Thu, Apr 19, 2018
Counting the Cost
The theoretical scope for valuation “at cost” in alternatives funds is vanishing as a relief to investors. In addition, noninvestment companies are now expected to report nonconsolidated/nonequity method investments at fair value.
Executive Summary
Apr 19, 2018
Too Much of a Good Thing?
Apr 18, 2018
Too Much Too Soon?
Apr 19, 2018
Cyber Risks Beyond Your Four Walls
Apr 19, 2018
Brexit: The Catalyst for Substance Over Style in Asset Management
Apr 19, 2018
A Reality Check
Apr 19, 2018
New Priorities at the SEC
Apr 19, 2018
The Consequences of Concentration in Private Equity
Apr 19, 2018
The SEC Looks to the Most Vulnerable
Apr 27, 2018
Client Protection at the Heart of MiFID II
Apr 19, 2018
The Paradise Papers: The Unreported Facts
Apr 19, 2018
What’s in a Name? It’s a Question Regulators Are Increasingly Asking
Apr 19, 2018
New Guidance From The Trump Administration Regarding FCPA Prosecutions
Apr 19, 2018
Lifting the Veil
Apr 19, 2018
A Fool’s Errand
Apr 19, 2018
Alternative Data Brings Different Problems
Apr 19, 2018
The Price of Everything but the Value of Nothing
Apr 19, 2018
Counting the Cost
Apr 19, 2018
A Big Step Towards Consistency in Fair Value
Apr 19, 2018
Finally Addressing Forgotten Assets
Apr 19, 2018
- View all articles

Read Global Regulatory Outlook 2018
January saw the introduction of the International Accounting Standards (IAS) Board’s new framework for classification and measurement of financial assets in International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 9. Simplifying the complex classification system of IAS 39, an important part of the standard is the clear distinction between accounting for investments at fair value and amortized cost. In most cases, the standard makes clear that fair value is going to be the only option for alternative funds.
This, of course, is part of a wider trend. It follows the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2016-1 in January 2016.1 Applying to most equity investments, ASU 2016-1 also required measurements at fair value in most cases to be expanded from alternative investment funds to include corporate investments.
In both standards, there are exceptions. Under ASU 2016-1, noninvestment companies can elect to measure investments without a readily determinable fair value at cost. (Investment companies have no exception, as all investments are required to be reported at fair value.) Under IFRS 9, debt investments can be measured at amortized cost if the business model’s objective is to collect contractual cash flows on the assets—provided those investments also give rise on specified dates to cash flows that are solely payments of the principal and interest.2
Even where it’s available, valuation at cost will be increasingly rare, however. Under ASU 2016-1, those electing to value at cost have to complete extra steps for assessing impairment, identifying orderly transactions and remeasuring at fair value based on transactions in the security. That may reduce the attractions of the option. IFRS 9 also requires more onerous assessment of impairment for those using amortized cost.
The real pressure to move away from valuing at cost, though, will not come from the requirements of the standard but the demands of investors, which shaped them.
Institutional investors in alternative investment funds almost universally require reported Net Asset Value (NAV) to be based on the fair value of underlying investments. Institutional investors need fair value-based NAV to determine the fair value of a limited partnership interest for their own financial reporting purposes, as a common basis to make asset allocation decisions, to select investment managers, for performance evaluation and to inform incentive compensation decisions. Furthermore, without consistent and transparent information on the fair value of underlying investments, institutional investors face challenges in exercising their fiduciary responsibilities.
ASU 2016-1 and IFRS 9 have now made it crystal clear that historical cost and amortized cost are not proxies for fair value. With the standards now also clearly making fair value measurement the default, institutional investors’ insistence on it will only intensify. Failure to meet this demand won’t be without consequence—or cost.
Sources:
1 Accounting Standards Update 2016-01, Financial Instruments-Overall: Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities
2 http://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ifrs-9-financial-instruments/
Financial Services Compliance and Regulation
End-to-end governance, advisory and monitorship solutions to detect, mitigate, drive efficiencies and remediate operational, legal, compliance and regulatory risk.
Financial Crime Prevention
Financial crime risk has again risen to the top of the regulatory agenda, and remains one of the most immediate risks for many firms, with criminals constantly seeking new ways to circumvent protective controls.
U.S. Compliance Services
Comprehensive support for asset managers registering in the U.S.
European Compliance Services
Comprehensive compliance and regulatory support for EU firms.
French Regulation
A range of support from a review of your suitability arrangements, training, controls and procedures to conducting bespoke reviews on past business activities.
UK Compliance Services
Comprehensive compliance and regulatory support for FCA authorized firms.
Irish Regulation
Kroll is uniquely placed to assist firms in negotiating the regulatory landscape.
Singapore Regulation
Kroll's experienced team provides practical compliance and regulatory advice to financial institutions in Singapore.
Channel Islands Regulation
Kroll provides a range of regulatory and compliance consulting services for firms registered in the Channel Islands.
Regulatory Advice and Consulting Services
Assistance to develop, implement, and manage global compliance and regulatory consulting programs.