20 TIMESHARE STRATEGY IMPAIRMENT CHARGES As a result of these decisions, in 2009 we recorded pretax charges totaling $752 million in our Consolidated Statements of Income ($502 million after-tax), including $614 million of pretax charges impacting operating income under the "Timeshare strategy impairment charges" caption, and $138 million of pretax charges impacting non-operating income under the "Timeshare strategy impairment charges (non-operating)" caption. The $752 million of pretax impairment charges were non-cash, other than $27 million of charges associated with ongoing mezzanine loan fundings and $21 million of charges for purchase commitments that we expected to fund in 2010. Grouped by product type and/or geographic location, these impairment charges consist of $295 million associated with five luxury residential projects, $299 million associated with nine North American luxury fractional projects, $93 million related to one North American timeshare project, $51 million related to the four projects in our European timeshare and fractional business, and $14 million associated with two Asia Pacific timeshare resorts. The following table details the composition of these charges. |
|
In accordance with the guidance for accounting for the impairment or disposal of long-lived assets, we made these impairment adjustments to inventory, property and equipment and joint venture investment to adjust the carrying value of each underlying asset to our estimate of its fair value as of the end of the 2009 third quarter, including fully impairing the joint venture investment. We estimated the fair value of the underlying assets using probability-weighted cash flow models that reflected our expectations of future performance discounted at risk-free interest rates commensurate with the remaining life of the related projects using the procedures specified in the guidance for fair value measurements. We used Level 3 inputs for our discounted cash flow analyses. Our assumptions included: growth rate and sales pace projections, additional pricing discounts resulting from the business decisions we made, development cancellations resulting in shorter project life cycles, marketing and sales cost estimates, and in certain instances alternative uses to comply with the highest and best use provisions specified in the guidance for fair value measurements. In some instances, we took into account appraisals, which we deemed to be Level 3 inputs, for determining the fair value of the underlying assets. We also determined that certain mezzanine loans made to the impaired joint venture we refer to in the preceding paragraph likely would not be repaid. As a result, we fully reserved those loans in accordance with the guidance for accounting by creditors for impairment of a loan, based on the present value of the loans' expected cash flows discounted at the loans' effective interest rates. Our reported funding liability is related to our intention to provide ongoing financial support for this impaired joint venture in order to ensure the completion of this project based upon both completion of significant project milestones and our history of support for the entity's operations. We do not anticipate repayment from this joint venture, which is a variable interest entity (See Footnote No. 22, "Variable Interest Entities"), and have accordingly expensed these amounts. The funding liability met the criteria of probable and reasonably estimable, in accordance with the guidance for accounting for contingencies. Other impairments primarily related to our anticipated fundings in conjunction with certain purchase commitments, a portion of which we do not expect to recover because the projected fair value of the assets to be purchased under the commitments will be below the amount we expect to fund. We measured the projected fair value of the assets using probability-weighted cash flow models with Level 3 inputs, in accordance with the guidance for fair value measurements. Our assumptions included: growth rate and sales pace projections, additional pricing discounts as a result of the business decisions made, marketing and sales cost estimates, and in certain instances alternative uses to comply with the highest and best use provisions specified in the guidance for fair value measurements. > Back to top of page |