FAS 157 (aka: the fair-value measurement standard) is an accounting standard which first took effect in November 2007. According to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), FAS 157 "...defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and expands disclosures about fair value measurements."
FAS 157 has a number of ramification outside the hedge fund industry. As an example, here is a recent video examining the effects on banks of relaxing mark-to-market accounting rules.
FAS 157 was a big deal when it was first put into effect. For hedge fund's (and their auditors) FAS 157 presented a number of unique due diligence challenges. Specifically, the original incarnation of FAS 157 requires hedge funds, in their audited financial statements, to classify assets into one of three levels. The levels are supposed to show indicate to investors the amount of certainty with which they can value an asset.
Level 1 - Assets with readily observable market prices. Inputs for the assets in this level are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets.
Level 2 - Assets with no readily observable prices but they have inputs that are based on them. An example of this would be an interest-rate swap whose components are observable points - such as a Treasury bond.
Level 3 - Assets where one or more of those inputs does not have readily observable prices. Level 3 is the most controversial Level.
There is a general perception that investors place a premium on liquidity and that for the vast majority of hedge fund situations the more liquid (i.e. - Level 1) the better. As such, the natural progression of FAS 157 led to a struggle between hedge funds and auditors in the way their assets would be presented to investors.
When FAS 157 first was announced many hedge funds (and their auditors) were unsure which FAS 157 Level certain assets should be classified. It seemed some hedge funds/auditors were set to error on the side of caution. Others seemed more open to assuaging their hedge fund client's vocal objections to the classification of certain assets.
Some people in the private equity world have classified FAS 157 as "stupid." The SEC's former Chief Accountant Lynn Turner, has given FASB a failing 'F' grade. 
(Others have raised questions about which FAS 157 assets should be classified in when they have no value (such as toxic assets). In light of the recent economic environment it seems that change is in the air to reform FAS 157. In recent Congressional testimony a number of big names (Ben Bernanke, Sheila Bair, Tim Geitner, Mary Schapiro) have suggested reforming FAS 157 (aka: Mark-to-Market) and Fair Value accounting.
Even FASB has acknowledged that FAS 157 needs some work and since issued three final Staff Positions (FSPs) 
Specifically, the three groups of FSPs are:
1) FSP FAS 157-4 (the exciting sequel to FAS 157-3)- Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly
2) FSP FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments
3) FSP FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2, Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments
“The issuance of these final FSPs follows a period of intensive and extensive efforts by the FASB to gather input on our proposed guidance,” states FASB Chairman Robert H. Herz.
Thanks for all your hard work.
So let me get this straight - FASB puts out a rule which confuses everyone and provides little guidance on how to use it. Then works really hard to clarify it while hedge fund's, investors and auditors twist in the wind in the interim. Why wasn't all of this work put into gathering input gathered done beforehand? The FSPs are expected to be voted on later this week.
Some have blamed mark-to-market accounting as fueling some of the problems with the economy. Others have claimed there is nothing wrong with the rules but rather other issues such as over leverage should be blamed. FAS 157 is nothing more than a classification system. On face value it will do nothing to effect the actual underlying assets held by a hedge fund manager. It raises a number of issues related to judgment of hedge fund managers and their auditors. It is unclear if different auditors would classify certain assets into levels uniformly.
Hopefully, the new guidance from FASB will remove some of the judgment and discretion for the FAS 157 classification process. At the end of the day I question whether mark-to-market accounting really deserves all the criticism it has received. While there are good arguments on both sides, certainly a sound risk management policy should compliment any accounting methodology in place and not, as it seems had been the case with many hedge funds, be driven by it.
Click here to discuss this post.
Permalink
No comments:
Post a Comment