Fair value of financial instruments

The following table shows the fair values of financial instruments based on the valuation methods and assumptions set out below. This table is presented because not all financial instruments are disclosed at their fair values in the consolidated financial statements. The fair value equates to the price at the date of measurement which could be realised from the sale of the asset, or which must be settled for the transfer of the liability, in an orderly transaction between market participants.

The following valuation methods are used to determine the fair value of on-balance-sheet financial instruments:

Cash and cash equivalents, money-market paper

For the balance-sheet-items “Cash and cash equivalents” and “Receivables arising from money-market paper”, which do not have a published market value on a recognised stock exchange or on a representative market, the fair value corresponds to the amount payable at the balance-sheet date.

Due from/to banks and customers, medium-term notes, debenture issues

In determining the fair value of amounts due from/to banks, due from/to customers (including mortgage receivables and due to customers in the form of savings and deposits), as well as of medium-term notes and debenture issues with a fixed maturity or a refinancing profile, the net present value method is applied (discounting of monetary flows with swap rates corresponding to the respective term). For products whose interest or payment flows cannot be determined in advance, replicating portfolios are used.

Trading portfolios, trading portfolios pledged as security, financial instruments at fair value

Fair value corresponds to market value for the majority of these financial instruments. The fair value of non-exchange-listed financial instruments (in particular for structured credit loans) is determined only on the basis of external traders’ prices or pricing models which are based on prices and interest rates in an observable, active and liquid market.

Derivative financial instruments

For the majority of the positive and negative replacement values (see note 18), the fair value equates to the market value. The fair value for derivative instruments without market value is determined using uniform models. These valuation models take account of the relevant parameters such as contract specifications, the market price of the underlying security, the yield curve and volatility.

Valuation methods for financial instruments

The fair value of listed securities held for trading purposes or as financial instruments, as well as that of listed derivatives and other financial instruments with a price established in an active market, is determined on the basis of current market value (Level 1). Valuation methods or pricing models are used to determine the fair value of financial instruments if no direct market prices are available. If possible, the underlying assumptions are based on observed market prices or other market indicators as at the balance-sheet date (Level 2). For most of the derivatives traded over the counter, as well as for other financial instruments that are not traded in an active market, fair value is determined by means of valuation methods or pricing models. Among the most frequently applied of those methods and models are cash-value-based forward pricing and swap models, as well as options pricing models such as the Black-Scholes model or derivations thereof. The fair values arrived at on the basis of these methods and models are influenced to a signi­ficant degree by the choice of the specific valuation model and the underlying assumptions applied, for example the amounts and time sequence of future cash flows, discount rates, volatilities and/or credit risks. 

If neither current market prices nor valuation methods/models based on observable market data can be drawn on for the purpose of determining fair value, then valuation methods or pricing models supported by realistic assumptions derived from actual market data are used (Level 3). Level 3 principally includes investment funds, for which an obligatory net asset value is not published at least on a quarterly basis. The fair value of these positions is, as a rule, computed on the basis of external estimates by experts in relation to the level of future distributions of fund units, or equates to the acquisition cost of the securities less any applicable valuation allowances.

In the financial year 2016, positions with a fair value of CHF 0.0 million (2015: CHF 4.5 million) were reclassified from Level 1 (quoted market prices) to Level 2 (valuation methods based on market data), CHF 0.0 million (2015: CHF 0.0 million) from Level 2 to Level 3 (valuation methods, based on non market-data-related assumptions) as well as CHF 0.0 million from Level 3 to Level 2 (2015: CHF 4.3 million). The reclassifications are made as of the end of the reporting period in the case of changes in the availability of market prices (market liquidity). Additionally, in financial year 2016, CHF 3,525 million in cash and cash equivalents were reclassified from Level 2 (valuation methods, based on market data) to Level 1 (quoted market prices).

No deferred day 1 profit or loss (difference between the transaction price and the fair value calculated on the transaction day) was reported for Level 3 positions as of 31 December 2016 or 31 December 2015.

Sensitivity of fair values of Level 3 financial instruments

Changes in the net asset values of investment funds lead to corresponding changes in the fair values of these financial instruments. A realistic change in the basic assumptions or estimated values has no material impact on the statement of income, other comprehensive income or the equity of VP Bank Group’s shareholders.

Netting agreements

In order to reduce the credit risks in connection with financial derivatives, repurchase and reverse repurchase as well as securities-lending and -borrowing transactions, VP Bank Group enters into global offset agreements or similar arrangements (netting agreements) with its counter-parties. These include ISDA Master Netting Agreements, Global Master Securities Lending Agreements and Global Master Repo Agreements. Using netting agreements, VP Bank Group can protect itself against losses arising from possible insolvency proceedings or other circumstances in which the counter­- party is unable to meet its obligations. In such cases, netting agreements foresee the immediate offset and/or settlement of all financial instruments falling under the related agreement. A right of offset, in principle, exists only whenever a default in payment or other circumstances occur which are not expected in the ordinary course of business. Financial instruments falling under a netting agreement do not meet the set-off requirements for balance-sheet purposes, which is why the related financial instruments are not netted in the balance sheet.