Note 12 - Fair Value of Financial Instruments | 9 Months Ended |
Sep. 30, 2013 |
Fair Value Disclosures [Abstract] | ' |
Fair Value Disclosures [Text Block] | ' |
12. Fair Value of Financial Instruments: |
|
Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair-Value – The Company follows authoritative guidance on fair value measurements, which defines fair-value, establishes a framework for measuring fair-value, and expands disclosures about fair-value measurements. The guidance applies to reported balances that are required or permitted to be measured at fair-value under existing accounting pronouncements. |
|
The Company follows authoritative guidance on the fair value option for financial assets, which permits companies to choose to measure certain financial instruments and other items at fair-value in order to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently. However, we have not elected to measure any additional financial instruments and other items at fair-value (other than those previously required under other GAAP rules or standards) under the provisions of this standard. |
|
The guidance emphasizes that fair-value is a market-based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement. Therefore, a fair-value measurement should be determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. As a basis for considering market participant assumptions in fair-value measurements, the guidance establishes a fair-value hierarchy that distinguishes between market participant assumptions based on market data obtained from sources independent of the reporting entity (observable inputs that are classified within Levels 1 and 2 of the hierarchy) and the reporting entity’s own assumptions about market participant assumptions (unobservable inputs classified within Level 3 of the hierarchy). In instances where the determination of the fair-value measurement is based on inputs from different levels of the fair-value hierarchy, the level in the fair-value hierarchy within which the entire fair-value measurement falls is based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair-value measurement in its entirety. Our assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair-value measurement in its entirety requires judgment, and considers factors specific to the asset or liability. |
|
The following table represents the carrying value and fair value of the Company’s financial assets and liabilities as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. |
|
| | 30-Sep-13 | | | 31-Dec-12 | |
Description | | Carrying | | | Fair Value | | | Carrying | | | Fair Value | |
Value | | Value | |
| (Level 2) | | (Level 2) |
Investment in Marketable Securities | | $ | 3,558,237 | | | $ | 3,558,237* | | | $ | 4,516,472 | | | $ | 4,516,472 | |
|
*The Company received $865,941 in principal repayments during the first nine-months of 2013. |
|
During 2012, the Company purchased mortgage backed securities with either AA or AAA ratings fully guaranteed by US government agencies (the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation). The fair values of mortgage backed securities originated by US government agencies are based on a pricing model that incorporates coupon type, prepayment speeds and the type of collateral backing the securities. A discount rate is applied to the cashflows in the model to arrive at the fair value. Market quotes, current yields, and their spreads to benchmark indices are obtained for each type of security. With this data, a yield curve is derived for each category of mortgage backed securities. Each security is priced by discounting the cashflow stream by the appropriate yield found on the yield curve. As the significant inputs used to derive the value of the mortgage-backed securities are observable market inputs, the fair value of these securities are included in the Level 2 fair value hierarchy. |
|
The Company estimates that fair value approximates carrying value for cash equivalents, rents receivable, prepaid and other assets, and accounts payable due to the relatively short maturity of the instruments. |
|
The Company determined the fair value of its mortgage loans payable approximated book value at December 31, 2012 and did not have any mortgage payable at September 30, 2013. The Company based its decision by looking at current rates available based on the Company’s estimate for nonperformance and liquidity risk, the Company’s loan to value ratio, the maturity of the debt and the underlying security for the debt. |
|
Fair Value Measurements: |
|
The following tables present the Company's assets and liabilities from continuing operations measured at fair value on a recurring and non-recurring basis as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, aggregated by the level in the fair value hierarchy within which those measurements fall: |
|
| | Balance | | | Fair Value Measurements Using | |
Description | | September 30, 2013 | | | (Level 1) | | | (Level 2) | | | (Level 3) | |
Impaired real estate assets* | | $ | 6,530,656 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 6,530,656 | |
|
The Company estimates the fair value of its real estate assets by using income and market valuation techniques. The Company may estimate fair values using market information such as broker opinions of value, appraisals, and recent sales data for similar assets or discounted cash flow models, which primarily rely on Level 3 inputs. The cash flow models include estimated cash inflows and outflows over a specified holding period. These cash flows may include contractual rental revenues, projected future rental revenues and expenses and forecasted tenant improvements and lease commissions based upon market conditions determined through discussion with local real estate professionals, experience the Company has with its other owned properties in such markets and expectations for growth. Capitalization rates and discount rates utilized in these models are estimated by management based upon rates that management believes to be within a reasonable range of current market rates for the respective properties based upon an analysis of factors such as property and tenant quality, geographical location and local supply and demand observations. To the extent the Company under estimates forecasted cash outflows (tenant improvements, lease commissions and operating costs) or over estimates forecasted cash inflows (rental revenue rates), the estimated fair value of its real estate assets could be overstated. |
|
The company did not have any real estate impaired in 2012. |
|
The Company has maintained an interest in the Grove, which originally represented a 20% limited partnership interest in the Grove. Based on four subsequent capital raises through 2009, each of which the Company chose not to participate in, the Company’s share was diluted to approximately 9.99% as of December 31, 2010, and has since been diluted to 9.32%. On March 18, 2011, the Grove’s lender, Prudential Industrial Properties, LLC ("Prudential"), commenced a foreclosure action against the Grove by filing a complaint in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County to foreclose upon the Grove property, alleging that the Grove had defaulted on its loan from Prudential and that the Grove was indebted to Prudential in the amount of over $37 million in principal and over $8 million in interest and fees. On September 19, 2013, the Grove was sold, the foreclosure action was dismissed and the Grove’s debt to Prudential was repaid. The investment is held in a taxable REIT subsidiary of the Company with $0 value and the Company has a $1,315,000 deferred tax liability related to the Grove, which represents taxable losses not yet recorded pursuant to the equity method of accounting. Gyrodyne did not receive any distribution in connection with the sale. Under the agreement with the purchaser, Grove may receive certain additional payments if certain development benchmarks are achieved by the purchaser. Gyrodyne cannot predict whether these benchmarks will be achieved or as to the timing or amount of any further distributions by Grove. Gyrodyne does anticipate it will be required to recognize its deferred tax liability during 2014. |
|
The facts and circumstances of the Grove make it unreasonable to present a fair value utilizing a Level 3 methodology, the lowest methodology which allows for broad assumptions; therefore, in accordance with the exception rules for thinly traded/lack of marketability of distressed assets, the Company is not presenting a fair value. The Company is accounting for the investment under the equity method. As of September 30, 2013, the carrying value of the Company’s investment was $0. |