Fair Value Measurements

12 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2017

We record certain assets and liabilities, primarily derivative instruments, on our consolidated balance sheets at fair value. We also disclose the fair values of certain financial instruments, including debt and loans receivable, which are not recorded at fair value. Our objective in measuring fair value is to estimate an exit price in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. We consider factors such as liquidity, bid/offer spreads and nonperformance risk, including our own nonperformance risk, in measuring fair value. We use observable market inputs wherever possible. To the extent observable market inputs are not available, our fair value measurements will reflect the assumptions we used. We grade the level of the inputs and assumptions used according to a three-tier hierarchy:

Level 1 — Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities we have the ability to access at the measurement date.

Level 2 — Inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly.

Level 3 — Unobservable inputs for which there is little or no market data, which require us to develop our own assumptions based on the best information available as what market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability.

The following section describes the valuation methodologies we used to measure our various financial instruments at fair value, including an indication of the level in the fair value hierarchy in which each instrument is generally classified.

Derivative Contracts

For certain derivative contracts with fair values based upon trades in liquid markets, such as aluminum, foreign exchange, natural gas and diesel fuel forward contracts and options, valuation model inputs can generally be verified and valuation techniques do not involve significant judgment. The fair values of such financial instruments are generally classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

The majority of our derivative contracts are valued using industry-standard models with observable market inputs as their basis, such as time value, forward interest rates, volatility factors, and current (spot) and forward market prices. We generally classify these instruments within Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy. Such derivatives include interest rate swaps, cross-currency swaps, foreign currency contracts, aluminum derivative contracts, natural gas and diesel fuel forward contracts.

We classify derivative contracts that are valued based on models with significant unobservable market inputs as Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy. Our two electricity swaps, which are our only Level 3 derivative contracts, represent agreements to buy electricity at a fixed price at our Oswego, New York facility. Forward prices are not observable for this market, so we must make certain assumptions based on available information we believe to be relevant to market participants. We use observable forward prices for a geographically nearby market and adjust for 1) historical spreads between the cash prices of the two markets, and 2) historical spreads between retail and wholesale prices.

For the electricity swap that matured January 5, 2017, we did not have any outstanding notional megawatt hours remaining as of March 31, 2017.

For the electricity swap maturing January 5, 2022, the average forward price at March 31, 2017, estimated using the method described above, was $40 per megawatt hour, which represented less than $1 premium over forward prices in the nearby observable market. The actual rate from the most recent swap settlement was approximately $37 per megawatt hour. Each $1 per megawatt hour decline in price decreases the valuation of the electricity swap by $1 million.

For Level 2 and 3 of the fair value hierarchy, where appropriate, valuations are adjusted for various factors such as liquidity, bid/offer spreads and credit considerations (nonperformance risk). We regularly monitor these factors along with significant market inputs and assumptions used in our fair value measurements and evaluate the level of the valuation input according to the fair value hierarchy. This may result in a transfer between levels in the hierarchy from period to period. As of March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016, we did not have any Level 1 derivative contracts. No amounts were transferred between levels in the fair value hierarchy.

All of the Company's derivative instruments are carried at fair value in the statements of financial position prior to considering master netting agreements.

The following table presents our derivative assets and liabilities which were measured and recognized at fair value on a recurring basis classified under the appropriate level of the fair value hierarchy as of March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016 (in millions). The table below also discloses the net fair value of the derivative instruments after considering the impact of master netting agreements.



	March 31,
	2017						2016
	Assets			Liabilities			Assets			Liabilities
Level 2 instruments
Aluminum contracts	$	58		$	(138	)	$	34		$	(28	)
Currency exchange contracts	56			(17		)	59			(49		)
Energy contracts	1			—			—			(5		)
Interest rate swaps	—			—			—			(1		)
Total level 2 instruments	115			(155		)	93			(83		)
Level 3 instruments
Energy contracts	—			(9		)	1			(9		)
Total level 3 instruments	—			(9		)	1			(9		)
Total gross	$	115		$	(164	)	$	94		$	(92	)
Netting adjustment (A)	$	(46	)	$	46		$	(31	)	$	31
Total net	$	69		$	(118	)	$	63		$	(61	)

(A) Amounts represent the impact of legally enforceable master netting agreements that allow the Company to settle positive and negative positions with the same counterparties.

We recognized gains of $5 million for the year ended March 31, 2017 related to Level 3 financial instrument that matured in January 2017. These gains were included in “Other expense (income), net.”

The following table presents a reconciliation of fair value activity for Level 3 derivative contracts (in millions).



	Level 3 – Derivative Instruments (A)
Balance as of March 31, 2015	$	(16	)
Unrealized gain included in earnings (B)	9
Settlements	(1		)
Balance as of March 31, 2016	$	(8	)
Unrealized/realized gain included in earnings (B)	11
Unrealized/realized (loss) included in AOCI (C)	(9		)
Settlements	(3		)
Balance as of March 31, 2017	$	(9	)

(A)Represents net derivative liabilities.

(B)Included in "Other expense (income), net"

(C)Included in "Change in fair value of effective portion of cash flow hedges, net"

Financial Instruments Not Recorded at Fair Value

The table below presents the estimated fair value of certain financial instruments not recorded at fair value on a recurring basis (in millions). The table excludes short-term financial assets and liabilities for which we believe carrying value approximates fair value. We value long-term receivables and long-term debt using Level 2 inputs. Valuations are based on either market and/or broker ask prices when available or on a standard credit adjusted discounted cash flow model using market observable inputs.



	March 31,
	2017				2016
	Carrying Value		Fair Value		Carrying Value		Fair Value
Assets
Long-term receivables from related parties	$	15	$	14	$	16	$	17
Liabilities
Total debt — third parties (excluding short term borrowings)	$	4,558	$	4,797	$	4,468	$	4,659

- Definition

The entire disclosure for the fair value of financial instruments (as defined), including financial assets and financial liabilities (collectively, as defined), and the measurements of those instruments as well as disclosures related to the fair value of non-financial assets and liabilities. Such disclosures about the financial instruments, assets, and liabilities would include: (1) the fair value of the required items together with their carrying amounts (as appropriate); (2) for items for which it is not practicable to estimate fair value, disclosure would include: (a) information pertinent to estimating fair value (including, carrying amount, effective interest rate, and maturity, and (b) the reasons why it is not practicable to estimate fair value; (3) significant concentrations of credit risk including: (a) information about the activity, region, or economic characteristics identifying a concentration, (b) the maximum amount of loss the entity is exposed to based on the gross fair value of the related item, (c) policy for requiring collateral or other security and information as to accessing such collateral or security, and (d) the nature and brief description of such collateral or security; (4) quantitative information about market risks and how such risks are managed; (5) for items measured on both a recurring and nonrecurring basis information regarding the inputs used to develop the fair value measurement; and (6) for items presented in the financial statement for which fair value measurement is elected: (a) information necessary to understand the reasons for the election, (b) discussion of the effect of fair value changes on earnings, (c) a description of [similar groups] items for which the election is made and the relation thereof to the balance sheet, the aggregate carrying value of items included in the balance sheet that are not eligible for the election; (7) all other required (as defined) and desired information.

+ References + Details