New Authoritative Accounting Guidance	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
New Authoritative Accounting Guidance [Abstract]
New Authoritative Accounting Guidance	Note 23: New Authoritative Accounting Guidance In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which establishes a five-step model that entities must follow to recognize revenue. The guidance would have become effective for us on January 1, 2017. However, in August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)—Deferral of the Effective Date, which deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 by one year. The guidance will now become effective for us on January 1, 2018, and is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures. In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, Recognition and Measurements of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. This ASU requires that all equity investments be measured at fair value with changes in the fair value recognized through net income (other than those accounted for under the equity method of accounting or those that result in consolidation of the investee). This ASU also requires that an entity present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in the fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value in accordance with the fair value option for financial instruments. In addition, this ASU eliminates the requirement to disclose the fair value of financial instruments measured at amortized cost for entities that are not public business entities and the requirement to disclose the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value that is required to be disclosed for financial instruments measured at amortized cost on the balance sheet for public business entities. The guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018, and we are evaluating the impact of this ASU on our financial statements and disclosures. In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases. This ASU requires lessees to put most leases on their balance sheets but recognize expenses in the income statement in a manner similar to current accounting treatment. This ASU changes the guidance on sale-leaseback transactions, initial direct costs and lease execution costs, and, for lessors, modifies the classification criteria and the accounting for sales-type and direct financing leases. The guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2019. Entities are required to use a modified retrospective approach for leases that exist or are entered into after the beginning of the earliest comparative period in the financial statements. We are evaluating the impact of this ASU on our financial statements and disclosures. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-05, Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships. This ASU clarifies that a change in the counterparty of a derivative contract (i.e., a novation) in a hedge accounting relationship does not, in and of itself, require dedesignation of the hedge accounting relationship. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2017, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-06, Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt Instruments. This ASU clarifies the requirements for assessing whether contingent call (put) options that can accelerate the payment of principal on debt instruments are clearly and closely related to their debt hosts. An entity performing the assessment under this ASU is required to assess the embedded call (put) options solely in accordance with the four-step decision sequence. The amendments apply to all entities that are issuers of or investors in debt instruments (or hybrid financial instruments that are determined to have a debt host) with embedded call (put) options. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2017, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. This ASU simplifies several aspects of the accounting for employee share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2017, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures. In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing. While this ASU does not change the core principles of the guidance in Topic 606, it does clarify the guidance related to identifying performance obligations as well as the accounting for licenses of intellectual property. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2017, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures. In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-11, Revenue Recognition (Topic 605) and Derivatives Hedging (Topic 815), Rescission of SEC Guidance Because of Accounting Standards Updates 2014-09 and 2014-16 Pursuant to Staff Announcements at the March 3, 2016 EITF Meeting (SEC Update). This ASU rescinds from the FASB Accounting Standards Codification certain SEC Observer comments that are codified in FASB ASC Topic 605, Revenue Recognition, and ASC 932, Extractive Activities – Oil and Gas, effective upon an entity’s adoption of FASB ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. This ASU also rescinds the SEC Staff Announcement: Determining the Nature of a Host Contract Related to a Hybrid Instrument Issued in the Form of a Share under Topic 815,” which is codified in FASB ASC Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, effective on adoption of FASB ASU 2014-16, Determining Whether the Host Contract in a Hybrid Financial Instrument Issued in the Form of a Share is More Akin to Debt or Equity. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures. In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients. While this ASU does not change the core principles of the new revenue recognition standard, it does make the standard more operational and clarifies the guidance on assessing collectability, presenting sales taxes, measuring noncash consideration, and certain transition matters. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures. In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. This ASU replaces the incurred loss impairment methodology in current GAAP with a methodology that estimates credit losses on most financial instruments measured at amortized cost, such as loans, receivables, and held-to-maturity securities, using the current expected credit loss (CECL) model. Under this model, entities will estimate credit losses over the financial instrument’s entire contractual term from the date of initial recognition of that instrument. The ASU also requires incremental disclosures on how the entity developed its estimates. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2020. We are evaluating the impact of this ASU on our financial statements and disclosures. In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230), which is intended to reduce diversity in practice in how certain transactions are classified in the statement of cash flows. The new guidance specifically addresses eight classification issues: debt prepayment or debt extinguishment costs; settlement of zero-coupon bonds; contingent consideration payments made after a business combination; proceeds from the settlement of insurance claims; proceeds from the settlement of corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) policies, including bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) policies; distributions received from equity method investments; beneficial interests in securitization transactions; and separately identifiable cash flows and application of the predominance principle. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018. We are evaluating the impact of the ASU on our financial statements and disclosures. In October 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-16, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other than Inventory. The ASU requires companies to recognize the income tax consequences of an intercompany asset transfer when the transfer occurs. The amendments in this ASU do not change accounting for the pre-tax effects of intra-entity asset transfers under Topic 810, Consolidation, and do not apply to intra-entity inventory transfers. The economic consequences of intra-entity asset sales—other than inventory—will be recognized in the period in which the transaction occurs and no longer deferred. A reporting entity’s effective tax rate likely will be affected due to the immediate recognition of the seller’s taxes and buyer’s deferred taxes, particularly when the transaction has no effect on consolidated pre-tax income. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018. We are evaluating the impact of this ASU on our financial statement disclosures. In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01, Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business, which provides guidance on evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of assets or businesses. The guidance is generally expected to result in fewer transactions qualifying as business combinations. Under the new guidance, an entity first determines whether substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired (or disposed of) is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar identifiable assets. If this threshold is met, the set is not considered a business. If this threshold is not met, a set cannot be considered a business unless it includes an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create outputs. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018, and is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures.

Note 23: New Authoritative Accounting Guidance

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which establishes a five-step model that entities must follow to recognize revenue. The guidance would have become effective for us on January 1, 2017. However, in August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)—Deferral of the Effective Date, which deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 by one year. The guidance will now become effective for us on January 1, 2018, and is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, Recognition and Measurements of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. This ASU requires that all equity investments be measured at fair value with changes in the fair value recognized through net income (other than those accounted for under the equity method of accounting or those that result in consolidation of the investee). This ASU also requires that an entity present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in the fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value in accordance with the fair value option for financial instruments. In addition, this ASU eliminates the requirement to disclose the fair value of financial instruments measured at amortized cost for entities that are not public business entities and the requirement to disclose the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value that is required to be disclosed for financial instruments measured at amortized cost on the balance sheet for public business entities. The guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018, and we are evaluating the impact of this ASU on our financial statements and disclosures.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases. This ASU requires lessees to put most leases on their balance sheets but recognize expenses in the income statement in a manner similar to current accounting treatment. This ASU changes the guidance on sale-leaseback transactions, initial direct costs and lease execution costs, and, for lessors, modifies the classification criteria and the accounting for sales-type and direct financing leases. The guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2019. Entities are required to use a modified retrospective approach for leases that exist or are entered into after the beginning of the earliest comparative period in the financial statements. We are evaluating the impact of this ASU on our financial statements and disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-05, Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships. This ASU clarifies that a change in the counterparty of a derivative contract (i.e., a novation) in a hedge accounting relationship does not, in and of itself, require dedesignation of the hedge accounting relationship. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2017, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-06, Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt Instruments. This ASU clarifies the requirements for assessing whether contingent call (put) options that can accelerate the payment of principal on debt instruments are clearly and closely related to their debt hosts. An entity performing the assessment under this ASU is required to assess the embedded call (put) options solely in accordance with the four-step decision sequence. The amendments apply to all entities that are issuers of or investors in debt instruments (or hybrid financial instruments that are determined to have a debt host) with embedded call (put) options. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2017, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. This ASU simplifies several aspects of the accounting for employee share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2017, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures.

In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing. While this ASU does not change the core principles of the guidance in Topic 606, it does clarify the guidance related to identifying performance obligations as well as the accounting for licenses of intellectual property. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2017, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures.

In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-11, Revenue Recognition (Topic 605) and Derivatives Hedging (Topic 815), Rescission of SEC Guidance Because of Accounting Standards Updates 2014-09 and 2014-16 Pursuant to Staff Announcements at the March 3, 2016 EITF Meeting (SEC Update). This ASU rescinds from the FASB Accounting Standards Codification certain SEC Observer comments that are codified in FASB ASC Topic 605, Revenue Recognition, and ASC 932, Extractive Activities – Oil and Gas, effective upon an entity’s adoption of FASB ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. This ASU also rescinds the SEC Staff Announcement: Determining the Nature of a Host Contract Related to a Hybrid Instrument Issued in the Form of a Share under Topic 815,” which is codified in FASB ASC Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, effective on adoption of FASB ASU 2014-16, Determining Whether the Host Contract in a Hybrid Financial Instrument Issued in the Form of a Share is More Akin to Debt or Equity. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures.

In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients. While this ASU does not change the core principles of the new revenue recognition standard, it does make the standard more operational and clarifies the guidance on assessing collectability, presenting sales taxes, measuring noncash consideration, and certain transition matters. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018, and it is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. This ASU replaces the incurred loss impairment methodology in current GAAP with a methodology that estimates credit losses on most financial instruments measured at amortized cost, such as loans, receivables, and held-to-maturity securities, using the current expected credit loss (CECL) model. Under this model, entities will estimate credit losses over the financial instrument’s entire contractual term from the date of initial recognition of that instrument. The ASU also requires incremental disclosures on how the entity developed its estimates. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2020. We are evaluating the impact of this ASU on our financial statements and disclosures.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230), which is intended to reduce diversity in practice in how certain transactions are classified in the statement of cash flows. The new guidance specifically addresses eight classification issues: debt prepayment or debt extinguishment costs; settlement of zero-coupon bonds; contingent consideration payments made after a business combination; proceeds from the settlement of insurance claims; proceeds from the settlement of corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) policies, including bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) policies; distributions received from equity method investments; beneficial interests in securitization transactions; and separately identifiable cash flows and application of the predominance principle. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018. We are evaluating the impact of the ASU on our financial statements and disclosures.

In October 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-16, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other than Inventory. The ASU requires companies to recognize the income tax consequences of an intercompany asset transfer when the transfer occurs. The amendments in this ASU do not change accounting for the pre-tax effects of intra-entity asset transfers under Topic 810, Consolidation, and do not apply to intra-entity inventory transfers. The economic consequences of intra-entity asset sales—other than inventory—will be recognized in the period in which the transaction occurs and no longer deferred. A reporting entity’s effective tax rate likely will be affected due to the immediate recognition of the seller’s taxes and buyer’s deferred taxes, particularly when the transaction has no effect on consolidated pre-tax income. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018. We are evaluating the impact of this ASU on our financial statement disclosures.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01, Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business, which provides guidance on evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of assets or businesses. The guidance is generally expected to result in fewer transactions qualifying as business combinations. Under the new guidance, an entity first determines whether substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired (or disposed of) is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar identifiable assets. If this threshold is met, the set is not considered a business. If this threshold is not met, a set cannot be considered a business unless it includes an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create outputs. This guidance becomes effective for us on January 1, 2018, and is not expected to have a material impact on our financial statements and disclosures.