XML 58 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
FAIR VALUE DISCLOSURES
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Fair Value Disclosures [Abstract]  
FAIR VALUE DISCLOSURES
FAIR VALUE DISCLOSURES
Under GAAP, the Company is required to measure certain financial instruments at fair value on a recurring basis. In addition, the Company is required to measure other financial instruments and balances at fair value on a non-recurring basis (e.g., carrying value of impaired real estate loans receivable and long-lived assets). Fair value is defined as the price that would be received upon the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The GAAP fair value framework uses a three-tiered approach. Fair value measurements are classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:
Level 1: unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical assets or liabilities;
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 in which significant inputs and significant value drivers are observable in active markets; and
Level 3: prices or valuation techniques where little or no market data is available that requires inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable.
The fair value for certain financial instruments is derived using valuation techniques that involve significant management judgment. The price transparency of financial instruments is a key determinant of the degree of judgment involved in determining the fair value of the Company’s financial instruments. Financial instruments for which actively quoted prices or pricing parameters are available and for which markets contain orderly transactions will generally have a higher degree of price transparency than financial instruments for which markets are inactive or consist of non-orderly trades. The Company evaluates several factors when determining if a market is inactive or when market transactions are not orderly. The following is a summary of the methods and assumptions used by management in estimating the fair value of each class of financial instruments for which it is practicable to estimate the fair value:
Cash and cash equivalents, rent and other receivables, and accounts payable and accrued liabilities: These balances     approximate their fair values due to the short maturities of these items.
Real estate loan receivable: The Company’s real estate loan receivable is presented in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets at its amortized cost net of recorded loan loss reserves and not at fair value. The fair values of real estate loans receivable are estimated using an internal valuation model that considers the expected cash flows for the loans, underlying collateral values (for collateral dependent loans) and estimated yield requirements of institutional investors for loans with similar characteristics, including remaining loan term, loan-to-value, type of collateral and other credit enhancements. The Company classifies these inputs as Level 3 inputs.
Notes and bond payable: The fair values of the Company’s notes and bond payable are estimated using a discounted cash flow analysis based on management’s estimates of current market interest rates for instruments with similar characteristics, including remaining loan term, loan-to-value ratio, type of collateral and other credit enhancements. Additionally, when determining the fair value of liabilities in circumstances in which a quoted price in an active market for an identical liability is not available, the Company measures fair value using (i) a valuation technique that uses the quoted price of the identical liability when traded as an asset or quoted prices for similar liabilities or similar liabilities when traded as assets or (ii) another valuation technique that is consistent with the principles of fair value measurement, such as the income approach or the market approach. The Company classifies these inputs as Level 3 inputs.
The following were the face values, carrying amounts and fair values of the Company’s financial instruments as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, which carrying amounts do not approximate the fair values (in thousands):
 
 
September 30, 2014
 
December 31, 2013
 
 
Face Value        
 
Carrying Amount    
 
Fair Value        
 
Face Value        
 
Carrying Amount    
 
Fair Value        
Financial assets:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Real estate loans receivable
 
$
27,850

 
$
27,216

 
$
27,850

 
$
22,000

 
$
21,893

 
$
22,000

Financial liabilities:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notes and bond payable
 
$
520,781

 
$
520,801

 
$
524,085

 
$
255,871

 
$
257,420

 
$
258,876


Disclosure of the fair value of financial instruments is based on pertinent information available to the Company as of the period end and requires a significant amount of judgment. Despite increased capital market and credit market activity, transaction volume for certain financial instruments remains relatively low. This has made the estimation of fair values difficult and, therefore, both the actual results and the Company’s estimate of value at a future date could be materially different.
Assets and Liabilities Recorded at Fair Value
During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company measured the following liability at fair value (in thousands):
 
 
 
Fair Value Measurements Using
 
Total
 
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)
 
Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)
 
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)
Nonrecurring Basis (1):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
424 Bedford Mortgage Loan
$
(24,793
)
 
$

 
$

 
$
(24,793
)
_____________________
(1) Amounts reflect the fair values of the assets and liabilities at the time each event occurred.
The Company estimated the fair value of the 424 Bedford Mortgage Loan by performing a discounted cash flow analysis and the discount rate applied to future estimated debt payments was 4.80%.