XML 33 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.3.1.900
FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Fair Value Disclosures [Abstract]  
FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT
FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT
The fair value hierarchy is based on inputs to valuation techniques that are used to measure fair value that are either observable or unobservable.  Observable inputs reflect assumptions market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability based on market data obtained from independent sources while unobservable inputs reflect a reporting entity's pricing based upon their own market assumptions.  The fair value hierarchy consists of the following three levels:
Level I - Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets.
Level II - Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and model-derived valuations whose inputs are observable or whose significant value drivers are observable.
Level III - Instruments whose significant value drivers are unobservable.
The following table presents for each of these hierarchy levels, the Company's financial assets and financial liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis at December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014:
 
At December 31, 2015
 
Level I
 
Level II
 
Level III
 
Total
Assets:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Money market funds
$
922,765

 
$

 
$

 
$
922,765

Investment securities
130

 

 

 
130

Investment securities pledged as collateral
1,211,982

 

 

 
1,211,982

Prepaid forward contracts

 
82,408

 

 
82,408

Liabilities:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prepaid forward contracts

 
2,706

 

 
2,706

 
At December 31, 2014
 
Level I
 
Level II
 
Level III
 
Total
Assets:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Money market funds
$
736,330

 
$

 
$

 
$
736,330

Investment securities
132

 

 

 
132

Investment securities pledged as collateral
1,245,916

 

 

 
1,245,916

Prepaid forward contracts

 
7,317

 

 
7,317

Liabilities:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prepaid forward contracts

 
102,217

 

 
102,217

 
The Company's cash equivalents, investment securities and investment securities pledged as collateral are classified within Level I of the fair value hierarchy because they are valued using quoted market prices.
The Company's prepaid forward contracts reflected as derivative contracts and liabilities under derivative contracts in the Company's balance sheets are valued using market-based inputs to valuation models.  These valuation models require a variety of inputs, including contractual terms, market prices, yield curves, and measures of volatility.  When appropriate, valuations are adjusted for various factors such as liquidity, bid/offer spreads and credit risk considerations.  Such adjustments are generally based on available market evidence.  Since model inputs can generally be verified and do not involve significant management judgment, the Company has concluded that these instruments should be classified within Level II of the fair value hierarchy.
The Company considers the impact of credit risk when measuring the fair value of its derivative asset and/or liability positions, as applicable.
In addition, see Note 4 for a discussion of impairment charges related to nonfinancial assets not measured at fair value on a recurring basis.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate fair value of each class of financial instruments for which it is practicable to estimate:
Credit Facility Debt, Collateralized Indebtedness, Senior Notes and Debentures and Notes Payable
The fair values of each of the Company's debt instruments are based on quoted market prices for the same or similar issues or on the current rates offered to the Company for instruments of the same remaining maturities. The fair value of notes payable is based primarily on the present value of the remaining payments discounted at the borrowing cost.
The carrying values, estimated fair values, and classification under the fair value hierarchy of the Company's financial instruments, excluding those that are carried at fair value in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, are summarized as follows:
 
  
 
December 31, 2015
 
Fair Value
Hierarchy
 
Carrying
Amount
 
Estimated
Fair Value
CSC Holdings notes receivable:
 
 
 
 
 
Cablevision senior notes held by Newsday Holdings LLC (a)
Level II
 
$
611,455

 
$
616,020

 
 
 
 
 
 
Debt instruments:
 
 
 

 
 

Credit facility debt (b)
Level II
 
$
2,521,942

 
$
2,525,654

Collateralized indebtedness
Level II
 
1,191,324

 
1,176,396

Senior notes and debentures
Level II
 
3,065,092

 
2,996,440

Notes payable
Level II
 
14,544

 
14,483

CSC Holdings total debt instruments
 
 
6,792,902

 
6,712,973

 
 
 
 
 
 
Cablevision senior notes
Level II
 
2,795,550

 
2,760,168

Cablevision total debt instruments
 
 
$
9,588,452

 
$
9,473,141

 
 
  
 
December 31, 2014
 
Fair Value
Hierarchy
 
Carrying
Amount
 
Estimated
Fair Value
CSC Holdings notes receivable:
 
 
 
 
 
Cablevision senior notes held by Newsday Holdings LLC (a)
Level II
 
$
611,455

 
$
680,587

 
 
 
 
 
 
Debt instruments:
 
 
 

 
 

Credit facility debt (b)
Level II
 
$
2,780,649

 
$
2,785,975

Collateralized indebtedness
Level II
 
986,183

 
957,803

Senior notes and debentures
Level II
 
3,062,126

 
3,368,875

Notes payable
Level II
 
23,911

 
23,682

CSC Holdings total debt instruments
 
 
6,852,869

 
7,136,335

 
 
 
 
 
 
Cablevision senior notes
Level II
 
2,793,741

 
3,048,387

Cablevision total debt instruments
 
 
$
9,646,610

 
$
10,184,722

 
(a)
These notes are eliminated at the consolidated Cablevision level.
(b)
The principal amount of the Company's credit facility debt, which bears interest at variable rates, approximates its fair value.
Fair value estimates related to the Company's debt instruments and senior notes receivable presented above are made at a specific point in time, based on relevant market information and information about the financial instrument.  These estimates are subjective in nature and involve uncertainties and matters of significant judgments and therefore cannot be determined with precision.  Changes in assumptions could significantly affect the estimates.