What Is ASC 820-10? Fair Value Hierarchy and Valuation Approaches

ASC 820-10 is the U.S. GAAP standard that governs fair value measurement, defining 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.¹ The standard does not tell you which items to measure at fair value. It supplies the framework whenever another accounting topic requires or permits the measurement, and that framework rests on three things: a market-based definition of value, a hierarchy that ranks inputs by observability, and disclosure requirements that let readers judge how reliable the reported numbers are.

What Fair Value Actually Means

Every word of the definition carries weight. Fair value is an exit price, measured from the perspective of the party selling the asset or transferring the liability.¹ It is not what you paid, not what you hope to sell for, and not what a forced sale would bring. The standard contemplates a hypothetical transaction, not an actual one you plan to execute.

An orderly transaction assumes the asset or liability has been exposed to the market for a customary period before the measurement date, with normal marketing activities taking place.¹ Distress sales and forced liquidations are excluded. The hypothetical buyer and seller are independent, knowledgeable about the asset, able to transact, and willing but not compelled to do so. Whether the entity actually intends to hold or sell the item is irrelevant.

The standard also draws a sharp line between fair value and the entity’s own view of an asset’s worth. Fair value is market-based, not entity-specific. Even when observable market data is scarce, the goal stays the same: estimate the price a market participant would pay, not the price the reporting entity thinks is right.

Identifying the Right Market

Every measurement starts with identifying where the hypothetical transaction would occur. The standard directs entities to look first for the principal market, defined as the market with the greatest volume and level of activity for that particular asset or liability.² You do not need to conduct an exhaustive search. Unless evidence points elsewhere, you can presume that the market where you normally transact is the principal market.

If no principal market exists, you fall back to the most advantageous market, meaning the one that maximizes the amount received for an asset or minimizes the amount paid to transfer a liability. In most situations the two markets are the same. When they differ, the principal market wins, even if a different market would produce a more favorable price.

Transaction costs like commissions and transfer taxes are never part of the fair value figure itself. They may factor into identifying which market is most advantageous, but fair value is a gross price. Transportation costs are treated differently. If location is a characteristic of the asset, the cost of moving it from its current location to the principal market adjusts the measurement.

What ASC 820 Covers and What It Does Not

ASC 820-10 applies broadly. Whenever another accounting topic requires or permits fair value measurement, ASC 820 supplies the rules for how to do it. That reaches financial instruments like derivatives and debt securities, non-financial assets like real property and equipment, intangible assets measured in a business combination under ASC 805, and liabilities including an entity’s own debt obligations.²

Several important items sit outside the standard’s scope. Share-based compensation under ASC 718 follows its own valuation rules. Inventory measured at the lower of cost and net realizable value under ASC 330 uses a different measurement concept. Revenue allocated to performance obligations under ASC 606 relies on standalone selling prices, which can incorporate entity-specific factors that ASC 820 would not permit. Assuming ASC 820 governs every fair value number on the financial statements leads to misapplication in these areas.

Highest and Best Use for Non-Financial Assets

When measuring a non-financial asset, you must determine its highest and best use from a market participant’s perspective. This concept does not apply to financial assets, liabilities, or equity instruments. For non-financial assets, fair value reflects how a market participant would use the asset to maximize its value, regardless of how the reporting entity currently uses it.

Three criteria constrain the analysis. The hypothetical use must be physically possible, legally permissible, and financially feasible. No exhaustive search is required. If market conditions and other factors do not suggest otherwise, current use can be presumed to be the highest and best use.

In-Use vs. Stand-Alone Valuation Premise

The highest and best use determination also fixes the valuation premise. An asset’s value might be maximized through use in combination with other assets and liabilities, such as within an operating business. In that case, the measurement assumes a market participant already holds the complementary assets needed to operate the group.¹ If value is maximized on a stand-alone basis, the measurement reflects the price a buyer would pay to use the asset independently.

When the highest and best use differs from the entity’s current use, that fact and the reasoning behind it must be disclosed. The situation arises less often than you might expect, precisely because the presumption favoring current use is strong. When it does come up, the disclosure tells readers the balance sheet reflects a value premised on a different deployment of the asset.

The Three Valuation Approaches

ASC 820 identifies three valuation approaches. Entities select the approach, or combination of approaches, appropriate for the specific asset or liability and for which sufficient data is available. Across all three, the objective is the same: maximize observable inputs and minimize reliance on unobservable ones.¹

When multiple approaches are used, the results are evaluated together. Fair value is the point within the range of indicated values that best represents fair value in the circumstances, not a mechanical average. A change in valuation technique is permitted when it produces a more representative measurement, but the change and its rationale must be disclosed.

Market Approach

The market approach uses prices and other information generated by actual market transactions involving identical or comparable assets or liabilities.² When active market data exists for the exact asset, this approach is the most direct and often the most reliable. It works on a straightforward substitution principle: a buyer would not pay more than the price of an equivalent asset available in the market.

In practice, the approach frequently involves comparable company analysis or comparable transaction analysis. An appraiser might derive an enterprise value-to-EBITDA multiple from publicly traded peers and apply it to the subject company’s financial metrics. The result is a preliminary estimate that almost always requires adjustment for differences in size, risk profile, growth trajectory, and other characteristics specific to the asset being measured. Those adjustments demand judgment and are among the most scrutinized elements in any fair value analysis.

Adjustments for control and marketability are common when valuing equity interests. A buyer of a controlling interest pays a premium for the ability to direct strategy, set compensation, and make fundamental business decisions. A minority interest with no control rights and no liquid market typically warrants discounts. The size of these adjustments depends on the specific rights attached to the interest, the ownership structure, and relevant organizational documents.

Income Approach

The income approach converts future economic benefits into a single present value amount.² It is the workhorse for assets that generate predictable long-term cash flows, including intangible assets, infrastructure, and many financial instruments.

The most common technique is discounted cash flow analysis. Project the future cash flows the asset is expected to produce over its remaining useful life, then discount those projections to present value. The discount rate reflects the time value of money and the risk that the projected cash flows may not materialize. In most contexts, the rate is built from a weighted average cost of capital or a comparable required rate of return, calibrated to reflect market participant assumptions. Small changes in the rate can move the calculated fair value by a material amount, which makes rate selection one of the most consequential judgments in the entire measurement.

Other income approach techniques include multi-period excess earnings methods, which isolate the cash flows attributable to a specific intangible asset like customer relationships or proprietary technology, and option-pricing models for instruments with contingent payoff structures. Each technique must be calibrated at initial recognition so that the model output equals the transaction price. After that, the model must continue to reflect observable market data whenever available.¹

Cost Approach

The cost approach estimates the amount a market participant would need to spend right now to replace the service capacity of the asset.² No rational buyer would pay more for an asset than the cost to acquire or build a substitute with equivalent utility.

The calculation starts with current replacement cost, which incorporates today’s technology and construction methods rather than reproducing the original asset exactly. From there, three types of obsolescence are deducted:

Physical deterioration: wear and tear that reduces the asset’s remaining useful life compared to a new replacement.
Functional obsolescence: reduced utility caused by design limitations or technological advances that make the original configuration less efficient than current alternatives.
Economic obsolescence: external factors like regulatory changes, shifts in market demand, or economic downturns that impair earning capacity regardless of physical condition.

The net amount after these deductions represents fair value. The cost approach is most commonly applied to specialized manufacturing equipment, real estate improvements, and other non-financial assets where no active market exists and income projections are impractical. It is rarely appropriate for financial assets.

The Fair Value Hierarchy

ASC 820 organizes inputs to valuation techniques into a three-level hierarchy that prioritizes observable market data over entity-specific assumptions. The purpose is to increase consistency and comparability across entities by pushing preparers toward the most reliable inputs available.²

The classification of the overall measurement depends on the lowest-level input that is significant to the entire calculation. If a measurement uses mostly Level 2 inputs but one significant input is Level 3, the entire measurement falls into Level 3. That rule prevents entities from burying a subjective assumption inside an otherwise observable framework and calling the result Level 2.

Level 1 Inputs

Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities, unadjusted, that the entity can access at the measurement date.¹ A market qualifies as active when transactions occur with enough frequency and volume to provide ongoing pricing information. The closing price of a widely traded stock on a major exchange is the classic example.

The list of instruments that genuinely qualify is narrower than many people assume. It includes listed equities on deep, liquid exchanges, on-the-run Treasury securities, exchange-traded futures and options, and open-ended mutual funds with daily published net asset values at which investors can freely subscribe or redeem. Once trading volume thins or the instrument has bespoke features, the measurement typically drops to Level 2 or below.

One critical rule: Level 1 measurements cannot be adjusted, even when the entity holds a very large position in the identical asset. The standard explicitly prohibits blockage factors, meaning discounts that reflect the potential market impact of selling a large block at once. Size of holding is a characteristic of the entity’s position, not a characteristic of the asset itself. If the quoted price in the active market is $50, that is the fair value per unit whether you hold 100 shares or 10 million.

Level 2 Inputs

Level 2 inputs are observable for the asset or liability but do not meet the Level 1 standard.² They include quoted prices for similar but not identical assets in active markets, quoted prices for identical assets in markets that are not active, and market-corroborated data points like interest rates, yield curves, and credit spreads.

Most U.S. public debt falls into Level 2. So do short-term cash instruments, many derivative products, and off-the-run Treasury securities. Prices exist and are derived from real market activity, but the specific instrument either trades infrequently or requires some modeling to translate observable data into a fair value estimate.

Adjustments to Level 2 inputs are permitted and often necessary. If you are using the quoted price of a similar bond to estimate the fair value of your bond, you may need to adjust for differences in maturity, coupon rate, or collateral structure. Those adjustments must be systematic, based on factors a market participant would consider, and internally consistent. The more significant and subjective the adjustments, the greater the risk that the measurement slides into Level 3.

Level 3 Inputs

Level 3 inputs are unobservable. They enter the picture only when observable data is unavailable, and they carry the greatest degree of subjectivity.¹ Private equity investments, complex structured products, and illiquid derivatives frequently fall here.

You develop Level 3 inputs using the best information available, which often means internal financial forecasts, proprietary models, or management assumptions about variables like revenue growth, customer attrition, or volatility. Those assumptions must reflect what a market participant would use, not what management hopes will happen. All available market information must be considered, even if the final inputs are unobservable.

Non-binding broker quotes and consensus pricing data generally qualify as Level 3 inputs unless corroborated by additional market evidence. This catches many practitioners off guard. Receiving a quote from a dealer does not automatically make the input observable; if the dealer is not standing ready and able to transact at that price, the quote does not meet the Level 2 bar.

Liabilities and Nonperformance Risk

Fair value measurement for liabilities follows the same exit-price concept, but the perspective shifts. Instead of asking what a buyer would pay, the measurement asks what a market participant would charge to assume the obligation. A liability’s fair value includes the effect of nonperformance risk, which encompasses the entity’s own credit risk along with other risk factors like regulatory or operational risk.

This produces a counterintuitive result. If an entity’s creditworthiness deteriorates, the fair value of its liabilities decreases, because a market participant would demand a lower price (accept less cash) to take on debt from a riskier counterparty. The entity then recognizes a gain on the liability remeasurement, even though its financial health has worsened. The standard addresses the tension through disclosure and, in some cases, through recognition of certain gains and losses in other comprehensive income rather than earnings.

For liabilities with observable market prices, nonperformance risk is already embedded in the price and does not need to be separately measured. For liabilities measured using a model, credit risk must be explicitly incorporated and re-evaluated each reporting period. The measurement must reflect market participant assumptions about credit risk, not the entity’s internal view of its own creditworthiness.

Day-One Gains and Losses

When an entity initially recognizes an asset or liability at fair value and the transaction price differs from the fair value measurement, the difference creates a day-one gain or loss. ASC 820-10 directs the entity to recognize this gain or loss in earnings unless the specific accounting topic governing that asset or liability says otherwise.¹

This matters most when the initial measurement relies on unobservable inputs. In those situations, the valuation technique must be calibrated so that its output equals the transaction price at initial recognition. Calibration ensures the model reflects actual market conditions on day one and provides a baseline for evaluating subsequent changes. If the model and the transaction price diverge from the start, that divergence should prompt hard questions about whether the model captures all relevant characteristics of the instrument.

Required Disclosures

The disclosure framework was reshaped significantly by ASU 2018-13, which streamlined some requirements, added others, and eliminated a few the FASB concluded were not providing useful information. Current requirements apply differently depending on whether the entity is public or nonpublic and whether the measurement is recurring or nonrecurring.

Core Disclosures

For each class of assets and liabilities measured at fair value, the entity must disclose the fair value measurement at the end of the reporting period, the level within the hierarchy where the measurement falls, and a description of the valuation techniques and inputs used for Level 2 and Level 3 measurements.¹ If a valuation technique has changed since the prior period, the entity must disclose the change and explain why it was made. Nonrecurring measurements also require the entity to explain why the measurement was taken.

For Level 3 measurements specifically, the entity must provide quantitative information about significant unobservable inputs. Since ASU 2018-13 took effect, public entities must also disclose the range and weighted average of these inputs, giving readers a concrete sense of the assumptions driving the most subjective valuations on the balance sheet.

Level 3 Roll-Forward and Sensitivity

Recurring Level 3 measurements require a reconciliation from opening to closing balances, broken out by total gains and losses recognized in earnings, total gains and losses recognized in other comprehensive income, purchases, sales, issuances, settlements, and transfers into and out of Level 3 along with the reasons for those transfers.¹ The roll-forward is the single most important disclosure for Level 3 items because it gives readers a complete trail of how and why these subjective valuations changed during the period.

A narrative description of measurement uncertainty is also required. If changing a significant unobservable input to a different reasonable amount might result in a materially higher or lower fair value, the entity must say so and describe any interrelationships between inputs that could amplify or offset the effect. The intent is to communicate uncertainty as of the measurement date, not to predict future changes.

What ASU 2018-13 Changed

ASU 2018-13 made several notable changes. It eliminated the requirement to disclose the amount and reasons for transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 and removed the obligation to describe valuation processes for Level 3 measurements. It also struck the requirement to disclose the entity’s policy for timing of transfers between hierarchy levels. On the other hand, it added a requirement for public entities to disclose unrealized gains and losses included in other comprehensive income for recurring Level 3 items held at the end of the reporting period. Nonpublic entities received a simplification: they may disclose transfers into and out of Level 3 and purchases and issuances of Level 3 items in lieu of the full opening-to-closing balance reconciliation.

Common Practical Challenges

The conceptual framework of ASC 820 is elegant. Applying it is where things get difficult. A few recurring issues account for most of the problems that arise in practice.

The boundary between Level 2 and Level 3 is genuinely blurry. An input can start as Level 2 and migrate to Level 3 as adjustments become more significant and subjective. Entities sometimes resist reclassifying measurements downward because Level 3 triggers heavier disclosure requirements and invites closer audit scrutiny. That resistance creates a credibility problem. If the inputs are unobservable, calling them Level 2 does not make the measurement more reliable. It just makes the disclosures less informative.

Discount rate selection in the income approach is another persistent challenge. The rate embeds assumptions about risk, cost of capital, and market conditions. Two equally competent valuation professionals can arrive at different discount rates for the same asset and both be defensible. The standard addresses this by requiring calibration to the transaction price at initial recognition and by insisting that the rate reflect market participant assumptions, but reasonable people still disagree about what those assumptions are.

Management bears ultimate responsibility for every fair value measurement in the financial statements, even when the number comes from a third-party pricing service or valuation specialist. Outsourcing the calculation does not outsource the accountability. You must understand the methodologies and assumptions behind any externally provided valuations and be prepared to explain and defend them.

1
FASB. Accounting Standards Update – Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820)
2
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Note 10 – Fair Value Measurements