Extra-financial Analysis of IFRS Adoption and Application in Developing Country： The Cas
ifrs6国际财务报告准则6号
IFRS6 International Financial Reporting Standard6Exploration for and Evaluation ofMineral ResourcesIn December2004the International Accounting Standards Board(IASB)issued IFRS6 Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources.Other IFRSs have made minor consequential amendments to IFRS6,including Improvement to IFRSs(issued April2009).IFRS Foundation A227IFRS6C ONTENTSfrom paragraph INTRODUCTION IN1 INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD6 EXPLORATION FOR AND EVALUATION OFMINERAL RESOURCESOBJECTIVE1 SCOPE3 RECOGNITION OF EXPLORATION AND EVALUATION ASSETS6 Temporary exemption from IAS8paragraphs11and126 MEASUREMENT OF EXPLORATION AND EVALUATION ASSETS8 Measurement at recognition8 Elements of cost of exploration and evaluation assets9 Measurement after recognition12 Changes in accounting policies13 PRESENTATION15 Classification of exploration and evaluation assets15 Reclassification of exploration and evaluation assets17 IMPAIRMENT18 Recognition and measurement18 Specifying the level at which exploration and evaluation assets are assessedfor impairment21 DISCLOSURE23 EFFECTIVE DATE26 TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS27 APPENDICESA Defined termsB Amendments to other IFRSsFOR THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS LISTED BELOW,SEE PART B OF THIS EDITIONAPPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF IFRS6ISSUED IN DECEMBER2004APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF AMENDMENTS TO IFRS1AND IFRS6ISSUED IN JUNE2005BASIS FOR CONCLUSIONSDISSENTING OPINIONSA228IFRS FoundationIFRS6 International Financial Reporting Standard6Exploration for and Evaluation of MineralResources(IFRS6)is set out in paragraphs1–27and Appendices A and B.All the paragraphs have equal authority.Paragraphs in bold type state the main principles. Terms defined in Appendix A are in italics the first time they appear in the Standard. Definitions of other terms are given in the Glossary for International Financial Reporting Standards.IFRS6should be read in the context of its objective and the Basis for Conclusions,the Preface to International Financial Reporting Standards and the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting.IAS8Accounting Policies,Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors provides a basis for selecting and applying accounting policies in the absence of explicit guidance.IFRS Foundation A229IFRS6IntroductionReasons for issuing the IFRSIN1The International Accounting Standards Board decided to develop an International Financial Reporting Standard(IFRS)on exploration for andevaluation of mineral resources because:(a)until now there has been no IFRS that specifically addresses theaccounting for those activities and they are excluded from the scope ofIAS38Intangible Assets.In addition,‘mineral rights and mineralresources such as oil,natural gas and similar non-regenerative resources’are excluded from the scope of IAS16Property,Plant and Equipment.Consequently,an entity was required to determine its accounting policyfor the exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources inaccordance with paragraphs10–12of IAS8Accounting Policies,Changes inAccounting Estimates and Errors.(b)there are different views on how exploration and evaluationexpenditures should be accounted for in accordance with IFRSs.(c)accounting practices for exploration and evaluation assets under therequirements of other standard-setting bodies are diverse and oftendiffer from practices in other sectors for expenditures that may beconsidered analogous(eg accounting practices for research anddevelopment costs in accordance with IAS38).(d)exploration and evaluation expenditures are significant to entitiesengaged in extractive activities.(e)an increasing number of entities incurring exploration and evaluationexpenditures present their financial statements in accordance withIFRSs,and many more are expected to do so from2005.IN2The Board’s predecessor organisation,the International Accounting Standards Committee,established a Steering Committee in1998to carry out initial workon accounting and financial reporting by entities engaged in extractiveactivities.In November2000the Steering Committee published an Issues PaperExtractive Industries.IN3In July2001the Board announced that it would restart the project only when agenda time permitted.Although the Board recognised the importance ofaccounting for extractive activities generally,it decided in September2002thatit was not feasible to complete the detailed analysis required for this project,obtain appropriate input from constituents and undertake the Board’s normaldue process in time to implement changes before many entities adopted IFRSs in2005.IN4The Board’s objectives for this phase of its extractive activities project are:A230IFRS FoundationIFRS6(a)to make limited improvements to accounting practices for explorationand evaluation expenditures,without requiring major changes thatmight be reversed when the Board undertakes a comprehensive review ofaccounting practices used by entities engaged in the exploration for andevaluation of mineral resources.(b)to specify the circumstances in which entities that recognise explorationand evaluation assets should test such assets for impairment inaccordance with IAS36Impairment of Assets.(c)to require entities engaged in the exploration for and evaluation ofmineral resources to disclose information about exploration andevaluation assets,the level at which such assets are assessed forimpairment and any impairment losses recognised.Main features of the IFRSIN5The IFRS:(a)permits an entity to develop an accounting policy for exploration andevaluation assets without specifically considering the requirements ofparagraphs11and12of IAS8.Thus,an entity adopting IFRS6maycontinue to use the accounting policies applied immediately beforeadopting the IFRS.This includes continuing to use recognition andmeasurement practices that are part of those accounting policies.(b)requires entities recognising exploration and evaluation assets toperform an impairment test on those assets when facts andcircumstances suggest that the carrying amount of the assets may exceedtheir recoverable amount.(c)varies the recognition of impairment from that in IAS36but measuresthe impairment in accordance with that Standard once the impairmentis identified.IFRS Foundation A231IFRS6International Financial Reporting Standard6Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources Objective1The objective of this IFRS is to specify the financial reporting for the exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources.2In particular,the IFRS requires:(a)limited improvements to existing accounting practices for exploration andevaluation expenditures.(b)entities that recognise exploration and evaluation assets to assess such assetsfor impairment in accordance with this IFRS and measure anyimpairment in accordance with IAS36Impairment of Assets.(c)disclosures that identify and explain the amounts in the entity’sfinancial statements arising from the exploration for and evaluation ofmineral resources and help users of those financial statementsunderstand the amount,timing and certainty of future cash flows fromany exploration and evaluation assets recognised.Scope3An entity shall apply the IFRS to exploration and evaluation expenditures that it incurs.4The IFRS does not address other aspects of accounting by entities engaged in the exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources.5An entity shall not apply the IFRS to expenditures incurred:(a)before the exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources,such asexpenditures incurred before the entity has obtained the legal rights toexplore a specific area.(b)after the technical feasibility and commercial viability of extracting amineral resource are demonstrable.Recognition of exploration and evaluation assetsTemporary exemption from IAS8paragraphs11and126When developing its accounting policies,an entity recognising exploration and evaluation assets shall apply paragraph10of IAS8Accounting Policies,Changes inAccounting Estimates and Errors.7Paragraphs11and12of IAS8specify sources of authoritative requirements and guidance that management is required to consider in developing an accountingpolicy for an item if no IFRS applies specifically to that item.Subject to A232IFRS FoundationIFRS6paragraphs9and10below,this IFRS exempts an entity from applying thoseparagraphs to its accounting policies for the recognition and measurement ofexploration and evaluation assets.Measurement of exploration and evaluation assetsMeasurement at recognition8Exploration and evaluation assets shall be measured at cost.Elements of cost of exploration and evaluation assets9An entity shall determine an accounting policy specifying which expenditures are recognised as exploration and evaluation assets and apply the policyconsistently.In making this determination,an entity considers the degree towhich the expenditure can be associated with finding specific mineral resources.The following are examples of expenditures that might be included in the initialmeasurement of exploration and evaluation assets(the list is not exhaustive):(a)acquisition of rights to explore;(b)topographical,geological,geochemical and geophysical studies;(c)exploratory drilling;(d)trenching;(e)sampling;and(f)activities in relation to evaluating the technical feasibility andcommercial viability of extracting a mineral resource.10Expenditures related to the development of mineral resources shall not be recognised as exploration and evaluation assets.The Framework1and IAS38Intangible Assets provide guidance on the recognition of assets arising fromdevelopment.11In accordance with IAS37Provisions,Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets an entity recognises any obligations for removal and restoration that are incurredduring a particular period as a consequence of having undertaken theexploration for and evaluation of mineral resources.Measurement after recognition12After recognition,an entity shall apply either the cost model or the revaluation model to the exploration and evaluation assets.If the revaluation model isapplied(either the model in IAS16Property,Plant and Equipment or the model inIAS38)it shall be consistent with the classification of the assets(seeparagraph15).1The reference to the Framework is to IASC’s Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements,adopted by the IASB in2001.In September2010the IASB replaced the Framework with the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting.IFRS Foundation A233IFRS6Changes in accounting policies13An entity may change its accounting policies for exploration and evaluation expenditures if the change makes the financial statementsmore relevant to the economic decision-making needs of users and noless reliable,or more reliable and no less relevant to those needs.Anentity shall judge relevance and reliability using the criteria in IAS8.14To justify changing its accounting policies for exploration and evaluation expenditures,an entity shall demonstrate that the change brings its financialstatements closer to meeting the criteria in IAS8,but the change need notachieve full compliance with those criteria.PresentationClassification of exploration and evaluation assets15An entity shall classify exploration and evaluation assets as tangible or intangible according to the nature of the assets acquired and apply theclassification consistently.16Some exploration and evaluation assets are treated as intangible(eg drilling rights),whereas others are tangible(eg vehicles and drilling rigs).To the extentthat a tangible asset is consumed in developing an intangible asset,the amountreflecting that consumption is part of the cost of the intangible asset.However,using a tangible asset to develop an intangible asset does not change a tangibleasset into an intangible asset.Reclassification of exploration and evaluation assets17An exploration and evaluation asset shall no longer be classified as such when the technical feasibility and commercial viability of extracting a mineralresource are demonstrable.Exploration and evaluation assets shall be assessedfor impairment,and any impairment loss recognised,before reclassification. ImpairmentRecognition and measurement18Exploration and evaluation assets shall be assessed for impairment when facts and circumstances suggest that the carrying amount of anexploration and evaluation asset may exceed its recoverable amount.When facts and circumstances suggest that the carrying amount exceedsthe recoverable amount,an entity shall measure,present and disclose anyresulting impairment loss in accordance with IAS36,except as providedby paragraph21below.19For the purposes of exploration and evaluation assets only,paragraph20of this IFRS shall be applied rather than paragraphs8–17of IAS36when identifying anexploration and evaluation asset that may be impaired.Paragraph20uses theterm‘assets’but applies equally to separate exploration and evaluation assets ora cash-generating unit.A234IFRS FoundationIFRS620One or more of the following facts and circumstances indicate that an entity should test exploration and evaluation assets for impairment(the list is notexhaustive):(a)the period for which the entity has the right to explore in the specificarea has expired during the period or will expire in the near future,andis not expected to be renewed.(b)substantive expenditure on further exploration for and evaluation ofmineral resources in the specific area is neither budgeted nor planned.(c)exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources in the specific areahave not led to the discovery of commercially viable quantities ofmineral resources and the entity has decided to discontinue suchactivities in the specific area.(d)sufficient data exist to indicate that,although a development in thespecific area is likely to proceed,the carrying amount of the explorationand evaluation asset is unlikely to be recovered in full from successfuldevelopment or by sale.In any such case,or similar cases,the entity shall perform an impairment test inaccordance with IAS36.Any impairment loss is recognised as an expense inaccordance with IAS36.Specifying the level at which exploration and evaluationassets are assessed for impairment21An entity shall determine an accounting policy for allocating exploration and evaluation assets to cash-generating units or groups ofcash-generating units for the purpose of assessing such assets forimpairment.Each cash-generating unit or group of units to which anexploration and evaluation asset is allocated shall not be larger than anoperating segment determined in accordance with IFRS8OperatingSegments.22The level identified by the entity for the purposes of testing exploration and evaluation assets for impairment may comprise one or more cash-generatingunits.Disclosure23An entity shall disclose information that identifies and explains the amounts recognised in its financial statements arising from theexploration for and evaluation of mineral resources.24To comply with paragraph23,an entity shall disclose:(a)its accounting policies for exploration and evaluation expendituresincluding the recognition of exploration and evaluation assets.(b)the amounts of assets,liabilities,income and expense and operating andinvesting cash flows arising from the exploration for and evaluation ofmineral resources.IFRS Foundation A235IFRS625An entity shall treat exploration and evaluation assets as a separate class of assets and make the disclosures required by either IAS16or IAS38consistentwith how the assets are classified.Effective date26An entity shall apply this IFRS for annual periods beginning on or after 1January2006.Earlier application is encouraged.If an entity applies the IFRSfor a period beginning before1January2006,it shall disclose that fact. Transitional provisions27If it is impracticable to apply a particular requirement of paragraph18to comparative information that relates to annual periods beginning before1January2006,an entity shall disclose that fact.IAS8explains the term‘impracticable’.A236IFRS FoundationAppendix ADefined termsThis appendix is an integral part of the IFRS.exploration and evaluation assets Exploration and evaluation expenditures recognised as assets in accordance with the entity’s accounting policy.exploration and evaluation expenditures Expenditures incurred by an entity in connection with the exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources before the technical feasibility and commercial viability of extracting a mineral resource are demonstrable.exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources The search for mineral resources,including minerals,oil,natural gas and similar non-regenerative resources after the entity has obtained legal rights to explore in a specific area,as well as the determination of the technical feasibility and commercial viability of extracting the mineral resource.IFRS6IFRS Foundation A237IFRS6Appendix BAmendments to other IFRSsThe amendments in this appendix shall be applied for annual periods beginning on or after 1January2006.If an entity applies this IFRS for an earlier period,these amendments shall be applied for that earlier period.*****The amendments contained in this appendix when this IFRS was issued in2004have been incorporated into the relevant IFRSs published in this volume.A238IFRS Foundation。
强制性采用国际财务报告准则影响影响 IPO 抑价吗
Does IFRS mandatory adoption influence IPO underpricing? July, 2013ABSTRACTThis study examines the impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on IPO underpricing. The latter is usually associated with information asymmetry among investors. We expected that IPO firms’ use of IFRS rather than domestic GAAP may affect IPO underpricing through two mechanisms: (1) the quality, and (2) the comparability of financial reports. We find that, mandatory IFRS adoption is not associated with a decrease in IPO underpricing and the only factor that is associated with IPO underpricing is the trend of the financial market. This analysis investigates the effects of the mandatory adoption of IAS/IFRS in an original way. It is the first Italian research that studies the effects of IAS/IFRS on the financial statements by analyzing their effects on the underpricing of IPOs. It shows that IFRS mandatory adoption does not reduce the asymmetry information among investors thus decreasing the underpricing.1.IntroductionFrom 2005 almost all publicly listed companies in Europe are required to prepare their financial statements according to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).The mandatory adoption of IFRS, instead of local GAAP, in the European Union, has been the most significant challenge regarding the financial reporting. Mandatory has been the adoption of a new set of principles for the preparation of the consolidated financial statements of publicly listed companies; while discretionary has been the adoption for the individual financial statements of publicly listed companies and for those companies not publicly listed.In Italy, in 2005, the government issued the Legislative Decree No. 38/2005. It prescribes that all listed companies and companies operating in the financial sector such as banks, supervised financial companies and companies issuing financial instruments widely distributed among the public, have to apply IFRS in their consolidated financial statements from 2005 onwards and in their individual financial statements from 2006 or, optionally, from 2005. Furthermore, the application of the new standards is also allowed to other non-listed companies; they can voluntary adopt IFRS for both individual and consolidated financial statements. Only companies presenting abbreviated financial statements are excluded. As for the individual account, IFRS have been authorized to give homogeneity to the financial statements (OIC, 2005)Proponents of mandatory IFRS adoptio n state that IFRS “will enable investors to compare the financial results of companies operating in different jurisdictions more easily and provide more opportunity for investments and diversification” (Tweedie, 2006).According to Ball (2006), IFRS could facilitate cross-border comparability and increase reporting transparency, enabling stakeholders to understand the financial results of firms in the whole world. Moreover, IFRS adoption could decrease information costs. Choi and Meek (2005), state that companies might also benefit by reducing information asymmetry, giving to all investors the chance to make more efficient investment decisions, and thus lowering the cost of capital. Investors may also benefit as it could lead to more-informed valuation of equity markets reducing the risk of adverse selection for the less-informed investors.All the above benefits rely on the presumption that mandatory IFRS adoption provides superior information to market participants compared to local GAAP.So in the past years empirical research has focused the attention on the transition process from local GAAP to IFRS and on the effects of IFRS adoption on the quality and on the comparability of the financial statements (Barth et al., 2008; Lang et al., 2012; De Fond at al., 2011).The aim of this research is to verify if, referring to the IPOs case, it’s possible to have information about the over and over stated higher quality and comparability of IFRS compliant financial statements1.As is known, with the term Initial Public Offering we mean the offer to subscribe and/or sell2 securities of a company that for the first time gain admittance to the market negotiation. A critical step in the process of public placement is the fixing of the offer price of the single share and of particular interest it’s the relationship between the latter and the economic value of the share itself.Studies on IPOs in every country of the world underscore a recurring anomaly. Research, in fact, observes, for many IPOs, a phenomenon commonly called underpricing3. According to the most qualified definition of the undepricing, it is the positive spread between the first trading day closing price of the newly issued share and the offer price fixed by the underwriter4. The economic literature has tried to find a justification for this phenomena building models which explain why the offer price of the shares is set below the real value of the shares themselves. Furthermore, these studies have verified if this anomaly is found for IPOs in different countries.Many scholars ascribe IPO underpricing to information asymmetry among the actors involved in the process of listing (Rock, 1986; Beatty e Ritter, 1986; Allen and Faulhaber, 1988). Rock (1986), Beatty and Ritter (1986) attribute the underpricing to asymmetry between informed and uninformed investor; the former having invested resources to acquire information about an IPO firm’s value. Uninformed investors are at an information disadvantage and can therefore be exploited. The offer price must be fix low enough to leave “money on the table” in order to attract uninformed investor to participate in the IPO market and to compensate informed investor for the cost of acquiring information. Allen and Faulhaber (1988) assume that firms have information about the quality of their investment projects not available to external investors. Firms with the best economic perspectives try to signal their quality with a low offer price and with the number of shares they hold.Among studies that have tried to find an explanation to underpricing, few of them focused their attention on the effects that the information contained in the financial statements could have on the evaluation of the shares which will be placed on the market.Therefore, the aim of our study is to analyze the consequences that the mandatory adoption of IFRS could have had on the evaluation of those firms that decided to go public on the Italian stock market.1For details see: Armstrong C., Barth M., Jagolinzer A., and Riedl E., 2010; Market reaction to the adoption of IFRS in Europe; The Accounting Review 85, 31-61.2With the offer to sell, previously issued shares are offered; with the offer to subscribe, newly issued shares are offered; with the offer to sell and subscribe, both newly and previously issued shares are offered. When newly issued shares are offered, the operation allows to raise capitals and to increase investors.3 Following prior studies, we measure the degree of IPO underpricing by the first trading day stock return relative to the offer price.4The underwriter is the investment bank, involved in the placement consortium, which handles, as supervisor, with the share placement. Usually the underwriter is, at the same time Bookrunner, sponsor and Global Coordinator of the IPO.The interest of this analysis lies in the fact that, since the shares have never been listed before, the only information available to investors are those contained in the prospectus; thus it is possible to analyze the effects that IFRS adoption has on the evaluation on the IPO company.Our study makes some important contributions. First, it complements the growing body of literature that examines economic consequences of mandatory IFRS adoption.Most studies that analyze the effects of the mandatory adoption of IFRS, focus on setting such as analysts’ infor mation environment and foreign mutual fund investment (e.g. Yu, 2010; Byard et al., 2010; DeFond et al., 2011; Tan et al.,2011). These studies, however, are silent on whether mandatory IFRS adoption influences the equity issuance process. An exception is Wang and Welker (2011) who investigate the timing of equity issuances during the transition period to IFRS. Our study complements Wang and Welker (2011) by focusing on the impact of IFRS mandatory adoption on IPO underpricing.Second, we extend the extent literature on underpricing by documenting the effect of changes in accounting standards on the initial return. Consistent with the information asymmetry explanation of underpricing, prior study find lower underpricing with greater disclosure (Leone et al., 2007; Bulton et al., 2011).We expect IFRS to affect IPO underpricing through two mechanisms: reporting quality and the comparability of financial reports. First, as global set of accounting standards, supposedly provide improved reporting quality compared to local GAAPs on average, which in turn may reduce IPO underpricing5. Second, IFRS adoption may reduce IPO underpricing by increasing the comparability of financial reports among industry peers that use the same accounting standards. Comparability of fi nancial reports is defined as “the quality of information that enables users to identify similarities and differences between two sets of economic phenomena” (FASB, 2008). Enhanced comparability may facilitate investors and underwriters in making comparati ve assessments of firms’ accounting performance and share prices. That is, enhanced comparability may allow investors to clarify similarities and differences among industry peers and help investors to extract useful information, which would decrease information asymmetry. As a result, enhanced comparability may mitigate IPO underpricing. The sample used in our study is composed by all the companies that went public from 2000 to 2012 excluding companies whose data were not available. The results of our study show that the adoption of IFRS does not decrease IPO underpricing. Therefore, it seems that the introduction of a new set of principles, such as IFRS, does not improve the quality and comparability of the financial statements. This conclusion is in line with previous research that underscored how the mere introduction of a new set of standards is not sufficient to change the quality of accounting. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews previous literature and develops hypothesis. Section 3 discusses the research design and empirical results. Section 4 concludes.2.Prior studies5While many countries have adopted IFRS with the expectation that IFRS would benefit financial statement users (Barth, Landsman, and Lang, 2008), it is unclear whether the use of IFRS actually provides improved reporting quality compared with domestic GAAPs (Ahmed, Neel, and Wang, 2010; Capkun, Collins, and Jeanjean, 2011).2.1IPO underpricingThe Initial Public Offerings have been widely studied by the literature. By far the most relevant finding has been the phenomenon of underpricing. Not only does the literature document underpricing since 1970, it also provides evidence of underpricing in countries around the globe (Ibbotson, 1975; Loughran et al., 1994). A lot of scholars wonder why a company decides to “leave money on the table” going public at a price fixed below the real value of the company itself.Theoretical studies attribute IPO underpricing to information asymmetry among the actors of the process of listing about the value of the IPO firm6.Rock (1986) shows that when some investors are better informed than others, underpricing becomes necessary to convince uninformed investors to buy shares of the IPO firm. In particular, when shares are overpriced, uninformed investors receive a full allocation of shares because informed investors withdraw from the market. In contrast, when the offering is underpriced, uninformed investors receive only an allocation of rationed shares because informed investors stay in the market. Since uninformed investors do not participate in the offering until the price falls enough to compensate for this adverse selection cost, firms have to issue their share at a discount underpricing their offering.Ritter (1984) refers to R ock’s model (1982). He states that firms, underwriters and investors are not sure about the true value of the firm. Investors, incurring costs, can know the true value of the shares; such investors are called informed investors. Ritter affirms that underpricing is the remuneration, for informed investors, for incurring costs to become informed; therefore higher is the uncertainty about the value of the firm, higher is the remuneration necessary to compensate uninformed investors for the costs incurred.Betty and Ritter (1986), using Rock’s model (1982), show the existence of a relationship between underpricing and ex-ante uncertainty about the true value of the firm. They state that higher is the uncertainty about the true value of the firm, higher is the risk born by uninformed investors for investing in the firm. In order to maintain uninformed investors in the market, it’s necessary compensating them with a high expected return by fixing for shares an offer price below their real value.Allen and Faulhaber (1988), assume that firms are better informed than external investors because they know the quality of their investment project. Firms with good future prospects 6There are other theories that explain underpricing referring to the relationship between issuer and underwriter. Baron and Holmstrom (1980) underline the conflict of interest between issuer and underwriter. They state that the underwriter is motivated to fix a low offer price to limit his commitment and the costs in the marketing phase, while the issuer wants the price to be high as much as possible to maximize the profit. Boron (1982), in his model, describes the underwriter as he who has information about the potential demand and about market condition that are not available to the issuer. Furthermore, he, such as Baron and Holmstrom (1980) characterizes the relationship between issuer and underwriter as an agency relationship where the issuer cannot directly control the underwriter in the marketing and distribution phase. Finally, Shiller (1990) affirms that IPO underpricing is generated by the bank that takes care of the placement to create the pretense of an over demand.signal their higher quality with a lower offer price and with the quantity of shares that they hold. Fixing an offer price below the real value, can be a believable signal of the quality of the firm because only “good” firms can recover the cost of underpricing with further placement.2.2IFRS and IPO underpricingIPO firms’ use of IFRS rather than domestic GAAP may affect IPO underpricing through two mechanisms: reporting quality, and the comparability of financial reports. First, IFRS may reduce IPO underpricing if IFRS provide higher reporting quality than domestic GAAP. Barth et al. define accounting quality as less earnings management, more timely loss recognition and a higher association of accounting amounts with share prices. The literature gives different definition of accounting quality (for an analysis, see Prencipe, 2006).However, academic research comparing reporting quality under IFRS with that under domestic GAAPs provides mixed results (Barth et al., 2008; Ahmed et al., 2010). Barth et al. (2008) find that firms applying IFRS from 21 countries generally financial reports of higher quality.Daske and Gebhardt (2006), analyzing a sample of Austrian, German and Swiss firms, find an improvement of the disclosure after IFRS adoption.Tsalavoutas and Evans (2010) observe that in Greece, the transition to IFRS has limited occasion for creative accounting.Differently from the studies above mentioned, there are others that find no relationship or a negative relationship between the adoption of IFRS and the quality of the financial statements. Barth at al. (2008) although find that IFRS adoption was associated with higher accounting quality, states that this may not be always true. First IFRS could be of lower quality than domestic GAAP and the flexibility of principle-based standards, such as IFRS, could provide greater opportunity for manager to manipulate earnings. Second, there are other factors that could influence the effect of IFRS adoption.Burgstahler, Hail and Leuz (2006), Ball, Robin and Wu (2003) suggest that lax enforcement can result in limited compliance with the standards, thus influencing their effectiveness.Ahmed et al. (2010) find that accounting quality deteriorates following mandatory IFRS adoption in 2005. They argue that principles-based IFRS increase opportunities for managers to exercise discretion rather than faithfully report underlying firm value. They show that firms mandated to adopt IFRS increase income smoothing and aggressive accruals and decrease timely loss recognition.Vantendeloo and Vanstralen (2005), studying a sample of German firms that voluntary adopted IFRS, do not find significant difference between their financial statements and those of firms that used domestic GAAP in terms of accounting quality.Cameran and Campa (2012) analyze 301 italian not listed companies that adopt IFRS. They analize the effect of IFRS mandatory adoption on the earnings quality. Their results do not show any improvement in earnings quality following the introduction of IFRS.The second mechanism through which IFRS adoption could decreases IPO underpricing is by enhancing the comparability of the financial statements. Thanks to an increased comparability, investors can compare firms located all over the world. The chance to compare similarities and differences between firms operating in the same industry all over the world should reduce asymmetry information among investors. However, there are some reasons why this may not happen. First, if the reporting quality of firms using IFRS is lower than that of firms using domestic GAAP (Ahmed et al., 2010), then comparability under IFRS could be lower than that under domestic GAAP. Second, it might be difficult for investors to compare IFRS-reporting firms domiciled in different jurisdictions. Different jurisdictions provide heterogeneous levels of investor protection and reporting incentives for firms (Leuz, Nanda, and Wysocki, 2003). In contrast, firms using a set of domestic GAAP by definition consist of relatively homogenous firms in the same jurisdiction. Third, comparability among firms using IFRS will be further limited if there are variations in country-level and firm-level interpretations of IFRS.Results of analysis about the effects on the financial statements’ comparability of the IFRS mandatory adoption are mixed too.De Fond et al. (2011), find an improvement of the comparability after IFRS mandatory adoption. The improvement of the comparability is measured by the increase of international investments.Lang et al. (2011), on the other hand, underscore an unchanged level of comparability after IFRS mandatory adoption.The effects on the quality and the comparability of IFRS mandatory adoption are influenced by the quality of the enforcement that is the emanation and the application of laws that guide IFRS application. The latter have to limit managers’ discretionary and opportunism (Leuz, Nanda and Wysocki, 2003).According with what stated above, several studies show that IFRS adoption increases the quality and the comparability of the financial statements only in countries where the enforcement is of high quality (Daske et al., 2008; Byard et al., 2011).Although IFRS may improve firms’ reporting quality compared with domestic GAAP, this will happen only if firms actually comply with the requirement of IFRS.About the comparability, the enforcement enviroments in which comparable firms are listed are also critical to the comparability between an IPO firms and its comparable firms. Comparability under IFRS is likely to be realized if the comparable firms listed in other jurisdiction are faithfully following IFRS.3.Hypothesis development and study designOur hypothesis is about the validity for the market of the information provided by the financial statements in order to evaluate the shares. If the information is characterized by high quality, the evaluation of the shares given by the market should not differ from the fixed price arising from information of the financial statements. So, referring to Rock’s model (1986), investors shouldnot incur costs to obtain information about the firm, thus becoming “informed” investors, given that information are public and available to all investors.Based on the above reasoning, we hypothesize the following:Underpricing of shares of IPO firms adopting IFRS prior to the listing is lower than IPO underpricing of IPO firms adopting Italian GAAP prior to the listing.The database used in this study is composed by all the firms that decided to go public on the Italian market from 2000 to 2012. In this period most firms used book-building to go public; this mechanism allows the price to be “adjusted” on the base of the de mand. From 1994 Italian firms use this mechanism to fix the offer price (Paleari, Cassia and Redondi, 2004)7. With the book-building the offer price varies in a fixed range indicated in the prospectus, but cases in which the price is fixed outside this range are not rare. During bookbuilding, underwriters collect orders in terms quantity and price or without price limit in an electronic book. In this way they create a demand curve composed by all the orders and the prices. According to the curve a price will be negotiated between the IPO firm and the underwriter.Sometimes, IPOs consist of the offer of shares already owned by existing shareholders while, in other cases, shares are issued in conjunction with the IPO: in the latter case with the IPO new capital is collected.We excluded from the sample those firms whose data were not available. The sample is composed by 141 firms: 71 adopting Italian GAAP to prepare their financial statements prior to the listing and 70 adopting IFRS to prepare their financial statements prior to the listing.The period length arise from the necessity to make the sample as numerous as possible. Firms that went public before 2000 have not been considering due to the unavailability of the data.The database has been built using information available in the prospectus prepared for the IPO and on the Borsa Italiana website.Tab. 1 Main characteristics of the Italian IPO from 2000 to 20127 Three mechanisms can be used to place shares: the auction, the fixed price offer and the book-building. In fixed price offers, the price and allocation rules are set before demand is received, and shares are allocated according to the rules announced earlier.With book building, the underwriter typically arranges for investors to attend a road show and then collects indications of interest, which are used to build the order book. The offering price is set only after the order book is full, giving the underwriter some idea of demand.Auctions for IPOs have taken several forms. Uniform price auctions are multi-unit sealed bid auctions in which all winning bidders pay the same price. The price paid may be the market-clearing price (the highest price that allows all shares to be sold), or it may be below th e clearing price. A ”dirty” IPO auction is a uniform price auction where they ”leave something on the table” by pr icing below market-clearing. In a discriminatory or pay-what-you-bid auction, each winning bidder pays his or her own bid.The name of the companies and the distribution of the information per years are contained in the Tab. 1. Furthermore, in this table are contained the main characteristics of the firms that decided to go public from 2000 to 2012.From the distribution we can observe that the most fruitful year has been 2000 with 42 IPOs. From 2008 we find a decline in the number of IPOs probably due to the financial crisis that from 2008 has affected the whole world as a consequence of the crisis of 2007 in the United States.Based on the data released by the European Observatory on IPO, the first nine months have been characterized a drop in the number and the value of IPOs. In particular, 271 IPOs have been realized. 53% less compared to the first nine month of 2007. This drop represents the most significant since Observatory’s launch in 2002 and confirm the strong relationship between the trend of the financial market and the decision to go public.The difference between the offer price and the closing price on the first day of trading (initial return) and the variation of the market index on the same day (market return) are expressed in percentage.The firms that went public adopting Italian GAAP show an underpricing on average of 5,9%, while firms that decided to go public adopting IFRS show an underpricing on average of 7,9%. These levels of underpricing are lower than those observed by Paleari, Cassa Redondi (2004) that find an underpricing of 15,46% on average from 1991 to 2001.The underpricing in Italy is, on average, lower than US underpricing based on the date provided by Ritter (2008) that find an underpricing of 22,3% on average from 1990 to 2008.Firms that decided to go public from adopting Italian GAAP show an average age of 27 years. However, there is and high variability with extreme values (143 and 0) that could alter the mean. The firms that decide to go public adopting IFRS show an average age of 20 years. In this case too there is a high variability with maximum of 172 and minimum of 0 for firms that went public just after the constitution.2.3Descriptive statisticThe Underpricing, the main variable of interest, is represented by the difference between the offer price and the closing price on the first day of trading, on the secondary market, expressed in percentage (Bulton ae al., 2011). The market return is the variation of the market index on the same day. The age has been determined as the years between the constitution and the listing. With offer price we intend the product between the number of shares and their offer price.Tab. 2 Decriptive statisticInitial Return-------------------------------------------------------------Percentiles Smallest1% -.1259048 -.14243325% -.0911765 -.125904810% -.0581081 -.1238889 Obs 14225% -.011 -.1183333 Sum of Wgt. 142 50% .0299545 Mean .0692942Largest Std. Dev. .140314275% .1273913 .493111190% .24625 .4967742 Variance .0196881 95% .3666667 .5925926 Skewness 1.58729 99% .5925926 .6334286 Kurtosis 5.941288Market Return-------------------------------------------------------------Percentiles Smallest1% -.0250944 -.2821075% -.0161822 -.025094410% -.0130731 -.0236842 Obs 142 25% -.0068428 -.0194738 Sum of Wgt. 142 50% .0002971 Mean -.0024976Largest Std. Dev. .025355375% .0041534 .016150990% .0102292 .016521 Variance .0006429 95% .014235 .0284405 Skewness -9.501597 99% .0284405 .0354987 Kurtosis 105.7156Age-------------------------------------------------------------Percentiles Smallest1% 0 05% 1 010% 1 0 Obs 14225% 5 1 Sum of Wgt. 14250% 16 Mean 23.23239Largest Std. Dev. 27.7888975% 29 9990% 55 104 Variance 772.2222 95% 76 143 Skewness 2.46967 99% 143 172 Kurtosis 10.62947Offer Size-------------------------------------------------------------Percentiles Smallest1% 296250 1000005% 7875000 29625010% 1.53e+07 3380000 Obs 141 25% 2.94e+07 3600000 Sum of Wgt. 141 50% 7.74e+07 Mean 1.69e+08Largest Std. Dev. 3.41e+0875% 1.54e+08 1.52e+0990% 3.33e+08 1.92e+09 Variance 1.16e+1795% 6.14e+08 2.07e+09 Skewness 4.49603699% 2.07e+09 2.26e+09 Kurtosis 24.47814The Tab. 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables used in the regression model. The Tab. 3 shows the T-Test to compare the average underpricing for IFRS adopters and the average underpricing for Italian GAAP adopters.Tab. 3 Two sample T-Test with unequal variancesdiff = mean(0) - mean(1) t = -0.9773Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0Pr(T < t) = 0.1651 Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.3301 Pr(T > t) = 0.8349The T-Test shows that the difference between the means is not significant. This suggests that the IFRS mandatory adoption could not have improved the quality and the comparability of the financial statements.2.4Regression modelWe use a multiple regression model to verify if IFRS mandatory adoption decreases underpricing. We use underpricing as dependent variable and age, initial return, offer size, IFRS adoption as independent variable. For IFRS we use a dummy variable equal to 0 for Italian GAAP adopters and 1 otherwise. Results show that the only variable that influence undepricing is the market return.Tab. 4 Multiple regression modelNumber of obs = 141Prob > F = 0.1500R-squared = 0.0480Root MSE = .13826。
CFA-一级-经济学-IFRS与FASB的差异-自己整理
CFA-一级-经济学-IFRS与FASB的差异-自己整理引言在全球范围内，财务会计准则的制定和采用对于各国企业的财务报告和财务分析具有重要影响。
国际财务报告准则（International Financial Reporting Standards，简称IFRS）由国际会计准则委员会（International Accounting Standards Board，简称IASB）制定并推广使用。
而美国财务会计准则（Financial Accounting Standards Board，简称FASB）制定并应用美国财务报告准则（Generally Accepted Accounting Principles，简称GAAP）。
本文将探讨IFRS 和FASB之间的差异。
IFRS与FASB的差异以下列举了IFRS与FASB之间在几个重要领域上的差异：1. 收入确认差异：IFRS和FASB在收入确认上有一些不同之处。
例如，IFRS更加注重收入发生时的控制权的转移，而FASB更加注重风险和报酬的转移。
此外，FASB在多个行业中实施了特别的收入识别准则，如金融服务业和房地产业。
收入确认差异：IFRS和FASB在收入确认上有一些不同之处。
例如，IFRS更加注重收入发生时的控制权的转移，而FASB更加注重风险和报酬的转移。
此外，FASB在多个行业中实施了特别的收入识别准则，如金融服务业和房地产业。
2. 商誉的处理差异：IFRS和FASB在商誉的评估和处理上也存在差异。
IFRS要求将商誉按照成本摊销，而FASB则要求每年对商誉进行评估和测试是否存在减值。
商誉的处理差异：IFRS和FASB在商誉的评估和处理上也存在差异。
IFRS要求将商誉按照成本摊销，而FASB则要求每年对商誉进行评估和测试是否存在减值。
3. 金融工具分类和评估差异：IFRS和FASB在金融工具的分类和评估上也存在差异。
IFRS更倾向于市场价值的衡量，而FASB更注重合同现金流量特征。
The Effect of Mandatory IFRS Adoption on the Stewardship Usefulness of Financial
Rቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱsearch design
The basic model for each period:
CONTROL includes ASSETS, GROWTH, LEV, LARGEST_OWN, REGU, and firm fixed effects.
Research design
Table 3 (H1/H2 for A share firms)
The current debate
• Critics’ concern #2: IFRS are principles based and thus may give managers too much room to manipulate financial reporting
– Earnings manipulation could affect both valuation usefulness and stewardship usefulness – The concern is likely magnified in weak investor protection countries
Existing research
• No research on the impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on the stewardship usefulness of financial reporting in weak investor protection countries
Institutional background
• China’s substantial convergence with IFRS starting from 2007
强制采用国际财务报告准则改善了信息环境吗
Joanne Horton George Serafeim Ioanna Serafeim
Working Paper
11-029
Copyright © 2010 by Joanne Horton, George Serafeim, and Ioanna Serafeim Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the auFRS ADOPTION IMPROVE THE INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT? Joanne Horton*, George Serafeim§ and Ioanna Serafeim¤
ABSTRACT We examine the effect of mandatory International Financial Reporting Standards (‘IFRS’) adoption on firms’ information environment. We find that after mandatory IFRS adoption consensus forecast errors decrease for firms that mandatorily adopt IFRS relative to forecast errors of other firms. We also find decreasing forecast errors for voluntary adopters, but this effect is smaller and not robust. Moreover, we show that the magnitude of the forecast errors decrease is associated with the firm-specific differences between local GAAP and IFRS. Exploiting individual analyst level data and isolating settings where investors would benefit more from either increased comparability or higher quality information, we document that the improvement in the information environment is driven both by information and comparability effects. These results are robust to variations in the measurement of information environment quality, forecast horizon, sample composition and tests of earnings management.
自愿采用国际财务报告标准与全世界贷款契约
Standards and Loan Contracting around the WorldByJeong-Bon Kim, Judy S. L. Tsui, and Cheong H. YiForthcoming atReview of Accounting StudiesOctober 2010____________Jeong-Bon Kim is at the City University of Hong Kong. Judy S. L. Tsui and Cheong H. Yi are at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. We thank Agnes Cheng, Christopher Hodgdon, Cam Morrill, Jim Ohlson, Andrews Oppong, Annie Qiu, Joshua Ronen, Byron Song, Haina Shi, Dushvant Vyas, participants of research workshops at the City University of Hong Kong, Renmin University of China, Seoul National University, Xiamen University, the 2007 Accounting Research Camp of the John Molson School of Business at Concordia University, the 2007 CAAA Annual Conference, and the 2007 AAA Annual Meeting, and, in particular, an anonymous referee for useful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Special thanks go to Katherine Schipper (editor) for her insightful comments and detailed suggestions, which helped us improve the paper substantially. We acknowledge financial support for this research obtained from the 2006 Competitive Earmarked Research Grant of the Hong Kong SAR Government. Any remaining errors and omissions are, of course, ours.Correspondence: Jeong-Bon Kim, Department of Accountancy, City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong; e-mail jeongkim@.hk; phone +852-3442-7909; fax: +852-3442-0347.Standards and Loan Contracting around the WorldAbstractUsing a sample of non-U.S. borrowers from 40 countries during 1997–2005, this paper investigates the effect of the voluntary adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) on price and non-price terms of loan contracts and loan ownership structure in the international loan market. Our results reveal the following. First, banks charge lower loan rates to IFRS adopters than to non-adopters. The difference in loan rates in excess of a benchmark rate between the two groups is about 20 basis points for all loans and nearly 31 basis points for London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR)-based loans. Second, banks impose more favorable non-price terms on IFRS adopters, particularly less restrictive covenants. We also provide evidence suggesting that banks are more willing to extend credit to IFRS adopters through larger loans and longer maturities. Finally, IFRS adopters attract significantly more foreign lenders participating in loan syndicates than non-adopters.Keywords: International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), loan contracting, loanspread, collateral, debt covenant, syndicate structure. foreign banks.1. IntroductionA major argument in favor of accounting standards harmonization via International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) is that IFRS adoption allows firms easier access to outside capital, particularly by facilitating external financing from international capital markets and cross-border investment flows (e.g., Covrig et al. 2007). While previous research has analyzed various effects of IFRS adoption from the perspective of equity holders (e.g., Covrig et al. 2007, Daske et al. 2007; Kim and Shi 2010), it has paid little attention to the consequences of IFRS adoption from the perspective of debt holders. As a result, little is known about the impact of IFRS adoption on the cost of debt. To fill this void, this study aims to provide systematic evidence on this unexplored issue, using actual bank loan data.Specifically, we investigate whether and how voluntary IFRS adoption affects the price and non-price terms of bank loan contracts. Studying the impacts of IFRS adoption on loan contracting terms is important for several reasons. Bank loans are the most important source of external financing for most firms around the world.1 Private debt contracts such as bank loans contain both price and non-price terms to alleviate the information problems faced by banks and other private lenders,2 and to monitor credit quality. This allows us to assess the effect of IFRS adoptions on the direct costs of private debt (loan rate) and associated indirect costs (e.g., collateral requirements and covenant restrictions). Because a bank loan deal typically involves two or more parties lending to a single borrower, we are also able to investigate whether and how enhanced disclosures via IFRS influence the way in which loans are structured in terms of the number of lenders and the composition of foreign versus domestic lenders (lender mix).1 For example, over the past decade, about $780 billion in new debt securities were issued in the U.S. market, while only $2 billion in new equity securities were issued. About 54% of debt issues were bank loans (Graham et al. 2008).2 Our sample includes loans made by both commercial banks and private lenders such as investment banks and insurance companies. We use the terms banks and lenders interchangeably.For our empirical analyses, we construct a sample of non-U.S. borrowers from 40 countries during 1997–2005. We then examine the loan contracting effects of voluntary IFRS adoption by comparing the price and non-price terms of the loan contracts of IFRS adopters and non-adopters. Specifically, we first investigate whether voluntary IFRS adoptions by borrowers are associated with lower loan rates. We argue that voluntary IFRS adoption reduces ex ante information uncertainty faced by lenders and/or information asymmetries between borrowers and lenders. As a result, lenders are better able to assess borrower credit quality and thus save ex post monitoring and re-contracting costs. We predict and find that, all else being equal, lenders charge lower loan rates to borrowers who voluntarily adopt IFRS (hereafter IFRS adopters) than to those who use local accounting standards (hereafter non-adopters). In our main regressions, the difference is about 20 basis points for all loans and nearly 31 basis points for LIBOR-based loans after controlling for borrower-specific credit risk, loan-specific characteristics, and year, industry, and country fixed effects.Second, we investigate whether voluntary IFRS adoption affects non-price terms of loan contracts such as loan size, maturity, collateralization, and covenant restrictions. Commercial banks and other private lenders use loan size and maturity to ration credit among borrowers with different risks. Our analysis provides useful insights into how voluntary IFRS adoption affects credit rationing by banks or influences their willingness to extend credit to borrowers with different information risks or disclosure standards. We also examine whether voluntary IFRS adoptions influence the presence of collateral and restrictive covenants in loan contracts. To the extent that enhanced disclosures via IFRS adoption alleviate information asymmetries between lenders and borrowers and facilitate more efficient monitoring, we expect lenders to impose more favorable (or less restrictive) non-price terms on IFRS adopters compared with borrowers who use local accounting standards.The results of our main regressions show that loans to IFRS adopters have longer maturities and involve larger amounts than loans to non-adopters. We find that IFRS adopters are, on average, less likely to have restrictive covenants in their loan contracts than borrowers using local accounting standards. We also find no significant difference between the two groups in the collateral requirements. Restrictive non-price terms could be viewed as indirect (implicit) costs to borrowers (Smith and Warner 1979; Graham et al. 2008; Kim et al. 2010): They cause borrowers to engage in more frequent refinancing and, thus, to incur higher renegotiation and re-contracting costs. Furthermore, restrictive covenants reduce flexibility in investment decisions, which can cause borrowers to abandon profitable investment opportunities to comply with the covenants (Chava and Roberts 2008; Roberts and Sufi 2008). As such, the lower likelihood of restrictive covenants observed for IFRS adopters vis-à-vis non-adopters could be viewed as an additional important benefit or cost saving arising from IFRS adoptions. Put differently, the economic consequences of IFRS adoptions for borrowers are likely to be even more favorable than those implied by favorable pricing terms alone.We also investigate whether voluntary IFRS adoptions by borrowers lead to an increase in the number of lenders and a change in the lender mix (i.e., the composition of domestic versus foreign lenders participating in each loan). To the extent that voluntary IFRS adoption mitigates information problems faced by lenders participating in a loan syndicate, voluntary IFRS adoption should increase the number of participant lenders and, in particular, foreign lenders. Our results are consistent with this prediction. Finally, our results hold after controlling for within-country variations in borrower- and loan-specific characteristics and potential self-selection bias associated with the decision to adopt IFRS.Finally, as a sensitivity check, we examine whether IFRS adoption effects on loan contracting terms are differentially affected by several firm-level and country-level factors. We find that the loan rate-reducing effect of IFRS adoption is significant at the 1% level for(more transaction-based) term loans, but insignificant at the 10% level for (more relationship-based) non-term loans. We find that IFRS adoption reduces loan rates significantly, irrespective of the quality of the information environment (proxied by analyst following), the strength of creditor rights protection, the efficacy of legal enforcement, and the level of economic development. We provide mixed evidence on how firm- and country-level factors differentially affect IFRS adoption effects on the non-price terms of loan contracts.Our study adds to the literature on the effect of IFRS adoptions by providing direct evidence that voluntary IFRS adoptions are associated with lower loan rates, greater credit availability, less restrictive covenants, and greater participation of foreign banks in loan syndicates. We also contribute to the loan contracting literature by presenting evidence consistent with the notion that enhanced disclosures via IFRS adoption allow lenders to assess borrower credit quality more accurately and improve borrower visibility in the international loan market. Previous studies have examined how borrower-specific factors affect loan contracting (e.g., Strahan 1999; Ball et al. 2008; Chava et al. 2008; Graham et al. 2008); however, they provide little evidence on whether and how a commitment to better disclosure affects contract terms and the structure of loan ownership.Recent studies by Bharath et al. (2008), Graham et al. (2008), and Kim et al. (2010) provide evidence that banks consider the quality of financial reporting when assessing credit risk; however, they focus on the United States, where voluntary commitment to a better reporting strategy via IFRS is not feasible. Our evidence sheds light on the role of increased and improved disclosures in private debt contracting under financial reporting environments significantly different from those in the United States.The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 develops our research hypotheses. Section 3 specifies empirical models for hypothesis testing. Section 4 describes our sample and data sources, presents descriptive statistics on our research variables, andconducts univariate tests. Section 5 presents the results of various multivariate tests using the full sample. Section 6 further analyzes the data with sensitivity checks. Section 7 summarizes the paper and presents our concluding remarks.2. Hypothesis Development2.1. The effect of IFRS adoption on borrowing ratesThe decision to adopt IFRS is an important strategic commitment that increases the quantity and quality of accounting disclosures in most financial reporting regimes (Leuz and Verrecchia 2000; Covrig et al. 2007). This commitment is costly3and thus credible. Enhanced disclosures via IFRS alleviate the information uncertainty faced by lenders concerning borrower credit quality. This reduction in ex ante information risk lowers the cost of external financing (e.g., Diamond and Verrecchia 1991; Baiman and Verrecchia 1996). Higher-quality disclosures via IFRS reduce post-contracting costs associated with monitoring borrower performance or credit quality and renegotiating contractual terms subsequent to changes in the latter. It is thus likely that voluntary IFRS adoption reduces borrowing costs.Lambert et al. (2007) provide another reason why high-quality information reduces the cost of external financing. Their analysis indicates that high-quality reports improve coordination between firms and capital suppliers with respect to capital investment decisions, while poor-quality reports lead to misaligned capital investments due to impaired coordination. Rational capital suppliers therefore demand higher risk premiums for firms with poor-quality reports. This theory suggests that IFRS adoptions reduce the cost of coordination between borrowers and lenders, which in turn enables lenders to charge lower loan rates to IFRS adopters than to non-adopters.3 For example, it is difficult for IFRS adopters to reverse the decision, once made, and IFRS adoptions require nontrivial efforts and resources on the part of the preparers of financial statements and their auditors.We predict that lenders will charge lower loan rates to IFRS adopters than to non-adopters, because voluntary IFRS adoptions reduce the ex ante information risk faced by lenders and ex post monitoring and re-contracting costs, and improve coordination between lenders and borrowers with respect to capital investment decisions. We state this prediction in the following alternative form.H1: Loan spreads, measured by interest rates in excess of a benchmark rate, are lower for borrowers who voluntarily use IFRS than for those who do not, all else equal.2.2. The effect of IFRS adoption on the non-price terms of loan contractsBank loan contracts include not only a price term (i.e., loan interest rate) but also non-price terms, such as loan size, maturity, collateral requirements, and restrictive covenants. Lenders use these terms (as well as the price term) in loan contracts to mitigate information problems and potential agency conflicts. They can control their risk exposure by limiting loan size and/or shortening loan maturity (Strahan 1999; Qian and Strahan 2007; Chava et al. 2008; Bae and Goyal 2009).4 For example, short-term loans allow banks to monitor credit quality through frequent loan renewal processes, thereby reducing information risk (e.g., Oritz-Molina and Penas 2006; Graham et al. 2008). To the extent that voluntary IFRS adoption reduces ex ante information uncertainty or the associated information asymmetry between lenders and borrowers and ex post monitoring and re-contracting costs, lenders will be more willing to extend credit to IFRS adopters and will provide more favorable loan terms. We state this prediction in the following alternative form.H2: Loan sizes are larger and loan maturities are longer for borrowers who voluntarily use IFRS than for those who do not, all else equal.4 Diamond (1991) shows that low- and high-risk borrowers prefer short-term loans because low-risk borrowers can roll over their loans without incurring high renegotiation costs and lenders may hesitate to offer long-term loans to high-risk borrowers with high default risk. This author’s analysis further indicates that intermediate-risk borrowers prefer long-term loans to minimize refinancing and/or renegotiation costs.Previous research shows that collateral requirements and covenant restrictions in loan contracts are also associated with information problems faced by lenders (e.g., Rajan and Winston 1995; Jimenez et al. 2006; Graham et al. 2008; Kim et al. 2010). The debt covenant literature finds that banks use restrictive covenants to improve the ex post monitoring of credit quality, although the covenants also reduce borrower investment flexibility (Smith and Warner 1979; Rajan and Winston 1995; Graham et al. 2008).In our context, these studies suggest that banks are less likely to require collateral and/or impose restrictive covenants on borrowers who use IFRS than on those who use local accounting standards, because enhanced disclosures via IFRS adoptions reduce the demand for ex post monitoring and re-contracting.5We state this prediction in the following alternative form.H3: The likelihood that loans are secured by collateral and/or subject to restrictive covenants is lower for borrowers who use IFRS than for those who do not, all else equal.2.3. The effect of IFRS adoption on the number of lenders and lender mixThe syndicate loan literature (e.g., Dennis and Mullineaux 2000; Qian and Strahan 2007; Sufi 2007) shows that fewer lenders participate in loan syndicates with borrowers with high information uncertainty, because syndicate structures with fewer lenders reduce both free rider problems in information gathering and monitoring and the costs of re-contracting (if credit quality changes) or recovery in the event of default. Graham et al. (2008) and Kim et al. (2010) provide further evidence that fewer lenders are attracted to loans to borrowing5Evidence shows that voluntary IFRS adoption not only increases the quantity and quality of financial disclosures but also reduces accounting flexibility by restricting the choice of measurement methods (e.g., Ashbaugh and Pincus 2001). Bharath et al. (2008) provide evidence suggesting that lenders use more stringent (non-price) contractual terms for borrowers with poor reporting quality. IFRS adoption can decrease the agency cost of debt to the extent that the resulting reduced accounting flexibility increases reporting quality and thus enables lenders to save ex post costs associated with loan monitoring and re-contracting. In this regard, lenders are also likely to offer more favorable non-price terms or impose less restrictive covenants for IFRS adopters than for non-adopters.firms with financial restatements and internal control weakness over financial reporting.6 The implication of this research in our context is that IFRS adoption mitigates adverse selection and moral hazard problems among syndicate participants, thereby attracting more participants into a loan syndicate.7We also expect that voluntary IFRS adoptions attract more foreign lenders into a loan syndicate. To the extent that foreign lenders are more familiar with IFRS than local accounting standards, IFRS-based reporting makes it relatively easier for borrowers to communicate their financial results and credit quality. In addition, IFRS-based reporting makes it less costly for foreign lenders to assess borrowers’ credit risk ex ante, to monitor credit quality ex post, and to renegotiate contractual terms subsequent to credit quality changes.We restate our two predictions on the syndicate structure and the lender mix in the following alternative form.H4: The number of lenders in general and the number of foreign lenders in particular are greater for loans to borrowers who voluntarily use IFRS than for loans to those who do not, all else equal.3. Empirical ModelWe specify a regression model in which a particular feature of loans originated in year t is linked to a borrower’s decision to voluntarily adopt IFRS in year t - 1, borrower-specific controls in year t - 1, loan-specific controls in year t, and year, industry, and country fixed effects:6 Ball et al. (2008) and Kim and Song (2010) show that the lead arranger of a loan syndicate retains a smaller portion of new loans when the information asymmetry between the lead arranger and other syndicate participants is lower.7Information asymmetry exists among loan participants because the lead arranger is better informed about borrower credit quality than the other syndicate participants. This information asymmetry creates standard agency problems of adverse selection and moral hazard in loan contracting. For more discussions, see Holmstrom and Tirole (1997) and Ball et al. (2008).Loan Feature t = α0 + α1.DIFRS t-1(1) + α2.Borrower-specific Controls t-1 + α3.Loan-specific Controls t+(Year, Industry, Country Indicators) + Error Term twhere all variables are defined in the Appendix. Loan Feature represents one of 10 loan contracting features: (1) one price term measured by the drawn all-in spread (Spread); (2) two measures capturing credit availability, i.e., loan size (LoanAMT) and loan maturity (Maturity),; (3)four non-price terms, namely, the presence of collateral, financial, and general covenants (DSecured, DFinCov, and DGenCov, respectively) and the total number of financial and general covenants (NCov); and (4) three measures of loan ownership structure, that is, the numbers of both domestic and foreign lenders, domestic lenders only, and foreign lenders only for each loan (NLender, NDomestic, and NForeign, respectively). The term DIFRS t-1 is an indicator variable that equals 1 for borrowing firms who adopt IFRS in year t - 1 and 0 otherwise.We examine the lagged relation between a loan feature in year t and IFRS adoption in year t - 1 to alleviate concerns over potential reverse causation between the two.8 To examine the relation between voluntary adoption and loan contracting, we consider loans originated during 1997–2005, and link each of 10 loan contracting features in year t (from 1997 to 2005) to IFRS adoptions and other firm-specific characteristics in year t - 1 (from 1996 to 2004) and relevant loan-specific characteristics in year t (from 1997 to 2005). This design excludes mandatory IFRS adoptions in 2005 by firms in the European Union (EU).To test H1, we estimate Eq. (1) with Spread as the dependent variable. The variable Spread represents the interest rate charged by lenders (plus the annual fee and upfront/maturity fee relative to the loan amount) minus the benchmark rate (LIBOR or its8 Implicit here is the assumption that at the time of loan contracting in year t, financial statements for year t are not publicly available. Examining the contemporaneous relation between DIFRS in year t and Loan Features in year t can create an endogeneity concern, because voluntary IFRS adoptions are likely to be endogenous.equivalents).9 Commercial banks and other private lenders typically assess the risk of a loan based upon information on the business nature and performance of borrowing firms and then set a markup over a benchmark rate, such as the LIBOR, to compensate for credit risk. Thus, Spread reflects lenders’ perceived level of risk on a loan facility provided to a specific borrower. Hypothesis H1 predicts α1 < 0.To test H2, we use two non-price terms of loan contracts as the dependent variable, LoanAMT and Maturity, where LoanAMT is the natural log of the amount of each loan facility and Maturity is the natural log of the loan period, defined as the difference in months between the loan origination date and the maturity date. Hypothesis H2 predicts α1 > 0.To test H3, we estimate the probit version of Eq. (1) using as the dependent variable each of three indicator variables, DSecured, DFinCov, and DGenCov. These variables take on the value of 1 for secured loans, loans with at least one financial covenant included, and loans with at least one general covenant included, respectively, and 0 otherwise. Loan covenants are either financial covenants that are typically linked to accounting ratios or general covenants which include all other non-financial covenants, such as restrictions on prepayment,10dividend payment, and voting rights. To obtain a composite measure of the strength of loan covenants, we also construct a covenant index, NCov, by counting the number of financial and general covenants in a loan facility. When NCov is the dependent variable, we estimate Eq. (1) by running a Poisson regression of NCov on DIFRS and other9 In our DealScan sample, the most popular benchmark rate is the LIBOR. We notice, however, that some loans are priced in excess of non-LIBOR benchmark rates, such as the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate (HIBOR), the Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (TIBOR), the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR), and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR). As will be further discussed in the next section, we include in our sample loans priced in excess of either LIBOR or non-LIBOR. We report the regression results using both LIBOR- and non–LIBOR-based spreads and those using only LIBOR-based spreads, separately.10 Prepayment restrictions include asset sweep, excess cash flow sweep, debt issue sweep, equity issue sweep, and insurance proceeds.control variables. Hypothesis H3 predicts α1 < 0 when DSecured, DFinCov, DGenCov, or NCov is used as the dependent variable in Eq. (1).Finally, to test H4, we estimate Eq. (1) using as the dependent variable NLender (= NForeign + NDomestic), NForeign, or NDomestic. We define a domestic lender as one headquartered in the same country as the borrower. We hand-collect data on the nationality of each bank participating in a loan from 2005 and 2006 The Bankers’ Almanac. Hypothesis H4 predicts α1 > 0.Our test variable, DIFRS, equals 1 if the borrower voluntarily adopted IFRS in fiscal year t - 1 (year t refers to the loan origination year), and 0 otherwise. Our sample period of loan origination is 1997–2005. The EU mandated that all listed firms adopt IFRS starting from January 1, 2005, while some of these firms voluntarily adopted IFRS prior to 2005. Our use of lagged DIFRS in Eq. (1) links our Loan Feature variables in 2005 to DIFRS in 2004.11 We also include eight borrower-specific control variables: ROA,Size, MB, Lev, Cross, NAnal, MSCI, and Big4. Here ROA, Size, and Lev represent return on assets (net income divided by total assets), borrower size (the natural log of market capitalization), and leverage (total debt divided by total assets), respectively. MB represents the market-to-book ratio; Cross equals 1 for cross-listed firms, and 0 otherwise; NAnal denotes the log of the number of analysts following a borrowing firm; MSCI equals 1 if a firm’s shares are a constituent of the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) index,12 and 0 otherwise; Big4 equals 1 for firms with Big 4 (or 5) auditors, and 0 otherwise. ROA, Size, MB, and Lev are included to 11 Since the IFRS adoption indicator, DIFRS (as well as all borrower-specific financial statement variables) is measured in year t - 1 and the dependent variable, Loan Feature, is measured in year t, two-way causation is unlikely between DIFRS (our test variable) and Loan Feature (our dependent variable). This approach mitigates concerns over reverse causality in Eq. (1) with respect to the relation between Loan Feature and DIFRS. Nevertheless, Section 6 also reports the results of Heckman-type two-stage regressions to control for potential self-selection bias associated with a borrower’s decision to adopt IFRS voluntarily.12 The MSCI Index is a world market index constructed using the prices of representative stocks listed on 22 stock markets in North America, Europe, and the Asia/Pacific region weighted by the market capitalization of each constituent stock market.control for borrower credit quality. Cross and MSCI are included because lenders are likely to be more familiar with cross-listed firms and firms with shares included in the MSCI Index. We include NAnal and Big4 to control for potential cross-firm differences in the information environment associated with analyst coverage and auditor quality, respectively.13 All borrower-specific variables are measured in the fiscal year preceding the loan origination year.Previous research on bank loan contracts shows that several loan-specific characteristics are related to the price and non-price terms of loan contracts (e.g., Strahan 1999; Dennis et al. 2000; Bharath et al. 2008; Chava et al. 2008). Based on this research, we include six loan-specific variables: LoanAMT, Maturity, TLoan, NLender, DForCurr, and DPPricing. Here LoanAMT, Maturity, and NLender are used as control variables only when they are not used as the dependent variable in Eq. (1). TLoan equals 1 for term loans, and 0 otherwise; DForCurr equals 1 for loan facilities quoted in foreign currencies, and 0 otherwise; and DPPricing equals 1 for loan facilities with performance pricing provisions, and 0 otherwise. All loan-specific variables are measured in the loan origination year.Based on research showing that country-level contracting environments affect the price and non-price terms of loan contracts and the structure of loan syndicates (e.g., Qian and Strahan 2007; Bae and Goyal 2009), we control for cross-country variations in loan contracting environments by including Country Indicators in Eq. (1). We also examine whether our results are robust to within-country median adjustments of borrower-specific and loan-specific controls.13We also consider an additional borrower-specific variable, namely, asset maturity (ASM), when Eq. (1) is estimated using loan maturity (Maturity) as the dependent variable, because previous research shows a positive relation between the two (Barcley and Smith 1995; Bharath et al. 2008). Unreported results show that the coefficient for ASM is insignificant at the 10% level in all cases.。
财务报表分析的外文文献
Does International Financial Reporting Standards Adoption Matter?The Effects on Financial TransparencyandEarnings ManagementYen Tze—YUNational Chung Cheng University，Chiayi，TaiwanChang Ming—LeiYuan Ze University，Taoyuan，TaiwanYeh Hsiao—ChianNational Chung Cheng University，Chiayi，TaiwanThis paper aims to examine whether or not the adoption of fair value accounting(FVA)has an effect on the level ofinformation transparency and the degree of earnings management，to identify whether the legal institutions havepowers to explain those effects of the adoption of FVA，and to explore the relationship between the effects of theadoption of FVA and several specific characteristics of the banking industry．By investigating the banking sectorsof four Asian countries／regions including China，Hong Kong，the Philippines，and Singapore which have adoptedIntemational Financial Reporting Standards(IFRS)，this paper finds that after the application of FVA，the estimatedcost of equity of the sampled banks significantly decreases and the relationship between banks’loan loss provisions(LLP)and earnings before provisions and tax(EBPT)becomes irrelevant．The evidence suppo~s the effects ofFVA adoption on the enhancement of accounting quali~．In addition，sound legal／extra-legal systems are closelylinked to the degree of accounting quality and still have a strong influence on FVA．Keywords．"earnings management，fair value accounting(FVA)，information transparency，legal institutionsIntroductionWith the globalization of capital markets，multinational enterprises have rapidly grown in recent years．Togain the confidence of internationalinvestors and access capital from overseas funds，it is necessary for theseenterprises’financial statements to confo·rm to intemational standards．However，the workinvolved to meetthese standards is obviously costly，and the delays that result from preparing various versions of the statementsfor international enterprises affect the firms’eficiency．As a result，the harmonization of local withinternational accounting standards has been duly noted and discussed for many years．Most legislators，regulators，and researchers agree that efforts to standardize financial statements will directly help the firms，shareholders，analysts，accountants，auditors，and SO on(Tarca，2004；Barth，Landsman，&Lang，2008；Cai，Rahman．&Courtenay，2008；Wang，2009)．THE EFFECTS ON FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY AND EARNINGS MANAGEMENT 757Not only for the above considerations but also in order to have relevant and reliable corporate reportinginformation，the two accounting standards bodies，namely，the International Accounting Standards Board(IASB)and the Financial Accounting Standards Board(FASB)，have committed themselves to developing a setof high—quality financ ial reporting standards based on a“performance—style reporting system’’instead of thetraditional financial reporting system．As a consequence，following the full adoption of International FinancialReporting Standards(IFRS)in the European Union(EU)since 2005，there are now more than 1 1 5 countries，including Australia，New Zealand，Hong Kong，and South Africa requiring that their own businesses acceptIFRS as their accounting standards．Other countries，such as Canada，Korea，Brazil，and India，have drawn upschedules and are expected to gradually adopt IFRS by 20 1 2．Currently，among the global top 1 0 capitalmarkets，only Japan and the United States(US)have not yet made a final decision to adopt IFRS．Bothcountries are，however，inclined to work on a plan to converge their own existing accounting standards with theIFRS standards．It is predictable that IFRS will soon become the most important and common language inglobal capital markets．The fundamental scheme of IFRS is the introduction of fair value accounting(FVA)．FVA，also referred toas“mark．to—market”．is a financial reporting approach in which companies are required or permited to measureand report，on an ongoing basis，certain assets and liabilities at estimates of the prices they would receive ifthey were to sell the assets or would pay if they were to be relieved of the liabilities．Most prior studies pointout that the mark．to。
Adopt IFRS 国际会计准则
Adopt, adapt, converge?16 April 2010A contribution by Wayne Upton, Director of International Activities.As the Director of International Activities for the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) my job is to work with jurisdictions that are implementing—or thinking of implementing—the IASB’s International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs).In the course of my job, I am often asked about the best way to move to IFRSs. The answer brings to mind an old American saying that, “All families are alike, and all families are different.” While there are similarities in both the challenges and the benefits that adopting IFRSs brings, every jurisdiction is different and will therefore follow its own path towards achieving the objective. We work with any jurisdiction that asks for our help.Adopt, adapt, converge?Many jurisdictions have cultural, legal, or political obstacles to an immediate full adoption of IFRSs. In the light of those obstacles, some countries decide on strategies of continuous convergence with IFRSs. Put differently, they have decided to bring their national standards to a point where the amounts reported in the financial statements are the same as in IFRS financial statements. We respect the reasons why those jurisdictions reach that decision, and work with them to support their convergence process. However, in doing so, it is our ultimate objective to make full adoption of IFRSs possible because we believe that only then will a country be able to fully benefit from the advantages of using IFRSs. Only recently, in January this year and as a result of the second Constitution Review, the Trustees of our organisation emphasised, through an amendment to the Constitution, that convergence is not an objective in itself but is a means to achieve the adoption of IFRSs.While convergence may be the necessary preparation for some countries to adopt IFRSs, the simplest, least costly and most straightforward approach is to adopt the complete body of IFRSs in a single step rather then opting for long-term convergence. Certainly, this is a significant change, but the alternatives may be more difficult and may be of less benefit to a country in the long run. The main reason why most companies want to use IFRSs in their financial statements is the ability to demonstrate to the investor community that their financial statements are IFRS-compliant. For that purpose it is not sufficient that the standards have converged. The only way to make avalid that claim is to apply all the standards as issued by the IASB and make the compliance representation required by IAS 1. Hence, while convergence is good, adoption is necessary to be truly able to harvest the benefits of the change.Making the transitionOnce a jurisdiction has decided on the path it will follow, the task moves from policy to project management.The plan. The key to a successful transition, whether the problem is manufacturing, retailing, or accounting, is to build a plan for the transition. That statement seems almost trite, but I am surprised by the number of jurisdictions that make the political decision to adopt or converge without having made a plan for how to do so.In the case of an IFRS transition, there is a real risk of planning too small. Certainly a change in accounting standards affects the accounting profession, companies, and financial regulators.On a national level, it may also involve pension regulation, health and safety regulation, education, and licensing. On a company level, it may affect debt covenants, personnel departments, and public relations.The team. I think a successful IFRS team involves every sector that will be affected by the change. It does no good to have a team from the accounting profession, but not include the company regulation department. Even more important, the members of the team should have the power to make things happen in their individual circles. A team member who must “attend a meeting next month and report back” is unlikely to be effective. Finally, and most important, team members should be accountable for specific deliverables. At least within the team, no one should be able to say “I didn’t know it was my job.”Plan for problems. There will be problems. There will be situations in which it seems that existing IFRSs do not consider or cover a particular situation that may be important in the country of adoption. Successful jurisdictions build a mechanism for identifying those cases and bringing them to a group charged with addressing them. Here, the IASB can be of particular help. In Korea, for example, local accountants accumulate transition issues through the Korean Accounting Standards Board. Papers are prepared, either by the accounting firms, companies, or the KASB staff. Then the issues are discussed at roundtable sessions in which I participate. The objective is not to produce Korea-specific answers but to gain a full discussion of the facts and possible solutions and necessary actions.Educate. It is crucially important for the success of the IFRS project to build up an infrastructure of knowledgeable IFRS practitioners. This is especially important for stock exchange and financial regulators, but obviously extends to universities and the legal and actuarial professions. Fortunately, many groups are actively involved in IFRS training, including the major accounting firms, professional bodies like the ACCA, and the World Bank.Involve the IASBThat is what we are here for. More specifically, that is what I am here for. There is no reason why a jurisdiction should try to handle transition by itself. Involving the IASB in the transition also builds relationships and involves the local standard-setters and professionals in the IASB process early on.The views in this article reflect the articles of the author and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the IASB. A similar version of this article will appear in a special edition of the Malaysian business magazine The Edge on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) with a theme, Convergence with IFRS: Impacts on Businesses.。
ifrs准则详解 -回复
ifrs准则详解-回复ifrs准则是国际财务报告准则的缩写，即International Financial Reporting Standards。
它是由国际会计准则理事会（International Accounting Standards Board，IASB）发展并制定的一套标准，用于规范全球范围内企业的财务报告。
下面，我们一步一步来详细了解ifrs准则。
ifrs准则的背景：在全球经济日益复杂和国际化的背景下，为了实现财务信息的比较和透明度，需要建立一套统一的财务报告准则。
ifrs准则的制定旨在提供一个国际通用的财务报告框架，以确保企业在各个国家的财务报告具有一定程度的可比性。
ifrs准则的应用实践：ifrs准则适用于准备和呈报财务报表的专业机构，如上市公司、金融机构、保险公司等。
同时，很多非上市公司也选择采用ifrs准则，以提高其财务报告的质量和可比性。
在全球范围内，超过120个国家已经采用ifrs准则或将其用作其国家法规的基础。
ifrs准则的主要原则：ifrs准则的核心原则是真实和公正的反映财务报告用户所需的关键业务实际情况。
以下是ifrs准则的主要原则：1. 会计政策一致性：企业应当连续使用相同的会计政策，以保证财务报告的一致性和可比性。
如果发生变更，企业需要对此进行充分的披露。
2. 充分披露：企业应当充分披露关于财务报告信息的所有必要信息，以使读者能够全面理解报告内容和潜在风险。
3. 价值原则：企业应当按照资产和负债的公允价值进行计量，以确保财务报表反映企业在特定时点的真实价值。
4. 适当匹配原则：企业应将相关的收入和费用匹配，以正确反映特定期间内业务活动的结果。
ifrs准则的主要要素：ifrs准则包括以下主要财务报告要素：1. 资产：公司拥有的具有经济利益的资源，可以预期将来产生经济利益。
2. 负债：企业的现有义务，通过资源转移或者提供产品或服务，将来会由企业承担。
3. 所有者权益：企业对其资产剩余价值的权益。
IFRS中文版
正體中文版早案
（已截止）
IAS 36
mpairme nt of Assets
資產減損
翻譯草案 （已截止）
正體中文版早案
（已截止）
IAS 37
Drovisions. Contingent Liabilities and
Con ti ngent Assets
負債準備、或有負債及或有資產
收入
翻譯草案 （已截止）
正體中文版早案
（已截止）
IAS 19
Employee Ben efits員工福利
翻譯草案 （已截止）
正體中文版早案
（已截止）
IAS 20
Acco unting for Gover nment Grants and Disclosure of Gover nment Assista nee政府補助之會計及政府輔助之揭露
準則名稱
第一次徵求意見
第二次徵求意見
Framework
Framework for the Preparati on and Prese ntati on of Finan cial Stateme nts財務報表編製及表達之架構
翻譯草案 （已截止）
正體中文版早案 （已截止）
IFRS1
zirst-time Adopti on of Intern ati onal =inan cial Report ing Stan dards首次採用國際財務報導準則
翻譯草案 （已截止）
正體中文版早案
（已截止）
IAS 38
ntan gible Assets無形資產
翻譯草案 （已截止）
正體中文版早案
（已截止）
IFRS 9
CFA财务分析第七章财务分析导论
CFA财务分析第七章财务分析导论STUDY SESSION 7 FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ANALYSIS: AN INTRODUCTION财务报告和分析：导论READING 29 FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS: AN INTRODUCTION财务报表分析：导论财务报告（financial reports ）中提供的信息，包括财务报表（financial statements ）、注释（financial notes ），以及管理讨论与分析（management’s discussion and analysis ）等，可以帮助财务分析师（financial analyst ）评估企业的经营状况（performance ）和财务状况（financial position ）。
财务报告（financial reporting ）是指公司通过编制和呈报财务报表，向投资者、债权⼈和其他利益主体报告公司财务表现（financial performance ）的⽅式。
财务报告（financial report ）包括财务报表(financial statements)、注释（financial notes ），附加信息（supplementary information/supplementary schedules ）、管理讨论与分析（management’s discussion and analysis ）、外部审计报告（external auditor’s report ）等内容。
根据国际会计准则委员会（IASB ）的定义，编制财务报表的⽬标（objective of financial statements ）是，向财务报告使⽤者提供公司的经营状况（performance ）、财务状况（financial position ）、财务状况的变动情况（changes in financial position ）等信息，帮助报告使⽤者进⾏经济决策。
converage accounting standard -回复
converage accounting standard -回复Convergence of Accounting Standards: A Step-by-Step ExplanationIntroduction:Convergence of accounting standards refers to the process of developing a single set of high-quality global accounting standards that can be used by companies worldwide. This article will provide a step-by-step explanation of the convergence process, highlighting its importance, challenges faced, and the benefits it brings.Step 1: Setting the StageThe journey towards convergence began in 1973 with the establishment of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC). Its primary objective was to develop a set of accounting standards that could be adopted internationally. However, it faced challenges as different countries had their accounting principles and standards, resulting in discrepancies and difficulties in comparability.Step 2: Development of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)In 2001, the IASC was replaced by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), which initiated the development of a new set of global accounting standards called the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The IFRS aims to provide a common financial language for businesses across the world.Step 3: Adoption of IFRS by Different CountriesSince its inception, the IFRS has gained significant momentum. Many countries have adopted or converged their accounting standards with the IFRS. Some countries, such as Australia, Canada, and India, have fully adopted the IFRS. Others, including the United States and Japan, have made progress towards convergence but still have some differences between their local standards and the IFRS.Step 4: Benefits of ConvergenceThe convergence of accounting standards offers several benefits.Firstly, it ensures transparency and enhances financial reporting quality, providing users of financial statements with reliable and comparable information. This improves the decision-making process for investors, lenders, and other stakeholders.Secondly, convergence reduces the complexity and costs associated with preparing financial statements for multinational companies. It eliminates the need for companies to prepare separate financial statements using different accounting standards for each country they operate in.Thirdly, convergence facilitates the global movement of capital by increasing investor confidence. Investors can easily analyze financial statements of companies worldwide, enabling them to make informed investment decisions.Step 5: Challenges in the Convergence ProcessThe convergence of accounting standards presents several challenges that need to be addressed. One significant challenge is the disparity between different national accounting standards. Countries have different legal, regulatory, and culturalenvironments that impact their accounting practices. Harmonizing these diverse practices requires extensive coordination and agreement.Another challenge is the resistance from certain stakeholders. Individuals and organizations may have vested interests in maintaining their current accounting standards, making them reluctant to adopt or converge with the IFRS. Some argue that local standards are better suited to their country-specific needs.Step 6: Achieving Convergence - The Role of GlobalStandard-SettersTo achieve convergence, global standard-setters like the IASB and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) work together to identify and resolve accounting differences. They engage in joint projects to converge their standards in areas like revenue recognition, leases, and financial instruments. These efforts aim to develop uniform guidelines that can be universally adopted.Step 7: Monitoring the Convergence ProcessOnce convergence objectives are established, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to ensure its effectiveness. Regular reviews of the converged standards help identify any issues or areas requiring refinement. Global standard-setters collaborate with national standard-setters, regulators, auditors, and other stakeholders to assess the impact of the converged standards and address any emerging challenges.Conclusion:The convergence of accounting standards is an ongoing process that strives to create a single set of high-quality global accounting standards. While challenges exist, the benefits of convergence are vast, including improved transparency, comparability, cost savings, and increased investor confidence. With continued collaboration and monitoring, the global accounting community is working towards achieving convergence and promoting harmonization of accounting practices worldwide.。
采用国际会计准则财务报表的影响：德国的情况【外文翻译】
外文翻译Financial statement effects of adopting international accounting standards: the case of Germany Material Source: /Author: Mingyi Hung· K. R. Subramanyam1 IntroductionAs of January 1, 2005, all listed companies in the European Union are required to prepare their financial statements in accordance with International Accounting Standards (IAS) (Hofheinz 2002). IAS adoption by the European Union is one of the biggest events in the history of financial reporting, making IAS the most widely accepted financial accounting model in the world. Accordingly, there is an urgent need for managers and investors to understand the implications of IAS adoption. This is especially true in European countries with stakeholder-oriented accounting systems (such as Germany and France), as IAS is heavily influenced by the shareholder-oriented Anglo-Saxon accounting model, whereas local standards in many European countries have a greater contracting orientation and are driven by tax-book conformity considerations.The objective of our paper is to examine the financial statement effects of adopting IAS in European countries with stakeholder-oriented accounting systems. We conduct our investigation using a sample of 80 German firms that adopt IAS for the first time during the 1998 through 2002 period. Specifically, we investigate the effects of IAS adoption on financial statements by (1) documenting the financial statement changes precipitated by IAS adoption and (2) examining the effects of these changes on the properties of financial statement information. Examining financial statement implications is important because, while IAS adoption might lead to indirect economic consequences such as higher market liquidity or lower cost of capital, the only direct effects of adopting IAS are changed financial statements (and related footnote disclosures).We limit our investigation to Germany primarily to overcome problems associated with comparing across countries with different institutional environments. In addition, Germany is particularly well suited for our empirical investigation for several reasons. First, Germany provides an ideal natural experiment for examiningthe financial statement effects of IAS adoption in countries with stakeholder-oriented accounting systems because, unlike IAS, German CAAP or the German Commercial Code (Handelsge.setzbuch; henceforth, HGB) emphasizes a "prudent" approach to asset valuation and liability recognition to facilitate contracting among stakeholders (Harris et al. 1994; Leuz and Wustemann 2004).2 Second, because Germany has a strong rule of law tradition and an efficient judicial system, we can be assured that there is adequate enforcement of accounting rules (La Porta et al. 1998).3 Third, a relatively large number of German companies have adopted IAS, which provides us a reasonably large sample.4Our research design allows us to directly compare accounting numbers (and their properties) prepared under HGB with those prepared under IAS. A direct comparison is possible because German firms adopting IAS are required to restate their prior-year results under IAS during the adoption year; that is, IAS-adopting firms are required to issue financial statements prepared under both IAS and HGB for the year before adoption. Accordingly, our research design controls for cross-sectional and time-series differences between IAS and HGB firm-years. In addition, we restrict our sample to firms adopting IAS in 1998 or thereafter. Two important events occurred in 1998: (1) the core IAS standards were completed, and (2) IAS adopters were mandated to fully comply with the IAS standards (before 1998, companies could choose to implement only a subset of IAS standards). 5 Hence, examining post-1997 adoptions ensures that our IAS firm-years are representative.Our empirical investigation comprises two basic sets of analyses. Our first set of analyses documents the major accounting differences between HGB and IAS as well as the effects of IAS adoption on key accounting measures such as book value of equity and net income. Based on the book value and net income reconciliation adjustments that a subset of our sample firms report in their annual reports, we find that switching to IAS results in widespread and significant changes to deferred taxes, pensions, PP&E, and loss provisions. In addition, we find that total assets and book value of equity are significantly larger under IAS than under HGB and that cross-sectional variation in book value and net income are significantly higher under IAS than under HGB. Overall, our results are consistent with HGB emphasizing the prudence principle (balance sheet conservatism) and income smoothing-for example, limited recognition of assets and frequent use of discretionary loss provisions-and IAS emphasizing fair values and balance sheet valuation-for example,the use of fair value for financial instruments and recognition of internally developed intangibles.Our second set of analyses investigates the effects of IAS adoption on the relative and incremental value relevance of book values and net income as well as the asymmetric timeliness of net income. Since our sample companies voluntarily adopt IAS and therefore do not represent a random selection of German firms, we implement the two-stage regression procedure suggested by Heckman (1979) to control for the effect of self-selection in these tests. We measure value relevance in terms of the ability of accounting measures to explain contemporaneous stock prices. Our relative value relevance analysis finds no evidence that IAS improves the value relevance of book value or net income. However, we find that book value (net income) is accorded a significantly larger (smaller) valuation coefficient under IAS than under HGB, consistent with IAS markedly reducing income persistence (Ohlson 1995). In addition, our incremental value relevance results show that while the IAS adjustments to book value are value relevant, they add noise (measurement error) to income. Overall, our value relevance results are consistent with IAS being balance sheet- and fair value-orientated and HGB being income smoothing- and historical cost-oriented.Finally, we compare the timeliness and asymmetric timeliness of income measured under HGB and IAS. As in Ball et al. (2000), we estimate both timeliness and asymmetric timeliness (conditional conservatism) by regressing income on returns interacted with a variable that measures the sign of returns. Our results are consistent with IAS recognizing economic losses in a timelier manner than HGB, which suggests that IAS income is more conditionally conservative than its HGB counterpart. However, these results are not statistically significant.Two factors could potentially bias our results. First, we conduct our analyses in the year before IAS adoption, when IAS numbers are unavailable to the market. It is possible that our results are driven by the inability of the market to price IAS information at the time we conduct our tests. Accordingly, we conduct additional analyses using future prices and returns as proposed by Aboody et al. (2002). The results of these analyses suggest that the unavailability of IAS information is not likely to affect our inferences. Second, it is possible that our sample companies gradually narrowed differences between HGB and IAS before IAS adoption that is, gradually transitioned to IAS, potentially lowering the power of our tests (Barth et al. 2005). However, our additional analyses find little evidence of such gradualtransition, which suggests that our results are robust to this alternative explanation.' Our paper's primary contributions to the literature are threefold. First, we provide evidence on the likely financial statement effects of IAS adoption throughout the European Union, arguably one of the biggest events in the history of financial reporting. Unlike Barth et al. (2005), who study a large sample of firms from many different countries, we conduct a detailed examination on a small sample of German firms that voluntarily adopt IAS using a design that provides superior experimental control.Second, we contribute to the literature examining the valuation properties of IAS (for example, Ashbaugh and Olsson 2002; Harris and Muller 1999) by focusing our investigation on the period after both the adoption of the core standards by the IASC and the requirement of full compliance. Thus, our paper is arguably the first to examine the financial statement effects of truly representative IAS. Consequently, we are the first to document the substantial fair-value orientation of IAS and its implications for the value relevance and timeliness of financial statement information.Third, we contribute to the debate on the relative superiority of the Anglo- Saxon shareholder-oriented versus the continental European stakeholder-oriented accounting models. Prior studies using cross-country comparisons conclude that the shareholder-oriented model is more value relevant (Ali and Hwang 2000) but are unable to disentangle the effects of accounting standards from other institutional factors such as shareholder protection or market development. In contrast, we implement a design that allows us to examine the effects of accounting differences under a ceteris paribus condition and find no significant differences in value relevance between stakeholder-oriented (HGB) and share- holder-oriented (IAS) accounting models, although we do find suggestive evidence that IAS income may recognize economic losses in a timelier manner. While speculative in nature, our results are consistent with Ball et al. (2003), who show that institutional factors such as shareholder protection may play a more important role than accounting standards in explaining cross-country variation in the valuation properties of accounting data.The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 describes the sample. Section 3 discusses accounting differences between HGB and IAS. Section 4 presents our procedure to correct for potential self-selection bias. Section 5 provides the results on the value relevance of HGB and IAS measures, while Section 6examines differences in asymmetric timeliness. Section 7 discusses several robustness tests. Finally, Section 8 concludes.The average effects of net income reconciliation items are generally in the same direction as those of book value reconciliation items, except for the adjustments related to provisions and deferred taxes. We note that the accounting differences do not necessarily change book value and net income in the same direction because book value captures the cumulative effect of accounting differences whereas net income captures the effect during the fiscal year. For example, while the change from tax-based accelerated depreciation methods to straight-line depreciation methods will increase book value of PP&E and therefore increase book value of equity, it will generally decrease (increase) depreciation expense and therefore increase (decrease) net income in the earlier (later) stage of PP & E's useful life.Since the net income adjustments result from the same accounting differences described in Sect. 3.1.1, we only provide a brief description of the five most frequent adjustment items: Deferred Taxes. As expected, deferred taxes represent the most frequent net income adjustment item, reported in 81% of observations. In addition, IAS expense adjustments related to defer taxes on average reduce net income by, 7 million. Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E) IAS adjustments related to PP&E on average increase net income by, 19 million, indicating a decrease depreciation expense related to PP&E during the reporting period. Leases, IAS adjustments related to leases on average increase net income by, 28 million, indicating a decrease in expenses (such as interest and depreciation expenses related to the lease) during the reporting period Pensions. While IAS adjustments related to pensions are relatively frequent, the average effect on net income is miniscule (the mean and median are both less than one Euro million). The small effect in net income suggests that most of the increase in pension liability is reflected in its opening balance for the reporting period, Goodwill.IAS adjustments related to goodwill on average increase net income by €2 million, indicating a decrease in goodwill amortization expense during the reporting period.译文采用国际会计准则财务报表的影响：德国的情况资料来源:/作者：MingyiHung·K.R.Subramanyam1 简介截至2005年1月1日，在欧洲联盟的所有上市公司被要求准备依据国际会计准则（IAS）（霍夫海因茨2002）来编制其财务报表。
IFRS关于金融工具
IFRS关于金融工具国际财务报导准则(IFRS)将近2900页的规范中，有关金融工具之规范超过520页，其会计处理相当复杂难懂，对於高度运用金融工具理财与筹资的企业，财务报表的揭露更是让投资人望之兴叹。
为了改善此一现象，国际会计准则理事会(简称IASB)计画分阶段取代现行IAS 39之内容，目的在於改善并简化金融工具之财务报导。
IASB於2009年11月发布IFRS 9『金融工具』，现阶段仅完成金融资产分类与衡量之修订，成为取代IAS 39计画第一个完成的里程碑。
IASB预计於2010年陆续将金融负债分类与衡量、减损、避险会计及除列的修订纳入IFRS 9，而IAS 39也将走入历史。
过去IAS 39规定金融资产共分四类，各自订有不同的适用与衡量规范，IFRS 9将分类简化为公允价值衡量或以摊销后成本衡量两类，IAS 39中备供出售与持有至到期日之金融资产类别将予删除，并且删除持有至到期日投资相关的惩罚原则。
原则上，所有的金融资产都应依公允价值衡量，但若能同时通过业务模式测试与合约现金流量特性测试之债务工具，应以摊销后成本衡量，续后必须进行减损测试。
业务模式测试系指企业持有金融资产之业务模式是以收取合约现金流量为目的，而非为了在合约到期前出售该工具以获取公允价值变动。
IFRS 9并未要求企业须将债务投资持有至到期，例如，若企业投资政策规定所持有的债券投资必须属於投资等级，然而原持有之投资等级债券信用评等恶化成为垃圾债券，则企业提前处分该债券并不违反业务模式测试。
合约现金流量特性测试系指金融资产之合约条款使特定日期产生之现金流量仅为偿付本金及流通在外本金之利息(简称本金与利息)。
要通过此项测试，利率可以为浮动利率或固定利率，然而，反浮动利率计息之放款并不符合此项条件。
国内常见的可转换公司债，所附之可转换权代表不属於支付本金与利息的现金流量，因此无法通过次项测试。
通过上述两项测试的债务工具虽然应以摊销后成本衡量，但若以此方式衡量将导致会计衡量之不一致，IFRS 9仍允许企业指定以公允价值变动列入损益衡量。
CFA 一级 财务 IFRS与GAAP的区别-自己整理
Amortized cost and fair value mathod
没有Cost model明确的概念
Identifiable intangible assets
Cost model or revaluation model
R&D
Research cost: expense
expense在有确定的目的前expense有确定的目的后captaliezcostforoenusecomponentdepreciationdividendpaidinterestpaiddividendandinterestcfoorcfitaxpaidnetincome与现金流表现金流表中interestexpensecapitalizedinterest中短期投资的利息收入impairments要求cfoorcffcfoorcff可以但是很少被用到cffcfocfocfo要求协调一致通过一定的调节在现金流表中分开表述或者在foodnote中指出营业相关的cfo其它的cfi或cff不要求在现金流表中分开表述andtax将在capitalized的成本中被扣除每年都要重新评只有在有特殊的条件或情况下才评价recoverablitypvundiscountlossmeasurementpvdiscountvaluationallowanceeffectiveratemethodorstraightlinemethod作为资产并在收入表中作为expense逐年支出在未到期回购时应将未分摊的发行成本writeoff从而计算gainorlosssalestypeordirectfinancingleaseleasepayment的pv和账面价值的比较在资产负债表中记录overfunded为assestunderfunded为liabilitydtabondexpensebond发行成本effectiveratemethod之前在bond的carryingvalue中扣除提高了bond的effectiveinterestrate无需writeofflease从出租者看没有区分fundedstatusp275interest去掉未知的部分然后记录在资产负债表里financialleasefundedstatus转移了全部的权利和风险只是一个数字没有实际的意义扣除了不能明确确认的gainsloss以及不能确认的服务的费用记录在incomestatement满足特定条件中的一条即可记录在underfundedliabilitybalancesheet中overfundedasset由于汇率的变化造成的unrealizedgainlossavailableforsaleon
外文翻译--在消费信贷决策中的独立会计作用及财务能力
本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：The role of self-accounting and financial capability inconsumer credit decisions出处：Department of Economics and Quantitative Methods—SEFEMEQ作者：Filotto Umberto, Nicolini Gianni原文：The role of self-accounting and financial capability in consumer credit decisionAbstractThe role of financial capability in the consumers’ financial behaviour has been widely analyzed by the literatare．The same happened for the relationship between debt and financial capability，The consensus about the benefits of an increase in the levels of financial literacy collides with a diversity of opinions on what the best solutions to increase financial capability．While methods based on traditional teaching may not be an effective solutions and they could not provide results in the short term，solutions oriented to support consumers in important financial decisions(requests for funding choice of retirement solutions，etc．)may show greater effectiveness· Studies in literature have shown the tendency of subjects with high levels of financial capability to adopt a long term view and to upgrade their daily financial behaviour with attitudes and practices related to self-finance (budget，financial check—up，saving for goals，etc．)The paper focuses on the relationship between financial caDability and self-accounting practices，interpreting the latter as evidence of conduct financially aware．After a review of the literature designed to emphasize the role of self-accounting in the context of personal finance，a financial check．up based tool is proposed，pointing out how the financial accounts’schemes and logics(regular budget，estimates and forecasts checking targets)may find useful application in thecontext of personal financeIntroductionThe relevance of financial capability is determined by the evolution of the market and by the ever increasing degree of financial innovation．The increase in the number of products and services and their articulation in a variety 0f customized solutions have simultaneously expanded the range of possible options but also the complexity of customer choices．All agree that increase in the number of available financial solutions turns into a market improvement only if the customet is able to evaluate the distinguishing characteristics of each one，thus recognizing that most suitable f0r his or her needs；however several studies have shown that the level of knowledge in financial matters is 2enerallv low and，sometimes，it’s not sufi cient to form ulate sound and responsible choices regarding savmg，investment and borrowing．There is vast awareness that a knowledge divide separates the supply and the demand side of the market；because this situation is not considered to be positive for several reasons ，governments，supervisory authoritiesand private organizations have started to study the alternatives available to rebalance the relationship between consumers and financial intermediaries．The diversity of opinions regarding the means of intervention and the target populations has led to the start of a multitude of proj ects and initiatives that difer in purpose，logic and duration．The choices that might seem more natural-the integration of financial capability courses into the scholastic curricula．does not seem to be totally efective and it does ignore adults(the most active in financial term s)who，being no longer of school age，would excluded from such programs.While it would be illogical to ignore a significant part of consumers，letting them to be guided in their personal financial choices only by their own experiences and beliefs，it must be also be considered that it is extremely expensive and complicated to engage in a comprehensive educational program considering also the limitations of time and motivation of the adult population．The assumption that adults should be asked to invest considerable portions of their free time to learn concepts which oftendo not even feel the need to acquire highlights the limitations of a mass approach. More suited to the needs of adult consumers are those solutions that are provided in the proximity of specific financial decisions，focused on topics closely related to the obj ect of choices．From this point of view，financial capability is not any more something generic and standardized(by the logic that“one size fit all”)and becomes a diversified mode of action，oriented through the real consumers needs．This paper focuses on consumer credit，by proposing a decision support tool aimed at those who are considering taking new financing．The goal of the tool is to focus consumers’attention on some critical choices of financing，with a highlight of the possible impact of a specific loan on the financial situation of the borrower．In the first part the authors will focus on the contribution that the planning and control approach，typical of accounting，can provide to financial capability．Once the usability and adaptability of the accounting instruments is tested，the necessary adjustments required to avoid possible behavioural distortions，which occur in case consumers are asked to a self-made diagnosis，will be considered．The second part of the paper presents the tool structure and the estimation of its parameters through an analysis of the Italian marketAccounting，self-accOunting and financial capabilityFinancial capability becomes relevant．talking about consumer credit．when issues such as indebtedness and the equilibrium in consumer finances and his or her capacity of repayment of debts are considered．There are several profiles that come into consideration when the authors analyse the level of consumer comprehension of the risks that come with a new debt．A first element of vulnerability in the consumer logic is“shorterm ism”fLichtenstein& Fischhoff,1 977)．Consumers overweight benefit from the immediate possession of the purchased good，ignoring the effects that loan repayments will have on their future financial situation(Hilgert，Hogarth& Beverly,2003)．A second critical factor is the inability of consumers to evaluate the financial contract，as they concentrate on partial indicators such as the amount of the installment，while ignoring comprehensive measures such as total financial amount ofdebts or the APR．A third critical factor is the tendency of consumers to narrow flaming．Assessments about the sustainability of funding should be based on a comprehensive view of the financial situation，rather than focussing on the analysis of the specific operation．Fragmentation，which follows a myopic view and partial equilibria of medium—to long·term risk，is a characteristic of consumer credit choices，as it happens with all the activities where the limited payment amount leads to focus on a small part of a wider financial balance．The consumer considers the single debt，forgetting about its efect on his or her global financial situation．A fourth element to be considered is the consumers’overconfidence．As GraserWeber (2007)show, consumers tend to attribute to themselves the credit for financial successes，identifying exogenous factors to justify their losses．The trust in a full mastery in financial matters，based on previous financial experiences，is identified as the main cause of overconfidence，which exposes the consumer to take risks and make choices without having the full awareness of the consequences．If the critical factors that expose consumers to a not—optimal financial behaviour are diferent and suggest the need of a financial counseling activity, it is useful to analyze the contribution that accounting principles and solutions can provide on the matter．Using accounting for financial capability purposes is motivated by the common goal of management and control of financial balances that firms and consumers share．Thaler(1 999)emphasizes how individuals feel the need to“record，summarize，analyze，and report the results of financial transactions and other events，doing so with the same purposes of the organizations that use the managerial accounting”．The desire to keep trace of where their money is going and to keep spending under control can replicate the business world’s own accounting practices．Supporting consumers：A proposalAccounting and self-accounting methods have been adopted to develop a tool designed to support consumers that are considering taking a loan．The goal is to define a model of self-assessment enabling consumers to determine the impact of a new loanon their financial situation．To be efective with adults．however the tool has to overcome the abovementioned problems of traditional education．Because adults would allocate only a fraction of their time to learning financial matters only the financial knowledge that is needed has to be delivered and it has to be delivered when is needed．and the way it is acceptable and understandable by the user．This means complying with principles of relevancy, contingency and usability which require to answer properly to specific needs and to actual problems．Ergonomics is thus the underlying rule that mandates the way the tool is conceived and developed；ergonomic principles，referred to the educational contents，impose that the model is“tailor．made’’ and therefore finds its input in the form of the easily available and usable data on the consumer’s financial flows. Regarding the form of the model，ergonomics require that the input information is known(or can be found)by the client，that they are clear and simple，avoiding the use of jargon(FSA，2004)and that attention is paid not to require an excessive amount of input information．Whether the mode1 should require the consumer to find data that he or she does not possess(or that are difficult to obtain)would deprive it of its function as an information intermediary．Being simple and user friendly is necessary in order to reach consumers that lack basic financial knowledge，precisely those with the greatest need for counselling；economizing on the amount of input data required is considered necessary in order to minimize the abandonment of those who，lacking a strong motivation，might consider the opportunity—cost of using of the model as excessively high．For similar reasons，the output of the model must also respect its overall principles：it must be clear and immediately understandabl.As is the case for all forlTIS of financial counselling(the provision of advice on savings．investments．insurance，etc．)，the elaboration of implicit information on customers seeking loan advice occurs on the basis of the kn ow—how and ability of the counsellor in the area of problem—solving；it thus refers to long term financial budgeting，and to estimations of the consumer’s default risk．From the input data relative to the consumer’s periodical cash flow,it is possible to obtain a tailor．made estimate of the consumer’s level of risk and identify his specific financial habits(spending attitudes，tendency to borrow，saving habits，etc．)．Data relative toa consumer’s socio—demographic profile allows the estimation of the consumer’s risk by means of a regression analysis based on the behaviours of a representative sample of consumers．The output of the two different analyses is a statement summarizing the possible effects that the new loan could have on the consumer’s financial situation，highlighting the consequences that their current behaviour and choices could have on the future financial situation.译文：在消费信贷决策中的独立会计作用及财务能力摘要消费者经济行为的作用已被广泛分析为债务与金融能力，对金融知识的碰撞中的水平与多样性的关系，增加效益的共识发生。
中国转让定价(中英文)
PricewaterhouseCoopers China Accounting Standards Convergence CommentaryPRC Accounting Standards Convergence Commentary - "Best or Worst of Times?”普华永道评中国会计准则与国际趋同中国会计准则与国际趋同：是生逢其时，还是为时尚早？PwC says "MoF（Ministry of Finance）has made a key move to join the world stage. Companies need to start their planning now to make a smooth transition to adopt new Chinese Accounting Standards in 2007 - the challenge should not be underestimated".普华永道表示“在走向世界舞台的进程中，中国财政部迈出了关键的一步。
企业必须立刻行动起来，为2007年起正式实施新会计准则体系实现平稳过渡做好筹备工作－这是一项不容低估的挑战”。
Beijing, 16 February, 2006 - On 15 - 16 February 2006, the Chinese Ministry of Finance (“MoF”) and the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”) held a joint press conference at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, to form ally announce that Chinese Accounting Standards (“CAS”) will converge with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) in January 2007. The word revolution can indeed portray what will happen as CAS undergo fundamental change and Chinese companies make preparations to adopt these new standards over the next year.北京2006年2月16日讯 2006年2月15日至16日期间，中国财政部和国际会计准则委员会（IASB）于北京人民大会堂召开联合新闻发布会，正式宣布中国会计准则将于2007年1月起与国际财务报告准则趋同。