ASBJ 30 Accounting Standard for Fair Value Measurement
Library Dashboard
Library Statistics
10 Frameworks
526 Standards
Quick Tip

Click any framework on the left rail to instantly explore its list of standards.

Framework Overview
Framework Overview
Framework Overview
General Principles
Presentation
Assets
Liabilities
Equity
Revenue
Expenses
Broad Transactions
Agriculture
Airlines
Contractors
Development Stage Entities
Entertainment
Extractive Activities
Financial Services
Franchisors
Health Care Entities
Not-for-Profit Entities
Plan Accounting
Real Estate
Regulated Operations
Software
U.S. Steamship Entities
Framework Overview
Framework
Standards
SORPs
Framework Overview
Standards
Small Business
Framework Overview
General Standards
Assets
Liabilities, Equity, Revenue & Other
Accounting Guidelines
Framework Overview
ASBJ Statements
JMIS Standards
Implementation Guidance
Practical Solutions
Framework Overview
HGB Standards
DRS Standards
Framework Overview
IFRS Standards
IFRS for SMEs
IFRS Publications
IFRS Sustainability
IFRIC
SIC
Framework Overview
IPSAS Standards
Cash Basis IPSAS
RPG – Recommended Practice Guidelines
SRS – Sustainability Reporting Standards
Conceptual Framework
Supporting / Reference Material

ASBJ 30

Accounting Standard for Fair Value Measurement

Accounting Standard for Fair Value Measurement is part of the Japan GAAP framework.

Issued
Jan 2000
Latest amendment
Jan 2024
1

Conceptual Framework Linkage

A single, consistent definition and hierarchy across all of J-GAAP
ASBJ Statement No. 30 establishes a SINGLE, UNIFIED definition and MEASUREMENT hierarchy for "FAIR VALUE" (時価) APPLICABLE across EVERY other J-GAAP standard that REQUIRES a fair value measurement – financial instruments (ASBJ Statement No. 10), business combinations (ASBJ Statement No. 21), impairment testing, and more – REPLACING what was PREVIOUSLY scattered, standard-by-standard fair value guidance WITHOUT a single, consistent framework.
2

Scope

Applies wherever another J-GAAP standard requires fair value measurement
This Statement applies WHEREVER another J-GAAP standard REQUIRES (or permits) a fair value measurement – it does NOT itself DETERMINE which items should be measured at fair value (that remains the ROLE of the individual standard concerned), but rather supplies the CONSISTENT definition and methodology for HOW that fair value measurement should be PERFORMED.
3

Fair Value Defined – an Exit Price Notion

Directly mirroring IFRS 13's definition
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 – a genuine "EXIT PRICE" notion, DIRECTLY MIRRORING IFRS 13's own DEFINITION internationally, WORD-FOR-WORD in SUBSTANCE.
4

The Three-Level Fair Value Hierarchy

Prioritising observable market inputs over unobservable estimates
Level Description
Level 1QUOTED prices in ACTIVE markets for IDENTICAL assets/liabilities – the HIGHEST quality, most reliable input
Level 2OBSERVABLE inputs OTHER than quoted prices (e.g. quoted prices for SIMILAR assets, or observable market data such as interest rates/yield curves)
Level 3UNOBSERVABLE inputs, used ONLY when observable market data is NOT available – requiring the GREATEST degree of judgement
This THREE-LEVEL hierarchy DIRECTLY MIRRORS IFRS 13's OWN structure internationally.
5

Unifying Previously Scattered Guidance

A single reference point, replacing standard-by-standard fair value rules
BEFORE this Statement, fair value MEASUREMENT guidance was SCATTERED across the INDIVIDUAL J-GAAP standards that HAPPENED to require it – WITHOUT a SINGLE, consistent DEFINITION or HIERARCHY applicable UNIFORMLY across ALL of them. ASBJ Statement No. 30 CONSOLIDATED this into ONE unified reference framework – CLOSELY paralleling how IFRS 13 ITSELF consolidated PREVIOUSLY scattered fair value guidance that existed across MULTIPLE individual IFRS standards before ITS OWN introduction internationally.
6

A NOTABLE CONTRAST – Another Case of Direct Current-Standard Adoption

Alongside Revenue Recognition, a genuine "kept pace" example
LIKE ASBJ Statement No. 29 (Revenue Recognition), this Statement represents a case where J-GAAP DIRECTLY ADOPTED the CURRENT international framework (IFRS 13) from the OUTSET, RATHER than remaining anchored to an OLDER, SCATTERED approach for an extended period. TOGETHER, these two Statements illustrate that J-GAAP's convergence PACE is genuinely UNEVEN across TOPIC areas – SOME standards (financial instruments, leases, insurance-adjacent areas) have LAGGED behind superseded international models for YEARS, while OTHERS (revenue recognition, fair value measurement) were built DIRECTLY around the CURRENT standard from the START.
7

Worked Example – Classifying a Level 1 Measurement

The highest-quality fair value input
Example: Listed equity securities
A company holds shares in a company listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, with a readily available, actively traded quoted market price.
This is classified as a LEVEL 1 fair value measurement – the QUOTED market price for an IDENTICAL asset in an ACTIVE market provides the HIGHEST-quality, most DIRECTLY observable fair value input available.
8

Worked Example – Classifying a Level 3 Measurement

Relying on unobservable inputs
Example: An unlisted equity investment
A company holds a small equity stake in an unlisted start-up, with no observable market price and no comparable recent transactions. Fair value is estimated using a discounted cash flow model based on internally projected future cash flows.
This is classified as a LEVEL 3 fair value measurement – since the valuation relies on genuinely UNOBSERVABLE inputs (management's own internal projections), requiring the GREATEST degree of JUDGEMENT among the three hierarchy levels.
9

Disclosure Requirements

What ASBJ Statement No. 30 requires
Fair value hierarchy level for each class of asset/liability measured at fair value Valuation techniques and significant unobservable inputs used for Level 3 measurements Transfers between hierarchy levels during the period
10

Critical Judgments & Estimates

Where judgement matters most
SIGNIFICANT JUDGEMENTS
Correctly classifying a fair value measurement within the appropriate hierarchy level
SIGNIFICANT ESTIMATES
Unobservable inputs and valuation model assumptions used for Level 3 measurements
11

Relationship to IAS/IFRS

Comparison – J-GAAP vs IFRS 13
Feature J-GAAP (ASBJ Statement No. 30) IFRS (IFRS 13)
Fair value definitionExit price notionExit price notion – converged
Hierarchy structureThree levels (1, 2, 3)Three levels (1, 2, 3) – converged
This is ONE of the MOST thoroughly converged, genuinely UNIFIED standards in the ENTIRE J-GAAP suite – a DIRECT, CURRENT-standard adoption rather than a lagged or partially converged treatment.
12

Statement Mapping

Where every fair value measurement lands
Event Statement(s) affected Notes
Any fair value measurementVaries by underlying itemThe methodology is uniform; the STATEMENT effect follows the specific item's own governing standard
13

Related Standards

Cross-reference map
Standard Connection
ASBJ Statement No. 10Financial Instruments – a primary consumer of this Statement's fair value framework
ASBJ Statement No. 21Business Combinations – relies on this Statement's fair value methodology for acquisition accounting
14

Quick-Reference Glossary

Fair value (時価)
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.
Fair value hierarchy
A three-level classification (observable to unobservable inputs) indicating the reliability of a fair value measurement.
Financial statement key (Japan GAAP terminology)
BS Balance Sheet (貸借対照表) P&L Statement of Income / Profit and Loss Statement (損益計算書) Net Assets 純資産の部 SCNA Statement of Changes in Net Assets (株主資本等変動計算書) SCF Statement of Cash Flows (キャッシュ・フロー計算書)