XML 78 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.3.0.814
FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS  
FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

NOTE 3—FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

 

The valuation techniques required to determine fair value are based upon observable and unobservable inputs. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect internal market assumptions. The two types of inputs create the following fair value hierarchy:

 

·

Level 1 - Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets.

 

·

Level 2 - 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 3 - Significant inputs to the valuation model are unobservable.

 

The fair value of certain of our cash equivalents are based upon quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets. The fair value of our other cash equivalents and our available for sale marketable securities is based upon a discounted cash flow model and approximate cost. The marketable securities in the rabbi trust are carried at fair value, which is based upon quoted market prices for identical securities. Derivative financial instruments are measured at fair value, the material portions of which are based on active or inactive markets for identical or similar instruments or model-derived valuations whose inputs are observable. Where model-derived valuations are appropriate, we use the applicable credit spread as the discount rate. Credit risk related to derivative financial instruments is considered minimal and is managed by requiring high credit standards for counterparties and through periodic settlements of positions.

 

The fair value of our contingent consideration liability to the seller of DTECH is revalued to its fair value each period and any increase or decrease is recorded into selling, general and administrative expense. Any changes in the assumed timing and amount of the probability of payment scenarios could impact the fair value. The fair value of the contingent consideration was estimated using a real options approach. Each annual payment was modeled using a portfolio of long and short digital options written on the underlying earnings metric (revenue or gross profit). The strike price for each option is the respective earnings threshold as specified in the agreement, and the spot price is calibrated to the revenue and gross profit forecast by calculating the present value of the corresponding projected earnings metric using a risk-adjusted discount rate. The volatility for the underlying earnings metrics was estimated to be 22% based on analysis of comparable guideline public companies. The risk-free rate was selected based on the quoted yields for U.S. Treasury securities with terms matching the earn-out payment period. The inputs to this model are significant unobservable inputs and therefore represent Level 3 measurements within the fair value hierarchy. Significant judgment is employed in determining the appropriateness of these assumptions as of the acquisition date and each subsequent period. Accordingly, changes in the assumptions described above can materially impact the amount of contingent consideration expense we record in any period. From December 16, 2014, the date of acquisition of DTECH, through September 30, 2015 the following table summarizes the change in fair value of our Level 3 contingent consideration liability (in thousands):

 

Balance as of December 16, 2014

 

$

3,900 

 

Total remeasurement recognized in earnings

 

3,607 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance as of September 30, 2015

 

$

7,507 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following table presents assets and liabilities measured and recorded at fair value on our balance sheets on a recurring basis (in thousands):

 

 

 

September 30, 2015

 

September 30, 2014

 

 

 

Level 1

 

Level 2

 

Level 3

 

Total

 

Level 1

 

Level 2

 

Total

 

Assets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash equivalents

 

$

68,194 

 

$

 

$

 

$

68,194 

 

$

46,183 

 

$

10,150 

 

$

56,333 

 

Marketable securities

 

 

30,533 

 

 

30,533 

 

 

25,557 

 

25,557 

 

Current derivative assets

 

 

11,543 

 

 

11,543 

 

 

7,389 

 

7,389 

 

Noncurrent derivative assets

 

 

13,909 

 

 

13,909 

 

 

5,920 

 

5,920 

 

Marketable securities in rabbi trust

 

992 

 

 

 

992 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total assets measured at fair value

 

69,186 

 

55,985 

 

 

125,171 

 

46,183 

 

49,016 

 

95,199 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liabilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current derivative liabilities

 

 

9,370 

 

 

9,370 

 

 

6,645 

 

6,645 

 

Noncurrent derivative liabilities

 

 

13,909 

 

 

13,909 

 

 

5,878 

 

5,878 

 

Current contingent consideration to seller of DTECH

 

 

 

5,000 

 

5,000 

 

 

 

 

Noncurrent contingent consideration to seller of DTECH

 

 

 

2,507 

 

2,507 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total liabilities measured at fair value

 

$

 

$

23,279 

 

$

7,507 

 

$

30,786 

 

$

 

$

12,523 

 

$

12,523 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fiscal 2015, we determined that $10.2 million of cash equivalents and $25.6 million of marketable securities were erroneously classified as Level 1 measurements within the table presenting assets and liabilities recorded at fair value on a recurring basis as of September 30, 2014. We have determined the affected assets should have been classified as Level 2 measurements within the disclosure. Based upon a quantitative and qualitative assessment of this error we have determined that this error was not material to our Consolidated Financial Statements, and we have corrected the classification in the September 30, 2014 footnote disclosure in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

We carry certain financial instruments, including accounts receivable, short-term borrowings, accounts payable and accrued liabilities at cost, which we believe approximates fair value because of the short-term maturity of these instruments.

 

The fair value of long-term debt is calculated by discounting the value of the note based on market interest rates for similar debt instruments, which is a Level 2 technique. The following table presents the estimated fair value and carrying value of our long-term debt (in millions):

 

September 30,

 

2015

 

2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair value

 

$

125.8 

 

$

99.9 

 

Carrying value

 

126.7 

 

102.4 

 

 

Due to the impairment of goodwill for the CGD Services reporting unit at July 1, 2013, the goodwill for CGD Services was measured at its estimated fair value at July 1, 2013. We estimated the fair value of the goodwill primarily based on the discounted projected cash flows of the underlying CGD Services operations and based upon market multiples from publicly traded comparable companies, which are Level 3 fair value measurement techniques. See Note 7 for a further discussion of the 2013 goodwill impairment. We did not have any significant non-financial assets or liabilities measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis in 2015, 2014, or 2013 except for the CGD Services goodwill at July 1, 2013 and the fair value of assets and liabilities acquired in business acquisitions.