Banks: Fair value: Level 3 measurements

Details of the Firm’s processes for determining fair value are set out in Note 2. Estimating fair value requires the application of judgment. The type and level of judgment required is largely dependent on the amount of observable market information available to the Firm. For instruments valued using internally developed valuation models and other valuation techniques that use significant unobservable inputs and are therefore classified within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, judgments used to estimate fair value are more significant than those required when estimating the fair value of instruments classified within levels 1 and 2.

In arriving at an estimate of fair value for an instrument within level 3, management must first determine the appropriate valuation model or other valuation technique to use. Second, the lack of observability of certain significant inputs requires management to assess relevant empirical data in deriving valuation inputs including, for example, transaction details, yield curves, interest rates, prepayment speeds, default rates, volatilities, correlations, prices (such as commodity, equity or debt prices), valuations of comparable instruments, foreign exchange rates and credit curves. Refer to Note 2 for a further discussion of the valuation of level 3 instruments, including unobservable inputs used.

For instruments classified in levels 2 and 3, management judgment must be applied to assess the appropriate level of valuation adjustments to reflect counterparty credit quality, the Firm’s creditworthiness, market funding rates, liquidity considerations, unobservable parameters, and for portfolios that meet specified criteria, the size of the net open risk position. The judgments made are typically affected by the type of product and its specific contractual terms, and the level of liquidity for the product or within the market as a whole. In periods of heightened market volatility and uncertainty judgments are further affected by the wider variation of reasonable valuation estimates, particularly for positions that are less liquid. Refer to Note 2 for a further discussion of valuation adjustments applied by the Firm.

Imprecision in estimating unobservable market inputs or other factors can affect the amount of gain or loss recorded for a particular position. Furthermore, while the Firm believes its valuation methods are appropriate and consistent with those of other market participants, the methods and assumptions used reflect management judgment and may vary across the Firm’s businesses and portfolios.

may be appropriate to adjust price quotes received. When significant adjustments are required to price quotes or inputs, it may be appropriate to utilize an estimate based primarily on unobservable inputs.

Significant judgment may be required to determine whether certain financial instruments measured at fair value are classified as Level 2 or Level 3. In making this determination, we consider all available information that market participants use to measure the fair value of the financial instrument, including observable market data, indications of market liquidity and orderliness, and our understanding of the valuation techniques and significant inputs used. Based upon the specific facts and circumstances of each instrument or instrument category, judgments are made regarding the significance of the Level 3 inputs to the instruments’ fair value measurement in its entirety. If Level 3 inputs are considered significant, the instrument is classified as Level 3. The process for determining fair value using unobservable inputs is generally more subjective and involves a high degree of management judgment and assumptions. We discuss changes in the valuation inputs and assumptions used in determining the fair value of our financial instruments, including the extent to which we have relied on significant unobservable inputs to estimate fair value and our process for corroborating these inputs, in “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data—Note 17—Fair Value Measurement.”

We have a governance framework and a number of key controls that are intended to ensure that our fair value measurements are appropriate and reliable. Our governance framework provides for independent oversight and segregation of duties. Our control processes include review and approval of new transaction types, price verification, and review of valuation judgments, methods, models, process controls and results.

Groups independent of our trading and investing functions participate in the review and validation process. Tasks performed by these groups include verification of fair value measurements at least quarterly to determine if assigned fair values are reasonable, including comparing prices from vendor pricing services to other available market information.

Our Fair Value Committee (“FVC”), which includes representation from business areas, Risk Management and Finance, provides guidance and oversight to ensure an appropriate valuation control environment. The FVC reviews and approves our fair valuations at least quarterly to ensure that our valuation practices are consistent with industry standards and adhere to regulatory and accounting guidance.

Some of our financial instruments, including certain derivatives, debt securities, loans, MSRs and private equity investments, among other items, require a determination of their fair value for our financial statements. Assets and liabilities carried at fair value inherently result in a higher degree of financial statement volatility. Changes in underlying factors or assumptions in any of the areas underlying our estimates could materially impact our future financial condition and results of operations. During periods of market disruption, it would be difficult to value certain assets if trading becomes less frequent and/or market data becomes less observable. There may be certain asset classes that were historically traded in active markets with significant observable data that rapidly become illiquid due to market volatility, a loss in market confidence or other factors. In addition, we have assets and liabilities carried at fair value that are estimated using unobservable inputs that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities. The valuation of any asset or liability substantially based on unobservable inputs is necessarily less reliable than those based on active trading markets. Further, rapidly changing and unprecedented market conditions could materially impact the valuation of assets as reported within our consolidated financial statements. Our ability to hedge exposure is in part dependent on our ability to value the related assets or liabilities.

The determination of the amount of loss allowances and asset impairments varies by asset type and is based upon our periodic evaluation and assessment of known and inherent risks associated with the respective asset class. Management updates its evaluations regularly and reflects changes in allowances and impairments in operations as such evaluations are revised. Although we have policies and procedures in place to determine loss allowances and asset impairments, due to the subjective nature of this area, the level of impairments taken, and allowances reflected in our financial statements may not accurately reflect the actual level of risk and the amount of future losses.

There are risks resulting from the extensive use of models, some of which use AI, in our business.