|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2012
|Fair Value [Abstract]|
|Fair Value [Text Block]||
Note 4: Fair Value
Fair value is the price that would be received from selling an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. When determining fair value, we consider the principal or most advantageous market in which we would transact, and we consider assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability. Our financial assets and liabilities are measured and recorded at fair value, except for equity method investments, cost method investments, cost method loans receivable, and most of our liabilities.
Fair Value Hierarchy
The three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value are as follows:
Level 1. Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.
Level 2. Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities, quoted prices in less active markets, or model-derived valuations in which all significant inputs are observable or can be derived principally from or corroborated with observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities. Level 2 inputs also include non-binding market consensus prices that can be corroborated with observable market data, as well as quoted prices that were adjusted for security-specific restrictions.
Level 3. Unobservable inputs to the valuation methodology that are significant to the measurement of the fair value of assets or liabilities. Level 3 inputs also include non-binding market consensus prices or non-binding broker quotes that we were unable to corroborate with observable market data.
Marketable Debt Instruments
Marketable debt instruments include instruments such as commercial paper, corporate bonds, government bonds, bank deposits, asset-backed securities, municipal bonds, and money market fund deposits. When we use observable market prices for identical securities that are traded in less active markets, we classify our marketable debt instruments as Level 2. When observable market prices for identical securities are not available, we price our marketable debt instruments using non-binding market consensus prices that are corroborated with observable market data; quoted market prices for similar instruments; or pricing models, such as a discounted cash flow model, with all significant inputs derived from or corroborated with observable market data. Non-binding market consensus prices are based on the proprietary valuation models of pricing providers or brokers. These valuation models incorporate a number of inputs, including non-binding and binding broker quotes; observable market prices for identical or similar securities; and the internal assumptions of pricing providers or brokers that use observable market inputs and, to a lesser degree, unobservable market inputs. We corroborate non-binding market consensus prices with observable market data using statistical models when observable market data exists. The discounted cash flow model uses observable market inputs, such as LIBOR-based yield curves, currency spot and forward rates, and credit ratings.
Our marketable debt instruments that are classified as Level 3 are classified as such due to the lack of observable market data to corroborate either the non-binding market consensus prices or the non-binding broker quotes. When observable market data is not available, we corroborate our fair value measurements using non-binding market consensus prices and non-binding broker quotes from a second source.
Assets/Liabilities Measured and Recorded at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis
Assets and liabilities measured and recorded at fair value on a recurring basis consisted of the following types of instruments as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011:
Government bonds include bonds issued or deemed to be guaranteed by government entities. Government bonds include instruments such as non-U.S. government bonds, U.S. Treasury securities, and U.S. agency securities.
During the second quarter of 2012, approximately $360 million of government bonds and corporate bonds were transferred from Level 1 to Level 2 primarily based on the reduced market activity for the underlying securities. Our policy is to reflect transfers in and transfers out at the beginning of the quarter in which a change in circumstances resulted in the transfer.
Fair Value Option for Financial Assets/Liabilities
We elected the fair value option for loans made to third parties when the interest rate or foreign exchange rate risk was hedged at inception with a related derivative instrument. As of June 30, 2012, the fair value of our loans receivable for which we elected the fair value option did not significantly differ from the contractual principal balance based on the contractual currency. These loans receivable are classified within other current assets and other long-term assets. Fair value is determined using a discounted cash flow model with all significant inputs derived from or corroborated with observable market data. Gains and losses from changes in fair value on the loans receivable and related derivative instruments, as well as interest income, are recorded in interest and other, net. During all periods presented, changes in the fair value of our loans receivable were largely offset by changes in the related derivative instruments, resulting in an insignificant net impact on our consolidated condensed statements of income. Gains and losses attributable to changes in credit risk are determined using observable credit default spreads for the issuer or comparable companies and were insignificant during all periods presented. We did not elect the fair value option for loans when the interest rate or foreign exchange rate risk was not hedged at inception with a related derivative instrument.
We elected the fair value option for the bonds issued in 2007 by the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chandler, Arizona (2007 Arizona bonds). In connection with the 2007 Arizona bonds, we entered into a total return swap agreement that effectively converts the fixed-rate obligation on the bonds to a floating U.S.-dollar LIBOR-based rate. As a result, changes in the fair value of this debt are largely offset by changes in the fair value of the total return swap agreement, without the need to apply hedge accounting provisions. The 2007 Arizona bonds are included in long-term debt. As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, no other instruments were similar to the 2007 Arizona bonds for which we elected fair value treatment.
As of June 30, 2012, the fair value of the 2007 Arizona bonds did not significantly differ from the contractual principal balance. The fair value of the 2007 Arizona bonds was determined using inputs that are observable in the market or that can be derived from or corroborated with observable market data, as well as unobservable inputs that were significant to the fair value measurement. Gains and losses on the 2007 Arizona bonds and the related total return swap are recorded in interest and other, net. We capitalize a portion of the interest associated with the 2007 Arizona bonds. We add capitalized interest to the cost of qualified assets and amortize it over the estimated useful lives of the assets. The remaining interest associated with the 2007 Arizona bonds is recorded as interest expense in interest and other, net.
Assets Measured and Recorded at Fair Value on a Non-Recurring Basis
Our non-marketable equity investments (non-marketable equity method and cost method investments) and non-financial assets, such as intangible assets and property, plant and equipment, are recorded at fair value only if an impairment charge is recognized. Impairment charges recognized on non-marketable equity investments held as of June 30, 2012 were $15 million during the second quarter of 2012 and $73 million during the first half of 2012 (impairment charges recognized on non-marketable equity investments held as of July 2, 2011 were $8 million during the second quarter of 2011 and $22 million during the first half of 2011). The fair value of these non-marketable equity investments at the time of impairment recognition was $31 million during the first half of 2012 ($37 million during the first half of 2011). All of these assets were categorized as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy.
A portion of our non-marketable equity investments was measured and recorded at fair value due to events or circumstances that significantly impacted the fair value of those investments, resulting in other-than-temporary impairment charges. We classified these measurements as Level 3, as we used unobservable inputs to the valuation methodologies that were significant to the fair value measurements, and the valuations required management judgment due to the absence of quoted market prices.
Financial Instruments Not Recorded at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis
We measure the fair value of our non-marketable cost method investments, indebtedness carried at amortized cost, and cost method loans receivable quarterly; however, the assets are recorded at fair value only when an impairment charge is recognized. The carrying amounts and fair values of certain financial instruments not recorded at fair value on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 were as follows:
As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the unrealized loss position of our non-marketable cost method investments was insignificant.
Our non-marketable equity investments are valued using the market and income approaches. The market approach includes the use of financial metrics and ratios of comparable public companies. The selection of comparable companies requires management judgment and is based on a number of factors, including comparable companies' sizes, growth rates, industries, development stages, and other relevant factors. The income approach includes the use of a discounted cash flow model, which requires the following significant estimates for the investee: revenue, costs, and discount rates based on the risk profile of comparable companies. Estimates of revenues and costs are developed using available market, historical, and forecast data. The valuation of these non-marketable equity investments also takes into account variables such as conditions reflected in the capital markets, recent financing activities by the investees, the investees' capital structure, the terms of the investees' issued interests, and the lack of marketability of the investments.
The carrying amount and fair value of loans receivable exclude loans measured and recorded at a fair value of $739 million as of June 30, 2012 ($748 million as of December 31, 2011). The carrying amount and fair value of long-term debt exclude long-term debt measured and recorded at a fair value of $128 million as of June 30, 2012 ($131 million as of December 31, 2011). Short-term debt includes our commercial paper outstanding as of December 31, 2011, and the carrying amount and fair value exclude drafts payable.
The fair value of our loans receivable, including those held at fair value, is determined using a discounted cash flow model, with all significant inputs derived from or corroborated with observable market data, such as LIBOR-based yield curves, currency spot and forward rates, and credit ratings. The credit quality of our loans receivable remains high, with credit ratings of A/A2 or better for most of our loans receivable as of June 30, 2012. Our long-term debt recognized at amortized cost is comprised of our senior notes and our convertible debentures. The fair value of our senior notes is determined using active market prices, and is thereby classified as Level 1. The fair value of our convertible long-term debt is determined using discounted cash flow models with observable market inputs and takes into consideration variables such as risk-free rate, comparable securities, subordination discount, credit-rating changes, and interest rate changes.
The NVIDIA Corporation cross-license agreement liability in the preceding table was incurred as result of entering into a long-term patent cross-license agreement with NVIDIA in January 2011. We agreed to make payments to NVIDIA over six years. As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the carrying amount of the liability arising from the agreement was classified within other accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities, as applicable. The fair value is determined using a discounted cash flow model, which discounts future cash flows using our incremental borrowing rates.
No definition available.