Impairment Testing

October 29, 2018

Accounting Standards Update 2016-01: Impairment Considerations for Equity Investments

ASU 2016-01 shook up financial reporting at the beginning of the year, as companies scrambled to determine compliance with the new requirements for reporting equity investments.

The rise of corporate venture capital over recent years largely flew under the accounting radar until this update took effect, creating significant volatility for many corporate investors in their reported earnings as they were required to recognize the gains and losses from investments previously held at cost.

Now that the initial shock has worn off, CFOs may be able to rest a little easier, but they shouldn’t forget about the requirements under ASU 2016-01 entirely.

Even if the company elected the measurement alternative that allows for the investment to be reported at cost, don’t forget about the requirement for impairment testing that goes along with it. Some companies may choose to perform the initial Step Zero analysis internally before engaging a valuation firm to navigate the rest of the process, while others turn over the entire process to a valuation professional.

“An entity may elect to measure an equity security without a readily determinable fair value [and that does not qualify for the practical expedient]…at its cost minus impairment, if any, plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions for the identical or a similar investment of the same issuer.”

ASU 2016-01 Paragraph 321-10-35-2

Originally appeared in Mercer Capital's Financial Reporting Update: Goodwill Impairment

Continue Reading

Getting Into the Spirit of Valuation
Getting Into the Spirit of Valuation
When people talk about the “value” of a company, it is easy to assume there is one correct “answer.” In practice, there are many possible answers, and which one is the best answer depends on the purposes of the valuation, the user, and the facts and circumstances at hand. The Internal Revenue Service’s Revenue Ruling 59-60, defines fair market value “as the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller when the former is not under any compulsion to buy and the latter is not under any compulsion to sell, both parties having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts.” This is a great place to begin, but it is only the start.
Public Prices, Private Marks: What BDC Discounts Are Signaling
Public Prices, Private Marks: What BDC Discounts Are Signaling
Publicly traded BDC discounts are signaling a disconnect between private credit valuations and market-based pricing, raising questions about whether private NAV marks are overstated or simply lagging reality. The failed Blue Owl transaction and rising secondary market activity highlight investor demand for liquidity and skepticism toward “sticky” valuations, as public markets imply meaningful discounts to stated NAVs. While these discounts reflect factors beyond asset values, such as leverage, fees, and sentiment, they still provide a real-time benchmark that valuation professionals cannot ignore. Absent a rebound in BDC prices, persistent gaps between public prices and NAVs indicate that NAVs are too high for public BDCs and private BDCs to the extent private BDCs hold similar loans.
The Tariff Hangover: How a Year of Trade Volatility Is Reshaping Transportation
The Tariff Hangover: How a Year of Trade Volatility Is Reshaping Transportation
The past year has been defined by a series of rapid and often unpredictable shifts in trade policy. New tariffs, temporary pauses, retaliatory measures, and evolving global supply chains have left a measurable impact on the transportation and logistics industry. These developments have influenced freight volumes, pricing dynamics, capital allocation, and ultimately the valuation of transportation companies.

Cart

Your cart is empty