Appendix B (AASB13_08-15_COMPdec22_01-24)

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 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) the particular asset or liability that is the subject of the measurement (consistently with its unit of account).

(b) for a non-financial asset, the valuation premise that is appropriate for the measurement (consistently with its highest and best use).

(c) the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or liability.

(d) the valuation technique(s) appropriate for the measurement, considering the availability of data with which to develop inputs that represent the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability and the level of the fair value hierarchy within which the inputs are categorised.

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 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 asset’s 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).

(c) an asset’s 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.

(d) an asset’s 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.

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

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.

(b) 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.

(c) The unit of account represented by the transaction price is different from the unit of account for the asset or liability measured at fair value. For example, that might be the case if the asset or liability measured at fair value is only one of the elements in the transaction (eg in a business combination), the transaction includes unstated rights and privileges that are measured separately in accordance with another Standard, or the transaction price includes transaction costs.

(d) 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.

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.

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.

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) present value techniques (see paragraphs B12–B30);

(b) 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

(c) the multi-period excess earnings method, which is used to measure the fair value of some intangible assets.

Paragraphs B13–B30 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.

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) an estimate of future cash flows for the asset or liability being measured.

(b) expectations about possible variations in the amount and timing of the cash flows representing the uncertainty inherent in the cash flows.

(c) the time value of money, represented by the rate on risk-free monetary assets that have maturity dates or durations that coincide with the period covered by the cash flows and pose neither uncertainty in timing nor risk of default to the holder (ie a risk-free interest rate).

(d) the price for bearing the uncertainty inherent in the cash flows (ie a risk premium).

(e) other factors that market participants would take into account in the circumstances.

(f) for a liability, the non-performance risk relating to that liability, including the entity’s (ie the obligor’s) own credit risk.

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) Cash flows and discount rates should reflect assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability.

(b) Cash flows and discount rates should take into account only the factors attributable to the asset or liability being measured.

(c) To avoid double-counting or omitting the effects of risk factors, discount rates should reflect assumptions that are consistent with those inherent in the cash flows. 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.

(d) 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 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.

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 B18–B22) uses a risk-adjusted discount rate and contractual, promised or most likely cash flows.

(b) Method 1 of the expected present value technique (see paragraph B25) uses risk-adjusted expected cash flows and a risk-free rate.

(c) 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.

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 (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).

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^[1] 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].

(b) 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].

(c) All three assets are comparable with respect to risk (ie dispersion of possible pay-offs and credit).

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 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.

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.

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 variable’s 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) unsystematic (diversifiable) risk, which is the risk specific to a particular asset or liability.

(b) systematic (non-diversifiable) risk, which is the common risk shared by an asset or a liability with the other items in a diversified portfolio.

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.)

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.

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 asset’s 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).

(b) 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).

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.

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) undertaking the activity (ie the value of fulfilling the obligation; eg by using resources that could be used for other activities); and

(b) 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).

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 entity’s own equity instrument that is not held by another party as an asset in one of the following ways:

(a) by adjusting the cash flows (ie as an increase in the amount of cash outflows); or

(b) by adjusting the rate used to discount the future cash flows to their present values (ie as a reduction in the discount rate).

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.

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.

(b) 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).

(c) 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 party’s price requirements. Prices of completed transactions are sometimes available. Brokered markets include electronic communication networks, in which buy and sell orders are matched, and commercial and residential real estate markets.

(d) Principal-to-principal 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.

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.

(b) 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.

(c) Receive-fixed, pay-variable interest rate swap based on a specific bank’s prime rate. A Level 2 input would be the bank’s prime rate derived through extrapolation if the extrapolated values are corroborated by observable market data, for example, by correlation with an interest rate that is observable over substantially the full term of the swap.

(d) Three-year option on exchange-traded shares. A Level 2 input would be the implied volatility for the shares derived through extrapolation to year 3 if both of the following conditions exist:

(i) Prices for one-year and two-year options on the shares are observable.

(ii) The extrapolated implied volatility of a three-year option is corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the option.

In that case the implied volatility could be derived by extrapolating from the implied volatility of the 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.

(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.

(f) 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.

(g) 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.

(h) 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.

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.

(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.

(c) 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.

(d) Decommissioning liability assumed in a business combination. A Level 3 input would be a current estimate using the entity’s 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 entity’s credit standing on the fair value of the liability is reflected in the discount rate rather than in the estimate of future cash outflows.

(e) Cash-generating unit. A Level 3 input would be a financial forecast (eg of cash flows or profit or loss) developed using the entity’s own data if there is no reasonably available information that indicates that market participants would use different assumptions.

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.

(b) Price quotations are not developed using current information.

(c) Price quotations vary substantially either over time or among market-makers (eg some brokered markets).

(d) 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.

(e) 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 entity’s estimate of expected cash flows, taking into account all available market data about credit and other non-performance risk for the asset or liability.

(f) There is a wide bid-ask spread or significant increase in the bid-ask spread.

(g) There is a significant decline 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.

(h) Little information is publicly available (eg for transactions that take place in a principal-to-principal market).

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 Standard does not prescribe a methodology for making significant adjustments to transactions or quoted prices. See paragraphs 61–66 and B5–B11 for a discussion of the use of valuation techniques when measuring fair value. Regardless of the valuation technique used, an 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.

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 entity’s 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.

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 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.

(b) There was a usual and customary marketing period, but the seller marketed the asset or liability to a single market participant.

(c) The seller is in or near bankruptcy or receivership (ie the seller is distressed).

(d) The seller was required to sell to meet regulatory or legal requirements (ie the seller was forced).

(e) The transaction price is an outlier when compared with other recent transactions for the same or a similar asset or liability.

An entity shall evaluate the circumstances to determine whether, on the weight of the evidence available, the transaction is orderly.

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.

(b) 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) the volume of the transaction.

(ii) the comparability of the transaction to the asset or liability being measured.

(iii) the proximity of the transaction to the measurement date.

(c) 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 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.

This Standard 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 Standard.

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.