Fair Value Measurements

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2013

Fair Value Disclosures [Abstract]

Fair Value Measurements

Fair Value Measurements

Fair Value Hierarchy

The authoritative guidance defines fair value as the price that would be received from the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. When determining fair value, we consider the principal or most advantageous market for an asset or liability and assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability. In addition, we consider and use all valuation methods that are appropriate in estimating the fair value of an asset or liability.

The authoritative guidance establishes a fair value hierarchy that is based on the extent and level of judgment used to estimate the fair value of assets and liabilities. In general, the authoritative guidance requires us to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. An asset or liability’s categorization within the fair value hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the measurement of its fair value. The three levels of input defined by the authoritative guidance are as follows:

• Level 1 uses unadjusted quoted prices that are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

• Level 2 uses inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are either directly or indirectly observable through correlation with market data. These include quoted prices in active markets for similar assets or liabilities: quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active; and inputs to valuation models or other pricing methodologies that do not require significant judgment because the inputs used in the model, such as interest rates and volatility, can be corroborated by readily observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.

• Level 3 uses one or more unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the determination of fair value. Level 3 assets and liabilities include those whose fair values are determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies or similar valuation techniques and significant management judgment or estimation.

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

The following table summarizes financial assets and financial liabilities that we measured at fair value on a recurring basis at the dates indicated, classified in accordance with the fair value hierarchy described above.

	At July 31, 2013								At July 31, 2012
(In millions)	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total Fair Value		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total Fair Value
Assets:
Cash equivalents, primarily money market funds	$	917	$	—	$	—	$	917	$	333	$	—	$	—	$	333
Available-for-sale debt securities:
Municipal bonds	—		489		—		489		—		260		—		260
Municipal auction rate securities	—		—		33		33		—		—		41		41
Corporate notes	—		269		—		269		—		142		—		142
U.S. agency securities	—		69		—		69		—		124		—		124
Available-for-sale corporate equity securities	33		—		—		33		33		—		—		33
Total available-for-sale securities	33		827		33		893		33		526		41		600
Total assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis	$	950	$	827	$	33	$	1,810	$	366	$	526	$	41	$	933
Liabilities:
Senior notes (1)	$	—	$	560	$	—	$	560	$	—	$	582	$	—	$	582

______________________

(1) Carrying value on our balance sheets at July 31, 2013 was $499 million and at July 31, 2012 was $499 million. See Note 10.

The following table summarizes our cash equivalents and available-for-sale debt and equity securities by balance sheet classification and level in the fair value hierarchy at the dates shown:

	At July 31, 2013								At July 31, 2012
(In millions)	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total Fair Value		Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total Fair Value
Cash equivalents:
In cash and cash equivalents	$	857	$	—	$	—	$	857	$	219	$	—	$	—	$	219
In funds held for customers	60		—		—		60		114		—		—		114
Total cash and cash equivalents	$	917	$	—	$	—	$	917	$	333	$	—	$	—	$	333
Available-for-sale securities:
In investments	$	—	$	652	$	—	$	652	$	—	$	351	$	—	$	351
In funds held for customers	—		175		—		175		—		175		—		175
In long-term investments	33		—		33		66		33		—		41		74
Total available-for-sale securities	$	33	$	827	$	33	$	893	$	33	$	526	$	41	$	600

We value our Level 1 assets, consisting primarily of money market funds, using quoted prices in active markets for identical instruments. Financial assets whose fair values we measure on a recurring basis using Level 2 inputs consist of municipal bonds, corporate notes and U.S. agency securities. We measure the fair values of these assets with the help of a pricing service that either provides quoted market prices in active markets for identical or similar securities or uses observable inputs for their pricing without applying significant adjustments. Our fair value processes include controls that are designed to ensure that we record appropriate fair values for our Level 2 investments. These controls include comparison to pricing provided by a secondary pricing service or investment manager, validation of pricing sources and models, review of key model inputs, analysis of period-over-period price fluctuations, and independent recalculation of prices where appropriate.

Financial liabilities whose fair values we measure using Level 2 inputs consist of debt. See Note 10, "Long-Term Obligations and Commitments," for more information. We measure the fair value of our senior notes based on their trading prices and the interest rates we could obtain for other borrowings with similar terms.

Financial assets whose fair values we measure using significant unobservable (Level 3) inputs consist of municipal auction rate securities that are no longer liquid. There were no transfers between Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy during the twelve months ended July 31, 2013, 2012 or 2011.

The following table presents a reconciliation of activity for our Level 3 assets for the periods shown.

(In millions)	Municipal Auction Rate Securities
Balance at July 31, 2010	$	87
Redemptions at par	(28		)
Balance at July 31, 2011	59
Redemptions at par	(18		)
Balance at July 31, 2012	41
Redemptions at par	(8		)
Balance at July 31, 2013	$	33

We estimated the fair values of these municipal auction rate securities at each balance sheet date above using a discounted cash flow model whose key inputs included the projected future interest rates; the likely timing of principal repayments; publicly available pricing data for recently issued student loan backed securities that are not subject to auctions; and the impact of the reduced liquidity for auction rate securities. Any significant changes in the inputs to the model may have a significant impact on the estimated fair values of these securities.

Using our discounted cash flow model we determined that the fair values of the municipal auction rate securities we held at July 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 were approximately equal to their par values. As a result, we recorded no decrease in the fair values of those securities for the twelve months then ended. These securities were included in long-term investments on our balance sheets at July 31, 2013 and 2012 based on the maturities of the underlying securities at those dates. We do not intend to sell our municipal auction rate securities and it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell them before recovery at par, which may be at maturity. Based on our expected operating cash flows and our other sources of cash, we do not believe that the reduction in liquidity of our municipal auction rate securities will have a material impact on our overall ability to meet our liquidity needs.

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Non-Recurring Basis

Assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis include reporting units measured at fair value in a goodwill impairment test. Estimates of fair value for reporting units fall under Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

During the fourth quarters of fiscal 2013 and 2012 we performed our annual goodwill impairment tests. Using the methodology described in Note 1, we determined that the estimated fair values of all of our reporting units exceeded their carrying values and that they were not impaired.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011 we performed our annual goodwill impairment test in conjunction with our annual planning and budgeting process. In step one of the test we compared the estimated fair values of each of our reporting units to their carrying values. We used a weighted combination of a discounted cash flow model (income approach) and comparisons to publicly traded companies engaged in similar businesses (market approach) to estimate the fair value of each of our reporting units. We determined that the estimated fair values of all of our reporting units except Intuit Health exceeded their carrying values and that they were not impaired. The estimated fair value of our Intuit Health reporting unit, which at the time was part of our Other Businesses segment, fell below its carrying value of $75 million. As a result, we completed step two of the test by allocating the fair value of that reporting unit calculated in step one of the test to all of the assets and liabilities of the unit, as if we had just acquired it in a business combination. In comparing the residual goodwill resulting from this calculation to the carrying value of the goodwill, we determined that the goodwill and acquired intangible assets for our Intuit Health reporting unit were impaired. All of the goodwill and acquired intangible assets associated with our Intuit Health reporting unit were derived from our fiscal 2010 acquisition of Medfusion, Inc. Circumstances that negatively affected our estimate of the fair value of the Intuit Health reporting unit included unforeseen delays in developing high quality, timely offerings and marketing them effectively. We recorded a goodwill and intangible asset impairment charge of approximately $30 million for our Intuit Health reporting unit in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011. This consisted of a goodwill impairment charge of approximately $24 million and an acquired intangible asset impairment charge of approximately $6 million.

In March 2013 the largest customer for our Intuit Health business acquired a company that offers similar solutions and competes with us directly in that market space. As a result, we performed an interim impairment test of goodwill and acquired intangible assets during the third quarter of fiscal 2013. We concluded that the carrying amounts of goodwill and certain definite-lived acquired intangible assets associated with our Intuit Health business were impaired and recorded an impairment charge of $46 million that reduced the carrying value of those assets to zero. For goodwill, the amount of the impairment charge was determined by comparing the carrying value of goodwill assigned to the reporting unit with the implied fair value of the goodwill. We used a weighted combination of a discounted cash flow model (income approach) and comparisons to publicly traded companies engaged in similar businesses (market approach) to estimate the fair value of our Intuit Health reporting unit. Key assumptions that we used in the income approach included the amount and timing of estimated future cash flows to be generated by the business over an extended period of time, long-term growth rates for the business, and a rate of return that considered the relative risk of achieving the cash flows and the time value of money. For the market approach, we estimated the fair value of the reporting unit based on market multiples of revenue, operating income, and earnings for comparable publicly traded companies engaged in similar businesses. For those acquired intangible assets where the unamortized balances exceeded the undiscounted future net cash flows, we measured the amount of the impairment by calculating the amount by which the carrying values exceeded the estimated fair values, which were based on projected discounted future net cash flows. We believe that the assumptions used to determine the impairment amounts for the goodwill and acquired intangible assets for this business unit are reasonable. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013 management approved a plan to sell our Intuit Health business, which was part of our Other Businesses segment, and we accounted for it as discontinued operations starting in that quarter. On August 19, 2013 we completed the sale for cash consideration that was not significant.