harvard school of business

Articles and Papers

Predicting Market Prices of Fixed Income Instruments Using Axiom Credit Rating and Fair Value Pricing Platform

Axiom Valuation Fair Value Research Project: Predicting Market Prices of Fixed Income Instruments Using Axiom Valuation Solutions’ Credit Rating and Fair Value Pricing Platform (2012)(PDF)

In the current regulatory environment a necessary but not a sufficient condition for establishing a non-traded asset’s fair value price is to demonstrate that the system used to produce it yields an unbiased estimate of a transaction price at the measurement date. This developing standard is being applied by oversight organizations as well as audit firms. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Aberrational Performance Initiative is designed to uncover misreporting of fair values of underlying assets of hedge and private equity funds. While many hedge funds only invest in financial securities that trade, many fixed income funds as well as CLOs and CDOs invest in debt instruments that do not trade on a regular basis and for which there is no dealer quote. In cases where dealer bid-asked quotes are available, they often do not accurately reflect the range with which the transaction would take place. In this case, a dealer quote does not meet the fair value financial reporting standard. Since a significant percentage of fixed income securities do not trade on a regular basis and are not routinely priced as a result, other means need to be employed that properly mimic transaction market activity in order to establish a non-traded asset’s fair value. This paper is the first of several papers that Axiom Valuation Solutions (“Axiom”) will produce, to address this critical issue.

The research design employed by Axiom is divided into three distinct phases. In the first phase, one tests whether the system can accurately reproduce prices of traded securities. The second phase identifies factors that determine the illiquidity associated with non-traded securities. The third phase combines the results of the first two phases and tests how accurately the system reproduces reported prices at which illiquid securities have been exchanged. This paper reports phase one research results. These results indicate that Axiom’s Credit Rating and Fair Value Pricing Platform produces unbiased estimates of market prices.

Determining the Fair Value of Debt When the Issuer May Not Be A Going Concern: When is Liquidation Value Fair Value?

Axiom Valuation Fair Value Research Project: Determining the Fair Value of Debt When the Issuer May Not Be A Going Concern: When is Liquidation Value Fair Value? (2012)(PDF)

Default risk is the uncertainty surrounding a firm’s ability to service its debts and obligations. The Debt holders of a firm near bankruptcy face significant default risk. If the firm is a going concern at the measurement date but loses this status at some point at or prior to maturity, the traditional YTM approach to calculating fair value will always overvalue the debt obligation. To ensure this does not happen, Axiom Valuation Solutions (“Axiom”) first compares the firm’s enterprise value with its book value of debt. If there is insufficient coverage, we then employ Merton’s contingent claims framework and the underlying Binomial Lattice Model to determine the likelihood that coverage will exceed unity. If the probability is either zero or very low that the coverage ratio will exceed unity at maturity, the fair value of debt is equal to the present value of the liquidation proceeds of assets available at the expected recovery date.

Axiom Brochure

Revisiting the Liquidity Discount Controversy: Establishing a Plausible Range

Six Myths of Transacting a Private Business

Valuing a Highly Leveraged ESOP

Valuing a Highly Leveraged ESOP (2004)
by Dr. Stanley Jay Feldman

Six Myths of Transacting a Private Business

Dividend Plan Will Increase Value Firms

Dividend Plan Will Increase the Value of Firms (2003)
by Dr. Stanley Jay Feldman
Guest Editorial in Boston Business Journal (2004)

A Primer on Calculating Goodwill Impairment

A Primer on Calculating Goodwill Impairment: Valuation Issues Raised by Financial Accounting Statement 142 (2004) (PDF)
by Dr. Stanley Jay Feldman, revised

Dr. Stanley Jay Feldman, Chairman of Axiom Valuation Solutions and Associate Professor of Finance, has authored a working paper describing key uncertainties and challenges to business valuation analysts created by recent accounting rule changes by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).

04.28.2004 – This is a revised version of an earlier paper dated May 2002. This version is essentially equivalent to the earlier paper, although the examples used were amended to improve clarity and understanding of what is a difficult and complex subject.

Summary

Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) 142 requires that goodwill emerging from acquisitions be tested to determine whether it has been impaired. Prior to FAS 142, goodwill was amortized over as many as forty years with the amortized amount deducted from net income. FAS 142 requires firms to effectively undertake a market test to see if goodwill has been impaired. This test is completed in two steps. The first simply requires a revaluing of the reporting unit. If this value is equal to or greater than the unit’s carrying value then goodwill has not been impaired. On the other hand, if the calculated value is less than the unit’s carrying value, then step 2 must be undertaken. The purpose of step 2 is to assign the value of the reporting unit to its identified and recognized assets and liabilities. These assets are valued as standalone entities. The sum of recognized asset values less the market value of liabilities is the fair market value of net assets. The difference between the fair market value of the reporting unit and the fair market value of net assets is the implied fair market value of goodwill. If this value is less than the carrying value of goodwill, then the difference is equal to the value of goodwill impairment loss.

The purpose of FAS 141R and FAS 142 is to provide investors with better financial information as to the success of past acquisitions. In the process of doing this, the FASB has forced firms to deal with a number of thorny and, in some cases, unresolved valuation issues. These issues include:

* Valuing the reporting unit from the perspective of hypothetical new buyer or from the perspective of the acquiring firm implementing its strategy for deploying the acquired assets.
* Applying a marketability discount to the value of a reporting unit when the unit no longer has equity trading in a liquid market.
* Estimating the proper cost of capital when the discounted cash flow approach is used to value the reporting unit.

Using Regression Models to Predict the Marketability Discount

A Note on Using Regression Models to Predict the Marketability Discount (2002) (PDF)

by Dr. Stanley Jay Feldman
Published in Business Valuation Review, September 2002

In the September 2002 issue of the Business Valuation Review published by the American Society of Appraisers, Dr. Stanley Jay Feldman, Chairman of Axiom Valuation Solutions, and Associate Professor of Finance, Bentley University, has authored a paper reviewing regression analysis results used in evaluating the size of the marketability discount for privately held firms. The paper that this article was based upon is available here.

Summary

Academic research suggests that the size of the marketability discount is in the neighborhood of 13.5% and more recent work has suggested it may be as low as 7.23%. The regression models of Silber, and Hertzel and Smith have provided both the intellectual and empirical basis for these conclusions. These models were initially developed to study the determinants of the marketability discount. It has been suggested that they should now be used as a basis for forecasting the marketability discount. This paper demonstrates that these models should not be used for this purpose because the forecast errors are likely to be large. Moreover, based on the structure of these models and their prediction errors, it is not possible to state with any certainty that a 13.5% marketability discount is statistically different than a discount of say 25%.

The Five Myths of Valuing a Private Business

Business Valuation 101: The Five Myths of Valuing a Private Business (2002)

by Dr. Stanley Jay Feldman
SCORE Guest Feature Article

Financial Service Needs of Established Business Owners

Financial Service Needs of Established Business Owners (2004) (PDF)

Dr. Stanley Jay Feldman and Roger M. Winsby, revised


© Copyright 2018 Axiom Valuation - Theme: FlatPack-Child by Fast Fix Web Design.