USSG § 2F1.1, comment. (n.8(b)) (Nov. 2000) with USSG § 2B1.1, comment. (n.2(E)(ii)) (Nov. 2001) (emphases added). But this change in the language of the Guidelines does not require that we abandon the perspective of the victim, as Kraus suggests. In fact, when collateral has been disposed of, the focus of the then-applicable version of the Guidelines remained on “the amount the victim has recovered,” suggesting that fair market value should be assessed from the victim’s point of view. See USSG § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(E)(ii)) (Nov. 2014). Kraus also cites cases holding that the fair market value of the actual loss of a victim depends on the market in which the owner, the victim, was selling an item at the time it was stolen. See United States v. Wasz, 450 F.3d 720, 727 (7th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hardy, 289 F.3d 608, 613-14
holding that where the real value of an anchoring system design is in the idea not in the physical plans that memorialize it any loss in value of the design represents a loss in the value of the idea which is not a loss of use of tangible property holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else holding that in determining actual loss of merchandise stolen from retailers a reasonable estimate  is retail value holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss holding that the district court was best positioned to assess witness credibility when determining the plaintiffs actual loss