The document summarizes SEC comments on fair value measurements for financial reporting. It provides examples of comments on topics such as:
1) Purchase price allocations where little value was assigned to intangible assets other than goodwill.
2) Goodwill impairment testing when indicators of impairment exist but no impairment was recorded.
3) Use of market prices for common stock versus other valuation methods to determine fair value.
4) Identification and valuation of embedded derivatives in contracts.
The SEC encourages companies to consult valuation specialists if they lack expertise to properly measure fair values.
1. A Sample of SEC Comments on Fair Value Measurements for Financial Reporting
By Lindsey Lee, CPA/ABV, ASA, CFA and Shishir R. Khetan, CFA
Introduction
As part of the financial reporting process for public companies, the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) may review an issuer's submitted filing. Although the SEC does not review every
filing, it is required under Sarbanes-Oxley to review the filings of every public company at least once
every three years. In the event the SEC staff identifies instances where it believes a company can
enhance its disclosure or improve its compliance with the applicable disclosure requirements, the SEC
staff will issue a comment letter. The SEC staff "views [this] comment process as a dialogue with a
company about its disclosures."
Although each comment letter is specific to the issuer and the underlying facts and circumstances
of the topic discussed, comment letters do provide valuable insight into issues the SEC staff has
consistently identified and addressed. The following highlights certain valuation related topics that have
appeared in recent SEC comment letters and includes examples of comments from the SEC staff.
Purchase Price Allocations
In several instances, the SEC staff has focused on acquisitions where an issuer has allocated little,
if any, of the purchase price to intangible assets other than goodwill. The SEC staff may comment when
an issuer's disclosure or press release indicates an intangible asset was acquired but no portion of the
purchase price was allocated to the intangible asset. The following are examples of comments from the
SEC on these topics:
• "It remains unclear why no customer-related intangible assets were recorded for any of the
acquisitions. Based on your disclosure on page F-24 it appears that the economics of the
transactions are based on established current per patient valuations for dialysis centers. "
• "[Y]ou allocated only a relatively small portion of the purchase price to specifically
identifiable intangible assets consisting of customer contracts, with the remaining portion of
the excess purchase price allocated to goodwill. … If any other identifiable intangibles were
determined to have little or no value, please explain in detail your basis for this conclusion.”
2. • "Please tell us why you and [your] valuation specialist made a preliminary estimate that there
was no fair value to … customer lists and why no value was ascribed to customer
relationships. Given that [the Target's] business is highly depended on customer loyalty and
repeat business, and that approximately 80% of [its] transactions are related to repeat
customers, we are unsure why no value was ascribed to customer-related intangible assets."
Goodwill Impairment Testing
The SEC staff has commented frequently on issuer's testing for goodwill impairment. The staff
may comment when an issuer has one or more indicators of goodwill impairment, such as declining
revenues and market capitalization less than the issuer's book value, yet has not recorded an impairment.
The following are examples of recent comments from the SEC staff.
• "Please … [explain] how you determined that no portion of your goodwill is impaired in light
of the significance and duration of the disparity between your equity book value and market
capitalization."
• "[Y]ou explained your position that no goodwill impairment indicators were present at June
30, 2009 which would cause an interim test of goodwill impairment. This conclusion was
based on your forecast for profitability and improving business conditions. However, it
appears that such improvements have not transpired, as your net sales and operating results in
each quarter of 2009 showed significant declines from the comparable prior year quarters.
Please tell us how your projected future cash flows at June 30, 2009 compared to actual
results. "
• "Please tell us how you determined a decline in forecasted revenue for fiscal year 2010 was
not a triggering event to test goodwill for impairment."
• "Please advise us in detail regarding your basis for assuming a robust recovery in 2010 given
the negative performance of your stock and your cautionary 2009 fourth quarter earnings
release."
• "(The) decline in your market capitalization may be indicative of an impairment of your
recorded investment in its intangible assets and goodwill. Given the significant disparity
between your current market capitalization and your book value, please explain the facts and
3. circumstances which management believes are responsible for the significant disparity
between your market capitalization and the book values for your equity."
Fair Value of Issuer's Equity Securities
Claiming the market price of its common stock is not indicative of its fair value, some issuers
with publicly traded shares have relied on various valuation methods for their common stock instead. In
instances, such claims have yielded comments from the SEC staff, including the following:
• “[I]t is the SEC Staff and FASB Staff’s views that a quoted market price in an active market
for an identical asset is most representative of fair value and thus is required to be used,
generally without adjustment, in fair value measurements. Furthermore, transactions in
inactive markets, although likely not determinative, should be considered in management’s
estimate of fair value if those transactions are orderly. Accordingly, please tell us in detail
why you do not consider recent prices from actual sales of your common stock to be relevant
observable inputs."
• "We note that the independent valuation performed as of March 31, 2009 appears to use only
one valuation method for determining the fair value of your common stock. Please tell us
what consideration was given to using multiple valuation techniques to compute a range of
fair value estimates in determining the point within that range that is most representative of
fair value. Considering the use of a single valuation approach generally does not enable you
to highlight weaknesses in approaches and/or assumptions and inconsistencies in logic, please
tell us how you corroborated the fair value of your common stock determined by the
independent valuation.”
• “We note that you determine the fair value of your company using a market approach based
on multiples of projected EBITDA. … Please reconcile the fair value of equity used in the
impairment test with the actual market capitalization for a reasonable range leading up to
February 28, 2009. … If the reconciling differences between the market capitalization and
fair value of equity may be attributed to marketability discounts or control premiums, please
quantify such differences and provide us with objective support for the amount of each
difference.”
4. Embedded Derivatives
An embedded derivative refers to one or more terms within a contract that affect some or all of
the issuer's cash flows in a manner similar to a derivative. Accounting Standards Codification (ASC 815)
sets out the criteria to determine whether an embedded derivative within a contract should be bifurcated
and reported at fair value. Determining whether a term is an embedded derivative is complex and
requires detailed analysis under both ASC 815-15 and ASC 815-40. Examples of terms within preferred
stock and debt that the SEC has requested an issuer to determine whether such item is an embedded
derivative include:
• conversion features,
• anti-dilution provisions,
• prepayment options, and
• mandatory and contingent redemption options.
The following are examples of comments by the SEC staff on embedded derivatives:
• "Please be aware that we do not believe the use of the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing
model is appropriate to value compound embedded derivatives or conversion options that are
accounted for as derivatives. … If the company does not have the necessary valuation
expertise internally to properly value these complex derivatives, the company may need to
consult with an outside valuation firm.”
• “Please explain to us in more detail, including all assumptions, how you arrived at the fair
value of the bundled embedded derivative instrument which includes the conversion feature
and prepayment penalty, as it appears from this disclosure that you valued these two
derivatives separately using two different methods. Please note that we believe that these two
features should be measured at fair value in a single valuation model and should not be the
sum of the separate fair values of each embedded derivative.”
5. Conclusion
Valuation for financial reporting can be daunting and often requires high levels of experience and
expertise. The SEC staff has encouraged issuers to consider retaining the services of a valuation
specialist if the issuer does not have the expertise to measure the fair value of intangible assets and
complex financial instruments. HFBE has significant experience measuring for financial reporting
purposes the fair value of intangible assets and complex financial instruments, and performing purchase
price allocations and impairment testing of goodwill and other intangible assets.
Lindsey Lee, CPA/ABV, ASA, CFA is a Vice President and Shishir R. Khetan, CFA is a Managing
Director with HFBE Inc.