|
Significant Accounting Policies (Policy)
|
6 Months Ended |
|---|---|
|
Jun. 30, 2012
|
|
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract] | |
| Financial Instruments and Fair Value | Financial Instruments and Fair Value — Valuation Process.
The Valuation Review Group (“VRG”) within the Financial Control Group (“FCG”) is responsible for the Company's fair value valuation policies, processes and procedures. VRG is independent of the business units and reports to the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), who has final authority over the valuation of the Company's financial instruments. VRG implements valuation control processes to validate the fair value of the Company's financial instruments measured at fair value including those derived from pricing models. These control processes are designed to assure that the values used for financial reporting are based on observable inputs wherever possible. In the event that observable inputs are not available, the control processes are designed to assure that the valuation approach utilized is appropriate and consistently applied and the assumptions are reasonable.
The Company's control processes apply to financial instruments categorized in Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, unless otherwise noted. These control processes include:
Model Review. VRG, in conjunction with the Market Risk Department (“MRD”) and, where appropriate, the Credit Risk Management Department, both of which report to the Chief Risk Officer, independently review the valuation model's theoretical soundness, the appropriateness of the valuation methodology and calibration techniques developed by the business units using observable inputs. Where inputs are not observable, VRG reviews the appropriateness of the proposed valuation methodology to ensure it is consistent with how a market participant would arrive at the unobservable input. The valuation methodologies utilized in the absence of observable inputs may include extrapolation techniques and the use of comparable observable inputs. As part of the review, VRG develops a methodology to independently verify the fair value generated by the business unit's valuation model. Before trades are executed using new valuation models, those models are required to be independently reviewed. All of the Company's valuation models are subject to an independent annual VRG review.
Independent Price Verification. The business units are responsible for determining the fair value of financial instruments using approved valuation models and valuation methodologies. Generally on a monthly basis, VRG independently validates the fair values of financial instruments determined using valuation models by determining the appropriateness of the inputs used by the business units and testing compliance with the documented valuation methodologies approved in the model review process described above.
VRG uses recently executed transactions, other observable market data such as exchange data, broker/dealer quotes, third-party pricing vendors and aggregation services for validating the fair values of financial instruments generated using valuation models. VRG assesses the external sources and their valuation methodologies to determine if the external providers meet the minimum standards expected of a third-party pricing source. Pricing data provided by approved external sources is evaluated using a number of approaches; for example, by corroborating the external sources' prices to executed trades, analyzing the methodology and assumptions used by the external source to generate a price and/or by evaluating how active the third-party pricing source (or originating sources used by the third-party pricing source) is in the market. Based on this analysis, VRG generates a ranking of the observable market data to ensure that the highest-ranked market data source is used to validate the business unit's fair value of financial instruments.
For financial instruments categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, VRG reviews the business unit's valuation techniques to ensure these are consistent with market participant assumptions.
The results of this independent price verification and any adjustments made by VRG to the fair value generated by the business units are presented to management of the three business segments (i.e., Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management), the CFO and the Chief Risk Officer on a regular basis.
Review of New Level 3 Transactions. VRG reviews the model and valuation methodology used to price all new material Level 3 transactions and both FCG and MRD management must approve the fair value of the trade that is initially recognized.
|
| Consolidated Statements Of Cash Flows | Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. For purposes of the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows, cash and cash equivalents consist of Cash and due from banks and Interest bearing deposits with banks, which are highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less and readily convertible to known amounts of cash, and are held for investment purposes. In the six months ended June 30, 2012, the Company's significant non-cash activities include approximately $2.4 billion and $1.0 billion, respectively of assets and liabilities disposed of, in connection with business dispositions. At June 30, 2011, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (“MUFG”) and the Company converted MUFG's outstanding Series B Non-Cumulative Non-Voting Perpetual Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series B Preferred Stock”) in the Company with a face value of $7.8 billion (carrying value $8.1 billion) into the Company's common stock. As a result of the adjustment to the conversion ratio, pursuant to the transaction agreement, the Company incurred a one-time, non-cash negative adjustment of approximately $1.7 billion in its calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share during the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2011 (see Note 14).
|
| Securities Available for Sale, Policy | Securities Available for Sale – Other-than-temporary Impairment.
For available for sale (“AFS”) debt securities, a credit loss exists if the present value of cash flows expected to be collected is less than the amortized cost basis of the security. When determining if a credit loss exists, the Company considers all relevant information including the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than the amortized cost basis; adverse conditions specifically related to the security, an industry, or geographic area; changes in the financial condition of the issuer of the security, or in the case of an asset-backed debt security, changes in the financial condition of the underlying loan obligors; the historical and implied volatility of the fair value of the security; the payment structure of the debt security and the likelihood of the issuer being able to make payments that increase in the future; failure of the issuer of the security to make scheduled interest or principal payments; any changes to the rating of the security by a rating agency and recoveries or additional declines in fair value after the balance sheet date. When estimating the present value of expected cash flows, information shall include the remaining payment terms of the security, prepayment speeds, financial condition of the issuer(s), expected defaults and the value of any underlying collateral.
For AFS equity securities, the Company considers various factors including the intent and ability to hold the equity security for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in market value in evaluating whether an other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) exists. If the equity security is considered other-than-temporarily impaired, the security will be written down to fair value, with the full difference between fair value and cost recognized in earnings.
|
| Schedule of New Accounting Pronouncements and Changes in Accounting Principles | Accounting Developments.
Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements.
In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued accounting guidance that modifies the criteria that must be satisfied for a transfer of financial assets to be accounted for as a sale. If the transferor maintains effective control over the transferred assets, the transaction is to be accounted for as a financing. This guidance eliminates from the assessment of effective control (1) the criterion requiring the transferor to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial assets on substantially the agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee, and (2) the collateral maintenance implementation guidance related to that criterion. This guidance is effective for transfers occurring on and after January 1, 2012. The adoption of this accounting guidance did not have a material impact on the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.
Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS.
In May 2011, the FASB issued an accounting update that clarifies existing fair value measurement guidance and changes certain principles or requirements for measuring fair value or disclosing information about fair value measurements. This update results in common principles and requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurement in accordance with U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). The guidance became effective for the Company beginning on January 1, 2012. See Note 3 for additional disclosures as required by this accounting guidance.
Goodwill Impairment Test.
In September 2011, the FASB issued accounting guidance that simplifies how entities test goodwill for impairment. This guidance allows entities an option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform the two-step quantitative goodwill impairment test. Under that option, an entity no longer would be required to calculate the fair value of a reporting unit unless the entity determines, based on that qualitative assessment, that it is more likely than not that its fair value is less than its carrying amount. This guidance became effective for the Company beginning on January 1, 2012. The adoption of this accounting guidance did not have a material impact on the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.
|