International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards
Page 197
The fair value of a liability also reflects the effect of non-performance risk. Non-
performance risk is the risk that an obligation will not be fulfilled. This risk includes, but
may not be limited to, the entity’s own credit risk (see 11.2 below). The requirement that
non-performance risk remains unchanged before and after the transfer implies that the
liability is hypothetically transferred to a market participant of equal credit standing.
998 Chapter
14
The clarification in IFRS 13 that fair value is not based on the price to settle a liability
with the existing counterparty, but rather to transfer it to a market participant of equal
credit standing, affects the assumptions about the principal (or most advantageous)
market and the market participants in the exit market for the liability (see 11.1.3 below
for further detail on the distinction between the settlement notion for liabilities and the
transfer notion in IFRS 13).
11.1.2
Fair value of an entity’s own equity
For an entity’s own equity, IFRS 13 states that the fair value measurement would
contemplate a transfer of the equity instrument. The equity instrument would remain
outstanding and the market participant transferee would take on the rights and
responsibilities associated with the instrument. The instrument would not be cancelled
or otherwise extinguished on the measurement date.
The requirements for measuring the fair value of an entity’s own equity are generally
consistent with the requirements for measuring liabilities, except for the requirement to
incorporate non-performance risk, which does not apply directly to an entity’s own equity.
11.1.3
Settlement value versus transfer value
While IFRS 13 requires the use of an exit price to measure fair value, an entity might not
intend (or be able) to transfer its liability to a third party. For example, it might be more
beneficial for the entity to fulfil or settle a liability or the counterparty might not permit
the liability to be transferred to another party. The issuer of an equity instrument may
only be able to exit from that instrument if it ceases to exist or if the entity repurchases
the instrument from the holder. Even if an entity is unable to transfer a liability, the IASB
believes the transfer notion is necessary for measuring fair value, because ‘it captures
market participants’ expectations about the liquidity, uncertainty and other associated
factors whereas, a settlement notion may not because it may consider entity-specific
factors’. [IFRS 13.BC82].
Under a transfer notion, the fair value of a liability is based on the price that would be
paid to market participants to assume the obligation. The guidance is clear that an
entity’s intention to settle or otherwise fulfil the liability or exit the equity instrument is
not relevant when measuring its fair value. Because the fair value of the liability is
considered from the perspective of market participants, and not the entity itself, any
relative efficiencies (or inefficiencies) of the reporting entity in settling the liability
would not be considered in the fair value measurement.
Unlike a transfer notion, a settlement notion may allow for the consideration of a
reporting entity’s specific advantages (or disadvantages) in settling (or performing) the
obligation. However, the Boards concluded that ‘when a liability is measured at fair
value, the relative efficiency of an entity in settling the liability using its own internal
resources appears in profit or loss over the course of its settlement, and not before’.
[IFRS 13.BC81].
While similar thought processes are needed to estimate both the amount to settle a
liability and the amount to transfer that liability, [IFRS 13.BC82], IFRS 13 requires the fair
value of a liability to be measured on the assumption that the liability is transferred to a
market participant. Therefore, an entity cannot presume that the fair value of a liability
Fair value measurement 999
is the same as its settlement value. In particular, the requirement to reflect the effect of
non-performance risk in the fair value measurement of a liability could result in a
difference between the fair value of a liability and the settlement value because it is
unlikely that the counterparty would accept a different amount as settlement of the
obligation if the entity’s credit standing changed (i.e. the settlement value would not
necessarily consider changes in credit risk). The IASB was expected to address this issue
in its project on non-financial liabilities (see Chapter
27). However, further
development on this research project was on hold pending developments in the
Conceptual Framework project.16 In March 2018, the IASB issued the new conceptual
framework. However, at the time of writing, it was not clear whether the project on
non-financial liabilities might restart before the next agenda consultation, which is
expected to start around 2021.17
11.2 Measuring the fair value of a liability or an entity’s own equity
when quoted prices for the liability or equity instruments are
not available
In many cases, there may be no quoted prices available for the transfer of an instrument
that is identical or similar to an entity’s own equity or a liability, particularly as liabilities
are generally not transferred. For example, this might be the case for debt obligations
that are legally restricted from being transferred, or for decommissioning liabilities that
the entity does not intend to transfer. In such situations, an entity must determine
whether the identical item is held by another party as an asset:
• if the identical item is held by another party as an asset – an entity is required to
measure the fair value of a liability or its own equity from the perspective of a
market participant that holds the asset (see 11.2.1 below); [IFRS 13.37] and
• if the identical item is not held by another party as an asset – an entity measures
the fair value of the liability or equity instrument using a valuation technique from
the perspective of a market participant that owes the liability or has issued the
claim on equity (see 11.2.2 below). [IFRS 13.40].
Regardless of how an entity measures the fair value of a liability or its own equity, the
entity is required to maximise the use of relevant observable inputs and minimise the
use of unobservable inputs to meet the objective of a fair value measurement. That is, it
must estimate the price at which an orderly transaction to transfer the liability or its own
equity would take place between market participants at the measurement date under
current market conditions. [IFRS 13.36].
11.2.1
Liabilities or an entity’s own equity that are held by other parties as
assets
If there are no quoted prices available for the transfer of an identical or a similar liability or
the entity’s own equity instrument and the identical item is held by another party as an
asset, an entity uses the fair value of the corresponding asset to measure the fair value of
the liability or equity instrument. [IFRS 13.37]. The fair value of the asset should be measured
from the perspective of the market partici
pant that holds that asset at the measurement
date. This approach applies even when the identical item held as an asset is not traded (i.e.
when the fair value of the corresponding asset is a Level 3 measurement). For example,
1000 Chapter 14
under the guidance in IFRS 13, the fair value of a contingent consideration liability should
equal its fair value when held as an asset despite the fact that the asset would likely be a
Level 3 measurement.
In these situations, the entity measures the fair value of the liability or its own equity by:
(a) using the quoted price in an active market for the identical item held by another
party as an asset, if that price is available. This is illustrated in Example 14.14 below;
(b) if that price is not available, using other observable inputs, such as the quoted price in
a market that is not active for the identical item held by another party as an asset; or
(c) if the observable prices in (a) and (b) are not available, using another valuation
technique (see 14 below for further discussion), such as:
(i) an income approach, as is illustrated in Example 14.15 below; or
(ii) a market approach. [IFRS 13.38].
As with all fair value measurements, inputs used to determine the fair value of a liability
or an entity’s own equity from the perspective of a market participant that holds the
identical instrument as an asset must be prioritised in accordance with the fair value
hierarchy. Accordingly, IFRS 13 indicates that the fair value of a liability or equity
instrument held by another party as an asset should be determined based on the quoted
price of the corresponding asset in an active market, if available. This is illustrated in
Example 14.14 below. If such a price is not available, other observable inputs for the
identical asset would be used, such as a quoted price in an inactive market. In the absence
of quoted prices for the identical instrument held as an asset, other valuation techniques,
including an income approach (as is illustrated in Example 14.15 below) or a market
approach, would be used to determine the liability’s or equity’s fair value. In these
instances, the objective is still to determine the fair value of the liability or equity from the
perspective of a market participant that holds the identical instrument as an asset.
In some cases, the corresponding asset price may need to be adjusted for factors specific
to the identical item held as an asset but not applicable to the liability, such as the following:
• the quoted price for the asset relates to a similar (but not identical) liability or equity
instrument held by another party as an asset. IFRS 13 gives the example of a liability or
equity instrument where the credit quality of the issuer is different from that reflected
in the fair value of the similar liability or equity instrument held as an asset; and
• the unit of account for the asset is not the same as for the liability or equity
instrument. For instance, assume the price for an asset reflected a combined price
for a package that comprised both the amounts due from the issuer and a third-
party credit enhancement. If the unit of account for the liability is only its own
liability, not the combined package, the entity would adjust the observed price for
the asset to exclude the effect of the third-party credit enhancement. [IFRS 13.39].
In addition, IFRS 13 states that when using the price of a corresponding asset to
determine the fair value of a liability or entity’s own equity, the fair value of the liability
or equity should not incorporate the effect of any restriction preventing the sale of that
asset. [IFRS 13.39]. If the quoted price did reflect the effect of a restriction, it would need
to be adjusted. That is, all else being equal, the liability’s or equity’s fair value would be
the same as the fair value of an otherwise unrestricted corresponding asset.
Fair value measurement 1001
The fair value of a liability may also differ from the price of its corresponding asset when
the instrument is priced within a bid-ask spread. In these instances, the liability should
be valued based on the price within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of
where the liability would be exited, not the corresponding asset (see 15.3 below for
discussion on pricing within the bid-ask spread).
The Boards believe the fair value of a liability or equity instrument will equal the
fair value of a properly defined corresponding asset (i.e. an asset whose features
mirror those of the liability), assuming an exit from both positions in the same
market. This assumes markets are efficient and arbitrage free. For example, if the
prices differed for a liability and the corresponding asset, the market participant
taking on the liability would be able to earn a profit by financing the purchase of the
asset with the proceeds received by taking on the liability. In an efficient market,
the price for the liability and the price for the asset would adjust until the arbitrage
opportunity was eliminated. In the Boards’ view, the price for the liability or equity
instrument and the corresponding asset would generally only differ if the entity was
measuring an asset relating to a similar (not identical) instrument or the unit of
account was different. The Boards did consider whether the effects of illiquidity
could create a difference but noted that they are difficult to differentiate from
credit-related effects. [IFRS 13.BC88, BC89].
The following two examples extracted from IFRS 13 include factors to consider when
measuring the fair value of a liability or entity’s own equity by estimating the fair value
of the corresponding asset held by another party. [IFRS 13.IE40-42]. The first example
highlights how entities need to assess whether the quoted price for a corresponding
asset includes the effects of factors not applicable to the liability. However, for the sake
of simplicity, the example does not consider bid-ask spread considerations.
Example 14.14: Debt obligation: quoted price
On 1 January 20X1 Entity B issues at par a CU 2 million BBB-rated exchange-traded five-year fixed rate
debt instrument with an annual 10% coupon. Entity B designated this financial liability as at fair value through
profit or loss.
On 31 December 20X1 the instrument is trading as an asset in an active market at CU 929 per CU 1,000 of par
value after payment of accrued interest. Entity B uses the quoted price of the asset in an active market as its initial
input into the fair value measurement of its liability (CU 929 × [CU 2,000,000/CU 1,000] = CU 1,858,000).
In determining whether the quoted price of the asset in an active market represents the fair value of the
liability, Entity B evaluates whether the quoted price of the asset includes the effect of factors not applicable
to the fair value measurement of a liability, for example, whether the quoted price of the asset includes the
effect of a third-party credit enhancement if that credit enhancement would be separately accounted for from
the perspective of the issuer. Entity B determines that no adjustments are required to the quoted price of the
asset. Accordingly, Entity B concludes that the fair value of its debt instrument at 31 December 20X1 is
CU 1,858,000. Entity B categorises and discloses the fair value measurement of its debt instru
ment within
Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.
The second example provides factors that would be incorporated when using a present
value technique to estimate the fair value of a financial liability (e.g. changes in credit
spreads for the liability), as well as factors that would be excluded (e.g. adjustments
related to transferability restrictions or profit margin). [IFRS 13.IE43-47].
1002 Chapter 14
Example 14.15: Debt obligation: present value technique
On 1 January 20X1 Entity C issues at par in a private placement a CU 2,000,000 BBB-rated five-year fixed
rate debt instrument with an annual 10% coupon. Entity C designated this financial liability as at fair value
through profit or loss.
At 31 December 20X1 Entity C still carries a BBB credit rating. Market conditions, including available
interest rates, credit spreads for a BBB-quality credit rating and liquidity, remain unchanged from the date
the debt instrument was issued. However, Entity C’s credit spread has deteriorated by 50 basis points because
of a change in its risk of non-performance. After taking into account all market conditions, Entity C concludes
that if it was to issue the instrument at the measurement date, the instrument would bear a rate of interest of
10.5% or Entity C would receive less than par in proceeds from the issue of the instrument.
For the purpose of this example, the fair value of Entity C’s liability is calculated using a present value
technique. Entity C concludes that a market participant would use all the following inputs when estimating
the price the market participant would expect to receive to assume Entity C’s obligation:
(a) the terms of the debt instrument, including all the following:
(i) coupon of 10%;
(ii) principal amount of CU 2,000,000; and
(iii) term of four years.
(b) the market rate of interest of 10.5% (which includes a change of 50 basis points in the risk of non-
performance from the date of issue).
On the basis of its present value technique, Entity C concludes that the fair value of its liability at
31 December 20X1 is CU 1,968,641.
Entity C does not include any additional input into its present value technique for risk or profit that a market