Fair Value Measurements

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Fair Value Measurements [Abstract]

Fair Value Measurements

3. Fair Value Measurements

     The Company accounts for certain financial assets at fair value, defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (i.e., an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. A three-level hierarchy is used to show the extent and level of judgment used to estimate fair value measurements.

     The Company uses the fair value option for certain financial assets, which allows an entity the irrevocable option to elect fair value for the initial and subsequent measurement for specified financial assets and liabilities on a case-by-case basis.

     Assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis include the following as of September 30, 2011 (in thousands):

	Using
			Significant
	Quoted Prices		Other		Significant
	in Active		Observable		Unobservable		Total Fair
	Markets		Inputs		Inputs		Value as of
	(Level 1)		(Level 2)		(Level 3)		September 30, 2011
Cash Equivalents:
Money market funds	$	13,656	$	—	$	—	$	13,656
Long term investments:
Failed Auction Securities		—		—		9,506		9,506
Brokered certificates of deposit				1,652		—		1,652
Certificate of deposit		455		—		—		455

     The Company has brokered certificates of deposit classified as Level 2 because the fair value for these investments has been determined utilizing observable inputs from non-active markets. The fair values fluctuate with changes in market interest rates obtained from information available in publicly quoted markets.

     As of September 30, 2011, there was insufficient observable auction rate security market information available to determine the fair value of the Failed Auction Securities using Level 1 or Level 2 inputs. As such, the Company’s investments in Failed Auction Securities were deemed to require valuation using Level 3 inputs. Management, after consulting with advisors, valued the Failed Auction Securities using analyses and pricing models similar to those used by market participants (i.e., buyers, sellers, and the broker-dealers responsible for execution of the Dutch auction pricing mechanism by which each issue’s interest rate was set). Management utilized a probability weighted discounted cash flow (“DCF”) model to determine the estimated fair value of these securities as of September 30, 2011. The major assumptions used in preparing the DCF model included: estimates for the amount and timing of future interest and principal payments based on default probability assumptions used to measure the credit loss of 2.8%; the rate of return required by investors to own these securities in the current environment, which management estimates to be 5.0% above the risk free rate of return; and an estimated timeframe of three to five years for successful auctions for these securities to occur. In making these assumptions, management considered relevant factors including: the formula applicable to each security defining the interest rate paid to investors in the event of a failed auction (the “Penalty Rate”); forward projections of the interest rate benchmarks specified in such formulas; the likely timing of principal repayments; the probability of full repayment considering the guarantees by the U.S. Department of Education of the underlying student loans, guarantees by other third parties, and additional credit enhancements provided through other means; and publicly available pricing data for recently issued student loan asset-backed securities not subject to auctions. In developing its estimate of the rate of return required by investors to own these securities, management compared the Penalty Rates of the Failed Auction Securities with yields of actively traded long-term bonds with similar characteristics and, reflecting the limited liquidity for auction rate securities and the discounts to par value seen in recent tender offers by issuers and arms’ length market transactions between informed buyers and sellers, estimated the implied yield (i.e., the discount to par value) necessary to complete a sale of the Failed Auction Securities. Management has calculated an increase or decrease in the liquidity risk premium of 5.0% referenced above of 1.0% (i.e., 100 basis points) as used in the model, would decrease or increase, respectively, the fair value of the Failed Auction Securities by approximately $400,000.

     The following table summarizes the change in the estimated fair values calculated for those assets valued on a recurring basis utilizing Level 3 inputs (i.e., the Failed Auction Securities) for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 (in thousands):

Balance at the beginning of the period	$	16,219
Redemptions, at par		(7,900	)
Credit gains on available for sales securities included in Other income, net		295
Unrealized gain included in Other comprehensive loss		892
Balance at the end of the period	$	9,506