You are on page 1of 4

APRIL 2010

NEW GUIDANCE ON VALUING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS

Is determining the fair value and the related “level” disclosures of your Nonprofit’s alternative invest-
ments a source of confusion? New guidance is here to help! In September 2009, FASB released Update
2009-12 under Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, entitled, “Investments in Certain
Entities that Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or Its Equivalent). This new guidance is effective for an-
nual periods ending December 15, 2009, and beyond.

BACKGROUND
An investor, such as a Nonprofit, may invest in entities that permit the Nonprofit to redeem its invest-
ments directly with the investee at certain specified times under the investment agreement. Many of
these investments, deemed “alternative investments” do not have readily determinable fair values be-
cause these investments are not traded on a national exchange or over the counter market. Examples of
such alternative investments include hedge funds, private equity funds, real estate funds, venture capital
funds, offshore fund vehicles, and funds of funds.

Many of the investments (investees) provide their investors with a net asset value per share (or its equiv-
alent, for example, member units or an ownership interest in partners’ capital to which a proportionate
share of net assets is attributed).

Since the net asset value is commonly used by investors to estimate the value of the investments by
using net asset value, FASB decided to issue guidance on its use as a practical way of estimating the fair
value of an alternative investment.
CRITERIA & KEY PROVISIONS
The guidance applies to all investments, as follows:

• The investment does not have a readily determinable fair value


• The investment is in an entity that has all of the following attributes specified in Topic 946 of the
Codification (U.S. GAAP for Investment Companies)
• Investment activity – the entity’s primary business activity involves investing its assets,
usually securities, for current income, appreciation, or both.
• Unit ownership – ownership in the entity is represented by units of investments, such as
shares of stock or partnership interests, to which proportionate shares of net assets can
be attributed
• Pooling of funds – the funds of the entity’s owners are pooled to avail owners of profes-
sional investment management
• Reporting entity – the entity is the primary reporting entity

So what does this mean?

If all of the criteria above are met, an entity is allowed, as a practical expedient, to measure fair value
of an investment on the basis of net asset value per share (or its equivalent) as reported as of its mea-
surement date (usually its balance sheet date).

The guidance also adds disclosure requirements, as follows:

• Disclosure by major category of investment about liquidity restrictions, unfunded capital commit-
ments, and investment strategies

Furthermore, the guidance also clarifies fair value hierarchy classifications for alternative investments,
as follows:

• If the Nonprofit has the ability to redeem (sell) its investment with the investee at net asset value
per share (or its equivalent) at the measurement date, the investment may be classified as a Level 2
investment under Topic 820 (e.g investment in a hedge fund that is redeemable).
• If the Nonprofit will never have the ability to redeem its investment at net asset value, it should be
categorized as a Level 3 (e.g. non-redeemable investment in a private equity fund).
• If the reporting entity does not know when an alternative investment will be redeemable in the fu-
ture, it should be categorized as a Level 3 investment.
CRITERIA & KEY PROVISIONS
While the guidance is aimed primarily at alternative investments, it also may apply to other assets
represented by an ownership interest based on a proportionate share of net assets. For example, in a
beneficial interest in a perpetual trust, a Nonprofits ownership interest in the trust is determined by it
percentage ownership in the fair value of the underlying trust assets, which may have an underlying net
asset value.

For more information, or if we can be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate contact one of
SingerLewak’s Nonprofit Partners:

Stephen P. Carter - Silicon Valley Lewis Sharpstone - Los Angeles


SCarter@singerlewak.com LSharpstone@singerlewak.com

Jeff Holt - Los Angeles Rob Schlener - Orange County


JHolt@singerlewak.com RSchlener@singerlewak.com

You might also like