Contents

Level 3 InputsEdit

Level 3 Inputs occupy the most uncertain corner of the fair value measurement framework used in modern financial reporting. They are the inputs that come from inside the organization rather than from observable market data, and they are employed when no active market provides reliable pricing for an asset or liability. In practice, Level 3 inputs rely on the entity’s own assumptions about what market participants would require for the asset or liability, and they are typically embedded in internal models and management judgments. This makes them powerful for valuing illiquid or bespoke assets, but also a focal point for debate about transparency, reliability, and the proper role of regulators in corporate disclosures. Level 3 inputs are defined and used within the fair value hierarchies in ASC 820 under US GAAP and in IFRS 13 for international reporting, and their treatment has long been a battleground for discussions about how much discretion should be afforded to management versus how much external validation should constrain that discretion.

Definition and scope

  • What Level 3 means: Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs that reflect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about market participants. When inputs are not observable, the hierarchy requires firms to disclose how those assumptions are formed and to justify their reasonableness. See how Level 3 contrasts with Level 1 inputs, which are based on quoted prices in active markets, and Level 2 inputs, which are observable inputs other than quoted prices.
  • How they are derived: Level 3 valuations typically combine internal data, models, and judgments about liquidity, credit risk, and expected future cash flows. Common techniques include the income approach (discounted cash flows, probability-weighted scenarios), the market approach using proxies where direct data is lacking, and, in some cases, cost-based methods adapted to current conditions.
  • Examples: Valuing private equity stakes, complex structured securities with sparse trading, or unique asset-backed instruments where no active market exists often requires Level 3 inputs. In these cases, the entity’s own assumptions about discount rates, volatility, or correlation with other assets feed the valuation process. See private equity and illiquid asset as related concepts, and note how the same principles appear in many industries under ASC 820 and IFRS 13.
  • Why the hierarchy matters: The push toward Level 3 reflects a practical compromise: when observable data are unavailable, financial statements cannot pretend that a price exists. Yet the more discretion involved, the more attention regulators, auditors, and investors pay to governance, controls, and disclosures.

Controversies and debates

  • Transparency versus discretion: Critics argue that Level 3 inputs permit a broad range of management assumptions, which can obscure the true risk profile of a firm and enable earnings management. Supporters counter that unobservable inputs are sometimes the only honest way to value hard-to-trade assets, and that robust governance and disclosure requirements help keep valuations credible. See debates around the appropriate balance of accounting governance and valuation discipline.
  • Regulatory burden and comparability: Governments and standard-setters emphasize fair value as a measure of current market assumptions, but the need for extensive disclosures about Level 3 sensitivities and the sources of unobservable inputs can impose costs on firms, especially smaller ones. Pro-market advocates tend to favor simpler, more principle-based requirements and greater reliance on managerial expertise to reflect economic reality, while critics argue that this can reduce comparability across entities.
  • Earnings volatility and financial crises: Level 3 valuations can magnify reported volatility in times of market stress, which some detractors claim misleads users about ongoing performance. Proponents say this volatility is a better signal of economic reality than smooth, cost-based measurements. The debate often intersects with discussions about whether fair value accounting better reflects current risks or amplifies them during downturns. See how critics and defenders frame the issue around financial crisis lessons and the resilience of capital markets.
  • Woke criticisms and responses: Critics of reform proposals sometimes argue that calls for stricter controls on Level 3 valuations are a pretext for broader regulatory overreach, or that they overcorrect in ways that dampen capital formation. Proponents of measured reform respond that achieving clearer, more transparent valuations serves investors and the real economy by reducing mispricing and improving confidence in financial reporting. In this space, the dialogue tends to hinge on the tradeoff between accuracy in illiquid markets and the costs or frictions of heightened scrutiny. The best-informed perspectives emphasize outcomes—stable, credible valuations that support efficient investment decisions—rather than partisan rhetoric.

Governance, controls, and disclosure

  • Valuation governance: Firms typically establish valuation committees, engage independent specialists, and document the rationale behind Level 3 inputs. Strong governance is seen as essential to prevent overreliance on internal models and to ensure that judgments about discount rates, future cash flows, and liquidity premia reflect sensible risk assessments.
  • Auditor scrutiny: External auditors assess the reasonableness of Level 3 valuations and the integrity of the inputs and models. This accountability layer is intended to counterbalance the inherent subjectivity of unobservable inputs, and it tends to drive more rigorous sensitivity analyses and scenario testing.
  • Disclosures and sensitivity analyses: Standards require disclosure of the level in the fair value hierarchy and the reasons for using unobservable inputs. Many proponents argue that sensitivity analyses—showing how changes in key assumptions would affect valuation—are the most effective tool for readers to gauge risk. Critics sometimes argue that even these disclosures can be dense or opaque if not presented clearly, which again points back to governance quality and investor education.
  • Market participant assumptions: An important line of discussion centers on whether management’s assumptions about market participants are sufficiently objective. While internal expertise is valuable, some argue for stronger external benchmarks or more transparent documentation of the process used to derive these assumptions.

Practical implications for markets and firms

  • For investors and creditors: Level 3 valuations can be the difference between a credible signal of value and a source of doubt about a company’s financial health. Well-communicated Level 3 disclosures help market participants form judgments about risk, liquidity, and capital needs.
  • For firms: The need to justify Level 3 inputs can influence governance structures, data infrastructure, and compensation models linked to valuation outcomes. The cost of such controls must be weighed against the benefits of credible reporting, particularly where capital allocation decisions hinge on fair value numbers.
  • For regulators and standard-setters: The ongoing debate centers on whether current frameworks adequately balance reliability with flexibility. Some argue for tighter controls or standardized reference inputs; others push for preserving managerial judgment where markets cannot provide observable prices. See standard-setter discussions around IFRS Foundation and FASB.

See also