Note 8. Derivative Instruments and Fair Value Measurements

We measure fair value at the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. We prioritize the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability into a three-tier fair value hierarchy. This fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority (Level 1) to quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities and the lowest priority (Level 3) to unobservable inputs in which little or no market data exist, requiring companies to develop their own assumptions. Observable inputs that do not meet the criteria of Level 1, which include quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets or quoted prices for identical assets and liabilities in markets that are not active, are categorized as Level 2. Level 3 inputs are those that reflect our estimates about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability based on the best information available in the circumstances. Valuation techniques for assets and liabilities measured using Level 3 inputs may include methodologies such as the market approach, the income approach or the cost approach and may use unobservable inputs such as projections, estimates and management’s interpretation of current market data. These unobservable inputs are utilized only to the extent that observable inputs are not available or cost-effective to obtain.

Assets and Liabilities Recorded at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

We manufacture and sell our products in a number of countries throughout the world, and, therefore, we are exposed to movements in foreign currency exchange rates. We utilize foreign currency exchange contracts to manage this volatility. Our foreign currency exchange contracts are measured at fair value using the market method valuation technique. The inputs to this technique utilize current foreign currency exchange forward market rates published by third-party leading financial news and data providers. These are observable data that represent the rates that the financial institution uses for contracts entered into at that date; however, they are not based on actual transactions so they are classified as Level 2. At December 28, 2013 and December 29, 2012, we had foreign currency exchange contracts with notional amounts upon which the contracts were based of $636 million and $664 million, respectively. At December 28, 2013, the fair value amounts of our foreign currency exchange contracts were a $2 million asset and a $15 million liability. At December 29, 2012, the fair value amounts of our foreign currency exchange contracts were a $9 million asset and a $5 million liability.

We primarily utilize forward exchange contracts which have maturities of no more than three years. These contracts qualify as cash flow hedges and are intended to offset the effect of exchange rate fluctuations on forecasted sales, inventory purchases and overhead expenses. At December 28, 2013, we had a net deferred loss of $10 million in Accumulated other comprehensive loss related to these cash flow hedges. Net gains and losses recognized in earnings and Accumulated other comprehensive loss on these cash flow hedges, including gains and losses related to hedge ineffectiveness, amounted to a $16 million net loss in 2013 and were not significant in 2012. We expect to reclassify a $10 million net loss from Accumulated other comprehensive loss to earnings in the next twelve months.

We hedge our net investment position in major currencies and generate foreign currency interest payments that offset other transactional exposures in these currencies. To accomplish this, we borrow directly in foreign currency and designate a portion of foreign currency debt as a hedge of a net investment. We record changes in the fair value of these contracts in other comprehensive income to the extent they are effective as cash flow hedges. Currency effects on the effective portion of these hedges, which are reflected in the foreign currency translation adjustments within Accumulated other comprehensive loss, produced a $2 million after-tax gain in 2013, resulting in an accumulated net gain balance of $6 million at December 28, 2013. There was no ineffectiveness recorded related to these hedges during 2013.

Our Finance group has entered into interest rate exchange contracts to mitigate exposure to changes in the fair value of its fixed-rate receivables and debt due to fluctuations in interest rates. These interest rate exchange contracts are not exchange traded and are measured at fair value utilizing widely accepted, third-party developed valuation models. The actual terms of each individual contract are entered into a valuation model, along with interest rate data, which is based on readily observable market data published by third-party leading financial news and data providers. At December 28, 2013 and December 29, 2012, we had interest rate exchange contracts with notional amounts upon which the contracts were based of $229 million and $671 million, respectively. The fair value amounts of our interest rate exchange contracts recorded at December 28, 2013, were a $2 million asset and a $5 million liability. At December 29, 2012, the fair value amounts of our interest rate exchange contracts were an $8 million asset and an $8 million liability.

Our exposure to loss from nonperformance by the counterparties to our derivative agreements at the end of 2013 was minimal. We do not anticipate nonperformance by counterparties in the periodic settlements of amounts due. We historically have minimized this potential for risk by entering into contracts exclusively with major, financially sound counterparties having no less than a long-term bond rating of A. The credit risk generally is limited to the amount by which the counterparties’ contractual obligations exceed our obligations to the counterparty. We continuously monitor our exposures to ensure that we limit our risks.

Assets Recorded at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis

During 2013 and 2012, certain assets in the Finance Group were measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3). The table below sets forth the balance of those assets at the end of the year in which a fair value adjustment was taken.

(In millions)	December 28, 2013			December 29, 2012
Finance receivables held for sale		$	65		$	140
Impaired finance receivables		45			72
Other assets		35			76

The following table represents the fair value adjustments recorded for each asset class measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis during 2013 and 2012.

	Gain (Loss)
(In millions)	2013				2012
Finance receivables held for sale		$	31			$	76
Impaired finance receivables		(7		)		(11		)
Other assets		(14		)		(51		)

Finance receivables held for sale are recorded at fair value on a nonrecurring basis during periods in which the fair value is lower than the cost value. There are no active, quoted market prices for these finance receivables. At December 28, 2013, our finance receivables held for sale included the non-captive loan portfolio. Fair values of each loan in this portfolio were determined based on a combination of discounted cash flow models and recent third-party offers to estimate the price we expect to receive in the principal market for each loan, in an orderly transaction. The gains on finance receivables held for sale during 2013 and 2012 were primarily the result of the payoff of loans in amounts, and sale of loans at prices, in excess of the values established in previous periods.

Impaired nonaccrual finance receivables represent assets recorded at fair value on a nonrecurring basis since the measurement of required reserves on our impaired finance receivables is significantly dependent on the fair value of the underlying collateral. For impaired nonaccrual finance receivables secured by aviation assets, the fair values of collateral are determined primarily based on the use of industry pricing guides. Fair value measurements recorded on impaired finance receivables resulted in charges to provision for loan losses and primarily related to initial fair value adjustments.

Other assets in the table above primarily include aviation assets and repossessed golf and hotel properties. The fair value of our aviation assets was largely determined based on the use of industry pricing guides. The fair value of our golf and hotel properties was determined based on the use of discounted cash flow models, bids from prospective buyers or inputs from market participants. If the carrying amount of these assets is higher than their estimated fair value, we record a corresponding charge to income for the difference.

Assets and Liabilities Not Recorded at Fair Value

The carrying value and estimated fair values of our financial instruments that are not reflected in the financial statements at fair value are as follows:

	December 28, 2013						December 29, 2012
(In millions)	Carrying Value			Estimated Fair Value			Carrying Value			Estimated Fair Value
Manufacturing group
Long-term debt, excluding leases	$	(1,854	)	$	(2,027	)	$	(2,225	)	$	(2,636	)
Finance group
Finance receivables held for investment, excluding leases	1,231			1,290			1,625			1,653
Debt	(1,256		)	(1,244		)	(1,686		)	(1,678		)

Fair value for the Manufacturing group debt is determined using market observable data for similar transactions or Level 2 inputs. At December 28, 2013 and December 29, 2012, approximately 30% and 46%, respectively, of the fair value of term debt for the Finance group was determined based on observable market transactions (Level 1). The remaining Finance group debt was determined based on discounted cash flow analyses using observable market inputs from debt with similar duration, subordination and credit default expectations (Level 2). Fair value estimates for finance receivables held for investment were determined based on internally developed discounted cash flow models primarily utilizing significant unobservable inputs (Level 3), which include estimates of the rate of return, financing cost, capital structure and/or discount rate expectations of current market participants combined with estimated loan cash flows based on credit losses, payment rates and expectations of borrowers’ ability to make payments on a timely basis.