (including either a blockage factor, which was described as an adjustment to a quoted price for an asset or a liability when the normal daily trading volume for the asset or liability is not sufficient to absorb the quantity held and therefore placing orders to sell the asset or liability in a single transaction might affect the quoted price, or any other premium or discount). However, Topic 820 did not specify whether a blockage factor (or another premium or discount, such as a control premium or a non-controlling interest discount) should be applied in a fair value measurement categorised within Level 2 or Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy if market participants would take it into account when pricing the asset or liability. Respondents interpreted the proposal in the exposure draft as being consistent with Topic 820 for fair value measurements categorised within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy, but they thought it was inconsistent with Topic 820 for fair value measurements categorised within Level 2 and Level 3. For example, some respondents thought that the IASB intended to prohibit the application of any premiums or discounts (such as a control premium) for fair value measurements categorised within Level 2 and Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy even when market participants would take into account a premium or discount when pricing the asset or liability for a particular unit of account.

BC154

IFRS Foundation

48

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BC155

Some respondents supported the proposal for fair value measurements categorised within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy even though, in their view, entities do not typically exit a position on an individual instrument basis (eg by entering into a transaction to sell a single share of equity). Those respondents understood the boards concerns about verifiability within Level 1. Other respondents stated that the fair value measurement should reflect the fair value of the entitys holding, not of each individual instrument within that holding (ie they did not agree that the unit of account for a financial instrument should be a single instrument). Those respondents maintained that the principle should be that the unit of account reflects how market participants would enter into a transaction for the asset or liability. They asserted that market participants would not (and often cannot) sell individual items. The FASB received similar comments when developing SFAS 157. The boards concluded that such concerns were outside the scope of the fair value measurement project because the project addressed how to measure fair value and not what is measured at fair value. In addition, the comments received on the exposure draft indicated that respondents had different interpretations of the term blockage factor. Many respondents interpreted a blockage factor as any adjustment made because of the size of an asset or a liability. In the boards view, there is a difference between size being a characteristic of the asset or liability and size being a characteristic of the entitys holding. Accordingly, the boards clarified that a blockage factor encompasses the latter and is not relevant in a fair value measurement because a fair value measurement reflects the value of the asset or liability to a market participant for a particular unit of account and is not necessarily representative of the value of the entitys entire holding. Given the description of a blockage factor, the boards concluded that an entitys decision to realise a blockage factor is specific to that entity, not to the asset or liability. In many cases the unit of account for a financial instrument for financial reporting is the individual financial instrument. In such cases the size of an entitys holding is not relevant in a fair value measurement. An entity would realise a blockage factor when that entity decides to enter into a transaction to sell a block consisting of a large number of identical assets or liabilities. Therefore, blockage factors are conceptually similar to transaction costs in that they will differ depending on how an entity enters into a transaction for an asset or a liability. The boards concluded that if an

BC156

BC157

49

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

entity decides to enter into a transaction to sell a block, the consequences of that decision should be recognised when the decision is carried out regardless of the level of the fair value hierarchy in which the fair value measurement is categorised. BC158 Therefore, the boards decided to clarify that the application of premiums and discounts in a fair value measurement is related to the characteristics of the asset or liability being measured at fair value and its unit of account. IFRS 13 specifies that when a Level 1 input is not available, a fair value measurement should incorporate premiums or discounts if market participants would take them into account in a transaction for the asset or liability. Paragraph BC168 describes the IASBs rationale for requiring an entity to use Level 1 inputs without adjustment whenever available. However, the boards decided to clarify that the application of premiums or discounts must be consistent with the unit of account in the IFRS that requires or permits the fair value measurement. The boards decided not to provide detailed descriptions of premiums and discounts or to provide detailed guidance about their application in a fair value measurement. They reasoned that such descriptions and guidance would be too prescriptive because the application of premiums and discounts in a fair value measurement depends on the facts and circumstances at the measurement date. In the boards view, different facts and circumstances might lead to particular premiums or discounts being relevant for some assets and liabilities but not for others (eg in different jurisdictions). Furthermore, the boards did not intend to preclude the use of particular premiums or discounts, except for blockage factors.

BC159

Inputs based on bid and ask prices


BC160 In some situations, inputs might be determined on the basis of bid and ask prices, eg an input from a dealer market, in which the bid price represents the price the dealer is willing to pay and the ask price represents the price at which the dealer is willing to sell. IAS 39 required the use of bid prices for asset positions and ask prices for liability positions. IAS 36 and IAS 38 Intangible Assets had similar requirements. The exposure draft proposed that a fair value measurement should use the price within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances. Furthermore, the exposure draft stated that the bid-ask spread guidance applied at all levels of the fair value

BC161

IFRS Foundation

50

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

hierarchy, when bid and ask prices are relevant (see paragraph BC165), and did not preclude the use of mid-market pricing or other pricing conventions that are used by market participants as a practical expedient. BC162 Many respondents supported the proposal because in their experience different market participants enter into transactions at different prices within a bid-ask spread. Some respondents preferred a single bid-ask spread pricing method, as described in IAS 39, because it would maximise the consistency and comparability of fair value measurements using bid and ask prices. The IASB observed that, in many situations, bid and ask prices establish the boundaries within which market participants would negotiate the price in the exchange for the asset or liability. Having clarified the fair value measurement objective, the IASB concluded that an entity should use judgement in meeting that objective. Accordingly, IFRS 13 states that a fair value measurement should use the price within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances, and that the use of bid prices for asset positions and ask prices for liability positions is permitted but is not required. IAS 39 stated that the bid-ask spread includes only transaction costs. In IAS 39 other adjustments to arrive at fair value (eg for counterparty credit risk) were not included in the term bid-ask spread. Some respondents asked whether the proposed bid-ask guidance reflected that view. Although the boards decided not to specify what, if anything, is in a bid-ask spread besides transaction costs, in the boards view the bid-ask spread does not include adjustments for counterparty credit risk (see paragraphs BC124BC127 for a discussion on adjustments for counterparty credit risk when measuring fair value). Therefore, an entity will need to make an assessment of what is in the bid-ask spread for an asset or a liability when determining the point within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances. Some respondents noted that there could be a difference between entry prices and exit prices when entities enter into transactions at different points within the bid-ask spread. For example, an entity might buy an asset at the ask price (entry price) and measure fair value using the bid price (exit price). The boards concluded that bid-ask spreads are only relevant for financial instruments and in markets in which an intermediary (eg a broker) is necessary to bring together a buyer and a seller to engage in a transaction (ie when the buyer and

BC163

BC164

BC165

51

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

seller need an intermediary to find one another). When measuring the fair value of a non-financial asset or non-financial liability, the notion of a bid-ask spread will not be relevant because the buyers and sellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market have already found one another and are assumed to have negotiated the transaction price (ie fair value).

Fair value hierarchy


BC166 IFRS 13 uses a three-level fair value hierarchy, as follows: (a) (b) (c) Level 1 comprises unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities. Level 2 comprises other observable inputs not included within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. Level 3 comprises unobservable inputs (including the entitys own data, which are adjusted if necessary to reflect the assumptions market participants would use in the circumstances).

BC167

The IASB noted that many IFRSs already contained an implicit fair value hierarchy by referring to observable market transactions or measuring fair value using a valuation technique. For example, the following three-level measurement hierarchy was implicit in IAS 39 and IFRS 9: (a) (b) financial instruments quoted in an active market; financial instruments whose fair value is evidenced by comparison with other observable current market transactions in the same instrument (ie without modification or repackaging) or based on a valuation technique whose variables include only data from observable markets; and financial instruments whose fair value is determined in whole or in part using a valuation technique based on assumptions that are not supported by prices from observable current market transactions in the same instrument (ie without modification or repackaging) and not based on available observable market data.

(c)

IFRS Foundation

52

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Level 1 inputs
BC168 Level 1 inputs are unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities. The IASB concluded that those prices generally provide the most reliable evidence of fair value and should be used to measure fair value whenever available. IFRS 13 defines an active market as a market in which transactions for the asset or liability take place with sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. The IASB concluded that although different words are used, that definition is consistent with the definitions of an active market already in IFRSs: (a) IASs 36, 38 and 41 stated that an active market is one in which (i) the items traded in the market are homogeneous; (ii) willing buyers and sellers can normally be found at any time; and (iii) prices are available to the public. IAS 39 and IFRS 9 stated that an active market is one in which quoted prices are readily and regularly available from an exchange, dealer, broker, industry group, pricing service or regulatory agency, and those prices represent actual and regularly occurring market transactions on an arms length basis.

BC169

(b)

BC170

IFRS 13 states that when an entity holds a large number of similar assets and liabilities that are required to be measured at fair value and a quoted price in an active market is not readily accessible for each of those assets and liabilities, the entity can use an alternative pricing method that does not rely exclusively on quoted prices as a practical expedient (although the resulting fair value measurement is a lower level measurement). For example, an entity might hold a large number of similar debt instruments (such as sovereign debt securities) and use matrix pricing, which does not rely exclusively on quoted prices, to measure the fair value of those instruments. In such a situation, although a Level 1 input is used to measure fair value, the fair value measurement would not be categorised within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. That is a departure from the principle that a fair value measurement should maximise the use of relevant observable inputs. However, the IASB regards this particular practical expedient as justified on cost-benefit grounds.

53

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

Level 2 inputs
BC171 Level 2 inputs are all inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are observable (either directly or indirectly) for the asset or liability. The IASB concluded that it is appropriate to include in Level 2 market-corroborated inputs that might not be directly observable, but are based on or supported by observable market data, because such inputs are less subjective than unobservable inputs classified within Level 3.

Level 3 inputs
BC172 BC173 Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability. Some respondents stated that it would be misleading to describe a measurement using significant unobservable inputs as a fair value measurement. They also expressed concerns that unobservable inputs may include entity-specific factors that market participants would not consider. Therefore, they suggested that the IASB should use a different label for measurements that use significant unobservable inputs. However, the IASB concluded that it would be more helpful to users of financial statements to use the label fair value for all three levels of the hierarchy described in the exposure draft, for the following reasons: (a) The proposed definition of fair value identifies a clear objective for valuation techniques and the inputs to them: consider all factors that market participants would consider and exclude all factors that market participants would exclude. An alternative label for Level 3 measurements would be unlikely to identify such a clear objective. The distinction between Levels 2 and 3 is inevitably subjective. It is undesirable to adopt different measurement objectives on either side of such a subjective boundary.

(b)

Rather than requiring a different label for measurements derived using significant unobservable inputs, the IASB concluded that concerns about the subjectivity of those measurements are best addressed by requiring enhanced disclosure for those measurements (see paragraphs BC187BC210).

IFRS Foundation

54

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BC174

The IASB accepts that the starting point for Level 3 inputs might be estimates developed by the entity. However, the entity must adjust those inputs if reasonably available information indicates that other market participants would use different data when pricing the asset or liability or there is something particular to the entity that is not available to other market participants (eg an entity-specific synergy). Some respondents expressed concerns that an entity would be compelled by its auditors or regulators to undertake exhaustive efforts to obtain information about the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability. Furthermore, they were concerned that their judgement would be questioned when asserting the absence of contrary data. IFRS 13 states that such exhaustive efforts would not be necessary. However, when information about market participant assumptions is reasonably available, an entity cannot ignore it.

BC175

Measuring fair value when the volume or level of activity for an asset or a liability has significantly decreased
BC176 The global financial crisis that started in 2007 emphasised the importance of having common fair value measurement requirements in IFRSs and US GAAP, particularly for measuring fair value when the market activity for an asset or a liability declines. As a result, and consistently with the recommendations of the Group of Twenty (G20) Leaders, the Financial Stability Board and the IASBs and FASBs Financial Crisis Advisory Group, the IASB and the FASB worked together to develop common requirements for measuring the fair value of assets and liabilities when markets are no longer active. In May 2008 the IASB set up a Fair Value Expert Advisory Panel in response to recommendations made by the Financial Stability Forum (now the Financial Stability Board) to address the measurement and disclosure of financial instruments when markets are no longer active. The Panels discussions were observed by FASB staff. In October 2008 the IASB staff published a staff report on the Panels discussions. Also in response to the global financial crisis, in April 2009 the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) No. FAS 157-4 Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly. That FSP was codified in Topic 820 and provides guidance for: (a) measuring fair value when the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability has significantly decreased; and

BC177

BC178

55

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

(b) BC179

identifying circumstances that indicate a transaction is not orderly.

IASB published a Request for Views that asked respondents whether they believed that the guidance in that FSP was consistent with the Panels report. The IASB also asked members of the Fair Value Expert Advisory Panel the same question. The IASB received 69 responses to the Request for Views. The respondents to the Request for Views and the members of the Fair Value Expert Advisory Panel indicated that the FSP was consistent with the Panels report. As a result, the IASB included the guidance from FSP FAS 157-4 in the exposure draft. Respondents to the exposure draft generally agreed with the proposed guidance and found it consistent with the concepts in the IASBs Fair Value Expert Advisory Panels report and in US GAAP. However, some respondents noted that the words used in the exposure draft were different from those used in US GAAP and wondered whether the requirements were meant to be different. The boards acknowledged those concerns and decided to align the wording. In addition, the boards decided to clarify that the requirements pertain to when there has been a significant decline in the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability, not to assets and liabilities for which there is typically no observable market. Furthermore, the boards concluded that when applying IFRS 13 and Topic 820 an entity should focus on whether an observed transaction price is the result of an orderly transaction, not only on the level of activity in a market, because even in a market with little activity, transactions can be orderly. Accordingly, the boards concluded that an entity should consider observable transaction prices unless there is evidence that the transaction is not orderly. If an entity does not have sufficient information to determine whether a transaction is orderly, it performs further analysis to measure fair value. Also as a result of the global financial crisis, there was a particularly urgent need to improve transparency of fair value measurements for financial instruments. To address that need, the IASB amended IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures in March 2009. The amended disclosures about fair value measurements have been relocated to IFRS 13.

BC180

BC181

BC182

IFRS Foundation

56

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Disclosure
BC183 The disclosures about fair value measurements in IFRSs vary, although many require, at a minimum, information about the methods and significant assumptions used in the measurement, and whether fair value was measured using observable prices from recent market transactions for the same or a similar asset or liability. The IASB decided that having established a framework for measuring fair value, it should also enhance and harmonise the disclosures about fair value measurements. The IASB decided to limit the disclosures to fair values measured in the statement of financial position after initial recognition, whether those measurements are made on a recurring or non-recurring basis, because other IFRSs address the disclosure of fair values at initial recognition (eg IFRS 3 requires disclosure of the measurement of assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination). The objective of the disclosures in IFRS 13 is to provide users of financial statements with information about the valuation techniques and inputs used to develop fair value measurements and how fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs affected profit or loss or other comprehensive income for the period. To meet those objectives, the disclosure framework (a) combines the disclosures currently required by IFRSs and US GAAP and (b) provides additional disclosures that users of financial statements suggested would be helpful in their analyses. In developing the disclosures, the IASB used information received from users and preparers of financial statements and the IASBs Fair Value Expert Advisory Panel.

BC184

BC185

Distinguishing between recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements


BC186 The disclosures in US GAAP differentiate fair value measurements that are recurring from those that are non-recurring. The exposure draft did not propose differentiating recurring from non-recurring fair value measurements and required the same information about all fair value measurements. However, users of financial statements asked the IASB to include the same principles for disclosing information about fair value measurements in IFRSs that are in US GAAP. As a result, the boards decided to differentiate the two types of fair value measurements and to describe their differences.

57

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

Information about fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy
BC187 The boards received requests from users of financial statements for more information about fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. The following sections describe the boards response to those requests.

Quantitative information
BC188 The exposure draft proposed requiring an entity to disclose the methods and inputs used in a fair value measurement, including the information used to develop those inputs. That proposal was developed using feedback from users of financial statements and the IASBs Fair Value Expert Advisory Panel. Although the proposal was not explicit, the IASB intended that the information about the inputs used in the measurement would be quantitative. Before the amendments to Topic 820, US GAAP required an entity to provide a description of the inputs used when measuring the fair value of an asset or a liability that is categorised within Level 2 or Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Topic 820 was not explicit about whether that description needed to include quantitative information. Users of financial statements asked the boards to clarify that entities must provide quantitative information about the inputs used in a fair value measurement, particularly information about unobservable inputs used in a measurement categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. When limited or no information is publicly available, disclosures about such information help users to understand the measurement uncertainty inherent in the fair value measurement. Therefore, the boards decided to clarify that an entity should disclose quantitative information about the significant unobservable inputs used in a fair value measurement categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Some respondents to the FASBs proposed ASU questioned the usefulness of quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in a fair value measurement because of the level of aggregation required in those disclosures. The boards noted that the objective of the disclosure is not to enable users of financial statements to replicate the entitys pricing models, but to provide enough information for users to assess whether the entitys views about individual inputs differed from their own and, if so, to decide how to incorporate the

BC189

BC190

BC191

BC192

IFRS Foundation

58

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

entitys fair value measurement in their decisions. The boards concluded that the information required by the disclosure will facilitate comparison of the inputs used over time, providing users with information about changes in managements views about particular unobservable inputs and about changes in the market for the assets and liabilities within a particular class. In addition, that disclosure might facilitate comparison between entities with similar assets and liabilities categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. BC193 IFRS 13 and Topic 820 state that an entity should determine appropriate classes of assets and liabilities on the basis of the nature, characteristics and risks of the assets and liabilities, noting that further disaggregation might be required for fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Consequently, the boards concluded that the meaningfulness of the disclosure of quantitative information used in Level 3 fair value measurements will depend on an entitys determination of its asset and liability classes. Some respondents to the IASBs re-exposure document and the FASBs proposed ASU suggested requiring quantitative information about the unobservable inputs used in fair value measurements categorised within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy because determining whether to categorise fair value measurements within Level 2 or Level 3 can be subjective. The boards concluded that for a fair value measurement to be categorised within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, the unobservable inputs used, if any, must not be significant to the measurement in its entirety. As a result, the boards decided that quantitative information about unobservable inputs would be of limited use for those measurements. In addition, the boards understand that fair value is sometimes measured on the basis of prices in prior transactions (eg adjustments to the last round of financing for a venture capital investment) or third-party pricing information (eg broker quotes). Such measurements might be categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, the boards concluded that an entity should be required to disclose how it has measured the fair value of the asset or liability, but that it should not need to create quantitative information (eg an implied market multiple or future cash flows) to comply with the disclosure requirement if quantitative information other than the prior transaction price or third-party pricing information is not used when measuring fair value. However, the boards concluded that when using a prior transaction price or third-party pricing information, an

BC194

BC195

59

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

entity cannot ignore other quantitative information that is reasonably available. If there was an adjustment to the price in a prior transaction or third-party pricing information that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety, that adjustment would be an unobservable input about which the entity would disclose quantitative information even if the entity does not disclose the unobservable information used when pricing the prior transaction or developing the third-party pricing information.

Level 3 reconciliation for recurring fair value measurements


BC196 The exposure draft proposed requiring an entity to provide a reconciliation from the opening balances to the closing balances of fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. IFRS 7 required such a disclosure for financial instruments after it was amended in March 2009 to introduce a three-level fair value hierarchy, and to require more detailed information about fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. In addition, many IFRSs already required a similar reconciliation for all fair value measurements, not only for those that are categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Some respondents agreed with the proposed reconciliation disclosure because they thought it would help meet the objective to provide meaningful information to users of financial statements about the relative subjectivity of fair value measurements. Other respondents thought that the disclosure requirement would be onerous and did not believe that the benefits would outweigh the costs, particularly for non-financial assets and liabilities. The IASB received similar feedback on the proposed amendments to IFRS 7. However, users of financial statements told the IASB that the disclosures made in accordance with US GAAP and IFRS 7 were helpful, particularly in the light of the global financial crisis that started in 2007. They indicated that the disclosures allowed them to make more informed judgements and to segregate the effects of fair value measurements that are inherently subjective, thereby enhancing their ability to assess the quality of an entitys reported earnings. Consequently, the IASB decided to require an entity to provide such a reconciliation. The exposure draft and IFRS 7 did not distinguish between realised and unrealised gains or losses. That was because those documents referred to gains or losses attributable to assets and liabilities held at the end of the reporting period, which the IASB meant to be equivalent to unrealised gains or losses (ie realised gains or losses result from the sale, disposal

BC197

BC198

IFRS Foundation

60

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

or settlement of an asset or a liability, and therefore the asset or liability is no longer held by the entity at the reporting date, whereas unrealised gains or losses relate to changes in the fair value of an asset or a liability that is held by the entity at the reporting date). Respondents to the exposure draft wondered whether the different terminology used in the exposure draft and in Topic 820 meant that the disclosure proposed for IFRSs would be different from the disclosure required by US GAAP. To ensure that there would be no differences in interpretation of the requirements in IFRSs and US GAAP, the IASB decided to use the terms realised and unrealised in the reconciliation disclosure. BC199 The IASB concluded that the disclosure should focus on recurring fair value measurements because it would be difficult to reconcile the opening balances to the closing balances for non-recurring fair value measurements when the carrying amount of an asset or a liability is not determined on the basis of fair value at each reporting period. For example, it would be difficult to reconcile changes in fair value when an asset held for sale is recognised at its carrying amount in accordance with IFRS 5 in one period and at fair value less costs to sell in the next period. The information gained from requiring a reconciliation of changes in fair value from one period to the next is not available when requiring changes resulting from the use of different measurement bases from one period to the next.

Valuation processes
BC200 The boards decided to require an entity to disclose the valuation processes used for fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy (including, for example, how an entity decides its valuation policies and procedures and analyses changes in fair value measurements from period to period). They made that decision because users of financial statements told the boards that information about an entitys valuation processes helps them assess the relative subjectivity of the entitys fair value measurements, particularly for those categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. In addition, the requirements in IFRS 13 are consistent with the conclusions of the IASBs Fair Value Expert Advisory Panel as described in its report in October 2008.

BC201

61

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

Sensitivity to changes in unobservable inputs


BC202 The exposure draft proposed requiring a quantitative sensitivity analysis for fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. That proposal was taken from the requirement in IFRS 7 to disclose a sensitivity analysis if changing any of the unobservable inputs used in the measurement to reasonably possible alternative assumptions would change the fair value significantly. Although in IFRS 7 that disclosure was required for financial assets and financial liabilities measured at fair value, under the proposal it would have been required for all assets and liabilities measured at fair value. In August 2009 the FASB proposed a similar disclosure requirement in its proposed ASU Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820): Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements, although that proposal would have required an entity to take into account the effect of interrelationships between inputs. Very few respondents to that proposed ASU supported the proposed disclosure, stating that it would not provide useful information and would be costly and operationally challenging. However, users were supportive of the proposed disclosure. The FASB decided to defer the consideration of a sensitivity analysis disclosure requirement to the joint fair value measurement project. In the boards discussions about that sensitivity analysis disclosure, they considered whether the IASBs proposed disclosure and that in IFRS 7 would be improved if the boards required an entity to include the effect of interrelationships between unobservable inputs, thereby showing a range of fair values (exit prices) that reasonably could have been measured in the circumstances as of the measurement date. Because that refinement of the disclosure was not included in the IASBs May 2009 exposure draft and was not required by IFRS 7, the IASB needed to expose the proposal to require the sensitivity analysis including the effect of interrelationships between unobservable inputs. That disclosure was referred to in the IASBs re-exposure document and the FASBs proposed ASU in June 2010 as a measurement uncertainty analysis disclosure. Respondents to the FASBs proposed ASU and the IASBs re-exposure document were concerned about whether the proposal would be operational (those comments were consistent with those received on the FASBs proposed ASU in August 2009). Although that proposal was in response to requests from users of financial statements to require additional information about the measurement uncertainty inherent

BC203

BC204

BC205

IFRS Foundation

62

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

in fair value measurements (particularly those categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy), the responses from preparers of financial statements indicated that the costs associated with preparing such a disclosure would outweigh the benefits to users once the information had been aggregated by class of asset or liability. As an alternative to the proposal, those respondents suggested that the boards should require a qualitative assessment of the subjectivity of fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, as well as an alternative quantitative approach that would be less costly to prepare (see paragraphs BC188BC195). BC206 Therefore, the boards decided to require an entity to provide a narrative description, by class of asset or liability, of the sensitivity of a recurring fair value measurement categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy to changes in the unobservable inputs used in the measurement if a change in those inputs to a different amount would result in a significantly higher or lower fair value measurement. If there are interrelationships between those inputs and other unobservable inputs, the boards decided to require an entity to provide a description of those interrelationships and of how they might magnify or mitigate the effect of changes in the unobservable inputs on the fair value measurement. The boards concluded that such information would provide users of financial statements with information about how the selection of unobservable inputs affects the valuation of a particular class of assets or liabilities. The boards expect that the narrative description will focus on the unobservable inputs for which quantitative information is disclosed because those are the unobservable inputs that the entity has determined are most significant to the fair value measurement. They will continue to assess whether a quantitative measurement uncertainty analysis disclosure would be practical after issuing IFRS 13, with the aim of reaching a conclusion about whether to require such a disclosure at a later date. The boards concluded that a narrative description about sensitivity provides users of financial statements with information about the directional effect of a change in a significant unobservable input on a fair value measurement. That disclosure, coupled with quantitative information about the inputs used in fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, provides information for users to assess whether the entitys views about individual inputs differed from their own and, if so, to decide how to incorporate the entitys fair value measurement in their decisions.

BC207

63

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

In addition, that disclosure provides information about the pricing model for those users who are not familiar with the valuation of a particular class of assets or liabilities (eg complex financial instruments). BC208 In addition to the narrative sensitivity analysis disclosure, IFRS 13 requires a quantitative sensitivity analysis for financial instruments that are measured at fair value and categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy (ie the disclosure that was previously in IFRS 7). The IASB decided to move that requirement from IFRS 7 to IFRS 13 so that all the fair value measurement disclosure requirements in IFRSs are in a single location. When developing IFRS 7, the IASB concluded that information about the sensitivities of fair value measurements to the main valuation assumptions would provide users of financial statements with a sense of the potential variability of the measurement. In forming that conclusion, the IASB considered the view that disclosure of sensitivities could be difficult, particularly when there are many assumptions to which the disclosure would apply and those assumptions are interdependent. However, the IASB noted that a detailed quantitative disclosure of sensitivity to all assumptions is not required (only those that could result in a significantly different estimate of fair value are required) and that the disclosure does not require the entity to reflect interdependencies between assumptions when making the disclosure. The boards concluded that the objective of the narrative and quantitative sensitivity analysis disclosures about fair value are different from the objectives of other disclosures that an entity may be required to make in IFRSs and US GAAP, such as the market risk sensitivity analysis disclosure required by IFRS 7 (see paragraph 40 of IFRS 7). The IASB concluded that even though there is some overlap in those disclosures, the objective of each disclosure is different: the market risk sensitivity analysis disclosure in IFRS 7 provides information about an entitys exposure to future changes in market risks (ie currency risk, interest rate risk and other price risk), whereas the fair value measurement disclosures provide information about the sensitivity of the fair value measurement at the measurement date to changes in unobservable inputs for those fair value measurements with the greatest level of subjectivity (ie fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy). In addition, the market risk sensitivity analysis disclosure in IFRS 7 relates only to financial instruments (as does the quantitative sensitivity analysis

BC209

IFRS Foundation

64

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

disclosure in IFRS 13), whereas the narrative sensitivity analysis disclosure in IFRS 13 relates to all assets and liabilities measured at fair value. BC210 The IASB identified the following differences between the market risk and fair value sensitivity analysis disclosures: (a) The market risk disclosure is not specific to financial instruments measured at fair value, but also relates to financial instruments measured at amortised cost. The market risk disclosure focuses on the effect on profit or loss and equity, not specifically on the change in value. The market risk disclosure focuses only on the entitys exposure to market risks (ie interest rate risk, currency risk or other price risk), whereas the fair value disclosures take into account the effect on a fair value measurement of changes in significant unobservable inputs. The market risk disclosure does not distinguish between observable and unobservable inputs (or level in the fair value hierarchy, ie Level 1, 2 or 3), whereas the fair value disclosures relate only to the unobservable inputs used in fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

(b) (c)

(d)

Transfers between Levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy


BC211 The exposure draft proposed requiring an entity to disclose the amounts of significant transfers into or out of Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy and the reasons for those transfers. That disclosure was also required in Topic 820. In their discussions, the boards decided instead to require a disclosure of any transfers into or out of Levels 1 and 2. Respondents to the FASBs proposed ASU generally did not support that proposal because it would require an entity to monitor all transfers on a daily basis, regardless of whether those transfers were significant. In addition, respondents were concerned about the accuracy of information about all transfers because there can be an unclear distinction between less active Level 1 fair value measurements and more active Level 2 fair value measurements.

65

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC212

The boards concluded that the objective of the disclosure is to provide information that will help users of financial statements assess changes in market and trading activity (the entitys or others) so that users can (a) incorporate into their analyses the entitys future liquidity risk and (b) analyse the entitys exposure to the relative subjectivity of its fair value measurements. In the boards view, the only way to provide that information, and to reduce the subjectivity involved in preparing the information, is to require information about all transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

When an entity uses a non-financial asset in a way that differs from its highest and best use
BC213 The boards decided to require an entity to disclose information about when it uses a non-financial asset in a way that differs from its highest and best use (when that asset is measured at fair value in the statement of financial position or when its fair value is disclosed). The boards concluded that such a disclosure provides useful information for users of financial statements that rely on fair value information when forecasting future cash flows, whether that fair value information is presented in the statement of financial position or is disclosed in the notes. Users told the boards that they would need to know how non-financial assets are being used and how that use fits with an entitys strategic and operating plans. The boards considered whether to limit the disclosure to some non-financial assets and not others. The boards concluded that because the measurement and disclosure requirements are principle-based, those requirements should not need to be amended in the future if the boards should decide to use fair value as the measurement basis for particular assets or liabilities. Therefore, the disclosure is required for any non-financial asset measured at fair value that an entity uses in a way that differs from its highest and best use.

BC214

The categorisation within the level of the fair value hierarchy for items that are not measured at fair value in the statement of financial position
BC215 IFRS 7 requires an entity to disclose the fair value of financial instruments even if they are not measured at fair value in the statement of financial position. An example is a financial instrument that is measured at amortised cost in the statement of financial position.

IFRS Foundation

66

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BC216

The boards decided to require an entity to disclose the level of the fair value hierarchy in which an asset or a liability (financial or non-financial) would be categorised if that asset or liability had been measured at fair value in the statement of financial position. The boards concluded that such a disclosure would provide meaningful information about the relative subjectivity of that fair value measurement. Respondents to the IASBs exposure draft and the FASBs proposed ASU were concerned about the cost associated with preparing that disclosure because it is not always clear in which level a fair value measurement would be categorised. The boards concluded that even if determining the level in which to categorise a fair value measurement requires judgement, the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. Therefore, the boards decided to require an entity to disclose the level of the fair value hierarchy in which an asset or a liability would be categorised if that asset or liability had been measured at fair value in the statement of financial position.

BC217

Assets with a recoverable amount that is fair value less costs of disposal
BC218 Because IAS 36 requires disclosures that are specific to impaired assets, the exposure draft did not propose requiring the disclosures about fair value measurements for assets with a recoverable amount that is fair value less costs of disposal in IAS 36. Some respondents (mainly users of financial statements) noted that the disclosures about impaired assets are different in IFRSs and in US GAAP (which requires assets to be tested for impairment by comparing their carrying amounts with their fair values) and asked the IASB to minimise those differences to ensure that users have access to similar information for their analyses of impaired assets. The IASB noted that the disclosure requirements in IAS 36 were developed specifically to ensure consistency in the disclosure of information about impaired assets so that the same type of information is provided whether the recoverable amount was determined on the basis of value in use or fair value less costs of disposal. Consequently, the IASB did not think it would be appropriate to require an entity to provide information when the recoverable amount is determined on the basis of fair value less costs of disposal (ie as required by IFRS 13) that is significantly different from what the entity would provide when the recoverable amount is determined on the basis of value in use.

BC219

67

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC220

Although IFRSs and US GAAP have different impairment models, the IASB concluded that requiring the following information (in addition to what IAS 36 currently requires) about impaired assets measured at fair value less costs of disposal would improve comparability between entities applying IFRSs and those applying US GAAP as well as increase the convergence of IFRSs and US GAAP: (a) (b) (c) (d) the fair value less costs of disposal; the level of the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value less costs of disposal is categorised in its entirety (Level 1, 2 or 3); if applicable, changes to valuation techniques and reasons for those changes; and quantitative information about significant inputs used when measuring fair value less costs of disposal (along with a conforming amendment to the disclosures about value in use).

BC221

In addition, those disclosures are consistent with the disclosures required for non-recurring fair value measurements in IFRS 13 and in US GAAP.

Interim financial reporting


BC222 For financial instruments, the exposure draft proposed that particular fair value disclosures required in annual financial statements would also be required for interim financial reports. That differed from the approach proposed for non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, for which there is no specific fair value disclosure requirement beyond the existing requirements in IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting. Respondents generally thought that the principle underlying IAS 34 addresses when disclosures should be updated in interim financial reports. Some respondents thought the costs of providing updated information outweighed the benefits to users of financial statements of having that information. The IASB decided to include in IAS 34 an explicit requirement to provide updated disclosures because it concluded that the benefit of having incremental disclosures for financial instruments outweighed the associated costs given the increased interest in those instruments during the global financial crisis that started in 2007.

BC223

BC224

IFRS Foundation

68

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Effective date and transition


BC225 When deciding the effective date for IFRS 13, the IASB considered the comments received on the Request for Views Effective Date and Transition Methods. Many respondents said that the effective date should allow enough time for them to put the necessary systems in place to ensure that their accounting policies and models meet the requirements of IFRS 13. Some of those respondents, particularly those with many assets and liabilities measured at fair value, requested a later effective date. Other respondents requested an earlier effective date, mainly for comparability reasons and because in their view many entities might have inadvertently already started applying the revised concepts. The IASB concluded that although IFRS 13 is a major new standard, it does not require any new fair value measurements and it does not fundamentally change many of the requirements for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about those measurements. The IASB concluded that in many respects, IFRS 13 uses different words to articulate the concepts already present in IFRSs. However, the IASB also considered the time that a particular country might require for translation and for introducing the mandatory requirements into law. Consequently, the IASB decided that IFRS 13 should be effective for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2013. Because IFRS 13 applies when other IFRSs require or permit fair value measurements (and does not introduce any new fair value measurements), the IASB believes that the extended transition period for IFRS 13 provides enough time for entities, their auditors and users of financial statements to prepare for implementation of its requirements. The IASB decided to permit early application of IFRS 13 because that would allow entities to apply the measurement and disclosure requirements as soon as practicable, thereby improving comparability in measurement and transparency in disclosures. That would also improve comparability with entities applying US GAAP. The exposure draft proposed prospective application because the IASB concluded that a change in the methods used to measure fair value would be inseparable from a change in the fair value measurements (ie as new events occur or as new information is obtained, eg through better insight or improved judgement). Respondents to the exposure draft and the Request for Views supported that proposal. Therefore, the IASB concluded that IFRS 13 should be applied prospectively (in the same way as a change in accounting estimate).

BC226

BC227

BC228

BC229

69

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BC230

To achieve comparability in future periods, the IASB decided to require the disclosures in IFRS 13 for the first interim period in which the IFRS is initially applied. However, those disclosures need not be presented in periods before initial application of the IFRS because it would be difficult to apply some of the requirements in IFRS 13 without the use of hindsight in selecting the inputs that would have been appropriate in prior periods.

Application in emerging and transition economies


BC231 During the development of IFRS 13, the IASB received information from entities in emerging and transition economies that had concerns about applying the fair value measurement principles in IFRS 13 in their jurisdictions. Common concerns included the following: (a) (b) The fair value measurement guidance is not detailed enough to allow them to measure fair value on a consistent basis. There is limited availability of practitioners in their jurisdictions who have the skills to apply the guidance (and as a result entities might be unfamiliar with applying the necessary judgements). There is limited access to market data to develop fair value measurements because there are few deep and liquid markets, there are often few willing buyers and sellers and prices often fluctuate considerably within short periods of time. Models, inputs and assumptions may be new and may not be comparable across entities because of rapidly developing socio-economic changes. Measuring fair value (and preparing the resulting disclosures) could be expensive.

(c)

(d)

(e) BC232

The IASB noted that because fair value is used in many IFRSs, knowledge about its application is necessary for applying IFRSs generally and noted that the concerns raised are not specific to entities in emerging and transition economies. Entities in developed economies faced similar challenges during the global financial crisis that started in 2007 and asked the IASB for guidance for measuring the fair value of equity instruments without active markets given the requirement to recognise them at fair value in IFRS 9. Furthermore, the IASB concluded that there should not be a different threshold for measuring fair value depending on jurisdiction. Only by performing fair value measurements will entities applying IFRSs learn how to do those measurements appropriately and robustly.

IFRS Foundation

70

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BC233

Therefore, the IASB concluded that entities applying IFRSs would benefit from educational material to accompany IFRS 13. The IFRS Foundation sometimes publishes educational material that is leveraged from the standard-setting process to reinforce the goal of promoting the adoption and consistent application of a single set of high quality international accounting standards. The IASB asked the staff to develop educational material on fair value measurement that describes at a high level the thought process for measuring assets, liabilities and an entitys own equity instruments at fair value consistent with the objective of a fair value measurement. The IASB concluded that any educational material developed must benefit all entities equally. Thus, the educational material cannot benefit entities in emerging and transition economies without being made available to entities in developed economies. The IASB staff and the FASB staff will liaise during the development of the educational material.

BC234

BC235

Convergence with US GAAP


BC236 As noted above, the fair value measurement project was a joint project with the FASB. The boards worked together to ensure that fair value has the same meaning in IFRSs and in US GAAP and that their respective fair value measurement and disclosure requirements are the same (except for minor differences in wording and style). The boards worked together to ensure that, to the extent possible, IFRS 13 and Topic 820 are identical. The following style differences remain: (a) There are differences in references to other IFRSs and US GAAP For example, regarding related party transactions, IFRS 13 refers to IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures and Topic 820 refers to Topic 850 Related Party Disclosures. There are differences in styleFor example, IFRS 13 refers to an entity and Topic 820 refers to a reporting entity. There are differences in spellingFor example, IFRS 13 refers to labour costs and Topic 820 refers to labor costs. There are differences in whether references are to a particular jurisdiction or are genericFor example, IFRS 13 refers to risk-free government securities and Topic 820 refers to US Treasury securities.

BC237

(b) (c) (d)

71

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

The boards concluded that those differences will not result in inconsistent interpretations in practice by entities applying IFRSs or US GAAP. BC238 In addition, IFRS 13 and Topic 820 have the following differences: (a) There are different accounting requirements in IFRSs and US GAAP for measuring the fair value of investments in investment companies. Topic 946 Financial ServicesInvestment Companies in US GAAP requires an investment company to recognise its underlying investments at fair value at each reporting period. Topic 820 provides a practical expedient that permits an entity with an investment in an investment company to use as a measure of fair value in specific circumstances the reported net asset value without adjustment. IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements requires an investment company to consolidate its controlled underlying investments. Because IFRSs do not have accounting requirements that are specific to investment companies, the IASB decided that it would be difficult to identify when such a practical expedient could be applied given the different practices for calculating net asset values in jurisdictions around the world. For example, investment companies may report in accordance with national GAAP, which may have recognition and measurement requirements that differ from those in IFRSs (ie the underlying investments might not be measured at fair value, or they might be measured at fair value in accordance with national GAAP, not IFRSs). The boards are reviewing the accounting for investment companies as part of a separate project. There are different requirements for measuring the fair value of a financial liability with a demand feature. In US GAAP, Topic 825 Financial Instruments and Topic 942 Financial Services Depository and Lending describe the fair value measurement of a deposit liability as the amount payable on demand at the reporting date. In IFRSs, IFRS 13 states that the fair value measurement of a financial liability with a demand feature (eg demand deposits) cannot be less than the present value of the amount payable on demand. That requirement in IFRS 13 was relocated unchanged from IAS 39 and IFRS 9 as a consequence of the IASBs fair value measurement project.

(b)

IFRS Foundation

72

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(c)

There are different disclosure requirements in IFRSs and US GAAP. For example: (i) Because IFRSs generally do not allow net presentation for derivatives, the amounts disclosed for fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy might differ. The boards are reviewing the presentation requirements for offsetting financial assets and financial liabilities in their joint project on the accounting for financial instruments. IFRSs require a quantitative sensitivity analysis for financial instruments that are measured at fair value and categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy (that disclosure was previously in IFRS 7). The boards will analyse the feasibility of incorporating information about interrelationships between unobservable inputs into a quantitative measurement uncertainty analysis disclosure. After completing that analysis, the boards will decide whether to require such a disclosure. Topic 820 has different disclosure requirements for non-public entities. The FASB concluded that some of the disclosures should not be required for non-public entities because of the characteristics of the users of the financial statements of those entities. The FASB considered the ability of those users to access information about the financial position of the entity and the relevance to those users of the information that would be provided by the requirements in the disclosure amendments. In contrast, the IASB recently completed a project on the accounting for small and medium-sized entities. As a result, the IFRS for Small and Medium-Sized Entities addresses the accounting for entities that do not have public accountability, and the disclosures about their fair value measurements.

(ii)

(iii)

Cost-benefit considerations
BC239 The objective of general purpose financial reporting is to provide financial information about the reporting entity that is useful to existing and potential investors, lenders and other creditors in making decisions about providing resources to the entity. To meet that objective, the IASB seeks to ensure that an IFRS will meet a significant

73

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

need and that the overall benefits of the resulting information justify the costs of providing it. Although the costs to implement a new standard might not be borne evenly, users of financial statements benefit from improvements in financial reporting, thereby facilitating the functioning of markets for capital and credit and the efficient allocation of resources in the economy. BC240 The evaluation of costs and benefits is necessarily subjective. In making its judgement, the IASB considers the following: (a) (b) (c) the costs incurred by preparers of financial statements; the costs incurred by users of financial statements when information is not available; the comparative advantage that preparers have in developing information, compared with the costs that users would incur to develop surrogate information; and the benefit of better economic decision-making as a result of improved financial reporting.

(d) BC241

IFRS 13 defines fair value, provides a framework for measuring fair value and requires disclosures about fair value measurements. A clear definition of fair value, together with a framework for measuring fair value that eliminates inconsistencies across IFRSs that have contributed to diversity in practice, should improve consistency in application, thereby enhancing the comparability of information reported in financial statements. The disclosures about fair value measurements would increase transparency and improve the quality of information provided to users of financial statements. In developing the disclosure requirements in IFRS 13, the IASB obtained input from users and preparers of financial statements and other interested parties to enable the IASB to assess whether the disclosures could be provided within reasonable cost-benefit constraints. Although the framework for measuring fair value builds on current practice and requirements, some methods in IFRS 13 may result in a change to practice for some entities. Furthermore, some entities will need to make systems and operational changes, thereby incurring incremental costs. Other entities also might incur incremental costs in applying the measurement and disclosure requirements. However, the IASB concluded that the benefits resulting from increased consistency in application of fair value measurement requirements and enhanced comparability of fair value information and improved communication

BC242

BC243

IFRS Foundation

74

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

of that information to users of financial statements will continue. On balance, the IASB concluded that improvements in financial reporting resulting from the application of the requirements in IFRS 13 will exceed the increased costs of applying the requirements.

Summary of main changes from the exposure draft


BC244 The main changes from the proposals in the exposure draft published in May 2009 are as follows: (a) IFRS 13 excludes from its scope share-based payment transactions in IFRS 2 and leasing transactions in IAS 17. The exposure draft proposed the following: (i) replacing the term fair value with another term that reflects the measurement objective for share-based payment transactions in IFRS 2 and for reacquired rights in a business combination in IFRS 3. excluding financial liabilities with a demand feature in IAS 39 from the scope of an IFRS on fair value measurement.

(ii)

The exposure draft did not propose excluding leasing transactions from the scope of an IFRS on fair value measurement. (b) IFRS 13 requires fair value to be measured using the price in the principal market for the asset or liability, or in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market for the asset or liability. The exposure draft proposed that fair value should be measured using the price in the most advantageous market. IFRS 13 states that market participants have a reasonable understanding about the asset or liability and the transaction using all available information, including information that might be obtained through due diligence efforts that are usual and customary. The exposure draft stated that market participants are presumed to be as knowledgeable as the entity about the asset or liability (ie there was no information asymmetry between market participants and the entity). IFRS 13 contains detailed guidance for measuring the fair value of liabilities, including the compensation market participants would require to assume the liability and how a third-party credit enhancement affects the fair value of a liability. The exposure draft provided high level guidance.

(c)

(d)

75

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

(e)

IFRS 13 contains detailed guidance for measuring the fair value of an entitys own equity instruments. That guidance is consistent with the guidance for measuring the fair value of a liability. The exposure draft proposed requiring an entity to measure the fair value of its own equity instruments by reference to the fair value of the instrument held by a market participant as an asset (ie the corresponding asset) without providing information about when the fair value of the equity instrument might differ from the fair value of the corresponding asset. IFRS 13 provides guidance for measuring the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities with offsetting positions in market risks or counterparty credit risk. The exposure draft proposed requiring financial assets to be measured using an in-exchange valuation premise. IFRS 13 states that classes of asset or liability for disclosure purposes should be determined on the basis of the nature, characteristics and risks of the asset or liability and the level of the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement is categorised. The exposure draft did not provide guidance for determining the appropriate class of asset or liability for disclosures about fair value measurements. IFRS 13 provides examples of policies for when to recognise transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy, such as the date of the transfer, the beginning of the reporting period or the end of the reporting period. IFRS 13 also states that the policy about the timing of recognising transfers must be the same for transfers into a level as that for transfers out of a level. The exposure draft did not provide guidance for determining when transfers are deemed to have occurred or propose to require an entity to disclose its policy for determining when transfers between levels are recognised. IFRS 13 requires a narrative discussion of the sensitivity of a fair value measurement categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy to changes in significant unobservable inputs and any interrelationships between those inputs that might magnify or mitigate the effect on the measurement. It also requires a quantitative sensitivity analysis for financial instruments categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy (that disclosure was relocated from IFRS 7). The exposure draft

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

IFRS Foundation

76

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

proposed a quantitative sensitivity analysis for assets and liabilities categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. The IASB re-exposed that proposal, including a requirement to take into account the interrelationships between unobservable inputs in the analysis (referred to as a measurement uncertainty analysis disclosure). Respondents were concerned about whether the proposal would be operational. The boards will continue to assess whether a quantitative measurement uncertainty analysis disclosure would be practical after the IFRS is issued, with the aim of reaching a conclusion about whether to require such a disclosure at a later date. (j) IFRS 13 requires an entity to disclose information about its valuation processes (eg valuation policies and procedures) for fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. The disclosure is similar to the description of valuation processes in the IASBs Fair Value Expert Advisory Panels October 2008 report. If the highest and best use of a non-financial asset differs from its current use, IFRS 13 requires an entity to disclose that fact and why the asset is being used in a manner that differs from its highest and best use. The exposure draft proposed requiring an entity to disclose the value of the asset assuming its current use, the amount by which the fair value of the asset differs from its fair value in its current use (ie the incremental value of the asset group) and the reasons the asset is being used in a manner that differs from its highest and best use.

(k)

77

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

Appendix Amendments to the Basis for Conclusions on other IFRSs


This appendix contains amendments to the Basis for Conclusions on other IFRSs that are necessary in order to ensure consistency with IFRS 13 and the related amendments to other IFRSs. Amended paragraphs are shown with new text underlined and deleted text struck through.

IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards


BCA1 In paragraph BC37(a) the first reference to fair value is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

IFRS 3 Business Combinations


BCA2 In paragraph BC197 the definition of fair value is footnoted as follows: * BCA3 IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

The heading above paragraph BC246 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value.

BCA4

Paragraph BC246 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, is the result of the IASBs and the FASBs joint project on fair value measurement. As a result, the definition of fair value in IFRSs is identical to the definition in US GAAP (Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification codified SFAS 157).

BCA5

Paragraph BC262 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, describes the concept of highest and best use and provides examples of its application in a business combination.

IFRS Foundation

78

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BCA6

In paragraph BC306 the definitions of fair value is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and describes the effect that transaction costs have on a fair value measurement.

BCA7

Paragraph BC336 is footnoted as follows: * The combination of IFRS 3 and IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, provides guidance for measuring the fair value of an acquirers interest in the acquiree (including mutual entities).

BCA8

In paragraph BC422 the second sentence is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, requires disclosures about fair value measurements after initial recognition. Although the disclosures required by IFRS 13 are not required for IFRS 3, the wording has been aligned.

IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts


BCA9 In paragraph BC6(c) the definition of fair value is footnoted as follows: * BCA10 IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

The footnote to paragraph BC7 is amended as follows: * The Board completed the second phase of its project on business combinations in 2008 by issuing a revised IFRS 3 Business Combinations and an amended version of IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements. IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA11

In paragraph BC153 how fair value should be defined and determined is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA12

Paragraph BC185(f) is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, states that the fair value of a liability reflects the effect of non-performance risk, which includes, but may not be limited to, an entitys own credit risk.

79

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BCA13

In paragraph BC225(a) how to determine fair value is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations


BCA14 In paragraph BC13 the footnote to IAS 41 Agriculture is amended as follows: * In Improvements to IFRSs issued in May 2008 the Board amended IAS 41: the term estimated point-of-sale costs was replaced by costs to sell. IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA15

Paragraph BC80(b) is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures


BCA16 The heading above paragraph BC36 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. As a consequence paragraphs 2727B of IFRS 7 have been deleted.

BCA17

In paragraph BC37 unquoted equity instruments is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IAS 39 and IFRS 9 refer to such equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

IFRS Foundation

80

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BCA18

In paragraph BC37 fair value cannot be measured reliably is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 9, issued in November 2009, amended the measurement requirements for investments in equity instruments.

BCA19

The first sentence of paragraph BC38 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, resulted in paragraph 27B(e) of IFRS 7 being deleted.

BCA20

Paragraph BC39A is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains a three-level fair value hierarchy for the inputs used in the valuation techniques used to measure fair value and for the related disclosures.

BCA21

Paragraph BC39B is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains a three-level fair value hierarchy for the inputs used in the valuation techniques used to measure fair value and for the related disclosures. That hierarchy is identical to the hierarchy in Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification, which codified SFAS 157.

BCA22

In paragraph BC39C IAS 39 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains a three-level fair value hierarchy for the inputs used in the valuation techniques used to measure fair value and for the related disclosures.

BCA23

Paragraph BC39D is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value. As a result paragraphs AG71AG73 and paragraph AG76A of IAS 39 have been deleted. In addition, the requirements in paragraph AG76A have been relocated to paragraph AG76(b).

BCA24

In paragraph BC39F the first sentence is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, requires disclosures about fair value measurements. As a consequence paragraphs 2727B of IFRS 7 have been deleted.

BCA25

Paragraph BC39G is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, resulted in paragraph 27 of IFRS 7 being deleted.

81

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (issued November 2009)


BCA26 In paragraph BC17 the fair value hierarchy is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. IFRS 13 contains a three-level fair value hierarchy for the inputs used in the valuation techniques used to measure fair value and for the related disclosures. As a consequence paragraph 27A of IFRS 7 has been deleted.

BCA27

In paragraph BC18 IFRS 7 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, requires disclosures about fair value measurements. As a consequence paragraph 27B(c) and (d) of IFRS 7 has been deleted.

BCA28

In the heading above paragraph BC75 and in paragraph BC79(b) unquoted equity instruments is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IFRS 9 refers to such equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

BCA29

In paragraph BC101 unquoted equity instrument is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IFRS 9 refers to such equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

BCA30

In the appendix of amendments to the Basis for Conclusions on other IFRSs, in paragraph BCA25 the amendment to paragraph BC29 of the Basis for Conclusions accompanying IFRIC 17 Distributions of Non-cash Assets to Owners is amended as follows: * IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, issued in November 2009, amended paragraphs AG80 and AG81 of IAS 39 so that they apply only to

IFRS Foundation

82

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

derivatives on unquoted equity instruments. IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains requirements for measuring fair value. IFRS 13 defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IAS 39 refers to such equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (issued October 2010)


BCA31 In paragraph BC4.10 the fair value hierarchy is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. IFRS 13 contains a three-level fair value hierarchy for the inputs used in valuation techniques to measure fair value and for the related disclosures. As a consequence paragraph 27A of IFRS 7 has been deleted.

BCA32

In paragraph BC4.11 IFRS 7 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, requires disclosures about fair value measurements. As a consequence paragraph 27B(c) and (d) of IFRS 7 has been deleted.

BCA33

In paragraph BC4.53 unquoted equity instruments is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IFRS 9 refers to such equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

BCA34

The heading above paragraph BCZ5.1 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value. As a consequence paragraphs 5.4.15.4.3 and B5.4.1B5.4.13 of IFRS 9 have been deleted.

83

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BCA35

In paragraph BCZ5.4 most advantageous active market is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, states that a fair value measurement assumes that the transaction to sell an asset or to transfer a liability takes place in the principal market, or in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market for the asset or liability.

BCA36

In paragraph BCZ5.5 the first sentence is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, states that fair value is measured using the price within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances.

BCA37

Paragraph BCZ5.6 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, permits an exception to the fair value measurement requirements when an entity manages its financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of the entitys net exposure to market risks or the credit risk of a particular counterparty, allowing the entity to measure the fair value of its financial instruments on the basis of the entitys net exposure to either of those risks.

BCA38

In paragraph BCZ5.9 fair value measurement hierarchy is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains a three-level fair value hierarchy for the inputs used in the valuation techniques used to measure fair value.

BCA39

In paragraph BCZ5.10 the best evidence of fair value is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, describes when a transaction price might not represent the fair value of an asset or a liability at initial recognition.

BCA40

Paragraph BCZ5.10 is footnoted as follows: * FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157) superseded EITF Issue No. 02-3 Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities (Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification codified SFAS 157). As a result, IFRSs and US GAAP have different requirements for when an entity may recognise a

IFRS Foundation

84

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

gain or loss when there is a difference between fair value and the transaction price at initial recognition. BCA41 The heading above paragraph BCZ5.11 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, resulted in the relocation of paragraphs BCZ5.11 and BCZ5.12 of IFRS 9 to paragraphs BCZ102 and BCZ103 of IFRS 13. As a consequence minor necessary edits have been made to that material.

BCA42 BCA43

Paragraphs BCZ5.11 and BCZ5.12 are deleted. In the heading above BC5.13 unquoted equity instruments is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IFRS 9 refers to such equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

BCA44

Paragraph BC5.17(a) is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA45

Paragraph BC5.17(b) is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IFRS 9 refers to such equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

BCA46

In paragraph BC5.20 unquoted equity instruments is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IFRS 9 refers to such equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

85

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BCA47

Paragraph BC5.34A is added as follows: BC5.34A IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, includes requirements for measuring the fair value of a liability issued with an inseparable third-party credit enhancement from the issuers perspective.

BCA48

In paragraph BC7.15 unquoted equity instrument is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IFRS 9 refers to such equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

BCA49

In the appendix of amendments to the Basis for Conclusions on other IFRSs, in paragraph BCA7 the amended paragraph BC39D of the Basis for Conclusions accompanying IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value. As a consequence paragraphs B5.4.3B5.4.5 of IFRS 9 have been deleted and paragraph B5.4.9 of IFRS 9 has been relocated to paragraphs B5.1.2A and B5.2.2A.

BCA50

In paragraph BCA20 the amended footnote to paragraph BCZ15(d) of the Basis for Conclusions accompanying IAS 36 is amended as follows: * The IASBs project to revise IAS 32 and IAS 39 in 2003 resulted in the relocation of the requirements on fair value measurement from IAS 32 to IAS 39. In November 2009 and October 2010 the IASB amended some of the requirements of IAS 39 and relocated them to IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. IFRS 9 applies to all items within the scope of IAS 39. In 2011 the IASBs project on fair value measurement resulted in the relocation of the requirements for measuring fair value to IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement.

BCA51

In paragraph BCA22 the amended footnote to paragraph BC12 of the Basis for Conclusions accompanying IAS 39 is amended as follows: * In November 2009 the Board amended the requirements of IAS 39 relating to classification and measurement of assets within the scope of IAS 39 and relocated them to IFRS 9 Financial

IFRS Foundation

86

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Instruments. In October 2010 the Board amended IFRS 9 to add the requirements for classifying and measuring financial liabilities and derecognising financial assets and financial liabilities. Those requirements were relocated from IAS 39. In 2011 the Boards project on fair value measurement resulted in the relocation of the requirements for measuring fair value to IFRS 13. BCA52 In paragraph BCA32 the footnote to AG81 in paragraph BC29 of the Basis for Conclusions accompanying IFRIC 17 is amended as follows: * IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, issued in November 2009, amended paragraphs AG80 and AG81 of IAS 39 so that they apply only to derivatives on unquoted equity instruments. IFRS 9, issued in October 2010, deleted paragraphs AG80 and AG81 of IAS 39. IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains requirements for measuring fair value. IFRS 13 defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IAS 39 and IFRS 9 refer to such equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements


BCA53 Paragraph BC83 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

IAS 19 Employee Benefits


BCA54 Paragraph BC3(i) is footnoted as follows: * BCA55 IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

In paragraph BC69 arms length transaction is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value, describes the effect transaction costs have on a fair value measurement and addresses the application of bid and ask prices when measuring fair value.

87

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

IAS 27 Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements


BCA56 In paragraph BC22 the first sentence is footnoted as follows: * BCA57 IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

In paragraph BC66 the first reference to fair value is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA58

In paragraph BC66B fair value less costs to sell is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

IAS 28 Investments in Associates


BCA59 In paragraph BC7 the first sentence is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

IAS 31 Interests in Joint Ventures


BCA60 The heading above paragraph BC7 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

IAS 36 Impairment of Assets


BCA61 At the end of the rubric above paragraph BC1 a paragraph is added as follows: In developing IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, the Board changed the definition of fair value less costs to sell. As a consequence all references to fair value less costs to sell in IAS 36 were replaced with fair value less costs of disposal. This Basis for Conclusions has not been amended to reflect that change.

IFRS Foundation

88

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BCA62

Paragraph BCZ10(b) is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value. As a result the term market value has been changed to fair value.

BCA63

In paragraph BCZ11(a) fair value is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA64

In paragraph BCZ14 fair value is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value as an exit price.

BCA65

In paragraph BCZ15 the first reference to fair value is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value. As a consequence the relevant requirements in IAS 16 and IAS 39 have been deleted from those Standards.

BCA66

In paragraph BCZ15(d) the footnote reference is amended as follows: * The IASBs project to revise IAS 32 and IAS 39 in 2003 resulted in the relocation of the requirements on fair value measurement from IAS 32 to IAS 39. In 2011 the IASBs project on fair value measurement resulted in the relocation of the requirements for measuring fair value to IFRS 13.

BCA67

In paragraph BCZ16 the first sentence is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, describes valuation techniques for measuring the fair value of an asset that is being used (and would not be sold) by an entity, eg a current replacement cost valuation technique.

BCA68

Paragraph BCZ19 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, describes the objective of a fair value measurement and the use of market participant assumptions.

BCA69

Paragraph BC58 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value. As a consequence paragraph 27 of IAS 36 has been deleted.

89

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BCA70

In paragraph BC68(b) fair value less costs to sell is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA71

In paragraph BC69 the Board observed that is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value. As a consequence paragraphs 2527 of IAS 36 have been deleted.

BCA72

Paragraph BCZ99 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA73

After paragraph BC209A a heading and paragraphs BC209BBC209D are added as follows:

Changes as a result of IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement


BC209B In developing IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, the Board was asked by users of financial statements to minimise the differences between the disclosures made about impaired assets in IFRSs and in US GAAP (which requires assets to be tested for impairment by comparing their carrying amount with their fair value). The Board noted that the disclosure requirements in IAS 36 were developed specifically to ensure consistency in the disclosure of information about impaired assets so that the same type of information is provided whether the recoverable amount was determined on the basis of value in use or fair value less costs of disposal. Consequently, the Board did not think it would be appropriate to require an entity to provide information when the recoverable amount is determined on the basis of fair value less costs of disposal (ie those required in IFRS 13) that is significantly different from what the entity would provide when the recoverable amount is determined on the basis of value in use. BC209C Although IFRSs and US GAAP have different impairment models, the Board concluded that requiring the following information (in addition to what IAS 36 currently requires) about impaired assets measured at fair value less costs of

IFRS Foundation

90

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

disposal would improve comparability between entities applying IFRSs and those applying US GAAP as well as increase the convergence of IFRSs and US GAAP: (a) (b) the fair value less costs of disposal; the level of the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value less costs of disposal is categorised in its entirety (Level 1, 2 or 3); if applicable, changes to valuation techniques and reasons for those changes; and quantitative information about significant inputs used when measuring fair value less costs of disposal (along with a conforming amendment to the disclosures about value in use).

(c) (d)

BC209D In addition, those disclosures are consistent with the disclosures required for non-recurring fair value measurements in IFRS 13 and in US GAAP.

IAS 38 Intangible Assets


BCA74 In paragraph BC17 the second sentence is footnoted as follows: * BCA75 IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

In paragraph BC19A the assets fair value is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA76

In paragraph BC19D fair value is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value. As a consequence paragraphs 40 and 41 of IAS 38 have been deleted.

BCA77

In paragraph BCZ38(c) the first reference to an active market is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines an active market.

BCA78

In paragraph BCZ44(b) exists for the asset is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines an active market.

91

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BCA79

In paragraph BC50(b) an active market is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines an active market.

BCA80

In paragraph BC57(b) an active market is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines an active market.

BCA81

Paragraph BC69(b) is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA82

In paragraph BC73(b) an active market is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines an active market.

BCA83

In paragraph BC83(b) an active market is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines an active market.

IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (as amended at October 2009)
BCA84 In paragraph BC89 the first reference to the fair value of a financial liability is footnoted as follows: * BCA85 IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

Paragraph BC91 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, describes the objective of a fair value measurement of a liability.

BCA86

Paragraph BC92A is added as follows: BC92A IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, includes requirements for measuring the fair value of a liability issued with an inseparable third-party credit enhancement from the issuers perspective.

BCA87

The heading above paragraph BC93 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, resulted in the relocation of paragraphs BC93 and BC94 of IAS 39 to paragraphs BCZ102 and BCZ103 of IFRS 13. As a consequence minor necessary edits have been made to that material.

BCA88

Paragraphs BC93 and BC94 are deleted.

IFRS Foundation

92

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

BCA89

The heading above paragraph BC95 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA90

In paragraph BC95 the first sentence is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value. As a consequence in Appendix A of IAS 39 paragraphs AG69AG75, AG76AAG79 and AG82 have been deleted and paragraphs AG76, AG80 and AG81 have been amended.

BCA91

In paragraph BC97 fair value as defined is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA92

In paragraph BC98 the most advantageous active market is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, states that a fair value measurement assumes that the transaction to sell an asset or to transfer a liability takes place in the principal market, or in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market for the asset or liability.

BCA93

In paragraph BC99 the first sentence is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, states that fair value is measured using the price within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances.

BCA94

Paragraph BC100 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, permits an exception to the fair value measurement requirements when an entity manages its financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of the entitys net exposure to market risks or the credit risk of a particular counterparty, allowing the entity to measure the fair value of its financial instruments on the basis of the entitys net exposure to either of those risks.

BCA95

In paragraph BC103 the fair value measurement hierarchy is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains a three-level fair value hierarchy for the inputs used in the valuation techniques used to measure fair value.

93

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BCA96

In paragraph BC104 the best evidence of fair value is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, describes when a transaction price might not represent the fair value of an asset or a liability at initial recognition.

BCA97

Paragraph BC104 is footnoted as follows: * FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157) superseded EITF Issue No. 02-3 Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts Held for Trading Purposes and Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities (Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification codified SFAS 157). As a result, IFRSs and US GAAP have different requirements for when an entity may recognise a gain or loss when there is a difference between fair value and the transaction price at initial recognition.

BCA98

In paragraph BC105 unquoted equity instruments is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IAS 39 refers to such equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

IAS 40 Investment Property


BCA99 Paragraph B36 is footnoted as follows: * BCA100 IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

The heading above paragraph B52 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA101

Paragraph B53 is footnoted as follows: * The requirements for measuring fair value in IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, differ in some respects from the guidance for

IFRS Foundation

94

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

measuring market value in accordance with IVS 1. deleted paragraphs 36, 37 and 4244 of IAS 40. BCA102 Paragraph B54 is footnoted as follows: *

IFRS 13

IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value. As a consequence paragraphs 38, 4547, 49 and 51 of IAS 40 have been deleted.

BCA103

Paragraph B60 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, discusses the measurement of fair value when the volume or level of activity for an asset has significantly decreased.

BCA104

In paragraph B67(a) the guidance on determining fair value was expanded, to clarify the following and in paragraph B67(f) new disclosure requirements include are footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. As a consequence paragraphs 37, 38, 4547, 49, 51 and 75(d) of IAS 40 have been deleted.

IAS 41 Agriculture
BCA105 In paragraph BC5 the first reference to fair value is footnoted as follows: * BCA106 IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

Paragraph BC6 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

BCA107

Paragraph BC8 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value. As a consequence, paragraph 21 of IAS 41 has been deleted.

BCA108

Paragraph B22 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, describes how transport costs are factored into a fair value measurement.

95

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONS MAY 2011

BCA109

The heading above paragraph B27 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines an active market and contains a three-level fair value hierarchy for the inputs used in the valuation techniques used to measure fair value.

BCA110

Paragraph B49 is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

IFRIC 14 IAS 19The Limit on a Defined Benefit Asset, Minimum Funding Requirements and their Interaction
BCA111 In paragraph BC16 measured on a present value basis is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value. IFRS 13 does not specify a particular valuation technique for measuring the fair value of plan assets.

IFRIC 17 Distributions of Non-cash Assets to Owners


BCA112 In paragraph BC28(a) a quoted market price in an active market is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value. IFRS 13 defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IAS 39 refers to unquoted equity instruments as an equity instrument that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

BCA113

In paragraph BC29 a quoted market price in an active market is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13, issued in May 2011, defines a Level 1 input as a quoted price in an active market for an identical asset or liability. Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in markets that are not active. As a result IAS 39 refers to unquoted equity instruments as an equity instrument

IFRS Foundation

96

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

that does not have a quoted price in an active market for an identical instrument (ie a Level 1 input).

SIC-31 RevenueBarter Transactions Involving Advertising Services


BCA114 In paragraph 8 the first sentence is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value.

SIC-32 Intangible AssetsWeb Site Costs


BCA115 In paragraph 18 the first reference to an active market is footnoted as follows: * IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement, issued in May 2011, defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value. IFRS 13 defines an active market.

97

IFRS Foundation

May 2011 Illustrative Examples International Financial Reporting Standard

IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement

IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement


Illustrative Examples

These illustrative examples accompany IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement (see separate booklet) and are published by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0)20 7246 6410 Fax: +44 (0)20 7246 6411 Email: iasb@ifrs.org Web: www.ifrs.org The IASB, the IFRS Foundation, the authors and the publishers do not accept responsibility for loss caused to any person who acts or refrains from acting in reliance on the material in this publication, whether such loss is caused by negligence or otherwise. Copyright 2011 IFRS Foundation IFRS 13 and its accompanying documents are published in three parts. ISBN for this part: 978-1-907877-24-7 ISBN for complete publication (three parts): 978-1-907877-21-6 International Financial Reporting Standards (including International Accounting Standards and SIC and IFRIC Interpretations), Exposure Drafts, and other IASB publications are copyright of the IFRS Foundation. The approved text of International Financial Reporting Standards and other IASB publications is that published by the IASB in the English language. Copies may be obtained from the IFRS Foundation. Please address publications and copyright matters to: IFRS Foundation Publications Department, 1st Floor, 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6XH, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0)20 7332 2730 Fax: +44 (0)20 7332 2749 Email: publications@ifrs.org Web: www.ifrs.org All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated, reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form either in whole or in part or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the IFRS Foundation.

The IFRS Foundation logo/the IASB logo/Hexagon Device, IFRS Foundation, eIFRS, IAS, IASB, IASC Foundation, IASCF, IFRS for SMEs, IASs, IFRIC, IFRS, IFRSs, International Accounting Standards, International Financial Reporting Standards and SIC are Trade Marks of the IFRS Foundation.

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

CONTENTS
paragraphs

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES


HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND VALUATION PREMISE Example 1Asset group Example 2Land Example 3Research and development project USE OF MULTIPLE VALUATION TECHNIQUES Example 4Machine held and used Example 5Software asset PRINCIPAL (OR MOST ADVANTAGEOUS) MARKET Example 6Level 1 principal (or most advantageous) market TRANSACTION PRICES AND FAIR VALUE AT INITIAL RECOGNITION Example 7Interest rate swap at initial recognition RESTRICTED ASSETS Example 8Restriction on the sale of an equity instrument Example 9Restrictions on the use of an asset MEASURING LIABILITIES Example 10Structured note Example 11Decommissioning liability Example 12Debt obligation: quoted price Example 13Debt obligation: present value technique MEASURING FAIR VALUE WHEN THE VOLUME OR LEVEL OF ACTIVITY FOR AN ASSET OR A LIABILITY HAS SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASED Example 14Estimating a market rate of return when the volume or level of activity for an asset has significantly decreased FAIR VALUE DISCLOSURES Example 15Assets measured at fair value Example 16Reconciliation of fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy Example 17Valuation techniques and inputs Example 18Valuation processes IE2IE9 IE3IE6 IE7IE8 IE9 IE10IE17 IE11IE14 IE15IE17 IE18IE22 IE19IE22 IE23IE26 IE24IE26 IE27IE29 IE28 IE29 IE30IE47 IE34 IE35IE39 IE40IE42 IE43IE47

IE48IE58 IE49IE58 IE59IE66 IE60 IE61IE62 IE63IE64 IE65

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

Example 19Information about sensitivity to changes in significant unobservable inputs APPENDIX Amendments to the guidance on other IFRSs

IE66

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement Illustrative examples


These examples accompany, but are not part of, IFRS 13. They illustrate aspects of IFRS 13 but are not intended to provide interpretative guidance. IE1 These examples portray hypothetical situations illustrating the judgements that might apply when an entity measures assets and liabilities at fair value in different valuation situations. Although some aspects of the examples may be present in actual fact patterns, all relevant facts and circumstances of a particular fact pattern would need to be evaluated when applying IFRS 13.

Highest and best use and valuation premise


IE2 Examples 13 illustrate the application of the highest and best use and valuation premise concepts for non-financial assets.

Example 1Asset group


IE3 An entity acquires assets and assumes liabilities in a business combination. One of the groups of assets acquired comprises Assets A, B and C. Asset C is billing software integral to the business developed by the acquired entity for its own use in conjunction with Assets A and B (ie the related assets). The entity measures the fair value of each of the assets individually, consistently with the specified unit of account for the assets. The entity determines that the highest and best use of the assets is their current use and that each asset would provide maximum value to market participants principally through its use in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities (ie its complementary assets and the associated liabilities). There is no evidence to suggest that the current use of the assets is not their highest and best use. In this situation, the entity would sell the assets in the market in which it initially acquired the assets (ie the entry and exit markets from the perspective of the entity are the same). Market participant buyers with whom the entity would enter into a transaction in that market have characteristics that are generally representative of both strategic buyers (such as competitors) and financial buyers (such as private equity or venture capital firms that do not have complementary investments) and include those buyers that initially bid for the assets. Although market

IE4

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

participant buyers might be broadly classified as strategic or financial buyers, in many cases there will be differences among the market participant buyers within each of those groups, reflecting, for example, different uses for an asset and different operating strategies. IE5 As discussed below, differences between the indicated fair values of the individual assets relate principally to the use of the assets by those market participants within different asset groups: (a) Strategic buyer asset group. The entity determines that strategic buyers have related assets that would enhance the value of the group within which the assets would be used (ie market participant synergies). Those assets include a substitute asset for Asset C (the billing software), which would be used for only a limited transition period and could not be sold on its own at the end of that period. Because strategic buyers have substitute assets, Asset C would not be used for its full remaining economic life. The indicated fair values of Assets A, B and C within the strategic buyer asset group (reflecting the synergies resulting from the use of the assets within that group) are CU360,* CU260 and CU30, respectively. The indicated fair value of the assets as a group within the strategic buyer asset group is CU650. Financial buyer asset group. The entity determines that financial buyers do not have related or substitute assets that would enhance the value of the group within which the assets would be used. Because financial buyers do not have substitute assets, Asset C (ie the billing software) would be used for its full remaining economic life. The indicated fair values of Assets A, B and C within the financial buyer asset group are CU300, CU200 and CU100, respectively. The indicated fair value of the assets as a group within the financial buyer asset group is CU600.

(b)

IE6

The fair values of Assets A, B and C would be determined on the basis of the use of the assets as a group within the strategic buyer group (CU360, CU260 and CU30). Although the use of the assets within the strategic buyer group does not maximise the fair value of each of the assets individually, it maximises the fair value of the assets as a group (CU650).

In these examples, monetary amounts are denominated in currency units (CU).

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Example 2Land
IE7 An entity acquires land in a business combination. The land is currently developed for industrial use as a site for a factory. The current use of land is presumed to be its highest and best use unless market or other factors suggest a different use. Nearby sites have recently been developed for residential use as sites for high-rise apartment buildings. On the basis of that development and recent zoning and other changes to facilitate that development, the entity determines that the land currently used as a site for a factory could be developed as a site for residential use (ie for high-rise apartment buildings) because market participants would take into account the potential to develop the site for residential use when pricing the land. The highest and best use of the land would be determined by comparing both of the following: (a) the value of the land as currently developed for industrial use (ie the land would be used in combination with other assets, such as the factory, or with other assets and liabilities). the value of the land as a vacant site for residential use, taking into account the costs of demolishing the factory and other costs (including the uncertainty about whether the entity would be able to convert the asset to the alternative use) necessary to convert the land to a vacant site (ie the land is to be used by market participants on a stand-alone basis).

IE8

(b)

The highest and best use of the land would be determined on the basis of the higher of those values. In situations involving real estate appraisal, the determination of highest and best use might take into account factors relating to the factory operations, including its assets and liabilities.

Example 3Research and development project


IE9 An entity acquires a research and development (R&D) project in a business combination. The entity does not intend to complete the project. If completed, the project would compete with one of its own projects (to provide the next generation of the entitys commercialised technology). Instead, the entity intends to hold (ie lock up) the project to prevent its competitors from obtaining access to the technology. In doing this the project is expected to provide defensive value, principally by

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

improving the prospects for the entitys own competing technology. To measure the fair value of the project at initial recognition, the highest and best use of the project would be determined on the basis of its use by market participants. For example: (a) The highest and best use of the R&D project would be to continue development if market participants would continue to develop the project and that use would maximise the value of the group of assets or of assets and liabilities in which the project would be used (ie the asset would be used in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities). That might be the case if market participants do not have similar technology, either in development or commercialised. The fair value of the project would be measured on the basis of the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the project, assuming that the R&D would be used with its complementary assets and the associated liabilities and that those assets and liabilities would be available to market participants. The highest and best use of the R&D project would be to cease development if, for competitive reasons, market participants would lock up the project and that use would maximise the value of the group of assets or of assets and liabilities in which the project would be used. That might be the case if market participants have technology in a more advanced stage of development that would compete with the project if completed and the project would be expected to improve the prospects for their own competing technology if locked up. The fair value of the project would be measured on the basis of the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the project, assuming that the R&D would be used (ie locked up) with its complementary assets and the associated liabilities and that those assets and liabilities would be available to market participants. The highest and best use of the R&D project would be to cease development if market participants would discontinue its development. That might be the case if the project is not expected to provide a market rate of return if completed and would not otherwise provide defensive value if locked up. The fair value of the project would be measured on the basis of the price that would be received in a current transaction to sell the project on its own (which might be zero).

(b)

(c)

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Use of multiple valuation techniques


IE10 The IFRS notes that a single valuation technique will be appropriate in some cases. In other cases multiple valuation techniques will be appropriate. Examples 4 and 5 illustrate the use of multiple valuation techniques.

Example 4Machine held and used


IE11 An entity acquires a machine in a business combination. The machine will be held and used in its operations. The machine was originally purchased by the acquired entity from an outside vendor and, before the business combination, was customised by the acquired entity for use in its operations. However, the customisation of the machine was not extensive. The acquiring entity determines that the asset would provide maximum value to market participants through its use in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities (as installed or otherwise configured for use). There is no evidence to suggest that the current use of the machine is not its highest and best use. Therefore, the highest and best use of the machine is its current use in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities. The entity determines that sufficient data are available to apply the cost approach and, because the customisation of the machine was not extensive, the market approach. The income approach is not used because the machine does not have a separately identifiable income stream from which to develop reliable estimates of future cash flows. Furthermore, information about short-term and intermediate-term lease rates for similar used machinery that otherwise could be used to project an income stream (ie lease payments over remaining service lives) is not available. The market and cost approaches are applied as follows: (a) The market approach is applied using quoted prices for similar machines adjusted for differences between the machine (as customised) and the similar machines. The measurement reflects the price that would be received for the machine in its current condition (used) and location (installed and configured for use). The fair value indicated by that approach ranges from CU40,000 to CU48,000. The cost approach is applied by estimating the amount that would be required currently to construct a substitute (customised) machine of comparable utility. The estimate takes into account the condition of the machine and the environment in which it

IE12

(b)

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

operates, including physical wear and tear (ie physical deterioration), improvements in technology (ie functional obsolescence), conditions external to the condition of the machine such as a decline in the market demand for similar machines (ie economic obsolescence) and installation costs. The fair value indicated by that approach ranges from CU40,000 to CU52,000. IE13 The entity determines that the higher end of the range indicated by the market approach is most representative of fair value and, therefore, ascribes more weight to the results of the market approach. That determination is made on the basis of the relative subjectivity of the inputs, taking into account the degree of comparability between the machine and the similar machines. In particular: (a) the inputs used in the market approach (quoted prices for similar machines) require fewer and less subjective adjustments than the inputs used in the cost approach. the range indicated by the market approach overlaps with, but is narrower than, the range indicated by the cost approach. there are no known unexplained differences (between the machine and the similar machines) within that range.

(b) (c)

Accordingly, the entity determines that the fair value of the machine is CU48,000. IE14 If customisation of the machine was extensive or if there were not sufficient data available to apply the market approach (eg because market data reflect transactions for machines used on a stand-alone basis, such as a scrap value for specialised assets, rather than machines used in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities), the entity would apply the cost approach. When an asset is used in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities, the cost approach assumes the sale of the machine to a market participant buyer with the complementary assets and the associated liabilities. The price received for the sale of the machine (ie an exit price) would not be more than either of the following: (a) (b) the cost that a market participant buyer would incur to acquire or construct a substitute machine of comparable utility; or the economic benefit that a market participant buyer would derive from the use of the machine.

IFRS Foundation

10

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Example 5Software asset


IE15 An entity acquires a group of assets. The asset group includes an incomeproducing software asset internally developed for licensing to customers and its complementary assets (including a related database with which the software asset is used) and the associated liabilities. To allocate the cost of the group to the individual assets acquired, the entity measures the fair value of the software asset. The entity determines that the software asset would provide maximum value to market participants through its use in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities (ie its complementary assets and the associated liabilities). There is no evidence to suggest that the current use of the software asset is not its highest and best use. Therefore, the highest and best use of the software asset is its current use. (In this case the licensing of the software asset, in and of itself, does not indicate that the fair value of the asset would be maximised through its use by market participants on a stand-alone basis.) The entity determines that, in addition to the income approach, sufficient data might be available to apply the cost approach but not the market approach. Information about market transactions for comparable software assets is not available. The income and cost approaches are applied as follows: (a) The income approach is applied using a present value technique. The cash flows used in that technique reflect the income stream expected to result from the software asset (licence fees from customers) over its economic life. The fair value indicated by that approach is CU15 million. The cost approach is applied by estimating the amount that currently would be required to construct a substitute software asset of comparable utility (ie taking into account functional and economic obsolescence). The fair value indicated by that approach is CU10 million.

IE16

(b)

IE17

Through its application of the cost approach, the entity determines that market participants would not be able to construct a substitute software asset of comparable utility. Some characteristics of the software asset are unique, having been developed using proprietary information, and cannot be readily replicated. The entity determines that the fair value of the software asset is CU15 million, as indicated by the income approach.

11

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

Principal (or most advantageous) market


IE18 Example 6 illustrates the use of Level 1 inputs to measure the fair value of an asset that trades in different active markets at different prices.

Example 6Level 1 principal (or most advantageous) market


IE19 An asset is sold in two different active markets at different prices. An entity enters into transactions in both markets and can access the price in those markets for the asset at the measurement date. In Market A, the price that would be received is CU26, transaction costs in that market are CU3 and the costs to transport the asset to that market are CU2 (ie the net amount that would be received is CU21). In Market B, the price that would be received is CU25, transaction costs in that market are CU1 and the costs to transport the asset to that market are CU2 (ie the net amount that would be received in Market B is CU22). If Market A is the principal market for the asset (ie the market with the greatest volume and level of activity for the asset), the fair value of the asset would be measured using the price that would be received in that market, after taking into account transport costs (CU24). If neither market is the principal market for the asset, the fair value of the asset would be measured using the price in the most advantageous market. The most advantageous market is the market that maximises the amount that would be received to sell the asset, after taking into account transaction costs and transport costs (ie the net amount that would be received in the respective markets). Because the entity would maximise the net amount that would be received for the asset in Market B (CU22), the fair value of the asset would be measured using the price in that market (CU25), less transport costs (CU2), resulting in a fair value measurement of CU23. Although transaction costs are taken into account when determining which market is the most advantageous market, the price used to measure the fair value of the asset is not adjusted for those costs (although it is adjusted for transport costs).

IE20

IE21

IE22

IFRS Foundation

12

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Transaction prices and fair value at initial recognition


IE23 The IFRS clarifies that in many cases the transaction price, ie the price paid (received) for a particular asset (liability), will represent the fair value of that asset (liability) at initial recognition, but not presumptively. Example 7 illustrates when the price in a transaction involving a derivative instrument might (and might not) equal the fair value of the instrument at initial recognition.

Example 7Interest rate swap at initial recognition


IE24 Entity A (a retail counterparty) enters into an interest rate swap in a retail market with Entity B (a dealer) for no initial consideration (ie the transaction price is zero). Entity A can access only the retail market. Entity B can access both the retail market (ie with retail counterparties) and the dealer market (ie with dealer counterparties). From the perspective of Entity A, the retail market in which it initially entered into the swap is the principal market for the swap. If Entity A were to transfer its rights and obligations under the swap, it would do so with a dealer counterparty in that retail market. In that case the transaction price (zero) would represent the fair value of the swap to Entity A at initial recognition, ie the price that Entity A would receive to sell or pay to transfer the swap in a transaction with a dealer counterparty in the retail market (ie an exit price). That price would not be adjusted for any incremental (transaction) costs that would be charged by that dealer counterparty. From the perspective of Entity B, the dealer market (not the retail market) is the principal market for the swap. If Entity B were to transfer its rights and obligations under the swap, it would do so with a dealer in that market. Because the market in which Entity B initially entered into the swap is different from the principal market for the swap, the transaction price (zero) would not necessarily represent the fair value of the swap to Entity B at initial recognition. If the fair value differs from the transaction price (zero), Entity B applies IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement or IFRS 9 Financial Instruments to determine whether it recognises that difference as a gain or loss at initial recognition.

IE25

IE26

13

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

Restricted assets
IE27 The effect on a fair value measurement arising from a restriction on the sale or use of an asset by an entity will differ depending on whether the restriction would be taken into account by market participants when pricing the asset. Examples 8 and 9 illustrate the effect of restrictions when measuring the fair value of an asset.

Example 8Restriction on the sale of an equity instrument


IE28 An entity holds an equity instrument (a financial asset) for which sale is legally or contractually restricted for a specified period. (For example, such a restriction could limit sale to qualifying investors.) The restriction is a characteristic of the instrument and, therefore, would be transferred to market participants. In that case the fair value of the instrument would be measured on the basis of the quoted price for an otherwise identical unrestricted equity instrument of the same issuer that trades in a public market, adjusted to reflect the effect of the restriction. The adjustment would reflect the amount market participants would demand because of the risk relating to the inability to access a public market for the instrument for the specified period. The adjustment will vary depending on all the following: (a) (b) (c) the nature and duration of the restriction; the extent to which buyers are limited by the restriction (eg there might be a large number of qualifying investors); and qualitative and quantitative factors specific to both the instrument and the issuer.

Example 9Restrictions on the use of an asset


IE29 A donor contributes land in an otherwise developed residential area to a not-for-profit neighbourhood association. The land is currently used as a playground. The donor specifies that the land must continue to be used by the association as a playground in perpetuity. Upon review of relevant documentation (eg legal and other), the association determines that the fiduciary responsibility to meet the donors restriction would not be transferred to market participants if the association sold the asset, ie the donor restriction on the use of the land is specific to the association. Furthermore, the association is not restricted from selling the land. Without the restriction on the use of the land by the association, the land

IFRS Foundation

14

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

could be used as a site for residential development. In addition, the land is subject to an easement (ie a legal right that enables a utility to run power lines across the land). Following is an analysis of the effect on the fair value measurement of the land arising from the restriction and the easement: (a) Donor restriction on use of land. Because in this situation the donor restriction on the use of the land is specific to the association, the restriction would not be transferred to market participants. Therefore, the fair value of the land would be the higher of its fair value used as a playground (ie the fair value of the asset would be maximised through its use by market participants in combination with other assets or with other assets and liabilities) and its fair value as a site for residential development (ie the fair value of the asset would be maximised through its use by market participants on a stand-alone basis), regardless of the restriction on the use of the land by the association. Easement for utility lines. Because the easement for utility lines is specific to (ie a characteristic of) the land, it would be transferred to market participants with the land. Therefore, the fair value measurement of the land would take into account the effect of the easement, regardless of whether the highest and best use is as a playground or as a site for residential development.

(b)

Measuring liabilities
IE30 A fair value measurement of a liability assumes that the liability, whether it is a financial liability or a non-financial liability, is transferred to a market participant at the measurement date (ie the liability would remain outstanding and the market participant transferee would be required to fulfil the obligation; it would not be settled with the counterparty or otherwise extinguished on the measurement date). The fair value of a liability reflects the effect of non-performance risk. Non-performance risk relating to a liability includes, but may not be limited to, the entitys own credit risk. An entity takes into account the effect of its credit risk (credit standing) on the fair value of the liability in all periods in which the liability is measured at fair value because those that hold the entitys obligations as assets would take into account the effect of the entitys credit standing when estimating the prices they would be willing to pay.

IE31

15

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

IE32

For example, assume that Entity X and Entity Y each enter into a contractual obligation to pay cash (CU500) to Entity Z in five years. Entity X has a AA credit rating and can borrow at 6 per cent, and Entity Y has a BBB credit rating and can borrow at 12 per cent. Entity X will receive about CU374 in exchange for its promise (the present value of CU500 in five years at 6 per cent). Entity Y will receive about CU284 in exchange for its promise (the present value of CU500 in five years at 12 per cent). The fair value of the liability to each entity (ie the proceeds) incorporates that entitys credit standing. Examples 1013 illustrate the measurement of liabilities and the effect of non-performance risk (including an entitys own credit risk) on a fair value measurement.

IE33

Example 10Structured note


IE34 On 1 January 20X7 Entity A, an investment bank with a AA credit rating, issues a five-year fixed rate note to Entity B. The contractual principal amount to be paid by Entity A at maturity is linked to an equity index. No credit enhancements are issued in conjunction with or otherwise related to the contract (ie no collateral is posted and there is no third-party guarantee). Entity A designated this note as at fair value through profit or loss. The fair value of the note (ie the obligation of Entity A) during 20X7 is measured using an expected present value technique. Changes in fair value are as follows: (a) Fair value at 1 January 20X7. The expected cash flows used in the expected present value technique are discounted at the risk-free rate using the government bond curve at 1 January 20X7, plus the current market observable AA corporate bond spread to government bonds, if non-performance risk is not already reflected in the cash flows, adjusted (either up or down) for Entity As specific credit risk (ie resulting in a credit-adjusted risk-free rate). Therefore, the fair value of Entity As obligation at initial recognition takes into account non-performance risk, including that entitys credit risk, which presumably is reflected in the proceeds. Fair value at 31 March 20X7. During March 20X7 the credit spread for AA corporate bonds widens, with no changes to the specific credit risk of Entity A. The expected cash flows used in the expected present value technique are discounted at the risk-free rate using the government bond curve at 31 March 20X7, plus the current market observable AA corporate bond spread to government bonds,

(b)

IFRS Foundation

16

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

if non-performance risk is not already reflected in the cash flows, adjusted for Entity As specific credit risk (ie resulting in a credit-adjusted risk-free rate). Entity As specific credit risk is unchanged from initial recognition. Therefore, the fair value of Entity As obligation changes as a result of changes in credit spreads generally. Changes in credit spreads reflect current market participant assumptions about changes in non-performance risk generally, changes in liquidity risk and the compensation required for assuming those risks. (c) Fair value at 30 June 20X7. As of 30 June 20X7 there have been no changes to the AA corporate bond spreads. However, on the basis of structured note issues corroborated with other qualitative information, Entity A determines that its own specific creditworthiness has strengthened within the AA credit spread. The expected cash flows used in the expected present value technique are discounted at the risk-free rate using the government bond yield curve at 30 June 20X7, plus the current market observable AA corporate bond spread to government bonds (unchanged from 31 March 20X7), if non-performance risk is not already reflected in the cash flows, adjusted for Entity As specific credit risk (ie resulting in a credit-adjusted risk-free rate). Therefore, the fair value of the obligation of Entity A changes as a result of the change in its own specific credit risk within the AA corporate bond spread.

Example 11Decommissioning liability


IE35 On 1 January 20X1 Entity A assumes a decommissioning liability in a business combination. The entity is legally required to dismantle and remove an offshore oil platform at the end of its useful life, which is estimated to be 10 years. On the basis of paragraphs B23B30 of the IFRS, Entity A uses the expected present value technique to measure the fair value of the decommissioning liability. If Entity A was contractually allowed to transfer its decommissioning liability to a market participant, Entity A concludes that a market participant would use all the following inputs, probability-weighted as appropriate, when estimating the price it would expect to receive: (a) (b) labour costs; allocation of overhead costs;

IE36

IE37

17

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

(c)

the compensation that a market participant would require for undertaking the activity and for assuming the risk associated with the obligation to dismantle and remove the asset. Such compensation includes both of the following: (i) (ii) profit on labour and overhead costs; and the risk that the actual cash outflows might differ from those expected, excluding inflation;

(d) (e) (f) IE38

effect of inflation on estimated costs and profits; time value of money, represented by the risk-free rate; and non-performance risk relating to the risk that Entity A will not fulfil the obligation, including Entity As own credit risk.

The significant assumptions used by Entity A to measure fair value are as follows: (a) Labour costs are developed on the basis of current marketplace wages, adjusted for expectations of future wage increases, required to hire contractors to dismantle and remove offshore oil platforms. Entity A assigns probability assessments to a range of cash flow estimates as follows: Cash flow estimate (CU) 100,000 125,000 175,000 Probability assessment 25% 50% 25% Expected cash flows (CU) 25,000 62,500 43,750 CU131,250 The probability assessments are developed on the basis of Entity As experience with fulfilling obligations of this type and its knowledge of the market. (b) Entity A estimates allocated overhead and equipment operating costs using the rate it applies to labour costs (80 per cent of expected labour costs). This is consistent with the cost structure of market participants.

IFRS Foundation

18

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(c)

Entity A estimates the compensation that a market participant would require for undertaking the activity and for assuming the risk associated with the obligation to dismantle and remove the asset as follows: (i) A third-party contractor typically adds a mark-up on labour and allocated internal costs to provide a profit margin on the job. The profit margin used (20 per cent) represents Entity As understanding of the operating profit that contractors in the industry generally earn to dismantle and remove offshore oil platforms. Entity A concludes that this rate is consistent with the rate that a market participant would require as compensation for undertaking the activity. A contractor would typically require compensation for the risk that the actual cash outflows might differ from those expected because of the uncertainty inherent in locking in todays price for a project that will not occur for 10 years. Entity A estimates the amount of that premium to be 5 per cent of the expected cash flows, including the effect of inflation.

(ii)

(d) (e)

Entity A assumes a rate of inflation of 4 per cent over the 10-year period on the basis of available market data. The risk-free rate of interest for a 10-year maturity on 1 January 20X1 is 5 per cent. Entity A adjusts that rate by 3.5 per cent to reflect its risk of non-performance (ie the risk that it will not fulfil the obligation), including its credit risk. Therefore, the discount rate used to compute the present value of the cash flows is 8.5 per cent.

19

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

IE39

Entity A concludes that its assumptions would be used by market participants. In addition, Entity A does not adjust its fair value measurement for the existence of a restriction preventing it from transferring the liability. As illustrated in the following table, Entity A measures the fair value of its decommissioning liability as CU194,879.
Expected cash flows (CU) 1 January 20X1 Expected labour costs Allocated overhead and equipment costs (0.80 CU131,250) Contractors profit mark-up [0.20 (CU131,250 + CU105,000)] Expected cash flows before inflation adjustment Inflation factor (4% for 10 years) Expected cash flows adjusted for inflation Market risk premium (0.05 CU419,637) Expected cash flows adjusted for market risk Expected present value using discount rate of 8.5% for 10 years 131,250 105,000 47,250 283,500 1.4802 419,637 20,982 440,619 194,879

Example 12Debt obligation: quoted price


IE40 On 1 January 20X1 Entity B issues at par a CU2 million BBB-rated exchange-traded five-year fixed rate debt instrument with an annual 10 per cent coupon. Entity B designated this financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss. On 31 December 20X1 the instrument is trading as an asset in an active market at CU929 per CU1,000 of par value after payment of accrued interest. Entity B uses the quoted price of the asset in an active market as its initial input into the fair value measurement of its liability (CU929 [CU2 million CU1,000] = CU1,858,000). In determining whether the quoted price of the asset in an active market represents the fair value of the liability, Entity B evaluates whether the quoted price of the asset includes the effect of factors not applicable to the fair value measurement of a liability, for example, whether the quoted price of the asset includes the effect of a third-party credit enhancement if that credit enhancement would be separately accounted for from the perspective of the issuer. Entity B determines that no

IE41

IE42

IFRS Foundation

20

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

adjustments are required to the quoted price of the asset. Accordingly, Entity B concludes that the fair value of its debt instrument at 31 December 20X1 is CU1,858,000. Entity B categorises and discloses the fair value measurement of its debt instrument within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

Example 13Debt obligation: present value technique


IE43 On 1 January 20X1 Entity C issues at par in a private placement a CU2 million BBB-rated five-year fixed rate debt instrument with an annual 10 per cent coupon. Entity C designated this financial liability as at fair value through profit or loss. At 31 December 20X1 Entity C still carries a BBB credit rating. Market conditions, including available interest rates, credit spreads for a BBB-quality credit rating and liquidity, remain unchanged from the date the debt instrument was issued. However, Entity Cs credit spread has deteriorated by 50 basis points because of a change in its risk of non-performance. After taking into account all market conditions, Entity C concludes that if it was to issue the instrument at the measurement date, the instrument would bear a rate of interest of 10.5 per cent or Entity C would receive less than par in proceeds from the issue of the instrument. For the purpose of this example, the fair value of Entity Cs liability is calculated using a present value technique. Entity C concludes that a market participant would use all the following inputs (consistently with paragraphs B12B30 of the IFRS) when estimating the price the market participant would expect to receive to assume Entity Cs obligation: (a) the terms of the debt instrument, including all the following: (i) (ii) (iii) (b) coupon of 10 per cent; principal amount of CU2 million; and term of four years.

IE44

IE45

the market rate of interest of 10.5 per cent (which includes a change of 50 basis points in the risk of non-performance from the date of issue).

IE46

On the basis of its present value technique, Entity C concludes that the fair value of its liability at 31 December 20X1 is CU1,968,641.

21

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

IE47

Entity C does not include any additional input into its present value technique for risk or profit that a market participant might require for compensation for assuming the liability. Because Entity Cs obligation is a financial liability, Entity C concludes that the interest rate already captures the risk or profit that a market participant would require as compensation for assuming the liability. Furthermore, Entity C does not adjust its present value technique for the existence of a restriction preventing it from transferring the liability.

Measuring fair value when the volume or level of activity for an asset or a liability has significantly decreased
IE48 Example 14 illustrates the use of judgement when measuring the fair value of a financial asset when there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the asset when compared with normal market activity for the asset (or similar assets).

Example 14Estimating a market rate of return when the volume or level of activity for an asset has significantly decreased
IE49 Entity A invests in a junior AAA-rated tranche of a residential mortgage-backed security on 1 January 20X8 (the issue date of the security). The junior tranche is the third most senior of a total of seven tranches. The underlying collateral for the residential mortgage-backed security is unguaranteed non-conforming residential mortgage loans that were issued in the second half of 20X6. At 31 March 20X9 (the measurement date) the junior tranche is now A-rated. This tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security was previously traded through a brokered market. However, trading volume in that market was infrequent, with only a few transactions taking place per month from 1 January 20X8 to 30 June 20X8 and little, if any, trading activity during the nine months before 31 March 20X9. Entity A takes into account the factors in paragraph B37 of the IFRS to determine whether there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security in which it has invested. After evaluating the significance and relevance of the factors, Entity A concludes that the volume and level of activity of the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security have significantly decreased. Entity A supported its judgement primarily on the basis that there was little, if any, trading activity for an extended period before the measurement date.

IE50

IE51

IFRS Foundation

22

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

IE52

Because there is little, if any, trading activity to support a valuation technique using a market approach, Entity A decides to use an income approach using the discount rate adjustment technique described in paragraphs B18B22 of the IFRS to measure the fair value of the residential mortgage-backed security at the measurement date. Entity A uses the contractual cash flows from the residential mortgage-backed security (see also paragraphs 67 and 68 of the IFRS). Entity A then estimates a discount rate (ie a market rate of return) to discount those contractual cash flows. The market rate of return is estimated using both of the following: (a) (b) the risk-free rate of interest. estimated adjustments for differences between the available market data and the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security in which Entity A has invested. Those adjustments reflect available market data about expected non-performance and other risks (eg default risk, collateral value risk and liquidity risk) that market participants would take into account when pricing the asset in an orderly transaction at the measurement date under current market conditions.

IE53

IE54

Entity A took into account the following information when estimating the adjustments in paragraph IE53(b): (a) the credit spread for the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security at the issue date as implied by the original transaction price. the change in the credit spread implied by any observed transactions from the issue date to the measurement date for comparable residential mortgage-backed securities or on the basis of relevant indices. the characteristics of the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security compared with comparable residential mortgage-backed securities or indices, including all the following: (i) the quality of the underlying assets, ie information about the performance of the underlying mortgage loans such as delinquency and foreclosure rates, loss experience and prepayment rates; the seniority or subordination of the mortgage-backed security tranche held; and residential

(b)

(c)

(ii)

23

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

(iii) (d) (e) IE55

other relevant factors.

relevant reports issued by analysts and rating agencies. quoted prices from third parties such as brokers or pricing services.

Entity A estimates that one indication of the market rate of return that market participants would use when pricing the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security is 12 per cent (1,200 basis points). This market rate of return was estimated as follows: (a) (b) (c) Begin with 300 basis points for the relevant risk-free rate of interest at 31 March 20X9. Add 250 basis points for the credit spread over the risk-free rate when the junior tranche was issued in January 20X8. Add 700 basis points for the estimated change in the credit spread over the risk-free rate of the junior tranche between 1 January 20X8 and 31 March 20X9. This estimate was developed on the basis of the change in the most comparable index available for that time period. Subtract 50 basis points (net) to adjust for differences between the index used to estimate the change in credit spreads and the junior tranche. The referenced index consists of subprime mortgage loans, whereas Entity As residential mortgage-backed security consists of similar mortgage loans with a more favourable credit profile (making it more attractive to market participants). However, the index does not reflect an appropriate liquidity risk premium for the junior tranche under current market conditions. Thus, the 50 basis point adjustment is the net of two adjustments: (i) the first adjustment is a 350 basis point subtraction, which was estimated by comparing the implied yield from the most recent transactions for the residential mortgage-backed security in June 20X8 with the implied yield in the index price on those same dates. There was no information available that indicated that the relationship between Entity As security and the index has changed. the second adjustment is a 300 basis point addition, which is Entity As best estimate of the additional liquidity risk inherent in its security (a cash position) when compared with the index (a synthetic position). This estimate was derived after taking into account liquidity risk premiums implied in recent cash transactions for a range of similar securities.

(d)

(ii)

IFRS Foundation

24

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

IE56

As an additional indication of the market rate of return, Entity A takes into account two recent indicative quotes (ie non-binding quotes) provided by reputable brokers for the junior tranche of the residential mortgage-backed security that imply yields of 1517 per cent. Entity A is unable to evaluate the valuation technique(s) or inputs used to develop the quotes. However, Entity A is able to confirm that the quotes do not reflect the results of transactions. Because Entity A has multiple indications of the market rate of return that market participants would take into account when measuring fair value, it evaluates and weights the respective indications of the rate of return, considering the reasonableness of the range indicated by the results. Entity A concludes that 13 per cent is the point within the range of indications that is most representative of fair value under current market conditions. Entity A places more weight on the 12 per cent indication (ie its own estimate of the market rate of return) for the following reasons: (a) Entity A concluded that its own estimate appropriately incorporated the risks (eg default risk, collateral value risk and liquidity risk) that market participants would use when pricing the asset in an orderly transaction under current market conditions. The broker quotes were non-binding and did not reflect the results of transactions, and Entity A was unable to evaluate the valuation technique(s) or inputs used to develop the quotes.

IE57

IE58

(b)

Fair value disclosures


IE59 Examples 1519 illustrate the disclosures required by paragraphs 92, 93(a), (b) and (d)(h)(i) and 99 of the IFRS.

Example 15Assets measured at fair value


IE60 For assets and liabilities measured at fair value at the end of the reporting period, the IFRS requires quantitative disclosures about the fair value measurements for each class of assets and liabilities. An entity might disclose the following for assets to comply with paragraph 93(a) and (b) of the IFRS:

25

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

(CU in millions)

Fair value measurements at the end of the reporting period using Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1) Significant other observable inputs (Level 2)

Description Recurring fair value measurements Trading equity securities(a): Real estate industry Oil and gas industry Other Total trading equity securities Other equity securities : Financial services industry Healthcare industry Energy industry Private equity fund investments(b) Other Total other equity securities Debt securities: Residential mortgage-backed securities Commercial mortgage-backed securities Collateralised debt obligations Risk-free government securities Corporate bonds Total debt securities Hedge fund investments: Equity long/short Global opportunities High-yield debt securities Total hedge fund investments Derivatives: Interest rate contracts Foreign exchange contracts Credit contracts Commodity futures contracts Commodity forward contracts Total derivatives
(a)

31/12/X9

Significant unobservable inputs (Level 3)

Total gains (losses)

93 45 15 153

70 45 15 130

23

23

150 163 32 25 15 385

150 110

53 32 25 110

15 275

149 50 35 85 93 412

24

125 50 35

85 9 94

84 108 210

55 35 90 180

55 35 90 90 90

57 43 38 78 20 236

57 43 38 78 20 78 120 38 . continued...

IFRS Foundation

26

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

...continued Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets (Level 1) Significant other observable inputs (Level 2) Significant unobservable inputs (Level 3)

Description Investment properties: CommercialAsia CommercialEurope Total investment properties Total recurring fair value measurements Non-recurring fair value measurements Assets held for sale(c) Total non-recurring fair value measurements (a)

31/12/X9

Total gains (losses)

31 27 58

31 27 58

1,424

577

341

506

26 26

26 26

(15) (15)

On the basis of its analysis of the nature, characteristics and risks of the securities, the entity has determined that presenting them by industry is appropriate. (b) On the basis of its analysis of the nature, characteristics and risks of the investments, the entity has determined that presenting them as a single class is appropriate. (c) In accordance with IFRS 5, assets held for sale with a carrying amount of CU35 million were written down to their fair value of CU26 million, less costs to sell of CU6 million (or CU20 million), resulting in a loss of CU15 million, which was included in profit or loss for the period. (Note: A similar table would be presented for liabilities unless another format is deemed more appropriate by the entity.)

Example 16Reconciliation of fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy
IE61 For recurring fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, the IFRS requires a reconciliation from the opening balances to the closing balances for each class of assets and liabilities. An entity might disclose the following for assets to comply with paragraph 93(e) and (f) of the IFRS:

27

IFRS Foundation

Fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) Other equity securities Debt securities Hedge fund investments Derivatives Investment properties

IFRS Foundation
Private equity fund Credit contracts Asia 28 30 20 105 60 (a)(b) (5) (b)(c) 39 25 145 Residential mortgagebacked securities Commercial mortgage- Collateralised High-yield backed debt debt securities obligations securities Europe 26 Total 495 60 (5) 28 5 3 1 (23) (5) (7) 7 5 3 1 (14) 4 1 (12) 32 25 125 50 35 3 16 17 (62) (15) 90 38 31 27 18 55 (74) (15) 506 5 (3) (5) (7) (5) 2 3 1 (9)

(CU in millions)

Healthcare Energy industry industry

49

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

28

Opening balance Transfers into Level 3 Transfers out of Level 3 Total gains or losses for the period Included in profit or loss Included in other comprehensive income Purchases, issues, sales and settlements Purchases Issues Sales Settlements

Closing balance

53

Change in unrealised gains or losses for the period included in profit or loss for assets held at the end of the reporting period

(a) Transferred from Level 2 to Level 3 because of a lack of observable market data, resulting from a decrease in market activity for the securities. (b) The entity's policy is to recognise transfers into and transfers out of Level 3 as of the date of the event or change in circumstances that caused the transfer. (c) Transferred from Level 3 to Level 2 because observable market data became available for the securities. (Note: A similar table would be presented for liabilities unless another format is deemed more appropriate by the entity.)

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

IE62

Gains and losses included in profit or loss for the period (above) are presented in financial income and in non-financial income as follows:
Nonfinancial income

(CU in millions)

Financial income

Total gains or losses for the period included in profit or loss Change in unrealised gains or losses for the period included in profit or loss for assets held at the end of the reporting period

(18)

(13)

(Note: A similar table would be presented for liabilities unless another format is deemed more appropriate by the entity.)

Example 17Valuation techniques and inputs


IE63 For fair value measurements categorised within Level 2 and Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, the IFRS requires an entity to disclose a description of the valuation technique(s) and the inputs used in the fair value measurement. For fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, information about the significant unobservable inputs used must be quantitative. An entity might disclose the following for assets to comply with the requirement to disclose the significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement in accordance with paragraph 93(d) of the IFRS:

29

IFRS Foundation

Quantitative information about fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3)
Fair value at 31/12/X9 Valuation technique(s) Discounted cash flow Unobservable input 53 Range (weighted average)

(CU in millions)

IFRS Foundation
Market comparable companies 32 Discounted cash flow Market comparable companies 25 Net asset value(c) weighted average cost of capital long-term revenue growth rate long-term pre-tax operating margin discount for lack of marketability(a) control premium(a) EBITDA multiple(b) revenue multiple(b) discount for lack of marketability(a) control premium(a) weighted average cost of capital long-term revenue growth rate long-term pre-tax operating margin discount for lack of marketability(a) control premium(a) EBITDA multiple(b) revenue multiple(b) discount for lack of marketability(a) control premium(a) n/a 7%16% (12.1%) 2%5% (4.2%) 3%20% (10.3%) 5%20% (17%) 10%30% (20%) 1013 (11.3) 1.52.0 (1.7) 5%20% (17%) 10%30% (20%) 8%12% (11.1%) 3%5.5% (4.2%) 7.5%13% (9.2%) 5%20% (10%) 10%20% (12%) 6.512 (9.5) 1.03.0 (2.0) 5%20% (10%) 10%20% (12%) n/a 125 Discounted cash flow constant prepayment rate probability of default loss severity 3.5%5.5% (4.5%) 5%50% (10%) 40%100% (60%) continued...

Description

Other equity securities: Healthcare industry

Energy industry

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

30

Private equity fund investments Debt securities: Residential mortgage-backed securities

...continued Fair value at 31/12/X9 Valuation technique(s) Discounted cash flow Unobservable input 50 Range (weighted average)

Description

Commercial mortgage-backed securities 35 Consensus pricing

Collateralised debt obligations

constant prepayment rate probability of default loss severity offered quotes comparability adjustments (%) n/a annualised volatility of credit(d) counterparty credit risk(e) own credit risk(e)

3%5% (4.1%) 2%25% (5%) 10%50% (20%) 2045 -10% +15% (+5%) n/a 10%20% 0.5%3.5% 0.3%2.0%

Hedge fund investments: High-yield debt securities Derivatives: Credit contracts 90 38 Option model Net asset value(c)

Investment properties: CommercialAsia 31 Discounted cash flow

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

31
27 Market comparable approach Discounted cash flow

long-term net operating income margin cap rate price per square metre (USD) long-term net operating income margin cap rate price per square metre (EUR)

18%32% (20%) 0.080.12 (0.10) $3,000$7,000 ($4,500) 15%25% (18%) 0.060.10 (0.80) 4,00012,000 (8,500)

CommercialEurope

(a)

(b) (c) (d) (e)

Market comparable approach Represents amounts used when the entity has determined that market participants would take into account these premiums and discounts when pricing the investments. Represents amounts used when the entity has determined that market participants would use such multiples when pricing the investments. The entity has determined that the reported net asset value represents fair value at the end of the reporting period. Represents the range of the volatility curves used in the valuation analysis that the entity has determined market participants would use when the pricing contracts. Represents the range of the credit default swap spread curves used in the valuation analysis that the entity has determined market participants would use when pricing the contracts.

IFRS Foundation

(Note: A similar table would be presented for liabilities unless another format is deemed more appropriate by the entity.)

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

IE64

In addition, an entity should provide additional information that will help users of its financial statements to evaluate the quantitative information disclosed. An entity might disclose some or all the following to comply with paragraph 92 of the IFRS: (a) the nature of the item being measured at fair value, including the characteristics of the item being measured that are taken into account in the determination of relevant inputs. For example, for residential mortgage-backed securities, an entity might disclose the following: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) the types of underlying loans (eg prime loans or sub-prime loans) collateral guarantees or other credit enhancements seniority level of the tranches of securities the year of issue the weighted-average coupon rate of the underlying loans and the securities

(vii) the weighted-average maturity of the underlying loans and the securities (viii) the geographical concentration of the underlying loans (ix) (b) information about the credit ratings of the securities.

how third-party information such as broker quotes, pricing services, net asset values and relevant market data was taken into account when measuring fair value.

Example 18Valuation processes


IE65 For fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, the IFRS requires an entity to disclose a description of the valuation processes used by the entity. An entity might disclose the following to comply with paragraph 93(g) of the IFRS: (a) for the group within the entity that decides the entitys valuation policies and procedures: (i) (ii) its description; to whom that group reports; and

IFRS Foundation

32

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

(iii)

the internal reporting procedures in place (eg whether and, if so, how pricing, risk management or audit committees discuss and assess the fair value measurements);

(b) (c) (d)

the frequency and methods for calibration, back testing and other testing procedures of pricing models; the process for analysing changes in fair value measurements from period to period; how the entity determined that third-party information, such as broker quotes or pricing services, used in the fair value measurement was developed in accordance with the IFRS; and the methods used to develop and substantiate the unobservable inputs used in a fair value measurement.

(e)

Example 19Information about sensitivity to changes in significant unobservable inputs


IE66 For recurring fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, the IFRS requires an entity to provide a narrative description of the sensitivity of the fair value measurement to changes in significant unobservable inputs and a description of any interrelationships between those unobservable inputs. An entity might disclose the following about its residential mortgage-backed securities to comply with paragraph 93(h)(i) of the IFRS:
The significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement of the entitys residential mortgage-backed securities are prepayment rates, probability of default and loss severity in the event of default. Significant increases (decreases) in any of those inputs in isolation would result in a significantly lower (higher) fair value measurement. Generally, a change in the assumption used for the probability of default is accompanied by a directionally similar change in the assumption used for the loss severity and a directionally opposite change in the assumption used for prepayment rates.

33

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

Appendix Amendments to guidance on other IFRSs


The following amendments to guidance on other IFRSs are necessary in order to ensure consistency with IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement and the related amendments to other IFRSs. Amended paragraphs are shown with new text underlined and deleted text struck through.

IFRS 3 Business Combinations


IGA1 In the illustrative examples paragraph IE5 is amended as follows: IE5 The fair value of the consideration effectively transferred should be based on the most reliable measure. In this example, the quoted market price of Entity As shares in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the shares provides a more reliable basis for measuring the consideration effectively transferred than the estimated fair value of the shares in Entity B, and the consideration is measured using the market price of Entity As shares100 shares with a fair value per share of CU16.

IGA2

The example in paragraph IE72 is amended as follows:

Footnote X: Acquisitions
Paragraph reference

B64(f)(iv)

B64(f)(iii) B64(g) B67(b)

The fair value of the 100,000 ordinary shares issued as part of the consideration paid for TC (CU4,000) was determined on the basis of measured using the closing market price of ACs ordinary shares on the acquisition date. ... The fair value of the contingent consideration arrangement of CU1,000 was estimated by applying the income approach. The fair value estimates are measurement is based on significant inputs that are not observable in the market, which IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement refers to as Level 3 inputs. Key assumptions include a an assumed discount rate range of 2025 per cent and assumed probability-adjusted revenues in XC of CU10,00020,000. ...

IFRS Foundation

34

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

B64(o)

The fair value of the non-controlling interest in TC, an unlisted company, was estimated by applying a market approach and an income approach. The fair value estimates measurements are based on significant inputs that are not observable in the market and thus represent a fair value measurement categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy as described in IFRS 13. Key assumptions include the following: (a) (b) an assumed a discount rate range of 2025 per cent; an assumed a terminal value based on a range of terminal EBITDA multiples between 3 and 5 times (or, if appropriate, based on long-term sustainable growth rates ranging from 3 to 6 per cent); assumed financial multiples of companies deemed to be similar to TC; and assumed adjustments because of the lack of control or lack of marketability that market participants would consider when estimating measuring the fair value of the non-controlling interest in TC.

(c) (d)

35

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

IGA3

In the comparison of IFRS 3 (as revised in January 2008) and SFAS 141(R), in the table below paragraph 3 the definition of fair value and the disclosures about a non-controlling interest in the acquiree are footnoted as follows: Guidance Definition of fair value* IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008) SFAS 141(R)

Fair value is defined as Fair value is defined in paragraph 5 of FASB Statement No. 157 Fair Value Measurements as

IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement (issued in May 2011) defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. As a result the definition of fair value in IFRSs is identical to the definition in US GAAP (Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification codified FASB Statement No. 157). Guidance Non-controlling interest in an acquiree** IFRS 3 (as revised in 2008)
Disclosures

SFAS 141(R)
Disclosures

Because an acquirer is permitted to choose

SFAS 141(R) requires an acquirer to disclose

**

IFRS 13 (issued in May 2011) defines fair value and contains the requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. Although the disclosures required by IFRS 13 are not required for IFRS 3, the wording for the disclosures in IFRS 3 has been aligned with the wording in US GAAP (Topic 805 Business Combinations in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification codified FASB Statement No. 141(R)).

IFRS Foundation

36

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

IFRS 4 Insurance Contracts


IGA4 In the guidance on implementing IFRS 4 IG Example 3 is amended as follows:

IG Example 3: Unbundling a deposit component of a reinsurance contract


If the reinsurer is required, or elects, to unbundle the contract, it does so as follows. Each payment by the cedant has two components: a loan advance (deposit component) and a payment for insurance cover (insurance component). Applying IAS 39 to the deposit component, the reinsurer is required to measure it initially at fair value. Fair value could be determined measured by discounting the future cash flows from the deposit component using a valuation technique. Assume that an appropriate discount rate is 10 per cent and that the insurance cover is equal in each year, so that the payment for insurance cover is the same in every year. Each payment of CU10 by the cedant is then made up of a loan advance of CU6.7 and an insurance premium of CU3.3.

IFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations


IGA5 In the guidance on implementing IFRS 5 Examples 10 and 13 are amended as follows:

Example 10
The entity estimates that measures the fair value less costs to sell of the disposal group amounts to as CU13,000. Because an entity measures a disposal group classified as held for sale at the lower of its carrying amount and fair value less costs to sell, the entity recognises an impairment loss of CU1,900 (CU14,900 CU13,000) when the group is initially classified as held for sale.

37

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

Example 13
The estimated fair value less costs to sell of S2 is CU135. A accounts for S2 as follows:

IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures (as amended at October 2009)


IGA6 IGA7 In the guidance on implementing IFRS 7 paragraphs IG13A and IG13B, and their accompanying tables, are deleted. Paragraph IG14 is amended as follows: IG14 The fair value at initial recognition of financial instruments that are not traded in active markets is determined measured in accordance with IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement and paragraph AG76 of IAS 39. ... Such recognition reflects changes in factors (including time) that market participants would consider in setting a price take into account when pricing the asset or liability (see paragraph AG76A AG76(b) of IAS 39). Paragraph 28 requires disclosures in these circumstances. An entity might disclose the following to comply with paragraph 28:

IFRS Foundation

38

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Background On 1 January 20X1 an entity purchases for CU15 million financial assets that are not traded in an active market. The entity has only one class of such financial assets. The transaction price of CU15 million is the fair value at initial recognition. After initial recognition, the entity will apply a valuation technique to establish measure the financial assets fair value. This valuation technique includes variables uses inputs other than data from observable markets. At initial recognition, the same valuation technique would have resulted in an amount of CU14 million, which differs from fair value by CU1 million. The entity has existing differences of CU5 million at 1 January 20X1. Application of requirements The entitys 20X2 disclosure would include the following: Accounting policies The entity uses the following valuation technique to determine measure the fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in an active market: [description of technique, not included in this example]. Differences may arise between the fair value at initial recognition (which, in accordance with IFRS 13 and IAS 39, is generally normally the transaction price) and the amount determined at initial recognition using the valuation technique. Any such differences are [description of the entitys accounting policy]. In the notes to the financial statements As discussed in note X, the entity uses [name of valuation technique] to measure the fair value of the following financial instruments that are not traded in an active market. However, in accordance with IFRS 13 and IAS 39, the fair value of an instrument at inception is generally normally the transaction price. If the transaction price differs from the amount determined at inception using the valuation technique, that difference is [description of the entitys accounting policy]. The differences yet to be recognised in profit or loss are as follows:

39

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (issued November 2009)


IGA8 In the amendments to guidance on other IFRSs, in paragraph IGA6 the amendment to the illustrative disclosure in paragraph IG14 of the Implementation Guidance accompanying IFRS 7 is amended as follows: IG14 The fair value at initial recognition of financial instruments that are not traded in active markets is determined measured in accordance with IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement and paragraph AG76 of IAS 39. ... Such recognition reflects changes in factors (including time) that market participants would consider in setting a price take into account when pricing the asset or liability (see paragraph AG76A AG76(b) of IAS 39). Paragraph 28 requires disclosures in these circumstances. An entity might disclose the following to comply with paragraph 28:

Background On 1 January 20X1 an entity purchases for CU15 million financial assets that are not traded in an active market. The entity has only one class of such financial assets. The transaction price of CU15 million is the fair value at initial recognition. After initial recognition, the entity will apply a valuation technique to establish measure the financial assets fair value. This valuation technique includes variables uses inputs other than data from observable markets. At initial recognition, the same valuation technique would have resulted in an amount of CU14 million, which differs from fair value by CU1 million. The entity has existing differences of CU5 million at 1 January 20X1.

IFRS Foundation

40

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Application of requirements The entitys 20X2 disclosure would include the following: Accounting policies The entity uses the following valuation technique to determine measure the fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in an active market: [description of technique, not included in this example]. Differences may arise between the fair value at initial recognition (which, in accordance with IFRS 13 and IAS 39, is generally normally the transaction price) and the amount determined at initial recognition using the valuation technique. Any such differences are [description of the entitys accounting policy]. In the notes to the financial statements As discussed in note X, the entity uses [name of valuation technique] to measure the fair value of the following financial instruments that are not traded in an active market. However, in accordance with IFRS 13 and IAS 39, the fair value of an instrument at inception is generally normally the transaction price. If the transaction price differs from the amount determined at inception using the valuation technique, that difference is [description of the entitys accounting policy]. The differences yet to be recognised in profit or loss are as follows:

IFRS 9 Financial Instruments (issued October 2010)


IGA9 In the amendments to the guidance on other IFRSs, in paragraph IGA14 the amendment to paragraph IG14 in the implementation guidance accompanying IFRS 7 the illustrative disclosure is amended as follows: IG14 The fair value at At initial recognition an entity measures the fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in active markets is determined in accordance with paragraph B5.4.8 of IFRS 9. ... Such recognition reflects changes in factors (including time) that market participants would consider in setting a price take into account when pricing the asset or liability (see paragraph B5.4.9 B5.1.2(b) of IFRS 9). Paragraph 28 requires disclosures in these circumstances. An entity might disclose the following to comply with paragraph 28:

41

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

Background On 1 January 20X1 an entity purchases for CU15 million financial assets that are not traded in an active market. The entity has only one class of such financial assets. The transaction price of CU15 million is the fair value at initial recognition. After initial recognition, the entity will apply a valuation technique to establish measure the financial assets fair value. This valuation technique includes variables uses inputs other than data from observable markets. At initial recognition, the same valuation technique would have resulted in an amount of CU14 million, which differs from fair value by CU1 million. The entity has existing differences of CU5 million at 1 January 20X1. Application of requirements The entitys 20X2 disclosure would include the following: Accounting policies The entity uses the following valuation technique to determine the fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in an active market: [description of technique, not included in this example]. Differences may arise between the fair value at initial recognition (which, in accordance with IFRS 13 and IAS 39, is generally normally the transaction price) and the amount determined at initial recognition using the valuation technique. Any such differences are [description of the entitys accounting policy]. In the notes to the financial statements As discussed in note X, the entity uses [name of valuation technique] to measure the fair value of the following financial instruments that are not traded in an active market. However, in accordance with IFRS 13 and IAS 39, the fair value of an instrument at inception is generally normally the transaction price. If the transaction price differs from the amount determined at inception using the valuation technique, that difference is [description of the entitys accounting policy]. The differences yet to be recognised in profit or loss are as follows:

IFRS Foundation

42

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

IAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting


IGA10 Paragraphs C4 and C7 are amended as follows: C4 Pensions: IAS 19 Employee Benefits requires that an entity to determine the present value of defined benefit obligations and the market fair value of plan assets at the end of each reporting period and encourages an entity to involve a professionally qualified actuary in measurement of the obligations. For interim reporting purposes, reliable measurement is often obtainable by extrapolation of the latest actuarial valuation. Revaluations and fair value accounting: IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment allows an entity to choose as its accounting policy the revaluation model whereby items of property, plant and equipment are revalued to fair value. Similarly, IAS 40 Investment Property requires an entity to determine measure the fair value of investment property. For those measurements, an entity may rely on professionally qualified valuers at annual reporting dates though not at interim reporting dates.

C7

IAS 36 Impairment of Assets


IGA11 In the illustrative examples all references to fair value less costs to sell are replaced with fair value less costs of disposal.

IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement


IGA12 In the guidance on implementing IAS 39 Questions and answers E.2.1 and E.2.2 are deleted.

IAS 41 Agriculture
IGA13 In the illustrative examples Example 1 is amended as follows: ... 1 Notes Operations and principal activities XYZ Dairy Ltd (the Company) is engaged in milk production for supply to various customers. At 31 December 20X1, the Company held 419 cows able to produce milk (mature assets) and 137 heifers being raised to produce milk in the future (immature assets). The Company produced 157,584kg of milk with a fair value less costs to sell of 518,240 (that is determined at the time of milking) in the year ended 31 December 20X1.

43

IFRS Foundation

IFRS 13 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES MAY 2011

Accounting policies Livestock and milk Livestock are measured at their fair value less costs to sell. The fair value of livestock is determined based on quoted market prices of livestock of similar age, breed, and genetic merit in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the livestock. Milk is initially measured at its fair value less costs to sell at the time of milking. The fair value of milk is determined based on quoted market prices in the local area in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the milk.

IFRIC 12 Service Concession Arrangements


IGA14 Paragraphs IE15 and IE31 are amended as follows: IE15 During the construction phase of the arrangement the operators asset (representing its accumulating right to be paid for providing construction services) is classified as an intangible asset (licence to charge users of the infrastructure). The operator estimates measures the fair value of its consideration received to be as equal to the forecast construction costs plus 5 per cent margin, which the operator concludes is consistent with the rate that a market participant would require as compensation for providing the construction services and for assuming the risk associated with the construction costs. It is also assumed that, in accordance with IAS 23 Borrowing Costs, the operator capitalises the borrowing costs, estimated at 6.7 per cent, during the construction phase of the arrangement: ... IE31 During the construction phase of the arrangement the operators asset (representing its accumulating right to be paid for providing construction services) is classified as a right to receive a licence to charge users of the infrastructure. The operator estimates measures the fair value of its consideration received or receivable as equal to the forecast construction costs plus 5 per cent, which the operator concludes is consistent with the rate that a market participant would require as compensation for providing the construction services and for assuming the risk associated with the construction costs. It is also assumed that, in

IFRS Foundation

44

IFRS 13 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

accordance with IAS 23 Borrowing Costs, the operator capitalises the borrowing costs, estimated at 6.7 per cent, during the construction phase: ...

IFRIC 13 Customer Loyalty Programmes


IGA15 Paragraphs IE1 and IE3 are amended as follows: IE1 A grocery retailer operates a customer loyalty programme. It grants programme members loyalty points when they spend a specified amount on groceries. Programme members can redeem the points for further groceries. The points have no expiry date. In one period, the entity grants 100 points. Management estimates measures the fair value of groceries for which each loyalty point can be redeemed as 1.25 currency units (CU1.25). This amount takes into account an managements estimate of the discount that management market participants would assume when pricing the award credits. That discount takes into account market participants expectations of the discount that expects would otherwise be offered to customers who have not earned award credits from an initial sale. In addition, management estimates that market participants would expects only 80 of these points to be redeemed. Therefore, the fair value of each point is CU1, being the fair value of the award for each loyalty point granted of CU1.25 reduced to take into account points not expected to be redeemed ((80 points/100 points) CU1.25 = CU1). Accordingly, management defers recognition of revenue of CU100. Throughout the example, management determines that non-performance risk has an immaterial effect on the measurement of its obligation under the programme. In the second year, management revises its estimate of market participants expectations. It now expects 90 points to be redeemed altogether.

IE3

IFRIC 14 IAS 19The Limit on a Defined Benefit Asset, Minimum Funding Requirements and their Interaction
IGA16 In the illustrative examples all references to market value of assets are replaced with fair value.

45

IFRS Foundation

Anda mungkin juga menyukai