pwc.

com/ifrs

Practical guide to IFRS

Fair value measurement: implications of
IFRS 13 for the real estate industry
At a glance

September 2011
Contents
At a glance

Background: 2
the need for
new guidance
How does
2
IFRS 13 affect
the real estate
industry?
Definition of 2
fair value
Fair value
hierarchy

Valuation
techniques

Valuation
premise

Highest and 6
best use
Disclosure
8
requirements
Outlook

The International Accounting Standards

Board (IASB) issued IFRS 13, Fair value
measurement, in May 2011 as a common
framework on how to measure the fair
value when its determination is required
or permitted by another IFRS. The new
framework defines fair value and provides
a single source of guidance for measuring
fair value. It also eliminates various
and sometimes differing provisions in
the existing frameworks and requires
additional disclosures about fair value
measurements.
IFRS 13 defines the fair value of an asset
as an exit price, hence the price that
would be received to sell an asset or paid to
transfer a liability in an orderly transaction
between market participants at the
measurement date.
The effect of IFRS 13 on different
industries may vary. This publication
focuses on the implications for the real
estate industry. IFRS 13 predominantly
brings into a single standard the fair value
concepts that were in other standards, but
it also clarifies various requirements with
regard to the appropriate measurement
and disclosure of the fair value and its
underlying inputs for example:
For non-financial assets, highest and
best use is the use to be assumed by
market participants that maximises the
value of an asset.
The fair value measurement assumes
that the hypothetical sale of the asset
or exit transaction takes place in
the principal market with the greatest
volume and highest level of activity for
the asset or liability. Alternatively, in
the absence of such a principal market,
the transaction should take place

in the most advantageous market;

management will therefore need to
identify the relevant market.
Disclosure requirements have been
significantly expanded to provide users
of financial statements with detailed
quantitative and qualitative information
about assumptions made and processes
used when measuring the fair value.
The three-level fair value hierarchy
prioritises the inputs to be used in
determining the fair value using certain
valuation techniques.
For real estate entities, the new standard
may result in the requirement to redefine
processes and procedures; it will especially
impact the following areas:
Investment property carried at fair value:
how investment properties are measured
and the requirement for additional
disclosures;
Investment properties carried at amortised
cost: how to determine fair value less
costs to sell for IAS 36, Impairment
of assets, and IFRS 5, Non-current
assets held for sale and discontinued
operations, and fair value for disclosure
under IAS 40, Investment property;
Fair value for property, plant and
equipment: how to measure fair
value under the revaluation model
according to IAS 16, Property, plant and
equipment;
Fair value in a business combination:
how to estimate fair value in a business
combination according to IFRS 3,
Business combinations.
IFRS 13 applies prospectively for annual
periods beginning on or after 1 January
2013; earlier application is permitted.

A practical guide to IFRS Fair value measurement

Background: the need for new guidance

The IASB issued IFRS 13, Fair value
measurement, on 12 May 2011. This
new IFRS has been developed as a joint
project with the FASB, which at the
same time published an update to
Topic 820 in the FASBs Accounting

Standards Codification (formerly referred

to as SFAS 157).
The new standard has been developed since
September 2005. The key milestones of the
project are shown below..

Fair value measurement project milestones

Exposure draft, Measurement
uncertainty analysis
disclosure for fair value
measurements, June 2010
Discussion paper
November 2006
Exposure draft, Fair
value measurement,
May 2009

Effective date:
January 2013
(earlier application
permitted)

Fair value
measurement IFRS 13,
published May 2011

IASB added project to

agenda September 2005

Up until now, definitions and guidance on

measuring fair value have been dispersed
across many IFRSs and have not always
been consistent. Existing guidance is not
always able to provide a clear
measurement objective or a robust
measurement framework. The new standard
is intended to establish a single source of
guidance and codification for all fair value
measurements. The Boards also intended
to achieve international harmonisation of
fair value measurements and corresponding
disclosure requirements; a further important
step towards convergence between IFRS
and US GAAP.

The Boards have seen the need for

enhanced disclosures on fair value
measurements in response to the latest
financial crisis. So in order to improve and
align fair value measurement and disclosure
requirements, the Boards decided to
establish a single source of guidance for all
fair value measurements.
IFRS 13 does not say when to use fair
value as the measurement basis, nor
does it extend the scope of fair value
measurements. It only provides guidance
on how the concept of fair value should be
applied where its use is already required or
permitted by other standards

How does IFRS 13 affect the real estate industry?

Definition of fair value
Fair value is defined as the price that
would be received to sell an asset or paid to
transfer a liability in an orderly transaction
between market participants at the
measurement date. [IFRS 13 paragraph 9]
The definition is similar to the former fair
value definition (for example, importance of
an orderly transaction that is, not values
derived from distressed sales), but there is
the notion of an exit price to be considered
in the new definition. The IASB intends
to clarify with the new definition that fair

A practical guide to IFRS Fair value measurement

value is a market-based measurement, not

an entity-specific measurement, and that fair
value reflects current market conditions. In
the Boards view, both definitions articulate
essentially the same concepts.
From a real estate industry perspective, in
most cases there wont be substantial
change in the estimation of fair value due
to the amended definition, as the exit
price will often be equal or almost equal
to the exchange value. In the current
standard, the estimation of the relevant
price should always be based on a market
participants view.

Under IFRS 13, a fair value measurement

takes into account the characteristics of the
asset. Applying this to real estate, those
characteristics could be as in the current
IAS 40 the condition and location of the
asset and restrictions on its use.
The concept of fair value as a marketbased estimation remains unchanged;
management should be aware of this when
referring to appraisals that are based on
other sources of guidance that use different
definitions of fair value.1

Fair value hierarchy

One of the major changes in IFRS 13
compared to IAS 40 is the change in the fair
value hierarchy. IAS 40 defines a fair value
hierarchy based on valuation techniques;
IFRS 13 uses a different approach.
In IFRS 13, fair value measurements are
categorised into a three-level hierarchy
based on the type of inputs and no longer
based on the valuation method. The new
hierarchy is defined as follows:
(1) Level 1 inputs are unadjusted quoted
prices in active markets for items

identical to the asset being measured.

Consistent with existing guidance, if
there is a quoted price in an active
market (that is, a Level 1 input),
an entity uses that price without
adjustment when measuring fair value;
(2) Level 2 inputs are inputs other than
quoted prices in active markets
included within Level 1 that are directly
or indirectly observable; and
(3) Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs
that are usually determined based on
managements assumptions. However,
Level 3 inputs have to reflect the
assumptions that market participants
would use when determining an
appropriate price for the asset.
The entity is not free to choose which
level of inputs to use: An entity shall use
valuation techniques that are appropriate
in the circumstances and for which
sufficient data are available to measure
fair value, maximising the use of relevant
observable inputs and minimising the use of
unobservable inputs. [IFRS 13.61]

Fair value measurement project milestones

Level 1 inputs
Quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical assets in an active market
Level 2 inputs
Quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets
Quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in
markets that are not active
Inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset
or liability (for example, market observable interest rates)
Inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by
observable market data by correlation or other means
Level 3 inputs
Unobservable inputs

Fair value hierarchy

IFRS 13 allows the application of the following valuation techniques: market approach, income
approach or cost approach.

In some cases the inputs used to measure

fair value may be categorised within
different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In
such instances, the fair value measurement

is categorised in its entirety based on the

lowest level input that is significant to the
measurement.

The IVSC is currently reviewing the valuation standards to develop the new IVS. IFRS 13 might be taken into account in the due
process of the new IVS guidance.

A practical guide to IFRS Fair value measurement

Due to the nature of real estate assets

which are often unique and not traded
on a regular basis and the subsequent
lack of observable input data for identical
assets, fair value measurements of real
estate will be categorised as Level 2 or
Level 3 valuations. All observable market
data (that is, transaction prices) are given

a higher priority and should be preferred

over unobservable inputs, even if the market
is inactive and transactions of comparable
assets are rare.
The table below gives examples of inputs
to real estate valuations and their typical
categorisation in the fair value hierarchy.

Fair value measurement valuation inputs

Input level Input (example)
2

Sale prices per sqm for similar properties in similar locations

Observable market rent per sqm for similar flats
Property yields derived from latest transactions
Yields based on the management estimation
Significant yield adjustments based on managements assumptions about uncertainty/risk
Assumptions about future development of parameters (for example, vacancy, rent) that are not
derived from the market
Cash flow forecast using the entitys own data

Management should maximise the use of

relevant observable inputs and minimise
the use of unobservable inputs. The use
of unobservable inputs is a complex
and judgmental area where IFRS 13
provides certain guidance: An entity shall
develop unobservable inputs using the best
information available in the circumstances,
which might include the entitys own data.
In developing unobservable inputs, an entity
may begin with its own data, but it shall
adjust those data if reasonably available
information indicates that other market
participants would use different data or there
is something particular to the entity that is
not available to other market participants
(eg an entity-specific synergy). An entity
need not undertake exhaustive efforts to
obtain information about market participant
assumptions. However, an entity shall take
into account all information about market
participant assumptions that is reasonably
available. Unobservable inputs developed in
the manner described above are considered
market participant assumptions and meet the
objective of a fair value measurement.
[IFRS 13.89]
Unobservable inputs should therefore still be
adjusted for market participant assumptions,
but the information gathered to determine
market participant assumptions should
be limited to the extent that is reasonably
available.

A practical guide to IFRS Fair value measurement

Valuation techniques
In contrast to the fair value hierarchy in
IAS 40 and IAS 16, IFRS 13 does not prefer
a specific valuation technique. The fair
value hierarchy in existing IFRS guidance
prioritised the application of a market
approach (or a comparable sales method)
over the income approach (that is, a
valuation technique based on discounted
cash flows) and for the valuation of
property plant and equipment the
cost approach. However, the fair value
hierarchy in IFRS 13 is based on valuation
inputs by maximising the use of relevant
observable inputs and minimising the use
of unobservable inputs rather than the
valuation techniques themselves.
According to IFRS 13, there are generally
three approaches that can be used to
derive fair value: the market approach, the
income approach and the cost approach. To
measure fair value, management should use
valuation techniques consistent with one
or more of these approaches. It should use
valuation techniques that are appropriate in
the circumstances and for which sufficient
data is available, maximising the use of
relevant observable inputs and minimising
the use of unobservable inputs. Valuation
techniques should be applied consistently.
However, a change in the valuation
technique or its application can be

appropriate if the result is equally or more

representative of fair value.
IFRS 13 does not exclude the application
of a cost approach in the fair value
measurement of investment property
under IAS 40. Nevertheless, the practical
impact of this change will be limited, as
IFRS 13 requires an entity to choose those
valuation techniques that are appropriate
to the specific circumstances and maximises
the use of observable inputs. As market
participants would usually estimate the
price of an investment property based on
their expectations about future income, an
income approach or a market approach will
often be more suitable to measure fair value
in this case. A market or income approach
will therefore usually be more appropriate in
these circumstances, even if the application
of a cost approach is permitted and possible
due to the availability of sufficient data.
The challenge in using the cost approach is
to consider whether or not an adjustment
to the actual building costs (for example,
change in materials, change in floor usage,
etc.) is necessary. The valuation has to
be based on the specifications that are
considered necessary to reflect the market
participants highest and best use of the
property. As a result, specifications that
include no added value to the market
participants are not considered in the
valuation.
IFRS 13 encourages an entity to apply
multiple valuation techniques (market
approach, income approach and cost
approach), if appropriate. In this case, the
results (that is, the respective indications of
fair value) should be evaluated considering
the reasonableness of the range of values
indicated by those results.

The fair value measurement is the point

within that range that is most representative
of fair value in the circumstances.
This approach obviously requires significant
judgement, and the results of the multiple
valuation techniques should be evaluated
carefully.

Valuation premise: principal

market and unit of account
IFRS 13 requires management to identify
the relevant market in which a typical
transaction of the asset would take place.
A fair value measurement assumes that the
transaction to sell an asset takes place in
the principal market for the asset or, in the
absence of a principal market, in the most
advantageous market for the asset. The
principal market is the market with
the greatest volume and level of activity
for the asset or liability that can be
accessed by the entity.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
the market in which the entity would
normally enter into a transaction to sell
the asset or to transfer the liability is
presumed to be the principal market or,
in the absence of a principal market, the
most advantageous market. However,
management does not need to continuously
monitor different markets to identify
the most advantageous market at the
measurement date.
The identification of the principal market
requires first the identification of the unit
of account, which is subject to transactions
in this market. IFRS 13 refers to the unit
of account as it is defined by the respective
IFRS that requires or permits fair value
measurement:

Fair value measurement unit of account

Unit of account
for investment
properties is
defined according
to IAS 40

Whether the asset or liability is a stand-alone asset or liability, a group of assets,

a group of liabilities or a group of assets and liabilities for recognition or disclosure
purpose depends on its unit of account. The Unit of account for the asset or liability
shall be determined in accordance with the IFRS that requires or permits the fair
value measurement, except as provided in this IFRS. [IFRS 13.14]

The principal market for the asset sold

on its own at the unit-of-account level
should in most cases be determinable by
knowledgeable market participants. IFRS
13 states that the fair value of a nonfinancial asset assumes that the asset is sold

consistently with the unit of account specified

in other IFRSs (which may be an individual
asset). According to IAS 40.5 investment
property is property (land or building or
part of a building or both) held (by the owner
or by a lessee under a finance lease) to earn

A practical guide to IFRS Fair value measurement

rentals or for capital appreciation or both.

The unit of account the single property
(for example, land and building) is the
relevant level to measure an investment
property at fair value according to IAS 40
and IFRS 13.
However, the valuation principles in
IFRS 13 have implications that management
should take in to account. The standard
discusses some valuation principles to be
applied when considering how to
determine fair value of a non-financial
asset used in combination with other assets
as a group. The fair value might be the same
whether the asset is used on a stand-alone
basis or in combination with other assets.
This conclusion is based on the assumption
that the use of the assets as a group in
an ongoing business would generate
synergies that would be available to market
participants. As a result, market
participants would judge the synergies
on a stand-alone basis as well as in an
asset group on the same basis. However,
for real estate assets, the valuation of the
investment property is generally on a
stand-alone basis.
Only in rare circumstances the entity
might measure the asset at an amount that
approximates its fair value when allocating
the fair value of the asset group to the
individual assets of the group [IFRS 13.B3]

lit. e]. There may be the following rule/

exception ratio for the real estate industry:
valuation on a stand-alone basis,
considering synergies only to the
extent they are available to typical
market participants; and
only in limited situations (exception),
allocating the fair value of the asset
group to the individual asset
(considering the unit of account).

Highest and best use

IFRS 13 defines the concept of highest and
best use. The absence of a definition of
this concept in existing guidance on fair
value accounting has given rise to varying
interpretations in the past. This is especially
true for real estate valuations, as land values
depend significantly on the assumptions
about the lands (potential) use.
According to IFRS 13 paragraph 27, a fair
value measurement of a non-financial asset
takes into account a market participants
ability to generate economic benefits by
using the asset in its highest and best use or
by selling it to another market participant
that would use the asset in its highest and
best use. The highest and best use takes
into account the use of the asset that is
physically possible, legally permissible and
financially feasible.

Fair value measurement

A fair value measurement of a non-financial asset takes into account a market perticipants ability to generate
economic benefits by using the assets in its highest and best use or by selling it to another market perticipant
that would use the asset in its highest and best use.

Physically possible

Legally permissible

Takes into account the

physical characteristics
of the asset that market
participants would take
into account when pricing
the asset (for example,
the location or size of a
property).

Takes into account any

legal restrictions on the use
of the asset that market
participants would take
into account when pricing
the asset (for example,
the zoning regulations
applicable to a property).

A practical guide to IFRS Fair value measurement

Financialy feasible

Takes into account whether

a use of the asset generates
adequate income or
cash flows (taking into
consideration the costs
of converting the asset
to that use) to produce
an investment return that
market participants would
require from an imvestment
in that asset put to that use.

Highest and best use is determined from

the perspective of market participants.
IFRS 13 includes some guidance on how to
understand the highest and best use concept
on real estate, which is shown below.
Example
A piece of land being developed for
industrial use as a site for a factory could be
developed as a site for high-rise apartment
buildings if there is a future change in
legislation for example, a new zoning.
How should management estimate the
highest and best use?
According to IFRS 13 BC 69: a fair
value measurement can assume a different
zoning if market participants would do so
(incorporating the cost to convert the asset
and obtain that different zoning permission,
including the risk that such permission
would not be granted). In this case, there
would need to be appropriate supporting
evidence that the potential re-zoning would
be considered by market participants when
determining the fair value. Furthermore, the
use of the asset must be physically possible
and financially feasible.
However, an entitys current use of a nonfinancial asset is presumed to be its highest
and best use unless market or other factors
suggest that a different use by market
participants would maximise the value of
the asset.
In cases where the current use differs from
the highest and best use, IFRS 13 requires
management to estimate a fair value based
on the hypothetical exit price assuming
the assets highest and best use by market
participants. This issue will arise from time
to time in the real estate industry, as the
way an entity uses land sometimes differs
from the use of surrounding land.
According to IFRS 13, when determining
the highest and best use of a non-financial
asset, management should take into account
two possibilities: the highest and best use

of the asset might provide maximum value

to market participants through its use in
combination with other assets as a group
(as installed or otherwise configured for
use) or in combination with other assets and
liabilities (for example, a business).
If the highest and best use of the asset is
to use the asset in combination with other
assets or with other assets and liabilities, the
fair value of the asset is the price that would
be received in a current transaction to sell
the asset, assuming that the asset would be
used with other assets or with other assets
and liabilities and that those assets and
liabilities (that is, its complementary assets
and the associated liabilities) would be
available to market participants.
However, the fair value measurement of a
non-financial asset assumes that the asset
is sold consistently with the unit of account
specified in other IFRSs (which may be an
individual asset). This is the case even when
the fair value measurement assumes that the
highest and best use of the asset is to use
it in combination with other assets or with
other assets and liabilities.
The estimation of the exit price is not
based on a transaction including the
complementary asset and liabilities; it
assumes that the market participant already
holds the complementary assets and the
associated liabilities.
To illustrate this, take a look at the following
example: An undeveloped plot of land
without street access has to be valued.
In front of the plot there are industrial
sites with street access. There are three
companies located next to the undeveloped
plot, which are strongly in need of
additional storage space. For those three
market participants, the undeveloped plot
although hinterland is very valuable,
whereas for all others it is all but worthless.
Following the definition in IFRS 13, the
value of the plot would be the exit price that
one of the industrial companies would be
willing to pay.

A practical guide to IFRS Fair value measurement

Disclosure requirements
The Board has included significantly
enhanced disclosure requirements into the
new standard, in order to provide users of
financial statements with better information
about the measurement uncertainty
inherent in fair value measurements and to
strengthen market participants confidence
in fair value measurements after the latest
financial crisis. The required disclosures
include:
information about assets measured at fair
value that are used in a way that differs
from their highest and best use;
information about the hierarchy level into
which fair value measurements fall;
transfers between Levels 1, 2 and 3; and

methods and inputs to the fair value

measurements and changes in
valuation techniques.
Fair value measurements categorised
within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy
are more subjective than those derived
from observable market prices, so
IFRS 13 requires additional disclosures
for Level 3 measurements. These include
a reconciliation of opening and closing
balances, quantitative information about
unobservable inputs and assumptions
used, and a description of the valuation
processes in place.
The table below gives an overview of the
most important disclosure requirements for
non-financial assets under IFRS 13.

FV Measurement Disclosure requirement

All
All non-recurring
All recurring

Level 1
Level 2

Level 3

Fair value measurement at the end of the reporting period

Level of the fair value hierarchy
The reason for the measurement
Amounts of transfers between Level 1, 2 and 3
The entitys policy for determining when transfers between levels are deemed to have
occured
Transfers from and into Level 1
Description of the valuation technique(s) and the inputs used in the fair value
measurement
Changes in valuation techniques and reasons for making those changes
Description of the valuation technique(s) and the inputs used in the fair value
measurement
Changes in valuation techniques and reasons for making those changes
Quantative information about the significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value
measurement if reasonably available
Description of valuation processes, policies and procedures
If the highest and best use differs from its current use, an entity should disclose the
fact and why the non-financial asset is being used in a manner that differs from its
highest and best use
Narrative description of sensitivity of the fair value measurement to significant changes
in unobservable inputs (recurring only)

If there is evidence that users of financial

statements need additional information
to evaluate the quantitative information
disclosed, the entity should disclose
additional information necessary to meet
this objective.

A practical guide to IFRS Fair value measurement

Due to the lack of active markets for

identical assets, preparers of fair value
measurements for real estate often will have
to rely on Level 2 or Level 3 inputs; this
could result in considerably more work for
reporting entities in the real estate industry.

Outlook
Market value should not change due to a
new fair value definition, and the concepts
in IFRS 13 are in line with the current
practice in general, so the measurement
results should be quite similar in most
circumstances under the new standard as
under IAS 40.
Nevertheless, the new valuation premises
and the new principles may have an
impact on the real estate industry. Real
estate entities should consider what
kind of (limited) situations will require a
redefinition of the rules and procedures to
fulfil the regulations of the new fair value
measurement standard. At the same time,
all real estate entities will face with a lot

more disclosure requirements as a result

of the new regulations. Management may
need to reconsider some of the valuation
procedures in place to minimise the impact
as far as possible.
Regarding the valuation principles and
the valuations under IFRS 13, there may
be a new challenge for management to
make judgments and to explain their
decisions and their resulting influence on
the valuation results. During the next few
months, management, valuation experts
and auditors will become familiar with
the IFRS 13 and will face new questions,
especially when presented with scenarios to
be considered in future valuations.

A practical guide to IFRS Fair value measurement

Contacts
Australia
IFRS specialist: James Dunning
james.dunning@au.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Peter Power
peter.power@au.pwc.com

Hungary
Valuation specialist: Nora Sarlos
nora.sarlos@hu.pwc.com

Austria
Valuation specialist: Wolfgang Vejdovsky
wolfgang.vejdovsky@at.pwc.com

Italy
IFRS specialist: Elisabetta Caldirola
elisabetta.c.caldirola@it.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Margherita Biancheri
margherita.biancheri@it.pwc.com

Belgium
IFRS specialist: Ann Smolders
ann.smolders@be.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Jean-Paul Ducarme
jean-paul.ducarme.rbr@be.pwc.com

Japan
IFRS specialist: Takeshi Shimizu
takeshi.shimizu@jp.pwc.com
Steve Sloman
steve.p.sloman@jp.pwc.com

Bulgaria
Valuation specialist: Vanya Assenova
vanya.assenova@bg.pwc.com

Luxembourg
IFRS specialist: Kees Hage
kees.hage@lu.pwc.com
Kenneth Iek
kenneth.iek@lu.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Philipp Koch
philipp.koch@lu.pwc.com

Canada
IFRS specialist: Frank Magliocco
frank.magliocco@ca.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Michael Chung
michael.chung@ca.pwc.com
Channel Islands
IFRS specialist: Karl Hairon
karl.hairon@je.pwc.com
China
Valuation specialist: Nova Chan
nova.chan@cn.pwc.com
Cyprus & Global ACS Leader
IFRS specialist: Tasos Nolas
tasos.nolas@cy.pwc.com
Czech Republic
Valuation specialist: Jan Hadrava
jan.hadrava@cz.pwc.com
Denmark
IFRS specialist: Henrik Steffensen
henrik.steffensen@dk.pwc.com
France
IFRS specialist: Daniel Fesson
daniel.fesson@fr.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Geoffroy Schmitt
geoffroy.schmitt@fr.pwc.com
Germany
IFRS specialists: Anita Dietrich
anita.dietrich@de.pwc.com
Daniel Ranker
daniel.ranker@de.pwc.com
Valuation specialist:
Dirk Hennig
dirk.hennig@de.pwc.com
Hong Kong
IFRS specialist: Alan Ho
alan.ho@hk.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Christopher Chan
christopher.chan@hk.pwc.com

Norway
IFRS specialist: Ola Anfinsen
ola.anfinsen@no.pwc.com
Poland
IFRS specialist: Malgorzata Szymanek-Wilk
malgorzata.szymanek-wilk@pl.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Grazyna Wiejak-Roy
grazyna.wiejak-roy@pl.pwc.com
Portugal
Valuation specialist: Teresa Santos
teresa.oliveira.santos@pt.pwc.com
Romania
Valuation specialist: Razvan Penescu
razvan.penescu@ro.pwc.com
Russia
Valuation specialist: Mark Hannye
mark.hannye@ru.pwc.com
Singapore
IFRS specialist: Eng Beng Choo
eng.beng.choo@sg.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Kok Keong Lie
kok.keong.lie@sg.pwc.com
Spain
IFRS specialist: Gonzalo Sanjurjo Pose
gonzalo.sanjurjo.pose@es.pwc.com
Sweden
IFRS specialist: Johan Ericsson
johan.m.ericsson@se.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Per-Erik Waller
per.erik.waller@se.pwc.com
Switzerland
IFRS specialist: Markus Schmid
markus.schmid@ch.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Marie Seiler
marie.seiler@ch.pwc.com

(continued)

10

A practical guide to IFRS Fair value measurement

Contacts (continued)
The Netherlands
IFRS specialist: Sidney Herwig
sidney.herwig@nl.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Jens Osinga
jens.osinga@nl.pwc.com
Turkey
Valuation specialist: Orhan Cem
orhan.cem@tr.pwc.com
United Kingdom
IFRS specialist: Sandra Dowling
sandra.dowling@uk.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: Nick Croft
nicholas.h.croft@uk.pwc.com
United States
IFRS specialist: Tom Wilkin
tom.wilkin@us.pwc.com
Valuation specialist: David Seaman
david.p.seaman@us.pwc.com

A practical guide to IFRS Fair value measurement

11