(The article featured
below is a selection from International
Securities and Financial Reporting Update, which is available to subscribers
of that publication.)
IASB Will Propose Global Standard for Fair Value
Converged with FASB and U.S. GAAP
The IASB plans to propose a single fair value
standard for IFRS by mid-2009 and adopt an IFRS for fair value accounting in
2010 that will be converged with FASB SFAS 157. The IASB has already begun
formulating the standard based on an earlier discussion paper and plans to hold
roundtables in the fourth quarter of this year.
This is an important development in light of the fact
that the issue of valuing asset-backed securities in illiquid markets is one of
the factors contributing to the current market crisis. The IASB's push toward a
single fair value standard is partially driven by the Financial Stability
Forum's recommendations on the reform of fair value accounting. The Forum has
called for guidance on the valuation of complex securities in inactive markets
as part of a broad reform of the securitization process.
Since guidance on measuring fair value has been added
to IFRS piecemeal over many years, current guidance on measuring fair value is
dispersed across many IFRSs and is not always consistent. Further, the current
guidance is incomplete in that it provides neither a clear measurement objective
nor a robust measurement framework. The Board believes that this adds
unnecessary complexity to IFRSs and contributes to diversity in practice. The
Board's overarching goal is to establish a single source of guidance for all
fair value measurements required or permitted by existing IFRSs and at the same
time enhance disclosure about fair value to enable users of financial statements
to assess the extent to which fair value is used to measure assets and
liabilities and to provide them with information about the inputs used to derive
those fair values.
While cautioning that its proposal may differ from
SFAS 157, the Board assured that the project is part of the roadmap to
convergence with FASB and U.S. GAAP. In that spirit, the Board said that SFAS
157 will be the starting point on the road to the issuance of a common standard.
The IASB's definition of fair value for financial
instruments in IAS 32 is similar to that in SFAS 157. However, there are
differences that must be resolved if the two boards are to issue a common
standard requiring the fair value measurement of financial instruments. As part
of the process, the Board has formed an expert advisory panel comprised of
preparers and users of financial statements, as well as regulators and auditors,
to assist it in developing an IFRS fair value standard.
One of the more significant differences between SFAS
157 and IFRS is that SFAS 157 defines fair value as the price that would be
received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in a transaction
between market participants at the measurement date. By comparison, fair value
is generally defined in IFRSs as the amount for which an asset could be
exchanged, or a liability settled, between willing parties in an arm's length
transaction.
While there is a growing consensus that the goal of
one consistent global standard on fair value accounting is desirable, some
commenters to the IASB discussion paper had concerns. For example,
PricewaterhouseCoopers is concerned about the reliability of market based exit
prices in some circumstances, particularly where any determination of fair value
is dependent on an assessment of a transaction in a hypothetical market.
While applauding the use of SFAS 157 as a starting
point, PwC asked the Board to recognize that the circumstances in which fair
value is used as a measurement basis differ between IFRS and U.S. GAAP. For
example, IFRSs require or permit the use of fair values in situations which have
no parallel in current U.S. GAAP. In addition, SFAS 157 defines how to measure
fair value more narrowly than U.S. GAAP. PwC believes that the exit price
concept underlying SFAS 157 is not relevant in many circumstances where the term
fair value is used under IFRS. Thus, the firm recommends the elimination of the
term fair value in each individual IFRS standard and the use of more precise
terminology such as exit price, entry price etc.
Expressing similar concerns, KPMG advised the IASB
not to pursue a solution based on a single definition of fair value using the
exit price approach that is the basis of SFAS 157. KPMG also suggested replacing
fair value with more specific descriptions, such as current exit price or
current entry price.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and
Wales said that the main use of fair values in U.S. GAAP is for financial
instruments, where an exit price methodology may have more relevance. Noting
that IFRS requires or permits the use of fair values in situations that are not
envisaged under present U.S. GAAP, the Institute is concerned that application
of SFAS 157's exit price methodology to all kinds of assets and liabilities
would lead to inappropriate measurements.
The Institute also said that SFAS 157 does not
provide a suitable basis for harmonizing the various uses of fair value in IFRS.
In particular, the Institute believes that fair value should not always be
measured as an exit price. Also, it does not believe that transfer value will
usually be the right way to measure the fair value of a liability.
A further problem with SFAS 157 could be in the
meaning of observable inputs. This is important in distinguishing between the
different levels in the measurement hierarchy, but is often unclear in practice.
The Institute urged the IASB to consider either giving guidance on this question
that is more specific than the guidance in SFAS 157 or requiring reporting
entities to disclose how they have distinguished between observable and
unobservable inputs in preparing fair value measurements in their own accounts.
In the view of the Institute, the final IFRS standard
on fair value measurement must be principles-based. It would not be helpful to
develop what is supposed to be a common approach to fair value, but which in
practice, because it is not firmly based in principles, is subject to a growing
list of exceptions for particular cases.
Echoing these themes, the German Accounting Standards
Board noted that IFRSs require or allow fair value measurements in more
situations and standards than U.S. GAAP, while at the same time the definition
of fair value in SFAS 157 is narrower that that in IFRSs. The exit price
definition of fair value in SFAS 157 includes a market perspective which is not
contained in the IFRS definition, noted GASB, which involves a transaction price
between two willing parties and does not necessarily require an active market.
Like the global accounting firms, GASB urged replacing the more general term
fair value with terms, such as current exit price that more closely reflect the
measurement basis and underlying measurement objective for each situation. In
this regard, the term fair value would be an umbrella definition, reasoned the
German standard setter, and the relevant standard would state which of the
different bases is to be applied.
"The current guidance is incomplete in that it
provides neither a clear measurement objective nor a robust measurement
framework."
|