Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 > 5 FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS We adopted FAS No. 157 on December 29, 2007, the first day of fiscal year 2008. FAS No. 157 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (an exit price). The standard outlines a valuation framework and creates a fair value hierarchy in order to increase the consistency and comparability of fair value measurements and the related disclosures. Under GAAP, certain assets and liabilities must be measured at fair value, and FAS No. 157 details the disclosures that are required for items measured at fair value. We have various financial instruments we must measure under FAS No. 157 including: certain marketable securities; derivatives; and servicing assets and residual interests related to our asset securitizations. None of our current non-financial assets or non-financial liabilities must be measured at fair value on a recurring basis. We measure our financial assets and liabilities using inputs from the following three levels of the fair value hierarchy. The three levels are as follows:
Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability (i.e., interest rates, yield curves, etc.), and inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means (market corroborated inputs). Level 3 includes unobservable inputs that reflect our assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. We develop these inputs based on the best information available, including our own data. In accordance with the fair value hierarchy, the following table shows the fair value as of year-end 2008, of those financial assets and liabilities that we must measure at fair value and that we classify as "Other current assets," "Other assets," and "Other long-term liabilities": As discussed in Footnote No. 20, "Restructuring Costs and Other Charges," we recorded impairment charges during 2008 for some of our inventory and intangible assets. In accordance with the guidance found in FSP No. FAS 157-2, we did not apply the provisions of FAS No. 157 to these impairments. The following table summarizes the changes in fair value of our Level 3 assets and liabilities for year-end 2008: At the dates of sale and at the end of each reporting period, we estimate the fair value of our residual interests, including servicing assets, using a discounted cash flow model. The implementation of FAS No. 157 did not result in material changes to the models or processes used to value these assets. These transactions may utilize interest rate swaps to protect the net interest margin associated with the beneficial interest. The discount rates we use in determining the fair values of the residual interests are based on the general level of interest rates in the market and the assumed credit risk of the interests retained. We adjust these discount rates quarterly as interest rates and credit spreads in the market vary. We treat the residual interests, including servicing assets, as trading securities under the provisions of FAS No. 115, "Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities," and accordingly, we recorded realized and unrealized gains or losses related to these assets in the "Timeshare sales and services" revenue caption in our Consolidated Statements of Income. During 2008 we recorded trading losses of $9 million, and in 2007 and 2006, we recorded trading gains of $30 million and $19 million, respectively. During 2008, 2007, and 2006, we used the following key assumptions to measure, at the date of sale, the fair value of the residual interests, including servicing assets: average discount rates of 9.23 percent, 9.02 percent, and 9.22 percent, respectively; average expected annual prepayments, including defaults, of 24.01 percent, 25.02 percent, and 25.22 percent, respectively; expected weighted average life of prepayable notes receivable, excluding prepayments and defaults, of 76 months, 75 months, and 70 months respectively; and expected weighted average life of prepayable notes receivable, including prepayments and defaults, of 35 months, 34 months, and 32 months, respectively. Our key assumptions are based on experience with notes receivable and servicing assets. We used the following key assumptions in measuring the fair value of the residual interests, including servicing assets, in our 12 outstanding Timeshare note sales as of year-end 2008: an average discount rate of 16.87 percent; an average expected annual prepayment rate, including defaults, of 18.08 percent; an expected weighted average life of prepayable notes receivable, excluding prepayments and defaults, of 59 months; and an expected weighted average life of prepayable notes receivable, including prepayments and defaults, of 35 months. The most significant estimate involved in the measurement process is the discount rate, followed by the default rate and the loan repayment rate. Estimates of these rates are based on management's expectations of future prepayment rates and default rates, reflecting our historical experience, industry trends, current market interest rates, expected future interest rates, and other considerations. Actual repayment rates, default rates, and discount rates could differ from those projected by management due to changes in a variety of economic factors, including prevailing interest rates and the availability of alternative financing sources to borrowers. If actual prepayments of the loans being serviced were to occur more slowly than had been projected, the carrying value of servicing assets could increase and accretion and servicing income would exceed previously projected amounts. If actual default rates or actual discount rates are lower than expected, the carrying value of retained interests could increase and accretion and servicing income would exceed previously projected amounts. Accordingly, the retained interests, including servicing assets, actually realized, could differ from the amounts initially recorded. If actual prepayments of the loans being serviced occur at a faster pace than we have projected, the carrying value of servicing assets could decrease and accretion and servicing income would be below previously projected amounts. If actual default rates or actual discount rates are higher than we expect, the carrying value of retained interests could decrease and accretion and servicing income would be below previously projected amounts. Accordingly, the retained interests, including servicing assets, actually realized, could differ from the amounts initially recorded. We completed a stress test on the fair value of the residual interests, including servicing assets, as of the end of 2008 to measure the change in value associated with independent changes in individual key variables. This methodology applied unfavorable changes that would be statistically significant for the key variables of prepayment rate, discount rate, and weighted average remaining term. Before we applied any of these stress test changes, we determined that the fair value of the residual interests, including servicing assets, was $221 million as of year-end 2008. Applying the stress tests, we concluded that each change to a variable shown in the table below would have the following impact on the valuation of our residual interests at year-end: We value our derivatives using valuations that are calibrated to the initial trade prices. Subsequent valuations are based on observable inputs to the valuation model including interest rates and volatilities. We record realized and unrealized gains and losses on these derivative instruments in gains from the sale of timeshare notes receivable, which are recorded within the "Timeshare sales and services" revenue caption in our Consolidated Statements of Income. During the fourth quarter of 2008, we impaired one equity method investment and three other investments for a total of $25 million. Impairment charges of $9 million were recorded in "Equity in earnings" and $16 million were recorded in "Gains and other income." We used level three inputs in a discounted cash flow model to determine the fair value of these assets. For additional information, see the "Other Charges" caption of Footnote No. 20, "Restructuring Costs and Other Charges." > Back to top of page |