Fair Value Measurements E-Book

Mark L. Zyla

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 691

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2010

Beschreibung

A hands-on volume for financial executives with guidance on the fair value measurement process In today's dynamic and volatile markets, whether buying or selling, what corporate officers need to know is the worth of an asset today, a task that for many has become complex and at times confusing. Fair Value Measurements: Practical Guidance and Implementation demystifies this topic, offering you a nuts-and-bolts guide of the most recent developments in preparing financial statements using fair value measurements. This straightforward book covers the best practices on measuring fair value in a business combination and how to subsequently test the value of these assets for impairment. * Filters complicated insider concepts into easy-to-understand information on the valuation specialist's function * Discusses the many new FASB pronouncements involving fair value * Instantly familiarizes you on the ins and outs of fair value financial disclosure Well-written, conversational in tone, and filled with valuable insights, Fair Value Measurements: Practical Guidance and Implementation lifts the veil of confusion from the substantial and growing requirements for fair value disclosures.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Dedication

Preface

Acknowledgements

About the Author

CHAPTER 1 - Fair Value Accounting

Introduction

History of Fair Value in Financial Reporting

SFAS 157, Fair Value Measurements

SFAS 159, Fair Value Option

Conclusion

Notes

APPENDIX 1A - Fair Value Accounting and the Current Economic Crisis

Mark-to-Market Accounting

Fair Value Measurement Concepts

The Accounting Implications of Fair Value Measurements in Illiquid Markets

Application of Fair Value Accounting in Illiquid Market

FSP FAS 157-3, Determining the Fair Value of a Financial Asset When the Market ...

Study on Mark-to-Market Accounting

Conclusion of the Report

New FASB Project to Improve Measurement and Disclosure of Fair Value Estimates

Additional FASB Staff Positions (FSPs) to Improve Guidance on Fair Value ...

Financial Crisis Advisory Group (FCAG)

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 2 - Fair Value Measurements in Business Combinations and Subsequent ...

Accounting for Business Combinations

Subsequent Accounting for Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 3 - The Nature of Intangible Assets

History of Intangible Assets

Economic Basis of Intangible Assets

Identification of Intangible Assets

Examples of Specific Intangible Assets

Types of Intangible Assets

Useful Life of an Intangible Asset

Intangible Assets and Economic Risk

Economic Balance Sheet

Valuation Techniques

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 4 - The Cost Approach

The Cost Approach under FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures ...

Economic Foundation for the Cost Approach

Cost versus Price versus Fair Value

The Role of Expected Economic Benefits in the Cost Approach

Reproduction Cost versus Replacement Cost

Components of Cost

Obsolescence

The Relationships among Cost, Obsolescence, and Value

Physical Deterioration

Functional (Technological) Obsolescence

Economic (External) Obsolescence

Applying the Cost Approach

Taxes under the Cost Approach

Limitations of the Cost Approach

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 5 - The Market Approach

Introduction

Applying the Market Approach in Measuring the Fair Value of an Entity or ...

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 6 - The Income Approach

Introduction

Discounted Cash Flow Method

Multiperiod Excess Earnings Method

FASB Concepts Statement 7

Rates of Return under the Income Approach

The Income Increment/Cost Decrement Method

Profit Split Method

Build-Out Method, or “Greenfield Method” (With and Without)

Weighted Average Cost of Capital Calculation

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 7 - Advanced Valuation Methods for Measuring the Fair Value of ...

Introduction

Limitations of Traditional Valuation Methods

Real Options

Using Option Pricing Methodologies to Value Intangible Assets

Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model

Binomial or Lattice Models

Monte Carlo Simulation

Decision Tree Analysis

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 8 - Measuring the Remaining Useful Life of Intangible Assets in ...

Introduction

FASB Guidance on Determining the Remaining Useful Life

Considerations in Measuring Useful Lives of Intangible Assets

Guideline Useful Lives

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 9 - Fair Value Measurements of Private Equity and Other Alternative Investments

Introduction

AICPA’s Alternative Investment Task Force

Accounting Standards Update No. 200-12, Investments in Certain Entities That ...

Updated U.S. Private Equity Valuation Guidelines

Common Valuation Methodologies of Measuring the Fair Value of the Fund’s ...

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 10 - Fair Value Measurements under IFRSs

Convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRSs

SEC Road Map to IFRSs

The IASB’s Fair Value Measurement Project

IFRSs in Business Combinations and Impairment Testing

IAS 38 Intangible Assets

Impairment of Intangible Assets Held for Use

International Valuation Standards Council

IFRS for Small and Medium Size Entities (SME)

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 11 - Disclosures in Fair Value Measurements

Introduction

The Role of Disclosures

Disclosures under FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (SFAS ...

Fair Value Disclosures in Business Combinations and in Subsequent Impairments ...

SEC Suggested Disclosures

FAS 157—Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 12 - Auditing Fair Value Measurements

Introduction

The Audit Process

Auditing Estimates in Fair Value Measurements

AU Section 328 (SAS 101), Auditing Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures

Testing Management’s Fair Value Measurements

Testing Management’s Significant Assumptions, the Valuation Model, and the ...

Testing the Reliability of Management’s Assumptions

Should an Auditor Engage a Valuation Specialist?

PCAOB Staff Audit Practice Alert No. 2, Matters Related to Auditing Fair Value ...

SEC Audit Guidance

Nonauthoritative Guidance

The Appraisal Foundation

Appraisal Issues Task Force (AITF)

Conclusion

Notes

CHAPTER 13 - Fair Value Measurement Case Study

Learning Objectives

Business Background and Facts—Software

APPENDIX 13A - Suggested Case Study Solutions

Information Request—SFAS 142

Information Request for Business Combinations—SFAS 141R

Glossary of International Business Valuation Terms

Bibliography

Index

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, [phone], fax [phone], or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, [phone], fax [phone], or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at [phone], outside the United States at [phone] or fax [phone].

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.

eISBN : 978-0-470-58877-2

To my wife, Jo Ann, and my son, Jack.

You make this all possible . . .

Preface

Fair Value Measurements is one the more controversial statements intro-duced by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in decades. Fair Value Measurements is a by-product of a very fundamental change in the measurement of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes. No longer are financial statements prepared primarily on historical cost-based information. Accounting standards for financial reporting, particularly for business combinations, require the measurement of certain assets and liabilities at their current, fair value. Fair value measurement often requires the financial statement preparer to use judgment in the measurement of both assets and liabilities, contributing to the controversy about the use of fair value as a standard of measurement.

The use of fair value measurements is generally referred to as fair value accounting. Despite the controversy, Fair Value Measurements (FASB ASC 820 or SFAS 157, as originally issued) doesn’t create any new accounting. Fair value measurement has been part of financial reporting standards for some time, although its use has expanded greatly in recent years. Fair Value Measurements was issued to clarify the concepts relating to fair value in financial reporting.

There are many reasons for this fundamental change in accounting toward fair value measurement. Investors are clamoring for more relevant information in order to make investment decisions. Investors question the usefulness of historical cost-based accounting and reporting in an age where all types of information is shared by billions of people almost instantaneously. Currently, most financial statement measurements provided by traditional accounting methods provide information to investors that is months old in the best case. In many cases, the asset measurements are recorded several years prior to the financial statement date. Investors question whether there should be a better measurement model for financial reporting.

Additionally, fair value accounting has become more prevalent because of changes in the economy over the last twenty five or thirty years. The economies of the United States and many other countries worldwide have undergone a fundamental change where the primary driving factors of a corporation’s value are based upon its intangible assets rather than its fixed assets, such as manufacturing plants, other real property, and equipment. The market valuations of Microsoft, Oracle, and Google, for example, greatly exceed reported asset values that appear on their respective balance sheets. Much of the market’s perception about the equity value of these companies is attributed to their intangible assets, such as technology, trade names, and customer relationships, which are typically not recorded as assets on their balance sheets. Traditional financial statements generally provide no indication that these companies’ intangible assets even exist, with the exception of intangible assets recognized through business combinations. In contrast, a more reliable indication of the current fair value of these intangible assets can be derived from the financial markets based on the trading price of the companies’ underlying shares of stock.

Economic globalization over the last thirty years or so has spotlighted differences in worldwide accounting standards. As the global economy expanded, cross-border acquisitions became more common. Yet the acquiring and acquired entities often reported financial results using completely different sets of accounting standards with different measurement systems creating accounting issues relating to comparability and assimilation. The FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) recognized these issues and called for one set of uniform accounting standards worldwide in 2002. These Boards plan to create convergence between the two most widely used standards, U.S Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the International Financial Reporting System (IFRS). IFRS is a principles-based system of accounting with an underlying philosophy that calls for the current fair value measurement of assets and liabilities in more circumstances than is required by U.S. GAAP. Convergence of GAAP into IFRS will further increase the use of current or fair values as a measurement standard in financial reporting.

The accounting profession itself recognizes the shortcomings of its traditional, historical, cost-based system of measurement. The heads of the largest international accounting firms have publicly stated that the profession needs to rectify current shortcomings and provide an alternative that will provide more relevant and timely information to users of financial statements. Two of the more significant shortcomings recognized by members of the profession who lead international accounting firms are the lack of relevancy provided by historical, cost-based financial statements and the lack of information about the value of internally generated intangible assets. Fair value accounting is a step toward correcting these shortcomings. The heads of these international firms fully support the convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS.

Another controversy surrounding Fair Value Measurements is the statement’s role in the credit crisis that began in mid-2008. When the credit crisis began, Fair Value Measurement had been partially implemented as a basis for measuring certain financial assets and liabilities. Many financial institutions and investment banks had also elected to measure certain financial assets and liabilities at their respective fair values under another accounting statement, the Fair Value Option. At the time of the election, fair value was relatively easily measured since most financial instruments were actively traded in secondary markets. However, with the arrival of the credit crisis, the trading activity in these markets was severely curtailed, almost overnight. The proper fair value measurement of these formerly actively traded instruments became an issue since there was no longer an active market for the instruments on which one could pin a valuation. A controversy resulted when the following question was raised, “Where does one go for an indication of value when the market for these instruments is distressed and no longer considered active?” The debate intensified as the pertinent issue became “Does an inactive market mean that the fair value of the underlying asset is severely distressed as well?” As bankers and the owners of millions of businesses will agree, the answer is a resounding no.

The proximity of Fair Value Measurements’ full implementation date to the beginning of the credit crisis further heightened the controversy surrounding the statement. Fair value accounting, or mark-to-market accounting as it is commonly referred to, was blamed for causing or at least contributing to the credit crisis. The accounting concept became a political issue in the 2008 presidential campaign and it was the subject of several congressional hearings. However, an SEC report to congress found no connection between the credit crisis and fair value measurements. As discussed in the appendix to Chapter One (Appendix 1A), the credit crisis issues were largely resolved through additional FASB staff clarifications about Fair Value Measurements.

Fair Value Measurements introduces a new dynamic in financial reporting. Fair Value Measurements inherently increases the need for judgment in the preparation of financial statements. Under traditional historical, cost-based accounting, the basis for measurement was typically based on the amount paid to purchase an asset or the amount received in exchange for incurring a liability. While historical cost accounting has its own challenges and limitations, the measurement of fair value can sometimes be easily determinable from an acquisition price. In other circumstances, fair value accounting requires the measurement of complex assets and liabilities for which there is no transaction price. In these situations, the measurement of the fair value is often beyond the expertise of management. Management often retains the services of an outside valuation specialist to assist with the measurement of fair value. The valuation specialist provides guidance to management and provides an opinion about the fair value measurement of specifically identified assets and liabilities. Management then uses the outside specialists’ guidance to measure the fair value of the specified assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes. The valuation specialist’s report can be used as audit evidence to support the fair value measurement. The auditor’s internal valuation specialist, working as part of the audit team, tests the outside specialists report for reasonableness.

Fair Value Measurement has recently been fully implemented and incorporated into required accounting standards. Both the accounting profession and the valuation profession are working toward refining best practices for the measurement of fair value. The purpose of this book is to provide a summary of implementation guidance and best practices to date. Valuation theory is constantly evolving, which creates divergence in practice. Where there is a divergence in current practices, I have attempted to present both positions. This book should be useful not only to valuation specialists, but to preparers of financial statements, auditors, and academics to understand the development of fair value measurements.

Critics have cited the difficulties associated with measuring fair value. Valuation does require a certain amount of judgment. However, this judgment is no less than the judgment required by an investor when deciding upon a price to pay for any form of investment. The trade-off is between the subjectivity of fair value measurements based in part on the preparer’s judgment and the relevance of current fair values to financial reporting compared to the relevance of historical cost accounting. Clearly, there are some challenges. Hopefully this book will help with those challenges.

MARK L. ZYLA

Atlanta, Georgia

September 2009

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, a very special thank you to Lynn Pierson for her assistance with this book. Without her help, the book would not have been completed with nearly the quality and depth of guidance. Also thank you to Zondra Lay, Gina Miller, Mary Jo Duffy, and Barbara Brown for their assistance in research and preparation of many of the exhibits. I also want to express my heartfelt thanks to Charles Phillips and our other colleagues at Acuitas, Inc. for their patience and support for this project.

Also thank you to Bill Kennedy of Anders Minkler & Deihl LLP, Julie DeLong of Navigant Consulting, Teresa Thamer of Brenau University, Brian Steen of Dixon Hughes LLP, Brent Solomon and Tara Marino of Reznick Group, Mark Edwards of Grant Thornton LLP, Michael Blake of Habif Arogetti & Wynn LLP, John Lin of McKesson Corporation, Adrian Loud of Bennett Thrasher LLP, Tracy Haas of Roake Capital, Harold Martin, Peter Thacker, and Brian Burns of Kieter, Stephens, Hurst, Gary & Shreaves, P.C., Bernard Pump of Deloitte LLP, Jim Dondero of Huron Consulting Group, Ellen Larson of FTI, Steve Hyden of the Financial Valuation Group, and David Dufendach of Grant Thornton LLP. Their comments and suggestions on various aspects of fair value measurements were invaluable in assisting me in developing the book. Any errors, however, are my own.

About the Author

Mark L. Zyla CPA/ABV, CFA, ASA is a Managing Director of Acuitas, Inc., an Atlanta, Georgia-based valuation and litigation consultancy firm. Zyla has provided valuation consulting for more than twenty five years for various types of entities for the purposes of mergers and acquisitions, financial reporting, tax planning, and corporate recapitalizations, as well as valuing various types of intellectual property and other intangible assets for many purposes.

Zyla received a BBA in finance from the University of Texas at Austin and an MBA with a concentration in finance from Georgia State University. Zyla also completed the Mergers and Acquisitions Program at the Aresty Institute of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the Valuation Program at the Graduate School of Business at Harvard University. He is a Certified Public Accountant, Accredited in Business Valuation (CPA/ABV), Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF) by the AICPA, a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), and an Accredited Senior Appraiser with the American Society of Appraisers (ASA) certified in Business Valuation.

Zyla is a member of the American Society of Appraisers (ASA), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), CFA Institute, and the CFA Society of Atlanta. Zyla is a former member of the Business Valuations Committee of the AICPA, and a former Chairman of the ABV Examination Committee of the AICPA. He is also a former member of the Business Valuation Standards Subcommittee of the ASA. He was named as Vice Chairman of the Appraisal Foundation’s first Business Valuation Best Practices Working Group and to the AICPA’s Fair Value Resource Panel, working as a member of the AICPA’s Impairment Practice Aid Task Force. He was the first chairman of the AICPA’s Fair Value Measurements conference. He is also a member of the Atlanta Venture Forum, a professional organization of the venture capital community. He is one of the authors of the International Glossary of Business Valuation Terms, which has been adopted by the major valuation organizations.

Zyla is also the co-author of the AICPA courses Fair Value Accounting: A Critical New Skill for All CPA and Accounting for Goodwill and Intangible Assets published by the AICPA. He is also co-author of Fair Value Measurements: Valuation Principles and Auditing Techniques published by Tax Management, Inc., a division of the Bureau of National Affairs.

Zyla regularly teaches valuation topics for the AICPA. He has taught for the Federal Judicial Center and is on the faculty of the National Judicial College, teaching valuation concepts to judges.

CHAPTER 1

Fair Value Accounting

Welcome to the new world of accounting! Where once financial statement preparation involved primarily the use of historical cost information, accounting now involves the use of judgment as to the current value of assets and liabilities. Fair value—or as it is sometimes referred to, mark-to-market accounting—has become the preeminent issue in financial reporting today. The concepts introduced by fair value accounting change the way financial information is presented. An increasing amount of information in financial reporting is presented at current or market values on the reporting date rather than historical costs, which has been the bedrock of traditional accounting.

Advocates of fair value accounting believe that this presentation best represents the financial position of the entity and provides more relevant information to the users of the financial information. Detractors of fair value accounting point to its complexity and inherent use of judgment. Either way, fair value accounting is becoming more prominent in financial statement presentation and will continue to be the fundamental basis for accounting in the future.

Introduction

Fair value has been a standard of measurement in financial reporting for decades. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has issued more than three dozen statements that use the term fair value as the measurement of value. Most prominent among these pronouncements is the recently issued revised FASB ASC 805, Business Combinations (SFAS No. 141(R)),1 which incorporates fair value as the fundamental standard of measurement in accounting for business combinations. Fair value is also the standard of measurement used in subsequent testing for impairment of the acquired assets under FASB ASC 350, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets (SFAS 142) and SFAS 144, Testing for Impairment of Long Lived Assets. The concept of fair value is interesting because each of these statements about the measurement of fair value is the value to the market as of the measurement date, not necessarily the value to the preparer of the financial statement. As such, measuring fair value for participants in those markets requires some judgment.

The FASB issued FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 157), to clarify the concepts related to its measurement. According to the FASB, the purpose of the statement is to define fair value, establish a framework for measuring fair value, and expand disclosure about fair value measurements.2Fair Value Measurements does not introduce any new accounting per se. Fair Value Measurements was issued by the FASB to provide one uniform statement under which the concept of fair value in all financial reporting is more fully explained.

FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (SFAS No. 157), was not initially universally accepted without some controversy. The day before its scheduled implementation, the FASB delayed the full implementation date of the statement in response to concerns by certain preparers of financial statements. The statement was revised to become effective for just financial assets and liabilities for the first year. The statement became fully effective for all items, both financial and nonfinancial for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008. The reason provided by the FASB for the partial implementation was “to allow the Board and constituents additional time to consider the effect of various implementation issues that have arisen, or that may arise, from the application of Statement 157.”3 Even the partial implementation did not allay all of the controversy. Some critics of fair value accounting claimed that the credit crisis that began in 2008 was at the very least exacerbated by the statement’s implementation by financial institutions.

History of Fair Value in Financial Reporting

Even though it has become more prominent recently, fair value has been a standard of measurement in financial reporting for some time, particularly in measuring certain financial assets and liabilities. One of the first prominent accounting statements to use fair value as the standard of measurement in financial reporting is APB (Accounting Principles Board) 18, which was issued in the early 1970s. APB 18 introduced the equity method of accounting in financial statement reporting for investments. APB 18 described the financial statement treatment and measurement of investments losses considered other than temporary as requiring recognition if the investment’s fair value declined below its carrying value. APB 29, Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions, introduced in early 1973, actually outlined ways to measure fair value in those types of transactions. Financial Accounting Standard 15 (FAS 15) in the late 1970s defined fair value as a willing buyer and willing seller and described market value and discounted cash flows in accounting in troubled situations. Fair value measurements were introduced in pension accounting in a couple of statements in the 1980s. In 1991 FAS 107, Disclosures about Fair Value in Financial Instruments, required the disclosure of fair value in financial instruments. FAS 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, was introduced in 1999. FAS 115 requires fair value as the standard of measurement for many types of debt and equity securities. In 2000, the FASB introduced FAS 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, which required fair value as the measurement for derivative securities. SFAS 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities—Including an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 115, which allowed certain entities to elect to measure selected assets and liabilities at fair value, was implemented by the FASB in 2007. Although many accounting pronouncements refer to fair value and have been a part of financial reporting for a long time, the concept of what exactly is meant by fair value became most prominent in financial reporting in accounting measurements in business combinations.

During the technology boom in the late 1990s—brought on by the initial commercialization of the Internet—FASB began a project to update the Accounting Principles Board’s Opinion No. 16, Business Combinations (APB 16). APB 16 was the accounting standard at that time for acquisitions and other business combinations. The FASB observed during the 1990s that many mergers and acquisitions were transactions where most of the economic value was created by the technology and other intangible assets of the acquired company. However, under the accounting at the time (APB 16) much of the value of the transaction showed up on the balance sheet as goodwill. The FASB’s project was the result of the conclusion that APB 16 did not fairly represent the economic substance of those business combinations. The project concluded that the value of intangible assets in business combinations had dramatically increased, particularly when compared to the value of tangible assets. Yet these results were not being fairly presented on the resulting financial statements.

The board determined that under the old APB 16, companies had too much leeway in reporting the value of intangible assets in acquisitions, and financial statements were not fairly representing the allocation of the acquisition price to the acquired assets. Under the old accounting rules, most of the value in allocation of purchase price was being recorded as goodwill, which could then be amortized for up to 40 years.

On June 29, 2001, the FASB issued SFAS 141, Business Combinations, the original FASB standard on business combinations, which has since been superseded by FASB ASC 805, Business Combinations (SFAS 141(R)). Business Combinations placed stricter requirements on the acquirer to recognize acquired intangible assets in the financial statements. Paragraph 39 in SFAS 141 requires that “An intangible asset shall be recognized as an asset apart from goodwill if it arises from contractual or other legal rights or, if not contractual, only if it is capable of being sold, transferred, licensed, rented or exchanged. An assembled and trained workforce, however, is not valued separately from goodwill.”4 Under SFAS 141, only purchase accounting was allowed. The pooling of an interests accounting method for acquisitions where one entity combines with another at book value, if the acquisition met certain criteria, was no longer allowed. The FASB believed that the purchase method of accounting provided a better representation of the true economics of the underlying transaction than the pooling method that presented the combined transaction on a pure historical cost basis.

As part of the convergence of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with international accounting standards, the FASB revised SFAS 141 for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. Under FASB ASC 805, Business Combinations (SFAS No. 141(R)), purchase accounting is replaced by the Acquisition Method. Under the Acquisition Method the fair value of acquired assets are no longer determined by an allocation of the purchase price. The fair value of those assets acquired in the business combination is independent of the price that was paid in the transaction.

FASB ASC 805, Business Combinations (SFAS 141(R)), still requires that the acquirer recognize the identifiable intangible assets acquired in a business combination separately from goodwill. SFAS 141 introduced a comprehensive list of intangible assets, and lists the criteria for recognition of intangible assets acquired, which was extended in FASB ASC 805, Business Combinations. An intangible asset is considered identifiable in a business combination if it meets either the separability criterion or the contractual-legal criterion. An intangible asset meets the separability criterion if it meets one of two criteria:

1. Is separable, that is, capable of being separated or divided from the entity and sold, transferred, licensed, rented, or exchanged, either individually or together with a related contract, identifiable asset, or liability, regardless of whether the entity intends to do so

2. Arises from contractual or other legal rights, regardless of whether those rights are transferable or separable from the entity or from other rights and obligations5

In the initial 1999 exposure draft of SFAS 141, the FASB proposed that goodwill be identified in the business combination and amortized over its remaining life. However, in response to numerous comments to the initial exposure draft suggesting that the useful life of goodwill would be difficult to determine thus difficult amortize, the FASB changed its mind and introduced an alternative to the amortization of goodwill. So, goodwill was not amortized under SFAS 141. Instead, goodwill received an alternative accounting treatment: It must be tested annually for impairment.

To reinforce the impairment testing alternative, the FASB also issued FASB ASC 350, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets (SFAS 142), in 2001. FASB ASC 350 (SFAS 142) provides guidance on determining whether goodwill recorded after the acquisition becomes impaired. FASB ASC 350 (SFAS 142) was introduced by the FASB as the result of comments by various respondents to the initial exposure draft of Business Combinations. Under FASB ASC 350 (SFAS 142), goodwill that is recorded as the result of a business combination is tested annually for impairment under a two-step test. The first step is to estimate the fair value of the appropriate reporting unit by comparing the fair value to its carrying value (book value). If the fair value is greater than book value, then goodwill is not impaired. If the fair value is less than the carrying value, then the goodwill may be impaired and a second step is required.

The second step is to estimate the fair values of all of the assets of the reporting unit as of the testing date. This step is similar to the allocation of purchase price under Business Combinations. The new goodwill is then compared to the current carrying value of the goodwill. If the fair value of the new goodwill is less than the fair value of the current goodwill, the difference is the amount of impairment and must be written off. As such, fair value is the standard of measurement in both tests under FASB ASC 350, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets.

FASB ASC 805, Business Combinations, and FASB ASC 350, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, are the two statements where fair value measurements of assets other than financial instruments are most often seen in practice. Since these statements were introduced, both the accounting profession and the valuation profession have begun projects to determine the “best practices” in fair value measurements. Many of these projects are still in process.

Why the Trend toward Fair Value Accounting?

Fair value has been a standard of measurement in financial reporting for some time, but recently the trend has been toward an increased use of fair value accounting. There are a number of factors that are influencing the trend from traditional rules-based accounting under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to more principles-based measurements, which include more fair value measurements in financial reporting. U.S. GAAP has been more historical cost-based in its measurements than other accounting standards, which are more principles-based and have more of an emphasis on fair value accounting. However, certain trends are causing this emphasis in U.S. GAAP to change.

The first trend is the change in the general economic environment that impacted the relevance of accounting measurements in certain transactions. Over the last 25 years, the overall enterprise value of many entities is composed of more intellectual property and other intangible assets that have not been effectively measured under tradition GAAP. In addition, the entire global economy has become much more intertwined. Where once only the Fortune 1,000 or so were able to conduct business internationally, the advent of the Internet has allowed any size company to establish an international presence.

The globalization of the economy is an important factor in the trend toward more fair value measurements in accounting. Globalization has increased the need for standardization in accounting across national boundaries. The FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) have begun a project to “converge” U.S. GAAP into international accounting standards. IASB accounting standards are considered principle-based, which requires more fair value measurements. As the accounting standards converge, U.S. GAAP will require more fair value accounting measures.

The Changing Economic

The economy in the United States has undergone tremendous changes over the last 25 years. One significant change in the economic environment was brought on by the commercialization of the Internet, which resulted in what some call the “information revolution.” The result was that a significant portion of the U.S. economy shifted from the “bricks and mortar”-based businesses to ones that were more information-based. Commercialization of the Internet has led to substantial advances in information technology that have had a profound impact on the U.S. and global economies.

Exhibit 1.1 demonstrates the increase in the percentage of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 attributable to intangible assets as compiled by the investment banking firm Ocean Tomo. Intangible assets only comprised 17 percent of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 in 1975. By 2008 this percentage had increased to 75 percent.

The change in the economic environment from the commercialization of the Internet and the globalization of the economy has created some challenges for the accounting profession. The relevance of financial statements became a concern of the FASB, as an increasing percentage of many companies’ values are generated by intangible assets. The increasing transnational nature of business has created a need for consistent accounting standards across national boundaries as well.

EXHIBIT 1.1 Components of S&P 500 Market Value

Source: Ocean Tomo.

The FASB and the IASB recognize that the users of financial statements would benefit from consistent standards. As a result, both organizations have jointly created a framework to bring U.S. accounting standards in line with international standards. The Securities and Exchange Commission in the U.S., which has been given the authority of setting standards by the U.S. Congress, has strongly signaled that it supports the convergence of U.S. GAAP into international standards.

The FASB and IASB Convergence Project

One issue that the FASB has heard from users of financial statements is that they are concerned about the differences in financial reporting in different countries. With the increase in the global economy and increasingly transnational businesses, investor and other users of financial statements require one standard set of financial information. “The FASB is committed to working toward the goal of producing high-quality reporting standards worldwide to support healthy global capital markets.”6 To address this concern, the FASB and the IASB have “acknowledged their commitment to the development of high-quality, compatible accounting standards that could be used for both domestic and cross-border financial reporting.”7

In September 2002 at a meeting in Norwalk, Connecticut, the FASB and IASB agreed to “use their best efforts to a) make their existing financial reporting standards fully compatible as soon as is practicable and b) to coordinate their work program to ensure that once achieved, compatibility is maintained.”8 The project has become known as the Convergence Project.

In February 2006, the FASB and the IASB issued what has become known as a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The MoU was based on three joint principles:

1. Convergence of accounting standards can best be achieved through the development of high-quality, common standards over time.

2. Trying to eliminate the differences between two standards that are in need of significant improvement is not the best use of the FASB’s and the IASB’s resources—instead a new common standard should be developed that improves the financial information reported to investors.

3. Serving the needs of investors means that the boards should seek convergence by replacing standards in need of improvement with jointly developed new standards.9

A goal set by the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF) is one of harmonization. Harmonization will be achieved when companies around the world follow one set of international accounting standards. In a step toward convergence, the FASB and the ISAB have agreed to a timeline for harmonization of GAAP into IFRS, the international standards. Part of the timeline includes issuance of joint standards on an ongoing basis. The revised statement, FASB ASC 805, Business Combinations (SFAS No. 141(R)), is the first statement that was jointly issued by both bodies.

The Future of the Accounting Profession

One group advancing fair value accounting is the accounting profession itself. The changes in the global economic environment have created challenges for the accounting profession. The Global Public Policy Symposium is a series of conferences that has an “objective . . . to provide an international forum for the exchange of views on how we can collaborate in maintaining healthy global capital markets and contribute to improvements in the quality, reliability, and accessibility of financial and other information that stakeholders need.”10 The symposiums are sponsored by the six largest accounting and auditing firms: BDO International, Ernst & Young, Grant Thornton International, KPMG International, Deloitte, and Pricewa-terhouseCoopers. At one of the initial symposia, the CEOs of these international accounting firms issued a white paper, “Global Capital Markets and the Global Economy: A Vision from the CEOs of the International Audit Networks.” The intent of the paper was to provide and “stimulate a robust dialogue about how global financial reporting and public company auditing procedures could better serve capital markets around the world.”11 The paper concluded that the accounting profession “has undergone a fundamental change from being largely self-regulated to regulated around the globe.” That change will require that “all stakeholders look to the future and consider how investors’ needs will change in a rapidly evolving global market.”12

After the issuance of the initial white paper, the symposia conducted a series of roundtable discussions in various financial centers around the world. The discussions were held on a not-for-attribution basis in order to promote open discussion. In January 2008, a fourth symposium was held and another white paper was issued, titled “Global Dialogue with Capital Market Stakeholders: A Report from the CEOs of the International Audit Networks,” summarizing the results from the roundtables. The discussions were organized into four categories in the white paper:

1. Global convergence: the need for consistency in financial reporting

2. Audit quality: the need for continuous improvement and greater consistency

3. Prevention and detection: a two-pronged approach to fraud

4. The future of business reporting13

One of the most discussed topics at the roundtables was the global convergence of accounting standards. The report concluded that there is a “near-universal support” for one set of high-quality international accounting standards. However, the report noted that there is not a consensus about what the single set of standards should be or how it should be established. Nonetheless, the users of global capital markets agree that a goal of the accounting profession should be one set of common standards.

While agreeing on the need for one set of common accounting standards across international boundaries, the participants also had other concerns related to these standards. The participants expressed a strong preference for principles-based rather than rules-based standards. The view was that rules-based standards created a level of complexity that was not necessary for proper financial reporting.

Another theme resulting from the roundtable discussions was the concern that there is not currently sufficient education and training in place to support the convergence to one set of standards. There was an acknowledgment that the convergence of standards would require a tremendous amount of training at every level for preparers and auditors. Participants also noted that there will have to be a significant change in technology, particularly software that is currently used in financial reporting.

A final issue related to one set of auditing standards was that the participants recognized that small and medium-sized businesses have unique needs and may have more difficulty transitioning to international standards (IFRS). In order for convergence to be effective, the process has to include consideration of the needs of these businesses.

SEC Recent Releases

The U.S. Congress has given authority for establishing accounting standards to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC has delegated the authority for standard setting to the FASB. Even so, the SEC has still maintains active influence over the setting of standards through its oversight of public company registrants. Therefore, the SEC has tremendous influence in the trend toward increased usage of fair value accounting.

As an example of this influence, the SEC has issued two concept releases that provide additional incentive for international companies reporting in the United States to report using international accounting standards.

In July 2007, the SEC voted unanimously to eliminate reconciliation requirement for foreign issuers and issued Concept Release No. 33-8818, “Acceptance from Foreign Private Issuers of Financial Statements Prepared in Accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards without Reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.” Likewise, on November 29, 2007, the EU Commissioner called on European regulators to eliminate the reconciliation requirement for U.S. GAAP issuers.

After a public comment period, the SEC issued a final ruling allowing foreign issuers of financial statements prepared under IFRS to file with the SEC without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. Implementation required amendments to various regulations under the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act, which became effective March 4, 2008.14

The impact of this release is that in effect there is a dual reporting system in the United States. Foreign registrants can report under IFRS while domestic companies are required to report under U.S. GAAP.

In response to concerns by U.S.-based registrants, in August 2007, the SEC issued Concept Release No. 33-8831, “Concept Release on Allowing U.S. Issuers to Prepare Financial Statements in Accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards.” This release explored allowing U.S.-based registrants to choose between current U.S GAAP and International Accounting Standards. Supporting this release, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) issued a comment letter that recommended the SEC to allow U.S. firms to report using IFRS. Although never finalized, the initial concept release evolved into another concept release that was issued in November of 2008, entitled “Roadmap for the Potential Use of Financial Statements Prepared in Accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards by U.S. Issuers,” Concept Release No. 33-8982.15 Through this release, the SEC is demonstrating its support for the FASB and IASB’s Convergence Project for the convergence of U.S. accounting standards with international accounting standards. The Roadmap identifies several milestones that, if achieved, would require U.S. issuers to use IFRS by 2014. The SEC recently extended the comment period for the Roadmap.16

The impact on financial reporting of these releases is that the SEC is furthering the emphasis on fair value accounting in U.S. financial reporting of publicly traded entities. However, SEC Chairman Mary Shapiro has given some indications that she may slow the convergence process.

SFAS 157, Fair Value Measurements

The FASB introduced FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (SFAS 157), to provide additional guidance and to provide additional information on issues related to the measurement of fair value. FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements, technically does not create any new accounting, but rather provides preparers of financial statements additional information on how the FASB intends fair value be measured in any instance it is required in financial reporting. There are certain exceptions related to share-based payment transactions. One common share-based payment is discussed in SFAS 123 (R). The fair value measurement described in SFAS 123 (R) is generally considered consistent with the fair value definition under Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures; however, the FASB considers these transactions fair value-based measurements, not fair value measurements because they are transactions with employees that are consistent with the exit value under the definition of fair value.17 Some of the more important highlights of FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, introduced or expanded upon in the statement are:

Revised definition of fair value

Discussed the issue of price in the measurement

Defined market participants

Expanded on the concept of principal market or most advantageous market

Introduced the concept of defensive value

Described valuation technique

Introduced the fair value hierarchy

Expanded required disclosures

When first issued, FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), was to be effective on fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. However, on November 14, 2007, the day before the statement was to become fully implemented, the FASB delayed implementation of part of the statement.18 The reason for the partial implementation and partial delay was that preparers of statements felt they did not fully understand the implications of implementation of the statement. So the FASB agreed to a partial implementation. Therefore, FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), was partially implemented for financial assets and liabilities, as well as for any other assets and liabilities that are carried at fair value on a recurring basis in financial statements. Examples of assets and liabilities carried at fair value on a recurring basis provided by the FASB include derivatives, loan-servicing assets and liabilities, and some loans and debt linked to business combinations.

The board provided a one-year deferral for the implementation of FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), for nonfinancial assets and liabilities. These nonfinancial assets and liabilities are related to goodwill, business combinations, and discontinued operations, as well as to some nonfinancial intangible assets. The statement is now fully implemented for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008. Although the FASB agreed to adopt the one-year delay, it had encouraged the earlier adoption of FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), for nonfinancial assets and liabilities.

Background of Fair Value Measurements

Prior to the implementation of FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), the application of fair value measurements in financial reporting varied among three dozen or more of the pronouncements that required a fair value measurement. These statements referred to different accounting concepts, so over time inconsistencies developed in applying fair value measurements under different statements. After the introduction of SFAS 141 and 142, one of the most common applications of fair value measurements was in business combinations and the subsequent testing of goodwill and other long-lived assets. These statements required the fair value measurements of assets that were not readily measureable by the market place. Preparers of financial statements were concerned about measuring fair value in the absence of quoted market prices. FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), establishes a framework for applying fair value measurements. The FASB believes that the implementation of FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), will provide improvements to financial reporting as a result of increased consistency, reliability, and comparability.

Concepts Introduced by SFAS 157

FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), introduces several new concepts to clarify the measurement of fair value in financial reporting. These concepts include a new standard definition of fair value, which is used throughout financial reporting. The definition of fair value implies that the measurement is an exit price, meaning that the measurement is not necessarily what was paid for the asset or interest, but what it could be sold for in the marketplace. As such, the statement introduces the concept of principal market or most advantageous market to measure fair value as to where the asset or interest in the business could be sold. Also the statement expands on the market participant concept that was introduced in the original version of SFAS 141, Business Combinations. The statement further describes that fair value measurement is based on the asset or interest’s “highest and best use.” Finally, the statement introduces the concept of defensive value that measures fair value of an asset that the acquirer may not ever directly use in the business operations.

Definition of Fair Value

SFAS 157 provides one standard definition of fair value, which is required to be used throughout financial reporting. Fair value is defined in SFAS 157 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.19

This definition of fair value has introduced some interesting concepts that impact the measurement. Since fair value is the price to sell an asset, it is considered an exit price rather than an entry price. Exit price is what one could sell the asset for, not necessarily what one paid for the asset. This definition “presumes the absence of compulsion”20 and that buyers and sellers are independent and knowledgeable, which is similar to the standard definition of fair market value for tax matters. Since fair value is a price that an asset could be sold to a market participant, the statement further describes how fair value measurement is for a transaction assumed to occur in what is described as a principal market. A principal market is “the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the greatest volume and level of activity for the asset or liability.”21 If a principal market as described earlier does not exist, then fair value is measured by a sale to a market participant in the most advantageous market.22 The statement describes the most advantageous market as one in “which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the price that maximizes the amount that would be received for the asset or minimizes the amount that would be paid to transfer the liability.”23

A fair value measurement under FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), is for a particular asset or liability. The definition of fair value primarily relates to individual assets and liabilities. The reason provided by the FASB is that assets and liabilities are a primary subject of accounting measurement.24 A common example of this concept is in business combinations where the assets and liabilities of the acquired entity are measured at individual fair values as of the date of the change of control in the acquisition. The definition of fair value is also applied to interests that are considered part of invested capital of the enterprise. Invested capital is commonly considered to be the shareholder’s equity plus interest-bearing debt. Invested capital is how the enterprise is financed over the long term. An example of fair value measurement of this type of interest is the reporting unit described in SFAS 142, which is used for the testing of goodwill for impairment.

The statement notes that the measurement of fair value should consider attributes that are specific to that asset or liability. However, there are two alternatives in considering the specific attributes of the asset or liability. The first alternative is that the asset or liability may be recognized on a stand-alone basis. An example may be a building or unique technology. The second alternative is that the measurement may consider the attributes of a group of assets and/or liabilities. An example would be customer relationships that are valued along with technology used in the production of goods sold to those customers. Another example of a group would be an entire reporting unit.

Whether the asset or liability is measured on a stand-alone basis or as part of a group depends on what is sometimes described as its unit of account. The unit of account determines what is being measured by referring to the level at which the asset or liability is aggregated.25

One issue addressed by the statement is how to measure fair value when the business enterprise holds a significant position in another company. Suppose that in a business combination the acquired corporation owns marketable securities, which includes 5 percent of another corporation’s publicly traded common stock. If the shares were sold at one time, the introduction of these shares to the market would likely depress the per share price because of the change in the level of trading volume. Financial theory suggests that the value of the shares would decrease. However, paragraph 27 of FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), states that the “quoted price shall not be adjusted because of the size of the position relative to trading volume.”26 Thus, fair value measurements should not consider a “blockage factor.” The FASB sometimes refers to the issue as the aggregation problem or as specifying the unit of account.27

Breaking Down the Definition of Fair Value

In applying the definition of fair value to the measurement of individual assets and liabilities, it is important to understand certain concepts that are part of the definition. These specific concepts within the definition of fair value have meaning that impacts how fair value is measured. The specific concepts of price, principal market, and/or most advantageous market, and market participant are discussed in the next sections.

PRICE FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), describes the concept of price in the definition of fair value:

A fair value measurement assumes that the asset or liability is exchanged in an orderly transaction between market participants who wish to sell the asset or transfer the liability at the measurement date. An orderly transaction is one in which there has been exposure to the market for a period prior to the measurement date to allow for the usual and customary marketing activities involved in transactions for such assets or liabilities. An orderly transaction is not a forced transaction, such as a forced liquidation or a distress sale. From the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability, the transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability is a hypothetical transaction at the measurement date. Therefore, the objective of a fair value measurement is to determine the price needed to sell the asset or that must be paid to transfer the liability at the measurement date (an exit price).28

Fair value measurement as described earlier is an exit price. An exit price is what the assets could be sold for or what must be paid to transfer liabilities to any market participant. Therefore, fair value is not necessarily the value to the acquiring entity. Nor is it necessarily, although it could be, the price that the acquiring entity actually paid for the asset. The same is true with liabilities. Fair value may not be the obligation for the liability of the specific entity itself.

The concept of “price” in the definition of fair value is an exit price. Fair value measurements may not necessarily be based on historical prices or even on expected future prices. Fair value is the price as of the date of measurement that the asset could be sold or the liability transferred to a market participant.

The concept of exit value in the definition of fair value also assumes that both the buyer and the seller are independent and that both have all the relevant information to make a prudent decision about buying and selling the asset or transferring the liability. The concept also assumes that the buyer and the seller are presumed to be independent, with equal knowledge, that the parties are unrelated, and that no party has a price advantage with respect to the transaction. The concept of exit price also assumes that the buyer and seller are willing, not compelled, to either buy or sell.29

The concepts are similar to the definition of fair market value as promulgated in tax reporting under Revenue Ruling 59-60, which refers to:

. . . the price at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller when the former is not under any compulsion to buy and latter is not under any compulsion to sell and both parties having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.

The FASB actually considered using this definition of fair market value as the definition of fair value in financial reporting, but noted the extensive tax case law relating to this definition and did not want to inadvertently introduce that case law into financial reporting. Even so, while similar, the definition of fair value introduced by FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), has the additional concept of principal or most advantageous market and the concept of market participants, which creates some differences in the two definitions.

PRINCIPAL OR MOST ADVANTAGEOUS MARKET A natural question in thinking about the definition of fair value introduced by FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), is that if fair value is an exit price to a market participant, what market should be considered? The FASB introduces two concepts to answer that particular question. First, the principal market is defined as the market that has the most volume or most activity for that particular asset or for the transfer of that particular liability. If there is no principal market then the market would be where a prudent investor would obtain the highest price for the assets or best benefit for transferring the liability. FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), refers to these concepts as:

A fair value measurement assumes that the transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability occurs 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 principal market is the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the greatest volume and level of activity for the asset or liability.

The most advantageous market is the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability at a price that maximizes the amount that would be received for the asset, or minimizes the amount that would be paid to transfer the liability, considering transaction costs in the respective market(s).

In either case, the principal or most advantageous market and, thus, market participants should be considered from the perspective of the reporting entity. This perspective allows for differences between and among entities with different activities. If there is a principal market for the asset or liability, the fair value measurement must represent the price in that market whether that price is directly observable or otherwise determined using a valuation technique. This is true even if the price in a different market is potentially more advantageous at the measurement date.30

However, FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), also says that the price in the principal or most advantageous market used to estimate the fair value measurement of the asset or liability should not contain any transaction costs for that particular asset or liability. Transaction costs are the direct costs that would be incurred to sell the asset or transfer the liability in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability. The FASB decision to not include transactions cost is based on the idea that transaction costs are not a part of the asset or liability. Transaction costs are typically unique to a specific transaction and may differ depending on the transaction not the asset or liability. However, fair value measurement may include the costs of transportation of the asset or liability to or from its principal or most advantageous market. FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), notes that “the price in the principal or most advantageous market used to measure the fair value of the asset or liability must be adjusted for any costs that would be incurred to transport the asset or liability to or from its principal or most advantageous market.”31 As an example, in estimating the fair value of a piece of machinery that is used in a production line one would consider the costs that would be incurred to transport the piece of equipment to the plant of the reporting entity. However, fair value would not include the cost of a machinery and equipment broker that may have been used to acquire the equipment.