Fair Value Measures and Disclosures (Policies)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2024

Fair Value Disclosures [Abstract]

Fair Value Hierarchy

Fair Value Hierarchy  The Fair Value Framework establishes a three-tiered fair value hierarchy as follows:

Level 1 quoted market price - Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2 valuation technique using observable inputs - Level 2 inputs include quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are inactive, and measurements

determined using valuation models where all significant inputs are observable, such as interest rates and yield curves that are observable at commonly quoted intervals.

Level 3 valuation technique with significant unobservable inputs - Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability and include situations where fair values are measured using valuation techniques based on one or more significant unobservable inputs.

Classification within the fair value hierarchy is based on whether the lowest hierarchical level input that is significant to the fair value measurement is observable. As such, the classification within the fair value hierarchy is dynamic and can be transferred to other hierarchy levels in each reporting period.

Where fair value measurements are determined based on information obtained from independent pricing services or brokers, we apply appropriate validation procedures to substantiate fair value. For price validation purposes, quotations from at least two independent pricing sources are obtained for each financial instrument, where possible.

The following factors are considered in determining fair values:

•similarities between the asset or the liability under consideration and the asset or liability for which quotation is received;

•collaboration of pricing by referencing to other independent market data such as market transactions and relevant benchmark indices;

•consistency among different pricing sources;

•the valuation approach and the methodologies used by the independent pricing sources in determining fair value;

•the elapsed time between the date to which the market data relates and the measurement date;

•the source of the fair value information; and

•whether the security is traded in an active or inactive market.

Greater weight is given to quotations of instruments with recent market transactions, pricing quotes from dealers who stand ready to transact, quotations provided by market-makers who structured such instrument and market consensus pricing based on inputs from a large number of survey participants. Any significant discrepancies among the external quotations are reviewed and adjustments to fair values are recorded where appropriate. Where the transaction volume of a specific instrument has been reduced and the fair value measurement becomes less transparent, we will apply more detailed procedures to understand and challenge the appropriateness of the unobservable inputs and the valuation techniques used by the independent pricing service. Where applicable, we will develop a fair value estimate using our own pricing model inputs to test reasonableness. Where fair value measurements are determined using internal valuation models, we will validate the fair value measurement by either developing unobservable inputs based on the industry consensus pricing surveys in which we participate or back testing by observing the actual settlements occurring soon after the measurement date.