Note 16 — FAIR VALUE
Fair value is measured based on an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to satisfy a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. Fair value is a market-based measurement that is determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. As a basis for considering such assumptions, a fair value hierarchy is established, which categorizes the inputs used in measuring fair value as follows: (Level 1) observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets; (Level 2) inputs, other than the quoted prices in active markets, that are observable either directly or indirectly; and (Level 3) unobservable inputs in which there is little or no market data, which require the reporting entity to develop its own assumptions.
The estimated fair value of PolyOne’s debt instruments at December 31, 2016 and 2015 was $1,272.1 million and $1,136.2 million, respectively, compared to carrying values of $1,258.3 million and $1,146.6 million as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The fair value of PolyOne’s debt instruments was estimated using prevailing market interest rates on debt with similar creditworthiness, terms and maturities and represent Level 2 measurements within the fair value hierarchy.
In accordance with the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 350, Intangibles — Goodwill and Other, we assess the fair value of goodwill on an annual basis or at an interim date if potential impairment indicators are present. The implied fair value of goodwill is determined based on significant unobservable inputs. Accordingly, these inputs fall within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. We use an income approach to estimate the fair value of our reporting units. The income approach uses a reporting unit’s projection of estimated operating results and cash flows that is discounted using a weighted-average cost of capital that is determined based on current market conditions. The projection uses management’s best estimates of economic and market conditions over the projected period including growth rates in sales, costs and number of units, estimates of future expected changes in operating margins and cash expenditures. Other significant estimates and assumptions include terminal value growth rates, terminal value margin rates, future capital expenditures and changes in future working capital requirements. We validate our estimates of fair value under the income approach by considering the implied control premium and conclude whether the implied control premium is reasonable based on other recent market transactions. No impairment charges were required in 2016, 2015 or 2014.
Indefinite-lived intangible assets primarily consist of the GLS, ColorMatrix and Gordon Composites trade names. Indefinite-lived intangible assets are tested for impairment annually at the same time we test goodwill for impairment. The implied fair value of indefinite-lived intangible assets is determined based on significant unobservable inputs, as summarized below. Accordingly, these inputs fall within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. The fair value of the trade names is calculated using a “relief from royalty” methodology. This approach involves two steps (1) estimating reasonable royalty rates for the trade name and (2) applying this royalty rate to a net sales stream and discounting the resulting cash flows to determine fair value. This fair value is then compared with the carrying value of the trade name. No impairment charges were required in 2016, 2015 or 2014.
About Fair Value Disclosures
Fair value disclosures classify all assets and liabilities measured at fair value into a three-level hierarchy: Level 1 (quoted market prices), Level 2 (observable inputs like yield curves), and Level 3 (unobservable inputs requiring management estimates). The proportion of Level 3 assets directly reflects how much of the balance sheet depends on internal models rather than market evidence.
Key signals: a growing Level 3 balance relative to total fair-value assets increases valuation uncertainty and earnings volatility risk. Watch for transfers between levels — assets moving from Level 2 to Level 3 often signal deteriorating market liquidity. Unrealized gains and losses on Level 3 positions flow through earnings or other comprehensive income, so large swings deserve scrutiny. For financial institutions, examine the sensitivity disclosures that show how Level 3 valuations change under alternative assumptions. Compare the fair value of debt against its carrying amount to gauge hidden leverage.