XML 196 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Derivative Financial Instruments and Fair Value and Credit Risk of Financial Instruments
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Derivative Financial Instruments and Fair Value and Credit Risk of Financial Instruments
19. DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND FAIR VALUE AND CREDIT RISK OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

Risk management activities

In the normal course of its operations, the Group is exposed to commodity price, currency, interest rate, liquidity and credit risk. In order to manage these risks, the Group has developed a comprehensive risk management process to facilitate control and monitoring of these risks.

Concentration of credit risk

The Group’s financial instruments do not represent a concentration of credit risk as the Group deals with a number of major banks. Accounts receivable are regularly monitored and assessed and where necessary an adequate level of provision is maintained.

A formal process of allocating counterparty exposure and prudential limits is approved by the audit committee and is applied under the supervision of the Group’s executive committee. Facilities requiring margin payments are not engaged.

Concentration of labor

Three quarters of the Group’s total workforce is unionized (74%), but patterns of union participation vary considerably between locations. Each of the Group’s regions have the following levels of union participation within their workforce:

- Peru 14%

- Australia 0%

- South Africa 91%

- Ghana 95%

Foreign currency and commodity price risk

In the normal course of business, the Group enters into transactions for the sale of its gold, denominated in U.S. Dollars. In addition, the Group has assets and liabilities in a number of different currencies (South African Rand, U.S. Dollars and Australian Dollars). As a result, the Group is subject to transaction and translation exposure from fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates.

As at December 31, 2013 and 2012, Gold Fields did not hold any derivative instruments to protect its exposure to adverse movements in gold and copper commodity prices.

Under the long-established structure of sales agreements prevalent in the industry, substantially all of Gold Fields’ copper concentrate sales are provisionally priced at the time of shipment. The provisional prices are finalized in a contractually specified future period (generally one to three months) primarily based on quoted London Metal Exchange, or LME, prices. Sales subject to final pricing are generally settled in a subsequent month. Because a significant portion of Gold Fields’ copper concentrate sales in a period usually remain subject to final pricing, the forward price is a major determinant of recorded revenues and the average recorded copper price for the period.

LME copper prices averaged $7,324 per ton during the year ended December 31, 2013 (fiscal years ended December 31, 2012: $7,951 and December 31, 2011: $8,836 per ton), compared with the Company’s recorded average provisional price, net of refining charges, of $6,575 per ton. The applicable 3 month copper price at December 31, 2013 was $7,142 per ton, before taking into account refining charges. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, changes in copper prices resulted in a provisional pricing mark-to-market loss of $7.9 million (included in revenue) (fiscal years ended December 31, 2012 gain of $15.6 million and December 31, 2011 loss of $20.6 million).

Interest rate and liquidity risk

Fluctuations in interest rates impact on the value of investments and financing activities, giving rise to interest rate risk. The Group does not currently hedge its exposure to interest rate risk.

In the ordinary course of business, the Group receives cash proceeds from its operations and is required to fund working capital and capital expenditure requirements. The cash is managed to ensure surplus funds are invested to maximize returns while ensuring that capital is safeguarded to the maximum extent possible by investing only with top financial institutions.

Substantial contractual arrangements for uncommitted borrowing facilities are maintained with several banking counterparties to meet the Group’s normal contingency funding requirements.

Fair value

The fair value of a financial instrument is defined as the amount at which the instrument could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. The carrying amounts of receivables, accounts payable and cash and cash equivalents are a reasonable estimate of their fair values due to the short-term maturity of such instruments. The investments in the environmental trust fund approximate fair value, as the monies are invested in short-term maturity investments. The listed investments are carried at market value. Long-term loans at floating rates, approximate fair value as they are subject to market based floating rates.

The estimated fair values of the the Group’s financial instruments are:

 

     December 31, 2013      December 31, 2012  
     Carrying
value		      Fair value      Carrying
value		      Fair value  

Financial assets

            

Cash and cash equivalents

      325.0         325.0         655.6         655.6   

Receivables

      146.7         146.7         314.5         314.5   

Non-current investments *

      268.9         269.7         458.0         464.6   

Financial liabilities

            

Long-term loans

      1,938.6         1,794.4         2,321.2         2,322.4   

Accounts payable and provisions

      402.1         402.1         660.2         660.2   

Interest payable

      12.4         12.4         11.0         11.0   

Short-term loans and current portion of long-term loans

      121.5         121.5         40.0         40.0   

Other non-current liabilities

      10.9         10.9         13.9         13.9   

 

  * Fair value determined by using cost for Rand Refinery Limited and Far South East due to a market value not being readily available.

 

The Group utilizes valuation techniques that maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs to the extent possible. The Group determines fair value based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability in the principal or most advantageous market. When considering market participant assumptions in fair value measurements, the following fair value hierarchy distinguishes between observable and unobservable inputs, which are categorized in one of the following levels:

 

  •  

Level 1 Inputs: Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities accessible to the reporting entity at the measurement date.

 

  •  

Level 2 Inputs: Other than quoted prices included in Level 1 inputs that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.

 

  •  

Level 3 Inputs: Unobservable inputs for the asset or liability used to measure fair value to the extent that observable inputs are not available, thereby allowing for situations in which there is little, if any, market activity for the asset or liability at measurement date.

The following table sets forth the Group’s financial assets measured at fair value by level within the fair value hierarchy. As required by Accounting Standard Codification, or ASC, fair value guidance, assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

 

     Fair value at December 31, 2013  
     Total      Level 1      Level 2      Level 3  

Assets:

            

Listed investments

      3.2         3.2         —           —     

Unlisted investments

      4.3         —           —           4.3   

Trade receivable from provisional copper concentrate sales, net

      58.2         —           58.2         —     
  

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

  
     65.7         3.2         58.2         4.3   
  

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

  
     Fair value at December 31, 2012  
     Total      Level 1      Level 2      Level 3  

Assets:

            

Listed investments

      36.2         36.2         —           —     

Investments held by environmental trust funds

      165.3         135.3         30.0         —     

Unlisted investments

      1.3         —           —           1.3   

Trade receivable from provisional copper concentrate sales, net

      149.9         —           149.9         —     
  

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

  
     352.7         171.5         179.9         1.3   
  

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

     

 

 

  

The Group’s listed investments comprise equity investments in listed entities and are therefore valued using quoted market prices in active markets and classified within level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. The fair value of the listed investments is the product of the quoted market price and the number of shares held.

The Group investments held in environmental funds primarily comprise interest bearing short-term investments which are valued using quoted market prices.

 

The Group’s net trade receivable from provisional copper and gold concentrate sales in La Cima (Cerro Corona) is valued using quoted market prices based on the forward London Metal Exchange and classified within level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

The Group’s financial instruments valued using pricing models are classified within level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Where possible, the values produced by the valuation models are verified to market prices. Valuation models require a variery of inputs, including contractual terms, market prices, yield curves, credit spreads, measures of volatility and correlations of such inputs.

The table below sets forth a summary of changes in the fair value of our Level 3 financial assets.

 

     December 31,
2013		      December 31,
2012		  

Balance at the beginning of the period

      1.3         2.6   

Additions

      3.0         —     

Unrealized (loss)/ gain

      —           (1.3 ) 
  

 

 

     

 

 

  

Balance at the end of the period

      4.3         1.3   
  

 

 

     

 

 

  

Derivative contracts

St Ives Gold Mining Company (Pty) Ltd entered into a Singapore Gasoil 10PPM FOB cash settle and swap transaction for 7,500 barrels per month effective June 1, 2013 until March 31, 2014 at a fixed price of $115.00 per barrel. 30,000 barrels with a mark-to-market value of $0.3 million were outstanding at the end of December 2013.