Standard 113: Fair Value Measurement

Standard 113: Fair Value Measurement · Complied AI

(b)

in the absence of a principal market, in the most advantageous market for the asset or liability.

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

18 If there is a principal market for the asset or liability, the fair value measurement shall represent the price in that market (whether that price is directly observable or estimated using another valuation technique), even if the price in a different market is potentially more advantageous at the measurement date.

19 The entity must have access to the principal (or most advantageous) market at the measurement date. Because different entities (and businesses within those entities) with different activities may have access to different markets, the principal (or most advantageous) market for the same asset or liability might be different for different entities (and businesses within those entities). Therefore, the principal (or most advantageous) market (and thus, market participants) shall be considered from the perspective of the entity, thereby allowing for differences between and among entities with different activities.

20 Although an entity must be able to access the market, the entity does not need to be able to sell the particular asset or transfer the particular liability on the measurement date to be able to measure fair value on the basis of the price in that market.

21 Even when there is no observable market to provide pricing information about the sale of an asset or the transfer of a liability at the measurement date, a fair value measurement shall assume that a transaction takes place at that date, considered from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. That assumed transaction establishes a basis for estimating the price to sell the asset or to transfer the liability.

Market participants

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

23 In developing those assumptions, an entity need not identify specific market participants. Rather, the entity shall identify characteristics that distinguish market participants generally, considering factors specific to all the following:

(b)

the terms of credit enhancements related to the liability, if any.

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

Restriction preventing the transfer of a liability or an entity's own equity instrument

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

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

Financial liability with a demand feature

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

Application to financial assets and financial liabilities with offsetting positions in market risks or counterparty credit risk

48 An entity that holds a group of financial assets and financial liabilities is exposed to market risks (as defined in Ind AS 107) and to the credit risk (as defined in Ind AS 107) of each of the counterparties. If the entity manages that group of financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of its net exposure to either market risks or credit risk, the entity is permitted to apply an exception to this Ind AS for measuring fair value. That exception permits an entity to measure the fair value of a group of financial assets and financial liabilities on the basis of the price that would be received to sell a net long position (ie an asset) for a particular risk exposure or paid to transfer a net short position (ie a liability) for a particular risk exposure in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. Accordingly, an entity shall measure the fair value of the group of financial assets and financial liabilities consistently with how market participants would price the net risk exposure at the measurement date.

49 An entity is permitted to use the exception in paragraph 48 only if the entity does all the following:

(c)

is required or has elected to measure those financial assets and financial liabilities at fair value in the balance sheet at the end of each reporting period.

50 The exception in paragraph 48 does not pertain to financial statement presentation. In some cases the basis for the presentation of financial instruments in the balance sheet differs from the basis for the measurement of financial instruments, for example, if an Ind AS does not require or permit financial instruments to be presented on a net basis. In such cases an entity may need to allocate the portfolio-level adjustments (see paragraphs 53 - 56 ) to the individual assets or liabilities that make up the group of financial assets and financial liabilities managed on the basis of the entity's net risk exposure. An entity shall perform such allocations on a reasonable and consistent basis using a methodology appropriate in the circumstances.

51 An entity shall make an accounting policy decision in accordance with Ind AS 8, Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors , to use the exception in paragraph 48. An entity that uses the exception shall apply that accounting policy, including its policy for allocating bid-ask adjustments (see paragraphs 53-55) and credit adjustments (see paragraph 56), if applicable, consistently from period to period for a particular portfolio.

52 The exception in paragraph 48 applies only to financial assets, financial liabilities and other contracts within the scope of Ind AS 109, Financial Instruments . The references to financial assets and financial liabilities in paragraphs 48–51 and 53–56 should be read as applying to all contracts within the scope of, and accounted for in accordance with, Ind AS 109, regardless of whether they meet the definitions of financial assets or financial liabilities in Ind AS 32, Financial Instruments: Presentation .

Exposure to market risks

53 When using the exception in paragraph 48 to measure the fair value of a group of financial assets and financial liabilities managed on the basis of the entity's net exposure to a particular market risk (or risks), the entity shall apply the price within the bid-ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances to the entity's net exposure to those market risks (see paragraphs 70 and 71 ).

54 When using the exception in paragraph 48 , an entity shall ensure that the market risk (or risks) to which the entity is exposed within that group of financial assets and financial liabilities is substantially the same. For example, an entity would not combine the interest rate risk associated with a financial asset with the commodity price risk associated with a financial liability because doing so would not mitigate the entity's exposure to interest rate risk or commodity price risk. When using the exception in paragraph 48, any basis risk resulting from the market risk parameters not being identical shall be taken into account in the fair value measurement of the financial assets and financial liabilities within the group.

55 Similarly, the duration of the entity's exposure to a particular market risk (or risks) arising from the financial assets and financial liabilities shall be substantially the same. For example, an entity that uses a 12-month futures contract against the cash flows associated with 12 months' worth of interest rate risk exposure on a five-year financial instrument within a group made up of only those financial assets and financial liabilities measures the fair value of the exposure to 12- month interest rate risk on a net basis and the remaining interest rate risk exposure (ie years 2-5) on a gross basis.

Exposure to the credit risk of a particular counterparty

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

Fair value at initial recognition

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

58 In many cases the transaction price will equal the fair value (eg that might be the case when on the transaction date the transaction to buy an asset takes place in the market in which the asset would be sold).

59 When determining whether fair value at initial recognition equals the transaction price, an entity shall take into account factors specific to the transaction and to the asset or liability. Paragraph B4 describes situations in which the transaction price might not represent the fair value of an asset or a liability at initial recognition.

60 If another Ind AS requires or permits an entity to measure an asset or a liability initially at fair value and the transaction price differs from fair value, the entity shall recognise the resulting gain or loss in profit or loss unless that Ind AS specifies otherwise.

Valuation techniques

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

62 The objective of using a valuation technique is to estimate the price at which an orderly transaction to sell the asset or to transfer the liability would take place between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. Three widely used valuation techniques are the market approach, the cost approach and the income approach. The main aspects of those approaches are summarised in paragraphs B5 - B11 . An entity shall use valuation techniques consistent with one or more of those approaches to measure fair value.

63 In some cases a single valuation technique will be appropriate (eg when valuing an asset or a liability using quoted prices in an active market for identical assets or liabilities). In other cases, multiple valuation techniques will be appropriate (eg that might be the case when valuing a cash-generating unit). If multiple valuation techniques are used to measure fair value, the results (ie respective indications of fair value) shall be evaluated considering the reasonableness of the range of values indicated by those results. A fair value measurement is the point within that range that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances.

64 If the transaction price is fair value at initial recognition and a valuation technique that uses unobservable inputs will be used to measure fair value in subsequent periods, the valuation technique shall be calibrated so that at initial recognition the result of the valuation technique equals the transaction price. Calibration ensures that the valuation technique reflects current market conditions, and it helps an entity to determine whether an adjustment to the valuation technique is necessary (eg there might be a characteristic of the asset or liability that is not captured by the valuation technique). After initial recognition, when measuring fair value using a valuation technique or techniques that use unobservable inputs, an entity shall ensure that those valuation techniques reflect observable market data (eg the price for a similar asset or liability) at the measurement date.

65 Valuation techniques used to measure fair value shall be applied consistently. However, a change in a valuation technique or its application (eg a change in its weightage when multiple valuation techniques are used or a change in an adjustment applied to a valuation technique) is appropriate if the change results in a measurement that is equally or more representative of fair value in the circumstances. That might be the case if, for example, any of the following events take place:

(e)

market conditions change.

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

Inputs to valuation techniques

General principles

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

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

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

Inputs based on bid and ask prices

70 If an asset or a liability measured at fair value has a bid price and an ask price (eg an input from a dealer market), the price within the bid- ask spread that is most representative of fair value in the circumstances shall be used to measure fair value regardless of where the input is categorised within the fair value hierarchy (ie Level 1, 2 or 3; see paragraphs 72-90). The use of bid prices for asset positions and ask prices for liability positions is permitted, but is not required.

71 This Ind AS does not preclude the use of mid-market pricing or other pricing conventions that are used by market participants as a practical expedient for fair value measurements within a bid-ask spread.

Fair value hierarchy

72 To increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements and related disclosures, this Ind AS establishes a fair value hierarchy that categorises into three levels (see paragraphs 76-90), the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 inputs) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs ( Level 3 inputs ).

73 In some cases, the inputs used to measure the fair value of an asset or a liability might be categorised within different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In those cases, the fair value measurement is categorised in its entirety in the same level of the fair value hierarchy as the lowest level input that is significant to the entire measurement. Assessing the significance of a particular input to the entire measurement requires judgement, taking into account factors specific to the asset or liability. Adjustments to arrive at measurements based on fair value, such as costs to sell when measuring fair value less costs to sell, shall not be taken into account when determining the level of the fair value hierarchy within which a fair value measurement is categorised.

74 The availability of relevant inputs and their relative subjectivity might affect the selection of appropriate valuation techniques (see paragraph 61 ). However, the fair value hierarchy prioritises the inputs to valuation techniques, not the valuation techniques used to measure fair value. For example, a fair value measurement developed using a present value technique might be categorised within Level 2 or Level 3, depending on the inputs that are significant to the entire measurement and the level of the fair value hierarchy within which those inputs are categorised.

75 If an observable input requires an adjustment using an unobservable input and that adjustment results in a significantly higher or lower fair value measurement, the resulting measurement would be categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. For example, if a market participant would take into account the effect of a restriction on the sale of an asset when estimating the price for the asset, an entity would adjust the quoted price to reflect the effect of that restriction. If that quoted price is a Level 2 input and the adjustment is an unobservable input that is significant to the entire measurement, the measurement would be categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Level 1 inputs

76 Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the entity can access at the measurement date.

77 A quoted price in an active market provides the most reliable evidence of fair value and shall be used without adjustment to measure fair value whenever available, except as specified in paragraph 79.

78 A Level 1 input will be available for many financial assets and financial liabilities, some of which might be exchanged in multiple active markets (eg on different exchanges). Therefore, the emphasis within Level 1 is on determining both of the following:

(c)

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

84 An adjustment to a Level 2 input that is significant to the entire measurement might result in a fair value measurement categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy if the adjustment uses significant unobservable inputs.

85 Paragraph B35 describes the use of Level 2 inputs for particular assets and liabilities.

Level 3 inputs

86 Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability.

87 Unobservable inputs shall be used to measure fair value to the extent that relevant observable inputs are not available, thereby allowing for situations in which there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability at the measurement date. However, the fair value measurement objective remains the same, ie an exit price at the measurement date from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, unobservable inputs shall reflect the assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk.

88 Assumptions about risk include the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique used to measure fair value (such as a pricing model) and the risk inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. A measurement that does not include an adjustment for risk would not represent a fair value measurement if market participants would include one when pricing the asset or liability. For example, it might be necessary to include a risk adjustment when there is significant measurement uncertainty (eg when there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity when compared with normal market activity for the asset or liability, or similar assets or liabilities, and the entity has determined that the transaction price or quoted price does not represent fair value, as described in paragraphs B37 - B47 ).

89 An entity shall develop unobservable inputs using the best information available in the circumstances, which might include the entity's own data. In developing unobservable inputs, an entity may begin with its own data, but it shall adjust those data if reasonably available information indicates that other market participants would use different data or there is something particular to the entity that is not available to other market participants (eg an entity-specific synergy). An entity need not undertake exhaustive efforts to obtain information about market participant assumptions. However, an entity shall take into account all information about market participant assumptions that is reasonably available. Unobservable inputs developed in the manner described above are considered market participant assumptions and meet the objective of a fair value measurement.

90 Paragraph B36 describes the use of Level 3 inputs for particular assets and liabilities.

Disclosure

91 An entity shall disclose information that helps users of its financial statements assess both of the following:

(c)

the end of the reporting period.

96 If an entity makes an accounting policy decision to use the exception in paragraph 48 , it shall disclose that fact.

97 For each class of assets and liabilities not measured at fair value in the balance sheet but for which the fair value is disclosed, an entity shall disclose the information required by paragraph 93(b), (d) and (i). However, an entity is not required to provide the quantitative disclosures about significant unobservable inputs used in fair value measurements categorised within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy required by paragraph 93(d). For such assets and liabilities, an entity does not need to provide the other disclosures required by this Ind AS.

98 For a liability measured at fair value and issued with an inseparable third-party credit enhancement, an issuer shall disclose the existence of that credit enhancement and whether it is reflected in the fair value measurement of the liability.

99 An entity shall present the quantitative disclosures required by this Ind AS in a tabular format unless another format is more appropriate.

Appendix A

Defined terms

This appendix is an integral part of the Ind AS.

active market

A market in which transactions for the asset or liability take place with sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis.

cost approach

A valuation technique that reflects the amount that would be required currently to replace the service capacity of an asset (often referred to as current replacement cost)

entry price

The price paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability in an exchange transaction.

exit price

The price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability

expected cash flow

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

fair value

The price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.

highest and best use

The use of a non-financial asset by market participants that would maximise the value of the asset or the group of assets and liabilities (eg a business) within which the asset would be used.

income approach

Valuation techniques that convert future amounts (eg cash flows or income and expenses) to a single current (ie discounted) amount. The fair value measurement is determined on the basis of the value indicated by current market expectations about those future amounts.

inputs

The assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk, such as the following:

(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.

Valuation techniques ( paragraphs 61 - 66 )

Market approach

B5 The market approach uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable (ie similar) assets, liabilities or a group of assets and liabilities, such as a business.

B6 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.

B7 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.

Cost approach

B8 The cost approach reflects the amount that would be required currently to replace the service capacity of an asset (often referred to as current replacement cost).

B9 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.

Income approach

B10 The income approach converts future amounts (eg cash flows or income and expenses) to a single current (ie discounted) amount. When the income approach is used, the fair value measurement reflects current market expectations about those future amounts.

B11 Those valuation techniques include, for example, the following:

(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.

Discount rate adjustment technique

B18 The discount rate adjustment technique uses a single set of cash flows from the range of possible estimated amounts, whether contractual or promised (as is the case for a bond) or most likely cash flows. In all cases, those cash flows are conditional upon the occurrence of specified events (eg contractual or promised cash flows for a bond are conditional on the event of no default by the debtor). The discount rate used in the discount rate adjustment technique is derived from observed rates of return for comparable assets or liabilities that are traded in the market. Accordingly, the contractual, promised or most likely cash flows are discounted at an observed or estimated market rate for such conditional cash flows (ie a market rate of return).

B19 The discount rate adjustment technique requires an analysis of market data for comparable assets or liabilities. Comparability is established by considering the nature of the cash flows (eg whether the cash flows are contractual or non-contractual and are likely to respond similarly to changes in economic conditions), as well as other factors (eg credit standing, collateral, duration, restrictive covenants and liquidity). Alternatively, if a single comparable asset or liability does not fairly reflect the risk inherent in the cash flows of the asset or liability being measured, it may be possible to derive a discount rate using data for several comparable assets or liabilities in conjunction with the risk-free yield curve (ie using a 'build-up' approach).

B20 To illustrate a build-up approach, assume that Asset A is a contractual right to receive Rs. 800 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:

(c)

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

B21 On the basis of the timing of the contractual payments to be received for Asset A relative to the timing for Asset B and Asset C (ie one year for Asset B versus two years for Asset C), Asset B is deemed more comparable to Asset A. Using the contractual payment to be received for Asset A (Rs. 800) and the one-year market rate derived from Asset B (10.8 per cent), the fair value of Asset A is Rs. 722 (Rs. 800/1.108). 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.

B22 When the discount rate adjustment technique is applied to fixed receipts or payments, the adjustment for risk inherent in the cash flows of the asset or liability being measured is included in the discount rate. In some applications of the discount rate adjustment technique to cash flows that are not fixed receipts or payments, an adjustment to the cash flows may be necessary to achieve comparability with the observed asset or liability from which the discount rate is derived.

Expected present value technique

B23 The expected present value technique uses as a starting point a set of cash flows that represents the probability-weighted average of all possible future cash flows (ie the expected cash flows). The resulting estimate is identical to expected value, which, in statistical terms, is the weighted average of a discrete random 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).

B24 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:

(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.)

B25 Method 1 of the expected present value technique adjusts the expected cash flows of an asset for systematic (ie market) risk by subtracting a cash risk premium (ie risk-adjusted expected cash flows). Those risk-adjusted expected cash flows represent a certainty-equivalent cash flow, which is discounted at a risk-free interest rate. A certainty-equivalent cash flow refers to an expected cash flow (as defined), adjusted for risk so that a market participant is indifferent to trading a certain cash flow for an expected cash flow. For example, if a market participant was willing to trade an expected cash flow of Rs. 1,200 for a certain cash flow of Rs. 1,000, the Rs. 1,000 is the certainty equivalent of the Rs. 1,200 (ie the Rs. 200 would represent the cash risk premium). In that case the market participant would be indifferent as to the asset held.

B26 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.

B27 To illustrate Methods 1 and 2, assume that an asset has expected cash flows of Rs. 780 in one year determined on the basis of the possible cash flows and probabilities shown below. The applicable risk-free interest rate for cash flows with a one-year horizon is 5 per cent, and the systematic risk premium for an asset with the same risk profile is 3 per cent.

Possible cash flows

Probability

Probability-weighted cash flows

Rs. 500

15%

Rs. 75

Rs. 800

60%

Rs. 480

Rs. 900

25%

Rs. 225

Expected cash flows

Rs. 780

B28 In this simple illustration, the expected cash flows (Rs. 780) 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.

B29 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:

(h)

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

B38 If an entity concludes that there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability in relation to normal market activity for the asset or liability (or similar assets or liabilities), further analysis of the transactions or quoted prices is needed. A decrease in the volume or level of activity on its own may not indicate that a transaction price or quoted price does not represent fair value or that a transaction in that market is not orderly. However, if an entity determines that a transaction or quoted price does not represent fair value (eg there may be transactions that are not orderly), an adjustment to the transactions or quoted prices will be necessary if the entity uses those prices as a basis for measuring fair value and that adjustment may be significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. Adjustments also may be necessary in other circumstances (eg when a price for a similar asset requires significant adjustment to make it comparable to the asset being measured or when the price is stale).

B39 This Ind AS 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.

B40 If there has been a significant decrease in the volume or level of activity for the asset or liability, a change in valuation technique or the use of multiple valuation techniques may be appropriate (eg the use of a market approach and a present value technique). When weighting indications of fair value resulting from the use of multiple valuation techniques, an entity shall consider the reasonableness of the range of fair value measurements. The objective is to determine the point within the range that is most representative of fair value under current market conditions. A wide range of fair value measurements may be an indication that further analysis is needed.

B41 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.

B42 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 fulfill the liability is not relevant when measuring fair value because fair value is a market-based measurement, not an entity- specific measurement.

Identifying transactions that are not orderly

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

(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.

Using quoted prices provided by third parties

B45 This Ind AS 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 Ind AS.

B46 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.

B47 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.

2 Appendix C

Effective date and transition

This appendix is an integral part of the Ind AS and has same authority as the other parts of the Ind AS.

C1-C5 Omitted *

C6 Ind AS 116, Leases , amended paragraph 6. An entity shall apply that amendment when it applies Ind AS 116.

3 Appendix D

References to matters contained in other Indian Accounting Standards

This appendix is an integral part of the Ind AS.

This appendix lists the appendices which are part of other Indian Accounting Standards and make reference to Ind AS 113, Fair Value Measurement .

1 Appendix A, Distributions of Non-cash Assets to Owners contained in Ind AS 10, Events after the Reporting Period .

2 Appendix D, Extinguishing Financial Liabilities with Equity Instruments contained in Ind AS 109, Financial Instruments .

Appendix 1

Note: This Appendix is not a part of the Indian Accounting Standard. The purpose of this Appendix is only to bring out the major differences, if any, between Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 113 and the corresponding International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 13, Fair Value Measurement, issued by the International Accounting Standards Board.

Comparison with IFRS 13, Fair Value Measurement

1 Different terminology is used in this standard, eg, the term ‘balance sheet’ is used instead of ‘Statement of financial position’.

2 Paragraph 7(b) refers to IAS 26, Accounting and Reporting by Retirement Benefit Plans, which is not relevant for the companies. Hence the paragraph is deleted. In order to maintain consistency with the paragraph numbers of IFRS 13, the paragraph number is retained in Ind AS 113.

3 4 Paragraphs C1-C5 of IFRS 13 have not been included in Ind AS 113 as these paragraphs relate to effective date and transition which are not relevant in Indian context. However, in order to maintain consistency with paragraph numbers of IFRS 13, these paragraph numbers are retained in Ind AS 113.

Footnotes