Search results

Founded in 2015, the Impact Valuation Roundtable (IVR) is an informal group of companies who wish to operationalise the emerging field of Impact Valuation. IVR participants consider Impact Valuation a groundbreaking approach to measure and value the effects of business activities on the health and well-being of people and the planet – in economic, environmental, social and human dimensions.

Impact Valuation can support large and small companies alike. It uses the language of business, supports strategic decision-making by adding fact-based insights into business operations and strengthens the communication and engagement of business with stakeholders. This is showcased in case studies from adidas, Ambuja Cements Limited, BASF, Cementos Argos, Maersk, Natura, Novartis, Syngenta and UPM.

Although there is an increased recognition of the benefits of Impact Valuation, comparability in the calculation and communication of the results of Impact Valuation assessments across companies is one of the key challenges to the credibility and uptake of the concept. The IVR supports and encourages the development of consistent frameworks and standards that strive for maximum commonality across industries, pragmatism in their application, and allow for scaling up.

As importance and interest rises, the IVR continues to welcome other practitioners willing to contribute knowledge and experience to accelerate convergence and mainstreaming of Impact Valuation.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize and analyze the SEC's July 9, 2008 roundtable discussion regarding fair value accounting and auditing standards.

The paper discusses investor, auditor/accountant/actuary, and corporation views concerning the usefulness of fair value accounting, potential market behavior effects from fair value accounting, challenges in applying fair value standards, possible improvement to the current standards, and working with auditors who provide assurance for fair value accounting.

Some investor panelists said fair value provides investors with the most current and relevant information of any accounting method and some believe fair valuation is important for market integrity and trust because it is a transparent measure for valuation. Auditors are especially challenged in determining fair values in illiquid or frozen markets. Roundtable participants viewed disclosure as critical for implementation of fair valuation, particularly regarding key inputs and assumptions. Auditors and corporations would like more guidance on applying fair value accounting from the SEC and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

The paper provides expert guidance by experienced securities lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a public policy solution to updating mainstream financial accounting from its nineteenth century roots and make it more relevant and consistent with public policy, individual investor motivations and global needs as exemplified in the sustainability development goals. Many approaches to integrating social and environmental accounts with financial accounts are additive; the two types of accounting information sit alongside each other. The opportunity to revise the basic building block of financial accounting, information to help investors make economic decisions relating to investments to increase integration and recognition that this is a public policy decision and not an accounting profession decision, is rarely considered.

The approach is a viewpoint on the opportunities for and benefits of integration of financial, social and environmental accounting.

The current basis of financial accounting does not reflect private investors’ motivations, and changing the basis of accounting is a public policy issue.

This is a viewpoint paper. The pros and cons of current approaches to valuation of social and environmental outcomes are not explored.

Changing policy would require support from asset managers and owners, accounting bodies, civil society and politicians and would need a plan for transitioning from the existing approach.

This is a possible starting point for formal research that could support policy changes that could result in resource allocation decisions taking account of social and environmental impacts.

There are several approaches for integrating social environmental and financial accounting; however, the proposal that integration would result from a change in public policy specifically clarifying and updating investor motivation provides a possible solution to many of the challenges of integration.

When it comes to measuring and managing corporate impacts on the multiple capitals (financial, natural, social, human and built), Impact Management and Impact Valuation have emerged as best practices in the interrelated fields of corporate social responsibility and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) investing. These practices have two significant shortcomings that are largely unacknowledged: they don't attend to ecological and social thresholds (or the carrying capacities of capitals); and they assume impacts on the various capitals are fungible, and therefore impacts on one capital can substitute for impacts on another capital, which clearly does not reflect reality.

This chapter proposes solutions to both gaps: respect ‘critical capital’ thresholds to retain vital capital stocks necessary to fuel continuing flows of value (and avoid systemic collapses of capital resources), and aggregate impacts across capitals via the common factor of ‘progress towards sustainability’. These steps will mature the fields towards the creation of System Value, where capitals are continually regenerated sustainably in ways that support healthy living systems.

Investment funds use actual trading market prices to value their portfolio investments where possible and “fair valuations” (estimated values) when actual market prices are not available. The methods used to “fair value” portfolios recently have come under scrutiny. SEC inquiries and enforcement actions and shareholder lawsuits have revealed significant problems in the ways in which fair valuations of the portfolios of investment companies, as well as private investment funds are conducted. Congress and academic commentators are beginning to question fund valuation methods. Despite the importance of the issue to investors, there is little uniformity of practice among funds, no generally accepted means to conduct fair valuations, and little disclosure by funds of the methods by which fair valuations are conducted, who conducts them, when they are conducted, or how much fair valuation affects portfolio or unit valuations. The SEC has never conducted a public study or rulemaking, or issued a significant report on fair value practices. Instead, it is the stuff of a pair of short, 30‐year‐old SEC accounting bulletins and a few cryptic references in periodic revisions to Form N‐1A. Yet, in a letter the SEC staff sent to the Investment Company Institute (ICI) in April 2001, the SEC staff dramatically expanded the use of fair value pricing for use with securities for which actual trading market prices are available.

This paper seeks to describe the recent SEC Roundtable on Money Market Funds and Systemic Risk and the context behind the roundtable.

The paper discusses the SEC's roundtable on money market funds. Context to the roundtable is provided by describing recent steps taken by regulators to address risks posed by money funds. The paper also examines the principal topics discussed at the roundtable, including the debate on the systemic risks posed by money funds and potential regulatory changes that could mitigate those risks.

A number of regulatory proposals that were raised at the roundtable could, if adopted by the SEC, significantly alter the operation of money market funds as we know them, including requiring money market funds to institute market‐based net asset value (“NAV”) instead of stable NAV, be subject to banking regulations, create an industry‐funded private liquidity bank, or maintain liquidity reserve requirements.

The roundtable is significant as it is likely to influence the future discussion of the regulation of money market funds, which has potential implications for both the money management industry and entities financed by money market funds.

The paper provides information on money market reform for investment advisers, broker‐dealers, regulatory lawyers, institutional investors, and investment companies.