未来公允价值的变化外文翻译

合集下载

新准则会计科目英文翻译

新准则会计科目英文翻译新准则会计科目英文翻译一、资产类1 1001 库存现金cash on hand2 1002 银行存款bank deposit5 1015 其他货币资金other monetary capital9 1101 交易性金融资产transaction monetary assets11 1121 应收票据notes receivable12 1122 应收账款Account receivable13 1123 预付账款account prepaid14 1131 应收股利dividend receivable15 1132 应收利息accrued interest receivable21 1231 其他应收款accounts receivable-others22 1241 坏账准备had debts reserve28 1401 材料采购procurement of materials29 1402 在途物资materials in transit30 1403 原材料raw materials32 1406 库存商品commodity stocks33 1407 发出商品goods in transit36 1412 包装物及低值易耗品wrappage and low value and easily wornout articles42 1461 存货跌价准备reserve against stock price declining43 1501 待摊费用fees to be apportioned45 1521 持有至到期投资hold investment due46 1522 持有至到期投资减值准备hold investment due reduction reserve47 1523 可供出售金融资产financial assets available for sale48 1524 长期股权投资long-term stock ownership investment49 1525 长期股权投资减值准备long-term stock ownership investment reduction reserve50 1526 投资性房地产investment real eastate51 1531 长期应收款long-term account receivable52 1541 未实现融资收益unrealized financing income54 1601 固定资产permanent assets55 1602 累计折旧accumulated depreciation56 1603 固定资产减值准备permanent assets reduction reserve57 1604 在建工程construction in process58 1605 工程物资engineer material59 1606 固定资产清理disposal of fixed assets60 1611 融资租赁资产租赁专用financial leasing assets exclusively for leasing61 1612 未担保余值租赁专用unguaranteed residual value exclusively for leasing62 1621 生产性生物资产农业专用productive living assets exclusively for agriculture63 1622 生产性生物资产累计折旧农业专用productive living assets accumulated depreciation exclusively for agriculture64 1623 公益性生物资产农业专用non-profit living assets exclusively for agriculture65 1631 油气资产石油天然气开采专用oil and gas assets exclusively for oil and gas exploitation66 1632 累计折耗石油天然气开采专用accumulated depletion exclusively for oil and gas exploitation67 1701 无形资产intangible assets68 1702 累计摊销accumulated amortization69 1703 无形资产减值准备intangible assets reduction reserve70 1711 商誉business reputation71 1801 长期待摊费用long-term deferred expenses72 1811 递延所得税资产deferred income tax assets73 1901 待处理财产损溢waiting assets profit and loss二、负债类debt group74 2001 短期借款short-term loan81 2101 交易性金融负债transaction financial liabilities83 2201 应付票据notes payable84 2202 应付账款account payable85 2205 预收账款item received in advance86 2211 应付职工薪酬employee pay payable87 2221 应交税费tax payable88 2231 应付股利dividend payable89 2232 应付利息interest payable90 2241 其他应付款other account payable97 2401 预提费用withholding expenses98 2411 预计负债estimated liabilities99 2501 递延收益deferred income100 2601 长期借款money borrowed for long term101 2602 长期债券long-term bond106 2801 长期应付款long-term account payable107 2802 未确认融资费用unacknowledged financial charges 108 2811 专项应付款special accounts payable109 2901 递延所得税负债deferred income tax liabilities 三、共同类112 3101 衍生工具derivative tool113 3201 套期工具arbitrage tool114 3202 被套期项目arbitrage project四、所有者权益类115 4001 实收资本paid-up capital116 4002 资本公积contributed surplus117 4101 盈余公积earned surplus119 4103 本年利润profit for the current year120 4104 利润分配allocation of profits121 4201 库存股treasury stock五、成本类122 5001 生产成本production cost123 5101 制造费用cost of production124 5201 劳务成本service cost125 5301 研发支出research and development expenditures 126 5401 工程施工建造承包商专用engineering construction exclusively for construction contractor127 5402 工程结算建造承包商专用engineering settlement exclusively for construction contractor 128 5403 机械作业建造承包商专用mechanical operation exclusively for construction contractor 六、损益类129 6001 主营业务收入main business income130 6011 利息收入金融共用 interest income financial sharing 135 6051 其他业务收入 other business income136 6061 汇兑损益金融专用 exchange gain or loss exclusively for finance137 6101 公允价值变动损益sound value flexible loss and profit138 6111 投资收益 income on investment142 6301 营业外收入 nonrevenue receipt143 6401 主营业务成本 main business cost144 6402 其他业务支出 other business expense145 6405 营业税金及附加 business tariff and annex146 6411 利息支出金融共用 interest expense financial sharing 155 6601 销售费用 marketing cost156 6602 管理费用 managing cost157 6603 财务费用 financial cost158 6604 勘探费用 exploration expense159 6701 资产减值损失 loss from asset devaluation160 6711 营业外支出 nonoperating expense161 6801 所得税 income tax162 6901 以前年度损益调整prior year profit and loss adjustment中英文对照最新会计科目北京市审计局发布顺序号编号会计科目名称适用范围英文表达法一、资产类1 1001 库存现金 Cash on Hand2 1002 银行存款 Bank Deposit3 1003 存放中央银行款项银行专用 Deposit in the Central Bank 4 1011 存放同业银行专用Due from Placements with Banks and Other Financial Institutions5 1015 其他货币资金 Other Monetary Capital6 1021 结算备付金证券专用 Deposit Reservation for Balance7 1031 存出保证金金融共用 Deposit for Recognizance8 1051 拆出资金金融共用Lendings to Banks and Other Financial Institutions9 1101 交易性金融资产Transactional Monetary Capital 10 1111 买入返售金融资产金融共用 Redemptory Monetary Capital for Sale 11 1121 应收票据 Notes Receivable12 1122 应收账款 Accounts Receivable131123 预付账款 Accounts Prepayment 141131 应收股利 Dividend Receivable 151132 应收利息 Accrued Interest Receivable 161211 应收保户储金保险专用Receivable Deposit from the Insured 171221 应收代位追偿款保险专用 Subrogation Receivables 181222 应收分保账款保险专用 Reinsurance Accounts Receivable 191223 应收分保未到期责任准备金保险专用 Receivable Deposit for Undue Duty of Reinsurance 201224 应收分保保险责任准备金保险专用 Receivable Deposit for Duty of Reinsurance 211231 其他应收款 Other Accounts Receivable 221241 坏账准备 Bad Debit Reserve 231251 贴现资产银行专用 Deposit of Capital Discounted 241301 贷款银行和保险共用 Loans 251302 贷款损失准备银行和保险共用 Loans Impairment Reserve 261311 代理兑付证券银行和证券共用Vicariously Cashed Securities 271321 代理业务资产 Capital in Vicarious Business 281401 材料采购 Procurement of Materials 291402 在途物资 Materials in Transit 301403 原材料 Raw Materials 311404 材料成本差异 Balance of Materials 321406 库存商品 Commodity Stocks 331407 发出商品 Goods in Transit 341410 商品进销差价 Difference between Purchase and Sales of Commodities 351411 委托加工物资 Materials for Consigned Processing 361412 包装物及低值易耗品Wrappage and Easily Wornout Inexpensive Articles 371421 消耗性生物资产农业专用 Consumptive Biological Assets 381431 周转材料建造承包商专用 Revolving Materials 391441 贵金属银行专用 Expensive Metals 40 1442 抵债资产金融共用 Capital for Debt Payment411451 损余物资保险专用 Salvage Value Of Insured Properties 421461 存货跌价准备 Reserve For Stock Depreciation 431501 待摊费用 Unamortized Expenditures 441511 独立账户资产保险专用 Capital in Independent Accounts 451521 持有至到期投资 Held-To-Maturity Investment 461522 持有至到期投资减值准备Reserve for Held-To-Maturity Investment Impairment 471523 可供出售金融资产 Financial Assets Available for Sale 48 1524 长期股权投资 Long-term Equity Investment 491525 长期股权投资减值准备Reserve for Long-term Equity Investment Impairment 501526 投资性房地产 Investment Real Estate 511531 长期应收款 Long-term Accounts Receivable 521541 未实现融资收益 Unrealized Financing Profits 531551 存出资本保证金保险专用Deposit for Capital Recognizance 541601 固定资产 Fixed Assets 551602 累计折旧 Accumulative Depreciation 561603 固定资产减值准备 Reserve for Fixed Assets Impairment 571604 在建工程 Construction in Process 581605 工程物资 Engineer Material 591606 固定资产清理 Disposal of Fixed Assets 601611 融资租赁资产租赁专用 Financial Leasing Assets 611612 未担保余值租赁专用 Unguaranteed Residual Value 62 1621 生产性生物资产农业专用 Productive Biological Assets 63 1622 生产性生物资产累计折旧农业专用Accumulative Depreciation of Productive Biological Assets 641623 公益性生物资产农业专用Biological Assets for Commonweal 651631 油气资产石油天然气开采专用 Oil and Gas Assets 66 1632 累计折耗石油天然气开采专用 Accumulated Depletion67 1701 无形资产Intangible Assets 68 1702 累计摊销Accumulated Amortization 69 1703 无形资产减值准备Reserve for Intangible Assets Impairment 70 1711 商誉Business Reputation 71 1801 长期待摊费用Long-term Deferred Expenses 72 1811 递延所得税资产Deferred Income T ax Assets 73 1901 待处理财产损溢Unsettled Assets Profit and Loss 二、负债类74 2001 短期借款 Short-term Borrowings 75 2002 存入保证金金融共用 Deposit Received for Recognizance 76 2003 拆入资金金融共用 Borrowings from Banks and Other Financial Institutions77 2004 向中央银行借款银行专用 Borrowings from the Central Bank 78 2011 同业存放银行专用Due to Placements with Banks and Other Financial Institutions79 2012 吸收存款银行专用 Savings Absorption80 2021 贴现负债银行专用 Liabilities of Capital Discounted81 2101 交易性金融负债Transactional Moneytary Liabilities 82 2111 卖出回购金融资产款金融共用 Financial Assets Sold for Repurchase 83 2201 应付票据 Notes Payable84 2202 应付账款 Accounts Payable85 2205 预收账款 Accounts Received in Advance86 2211 应付职工薪酬 Payroll Payable87 2221 应交税费 T ax Payable88 2231 应付股利 Dividend Payable89 2232 应付利息 Accrued Interest Payable90 2241 其他应付款 Other Accounts Payable91 2251 应付保户红利保险专用Dividend Payable for The Insured 92 2261 应付分保账款保险专用Dividend Payable for Reinsurance93 2311 代理买卖证券款证券专用 Receivings from Vicariously Traded Securities94 2312 代理承销证券证券和银行Receivings from Vicariously Sold款共用 Securities95 2313 代理兑付证券款证券和银行共用Receivings from Vicariously Cashed Securities 96 2314 代理业务负债Liabilities from Vicarious Business 97 2401 预提费用 Withholding Expenses 98 2411 预计负债 Estimated Liabilities 99 2501 递延收益 Deferred Profits 100 2601 长期借款 Long-term Borrowings 101 2602 长期债券 Long-term Bonds 102 2701 未到期责任准备金保险专用Deposit for Undue Duty of Reinsurance 103 2702 保险责任准备金保险专用Deposit for Duty of Reinsurance 104 2711 保户储金保险专用Deposit of the Insured 105 2721 独立账户负债保险专用Liabilities of Independent Accounts 106 2801 长期应付款Long-term Accounts Payable 107 2802 未确认融资费用 Unsettled Financing Expenses 108 2811 专项应付款Special Accounts Payable 109 2901 递延所得税负债 Deferred Income Tax Liabilities三、共同类110 3001 清算资金往来银行专用Liquidation of Inter Bank Business 111 3002 外汇买卖金融共用Foreign Exchange Buy and Sale 112 3101 衍生工具 Derivative Tools 113 3201 套期工具Arbitrage T ools 114 3202 被套期项目Arbitraged Items 四、所有者权益类115 4001 实收资本 Paid-in Capital 116 4002 资本公积 Capital Surplus 117 4101 盈余公积 Earned Surplus 118 4102 一般风险准备金融共用Generic Risk Reserve 119 4103 本年利润 Full-year Profit 120 4104 利润分配Allocation of Profits 121 4201 库存股Treasury Share 五、成本类122 5001 生产成本Production Costs 123 5101 制造费用Manufacturing Expenditures124 5201 劳务成本Service Costs 125 5301 研发支出Research and Development Expenditures 126 5401 工程施工建造承包商专用 Engineering Constructon 127 5402 工程结算建造承包商专用 Engineering Settlement 128 5403 机械作业建造承包商专用 Mechanical Operations 六、损益类129 6001 主营业务收入 Prime Operating Revenue 130 6011 利息收入金融共用Interest Income 131 6021 手续费收入金融共用Commission Income 132 6031 保费收入保险专用Premium Income 133 6032 分保费收入保险专用Reinsurance Premium Income 134 6041 租赁收入租赁专用Leasehold Income 135 6051 其他业务收入Other Business Income 136 6061 汇兑损益金融专用Exchange Gain or Loss 137 6101 公允价值变动损益 Profit andLoss from Fair Value Changes 138 6111 投资收益Income on Investment 139 6201 摊回保险责任准备金保险专用Amortized Deposit for Duty 140 6202 摊回赔付支出保险专用Amortized Compensation Expenses 141 6203 摊回分保费用保险专用Amortized Reinsurance Expenditures 142 6301 营业外收入Nonrevenue Receipt 143 6401 主营业务成本Prime Operating Cost 144 6402 其他业务成本 Other Operating Cost 145 6405 营业税金及附加 Business Tax and Surcharges 146 6411 利息支出金融共用Interest Expenses 147 6421 手续费支出金融共用Commission Expenses 148 6501 提取未到期责任准备金保险专用Appropriation of Deposit for Undue Duty 149 6502 提取保险责任准备金保险专用Appropriation of Deposit for Duty 150 6511 赔付支出保险专用Compensation Expenses 151 6521 保户红利支出保险专用Dividend Expenses for The Insured 152 6531 退保金保险专用Loan Value1536541 分出保费保险专用 Reinsurance Premium 1546542 分保费用保险专用 Reinsurance Expenses 1556601 销售费用 Marketing Costs 1566602 管理费用 Managing Costs 1576603 财务费用 Financing Costs 1586604 勘探费用 Prospecting Costs 1596701 资产减值损失 Assets Devaluation 1606711 营业外支出Nonoperating Expenses 161 6801 所得税Income Tax162 6901 以前年度损益调整Profit and Loss Adjustment of Former Years**********************1 资产 assets11~ 12 流动资产 current assets111 现金及约当现金 cash and cash equivalents1111 库存现金 cash on hand1112 零用金/周转金 petty cash/revolving funds1113 银行存款 cash in banks1116 在途现金 cash in transit1117 约当现金 cash equivalents1118 其它现金及约当现金 other cash and cash equivalents112 短期投资 short-term investment1121 短期投资 -股票 short-term investments - stock1122 短期投资 -短期票券 short-term investments - short-term notes and bills 1123 短期投资 -政府债券 short-term investments - government bonds 1124 短期投资-受益凭证short-term investments - beneficiary certificates 1125 短期投资-公司债short-term investments - corporate bonds1128 短期投资 -其它 short-term investments - other1129 备抵短期投资跌价损失 allowance for reduction of short-term investment to market113 应收票据 notes receivable1131 应收票据 notes receivable1132 应收票据贴现 discounted notes receivable1137 应收票据 -关系人 notes receivable - related parties1138 其它应收票据 other notes receivable1139 备抵呆帐－应收票据allowance for uncollec- tible accounts- notes receivable114 应收帐款 accounts receivable1141 应收帐款accounts receivable1142 应收分期帐款installment accounts receivable1147 应收帐款-关系人accounts receivable - related parties1149 备抵呆帐－应收帐款allowance for uncollec- tible accounts - accounts receivable118 其它应收款other receivables1181 应收出售远汇款forward exchange contract receivable 1182 应收远汇款-外币forward exchange contract receivable - foreign currencies1183 买卖远汇折价discount on forward ex-change contract 1184 应收收益earned revenue receivable1185 应收退税款income tax refund receivable1187 其它应收款- 关系人other receivables - related parties 1188 其它应收款- 其它other receivables - other1189 备抵呆帐- 其它应收款allowance for uncollec- tible accounts - other receivables121~122 存货inventories1211 商品存货merchandise inventory1212 寄销商品consigned goods1213 在途商品goods in transit1219 备抵存货跌价损失allowance for reduction of inventory to market1221 制成品finished goods1222 寄销制成品consigned finished goods1223 副产品by-products1224 在制品work in process1225 委外加工work in process - outsourced1226 原料raw materials1227 物料supplies1228 在途原物料materials and supplies in transit1229 备抵存货跌价损失allowance for reduction of inventory to market125 预付费用prepaid expenses1251 预付薪资prepaid payroll1252 预付租金prepaid rents1253 预付保险费prepaid insurance1254 用品盘存office supplies1255 预付所得税prepaid income tax1258 其它预付费用other prepaid expenses126 预付款项prepayments1261 预付货款prepayment for purchases1268 其它预付款项other prepayments128~129 其它流动资产other current assets1281 进项税额VAT paid ( or input tax)1282 留抵税额excess VAT paid (or overpaid VAT)1283 暂付款temporary payments1284 代付款payment on behalf of others1285 员工借支advances to employees1286 存出保证金refundable deposits1287 受限制存款certificate of deposit-restricted1291 递延所得税资产deferred income tax assets1292 递延兑换损失deferred foreign exchange losses1293 业主(股东)往来owners'(stockholders') current account 1294 同业往来current account with others1298 其它流动资产-其它other current assets - other13 基金及长期投资funds and long-term investments131 基金funds1311 偿债基金redemption fund (or sinking fund)1312 改良及扩充基金fund for improvement and expansion 1313 意外损失准备基金contingency fund1314 退休基金pension fund1318 其它基金other funds132 长期投资long-term investments1321 长期股权投资long-term equity investments1322 长期债券投资long-term bond investments1323 长期不动产投资long-term real estate in-vestments1324 人寿保险现金解约价值cash surrender value of life insurance1328 其它长期投资other long-term investments1329 备抵长期投资跌价损失allowance for excess of cost over market value of long-term investments14~ 15 固定资产property , plant, and equipment141 土地land1411 土地land1418 土地-重估增值land - revaluation increments142 土地改良物land improvements1421 土地改良物land improvements1428 土地改良物-重估增值land improvements - revaluation increments 1429 累积折旧-土地改良物accumulated depreciation - land improvements 143 房屋及建物buildings1431 房屋及建物buildings1438 房屋及建物-重估增值buildings -revaluation increments 1439 累积折旧-房屋及建物accumulated depreciation - buildings144~146 机(器)具及设备machinery and equipment1441 机(器)具machinery1448 机(器)具-重估增值machinery - revaluation increments 1449 累积折旧-机(器)具accumulated depreciation - machinery151 租赁资产leased assets1511 租赁资产leased assets1519 累积折旧-租赁资产accumulated depreciation - leased assets152 租赁权益改良leasehold improvements1521 租赁权益改良leasehold improvements1529 累积折旧- 租赁权益改良accumulated depreciation - leasehold improvements156 未完工程及预付购置设备款construction in progress and prepayments for equipment1561 未完工程construction in progress1562 预付购置设备款prepayment for equipment158 杂项固定资产miscellaneous property, plant, and equipment1581 杂项固定资产miscellaneous property, plant, and equipment1588 杂项固定资产-重估增值miscellaneous property, plant, and equipment - revaluation increments1589 累积折旧- 杂项固定资产accumulated depreciation - miscellaneous property, plant, and equipment16 递耗资产depletable assets161 递耗资产depletable assets1611 天然资源natural resources1618 天然资源-重估增值natural resources -revaluation increments1619 累积折耗-天然资源accumulated depletion - natural resources17 无形资产intangible assets171 商标权trademarks1711 商标权trademarks172 专利权patents1721 专利权patents173 特许权franchise1731 特许权franchise174 著作权copyright1741 著作权copyright175 计算机软件computer software1751 计算机软件computer software cost176 商誉goodwill1761 商誉goodwill177 开办费organization costs1771 开办费organization costs178 其它无形资产other intangibles1781 递延退休金成本deferred pension costs1782 租赁权益改良leasehold improvements1788 其它无形资产-其它other intangible assets - other18 其它资产other assets181 递延资产deferred assets1811 债券发行成本deferred bond issuance costs1812 长期预付租金long-term prepaid rent1813 长期预付保险费long-term prepaid insurance1814 递延所得税资产deferred income tax assets1815 预付退休金prepaid pension cost1818 其它递延资产other deferred assets182 闲置资产idle assets1821 闲置资产idle assets184 长期应收票据及款项与催收帐款long-term notes , accounts and overdue receivables1841 长期应收票据long-term notes receivable1842 长期应收帐款long-term accounts receivable1843 催收帐款overdue receivables1847 长期应收票据及款项与催收帐款-关系人long-term notes, accounts and overdue receivables- related parties1848 其它长期应收款项other long-term receivables1849 备抵呆帐-长期应收票据及款项与催收帐款allowance for uncollectible accounts - long-term notes, accounts and overdue receivables185 出租资产assets leased to others1851 出租资产assets leased to others1858 出租资产-重估增值assets leased to others - incremental value from revaluation1859 累积折旧-出租资产accumulated depreciation - assets leased to others 186 存出保证金refundable deposit1861 存出保证金refundable deposits188 杂项资产miscellaneous assets1881 受限制存款certificate of deposit - restricted1888 杂项资产-其它miscellaneous assets - other====================================== ==========================================2 负债liabilities21~ 22 流动负债current liabilities211 短期借款short-term borrowings(debt)2111 银行透支bank overdraft2112 银行借款bank loan2114 短期借款-业主short-term borrowings - owners2115 短期借款-员工short-term borrowings - employees2117 短期借款-关系人short-term borrowings- related parties 2118 短期借款-其它short-term borrowings - other212 应付短期票券short-term notes and bills payable2121 应付商业本票commercial paper payable2122 银行承兑汇票bank acceptance2128 其它应付短期票券other short-term notes and bills payable2129 应付短期票券折价discount on short-term notes and bills payable213 应付票据notes payable2131 应付票据notes payable2137 应付票据-关系人notes payable - related parties2138 其它应付票据other notes payable214 应付帐款accounts pay able2141 应付帐款accounts payable2147 应付帐款-关系人accounts payable - related parties216 应付所得税income taxes payable2161 应付所得税income tax payable217 应付费用accrued expenses2171 应付薪工accrued payroll2172 应付租金accrued rent payable2173 应付利息accrued interest payable2174 应付营业税accrued VAT payable2175 应付税捐-其它accrued taxes payable- other2178 其它应付费用other accrued expenses payable218~219 其它应付款other payables2181 应付购入远汇款forward exchange contract payable2182 应付远汇款-外币forward exchange contract payable - foreign currencies 2183 买卖远汇溢价premium on forward exchange contract2184 应付土地房屋款payables on land and building purchased2185 应付设备款Payables on equipment2187 其它应付款-关系人other payables - related parties2191 应付股利dividend payable2192 应付红利bonus payable2193 应付董监事酬劳compensation payable to directors and supervisors2198 其它应付款-其它other payables - other226 预收款项advance receipts2261 预收货款sales revenue received in advance2262 预收收入revenue received in advance2268 其它预收款other advance receipts227 一年或一营业周期内到期长期负债long-term liabilities -current portion 2271 一年或一营业周期内到期公司债corporate bonds payable - current portion 2272 一年或一营业周期内到期长期借款long-term loans payable - current portion2273 一年或一营业周期内到期长期应付票据及款项long-term notes and accounts payable due within one year or one operating cycle2277 一年或一营业周期内到期长期应付票据及款项-关系人long-term notes and accounts payables to related parties - current portion2278 其它一年或一营业周期内到期长期负债other long-term lia- bilities - current portion228~229 其它流动负债other current liabilities2281 销项税额VAT received(or output tax)2283 暂收款temporary receipts2284 代收款receipts under custody2285 估计售后服务/保固负债estimated warranty liabilities2291 递延所得税负债deferred income tax liabilities2292 递延兑换利益deferred foreign exchange gain2293 业主(股东)往来owners' current account2294 同业往来current account with others2298 其它流动负债-其它other current liabilities - others23 长期负债long-term liabilities231 应付公司债corporate bonds payable2311 应付公司债corporate bonds payable2319 应付公司债溢(折)价premium(discount) on corporate bonds payable232 长期借款long-term loans payable2321 长期银行借款long-term loans payable - bank2324 长期借款-业主long-term loans payable - owners2325 长期借款-员工long-term loans payable - employees2327 长期借款-关系人long-term loans payable - related parties2328 长期借款-其它long-term loans payable - other233 长期应付票据及款项long-term notes and accounts payable2331 长期应付票据long-term notes payable2332 长期应付帐款long-term accounts pay-able2333 长期应付租赁负债long-term capital lease liabilities2337 长期应付票据及款项-关系人Long-term notes and accounts payable - related parties2338 其它长期应付款项other long-term payables234 估计应付土地增值税accrued liabilities for land value increment tax2341 估计应付土地增值税estimated accrued land value incremental taxpay-able235 应计退休金负债accrued pension liabilities2351 应计退休金负债accrued pension liabilities238 其它长期负债other long-term liabilities2388 其它长期负债-其它other long-term liabilities - other28 其它负债other liabilities281 递延负债deferred liabilities2811 递延收入deferred revenue2814 递延所得税负债deferred income tax liabilities2818 其它递延负债other deferred liabilities286 存入保证金deposits received2861 存入保证金guarantee deposit received288 杂项负债miscellaneous liabilities2888 杂项负债-其它miscellaneous liabilities - other====================================== ==========================================3 所有者权益owners' equity31 资本capital311 资本（或股本）capital3111 普通股股本capital - common stock3112 特别股股本capital - preferred stock3113 预收股本capital collected in advance3114 待分配股票股利stock dividends to be distributed3115 资本capital32 资本公积additional paid-in capital321 股票溢价paid-in capital in excess of par3211 普通股股票溢价paid-in capital in excess of par- common stock3212 特别股股票溢价paid-in capital in excess of par- preferred stock323 资产重估增值准备capital surplus from assets revaluation 3231 资产重估增值准备capital surplus from assets revaluation 324 处分资产溢价公积capital surplus from gain on disposal of assets3241 处分资产溢价公积capital surplus from gain on disposal of assets325 合并公积capital surplus from business combination3251 合并公积capital surplus from business combination326 受赠公积donated surplus3261 受赠公积donated surplus328 其它资本公积other additional paid-in capital3281 权益法长期股权投资资本公积additional paid-in capital from investee under equity method3282 资本公积- 库藏股票交易additional paid-in capital - treasury stocktrans-actions33 保留盈余(或累积亏损) retained earnings (accumulated deficit)331 法定盈余公积legal reserve3311 法定盈余公积legal reserve332 特别盈余公积special reserve3321 意外损失准备contingency reserve3322 改良扩充准备improvement and expansion reserve3323 偿债准备special reserve for redemption of liabilities3328 其它特别盈余公积other special reserve335 未分配盈余(或累积亏损) retained earnings-unappropriated (or accumulated deficit)3351 累积盈亏accumulated profit or loss3352 前期损益调整prior period adjustments3353 本期损益net income or loss for current period34 权益调整equity adjustments341 长期股权投资未实现跌价损失unrealized loss on market value decline of long-term equity investments3411 长期股权投资未实现跌价损失unrealized loss on marketvalue decline of long-term equity investments342 累积换算调整数cumulative translation adjustment3421 累积换算调整数cumulative translation adjustments343 未认列为退休金成本之净损失net loss not recognized as pension cost 3431 未认列为退休金成本之净损失net loss not recognized as pension costs 35 库藏股treasury stock 351 库藏股treasury stock3511 库藏股treasury stock36 少数股权minority interest361 少数股权minority interest3611 少数股权minority interest====================================== ==========================================4 营业收入operating revenue41 销货收入sales revenue411 销货收入sales revenue4111 销货收入sales revenue4112 分期付款销货收入installment sales revenue417 销货退回sales return4171 销货退回sales return419 销货折让sales allowances4191 销货折让sales discounts and allowances46 劳务收入service revenue461 劳务收入service revenue4611 劳务收入service revenue47 业务收入agency revenue471 业务收入agency revenue4711 业务收入agency revenue48 其它营业收入other operating revenue488 其它营业收入-其它other operating revenue4888 其它营业收入-其它other operating revenue - other交易性金融资产：financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 持有至到期投资：held-to-maturity investments 公允价值变动损益：changes in fair value recognised in profit or loss。

公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献

公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)原文:Fair Value is here to stayThe fair value guidance in SFAS 157 Fair Value Measurements, does not represent, as many perceive, a radical departure from previous accounting rules. SFAS 157 is the result of a natural evolution that has been taking place for more than 30 years. SFAS 157 is the result of anatural evolution that has been taking place for more than 30 years.Many who oppose SFAS 157 do so because of the current economic environment. This current economy, during which many hedge funds and other institutional investors face significant other-than-temporary write-downs on illiquid assets, is, however, an anomaly. Any valuation method that does not require significant write-downs in the current environment would fail to provide a reasonable representation of fair value for those illiquid assets.When it was introduced in 2007, SFAS 157 amended, deleted, or otherwise affected more than 40 areas of accounting guidance, including SFAS 13, Accounting for Leases. SFAS 13, issued in 1976, introduced the fair value concept when it described an asset being sold in an "arm's length transaction between unrelated parties." Since then, the accounting framework has continued to move away from a historical cost model and toward a fair value model.Throughout this transition, accounting standards were issued that discussed fair value in different contexts. SFAS 157 was designed primarily to provide a uniform definition of fair value and a universal measurement framework. Contrary to popular perception, SFAS 157 does not require any new items to be measured at fair value; it specifies the framework to be used wherever other standards require that items be measured at fair value.Along the WayMany accountants were educated during an era when colleges taught the tenets of historical cost as part of the fundamental framework of accounting. To those watching the fair value model slowly supplant the cost model during the past 30 years, it may seem like a dramatic change in thinking has recently occurred, but much of this shift is attributable to the ongoing development of accounting standards and rules, rather than a change in approach.To those watching the fair value model slowly supplant the cost model during the past 30 years, it may seem like a dramatic change in thinking has recently occurred, but much of this shift is attributable to the ongoing development of accounting standards and rules, rather than a change in approach. Prior to SFAS 87,Accounting for Pensions, and SFAS 106, Employers' Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions, many companies paid for these benefits on a pay-as-you go cash basis, with little attention given to the fair value of the plan assets that were needed to be set aside to cover the cost of such benefits or how to account for them on an accrual basis. SASs 87 and 106 required companies for the first time to factor in the fair value of plan assets when determining their benefit obligations.The next sweeping implementation of fair value took place when companies began to adopt SFAS 133, Accounting for Derivatives and HedgingActivities, in 1999. Prior to SFAS 133, companies were not required to put all derivatives on their balance sheet at fair value; derivatives were not even defined in the literature. For the first time, complex financial instruments, many of which were involved in hedging relationships, were subject to fair valuation. Soon after, SFAS 140, Transfers of Financial Assets, gave rise to difficult-to-value seductive financial assets, such as residential and commercial mortgage-hacked securities RMBS and CMBS, which in turn gave rise to collateralized debt obligationsCDO and other financial instruments. A barrage of valuation techniques based on higher math designed to account for securitization followed.SFAS 157 had a significant impact on fair value accounting for illiquid securities, which are typically among the most difficult assets to value. Prior to SFAS 157, companies often cherry-picked information to support valuations for illiquid positions, regardless of accuracy. Now, they are required to consider all "reasonably available" information and use the best data available to support their market assumptions and parameters.Even though SFAS 157 has been in effect for more than a year, many illiquid assets are still being valued based on previous methodologies that are clearly inaccurate.Today's EnvironmentIn the current economic environment, air value accounting facesintensified scrutiny, challenging situations, and significant opposition. Attention is especially focused on three areas:? Other-than-temporary write-downs,? Fresh-start accounting, and? Illiquid securities.Other-than-temporary write-downs.With Level 1 securities, determining when to record an other-than-temporary impairment can he as straightforward as deciding how much time has passed since an impairment began. When the tech bubble burst, for example, companies often realized after six to nine months that asset values weren't going to recover any time soon, if at all.But what about Level 2 or Level 3 assets that are valued using sophisticated modeling techniques? Prior to SFAS 157, companies and their auditors might have agreed to hold off or postpone making an adjustment, due to a lack of relevant and reliable information. SFAS 157 has driven companies to consider new types and sources of information, and to work harder to support valuations for Level 2 and Level 3 assets. Companies are now expected to support their Level 2 and Level 3 assets almost as if they were Level I assets.In evaluating goodwill for other-than temporary impairment, SFAS 157 suggests that a publicly traded stock price, if available, is the best indicator of fair value. But even when a stock price is available, other,more traditional methods of fair value, such as discounted cash flow, must also be considered. The challenge lies in supporting these other methods in the current environment of declining prices.With the release of FASB Staff Position FSP FAS 1 15-2 and FAS 124-2,Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments, in April 2009, companies are able to bifurcate certain losses on debt securities classified as held-to-maturity or available-for-sale between the portion related to credit conditions and the portion related to noncredit conditions. The noncredit portion will be recognized on the balance sheet until the debt security matures or is sold. In many situations, the amount reclassified to the balance sheet will include losses previously recognized in other periods. This new rule has caused controversy among practitioners and standards setters, primarily because it delays the inevitable recognition of those losses in earnings when the debt security is sold or matures.Fresh-start accounting Companies petitioning for Chapter 11 bankruptcy need to know whether they will qualify for fresh start accounting based on their reorganization value according to the provisions of AICPA Statement of Position SOP 90-7, Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the Bankruptcy Code.SOP 90-7 provides a two-step test. The first step requires a comparison of reorganization value with the value of postposition claimsand obligations immediately prior to court confirmation. This balance sheet solvency test is a moving target throughout a bankruptcy proceeding, because there may be large fluctuations in reorganization value and claims until the plan is implemented. The second step requires that holders of existing common shares immediately before court confirmation have, as a group, less than 50% of the new company's shares upon emergence from bankruptcy. The challenge here involves the negotiations that take place between debtor and creditor committees and the company, which are then subject to final court approval.Illiquid securities. When determining fair value, companies must consider the frequency with which securities are traded. Fair value is more readily supportable for a frequently traded security than for one that is thinly traded because SFAS 157 emphasizes the importance of observable prices.Today, a company's desire to hold a position, together with its requirement to value that position, is causing a unique anomaly in the valuation world, as securities that would otherwise trade normally are increasingly subject to write-downs. A good valuation model must take into account all facts and circumstances. For example, when the market is dry for a specific illiquid security, the valuation methodology must consider any widening credit spreads, liquidity premiums from the time of the last active trading activity to the then-current indications, and discountrates implicit in nonbinding broker quotes.With the finalization in April 2009 of FSP FAS 157-4, Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions that Are Not Orderly, companies are now subject to additional disclosure requirements and must carefully support how observable prices from inactive markets areused in valuations. Companies may also need to explain significant differences between different inputs to value.FSP FAS 157-4 did not come about without opposition; it generated nearly 400 comment letters within a short period. The author is not aware of any other proposed accounting rule that generated so many comment letters within such a short time and that underwent such a drastic turn around before being finalized.Tomorrow's EnvironmentU.S. companies are facing a seemingly inevitable changeover to International Financial Reporting Standards IFRS. Fair value guidance under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GAAP is primarily rules-based, while fair value guidance under IFRS is based on principles. Principles often evolve into rules, but, in this case, rules appear to be reverting back to their origin as principles.Fair value guidance under SFAS 157 and íFRS are different inseveral respects. For example, IFRS does not define the term "market participants," does not include the concepts of principal market or "highest and best use," and does not generally permit imaret pricing. While there will be convergence to eliminate many differences, companies will need to embrace and understand the principles based approach behind IFRS.Fair value will continue to generate challenges for accountants, especially if and when IFRS is adopted. The sooner companies come to grips with the impact of fair value accounting, the better, because fair value is here to stay.翻译:公允价值仍留在此处在美国财务会计准则委员会《财务会计准则公告第157号公允价值计量》(SFAS 157)的指导下,公允价值计量,并不代表尽可能多的感知,与以前的会计准则大相径庭。

公允价值会计——不断变化的环境分析【外文翻译】

外文翻译原文Fair-Value Accounting—Analyzing the Changing EnvironmentMaterial Source: The CPA Jouranl Author: By Rebecca ToppeShortridge, Amanda Schroeder, and Erin WagonerAPRIL 2006 - FASB’s exposure draft, Fair Value Measurement, has brought renewed attention to the debate between historical-cost measurement and fair-value measurement in financial statements.Perhaps the strongest argument for a move to fair-value accounting is that historical-cost financial statements do not provide information that is relevant to investors. The fact that the market value of publicly traded firms on the New York Stock Exchange is five times their asset values serves to highlight this deficiency. The primary driver of this disparity was clearly illustrated by then–Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, as quoted in Cracking the Value Code: How Successful Businesses Are Creating Wealth in the New Economy (Richard E.S. Bolton, Barry D. Libert, and Steve M. Samek; HarperCollins, 2000). Greenspan said: “[V]irtually unimaginable a half-century ago was the extent to which concepts and ideas would substitute for physical resources and human brawn in the production of goods and services.”The fair-value exposure draft would establish a framework for measuring assets and liabilities at fair value. Critics, however, have expressed concerns with the proposal.Recent FASB ProjectsFASB has issued numerous standards in recent years to require the use of or provide guidance for calculating fair-value measurements in financial accounting. This change from prior practice signifies to many a deliberate movement away from historical-cost financial statements and toward fair market value statements.Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts 7. As FASB increases the items reported using fair value, determining how to actually measure value is critical. For example, how should a company establish the value of a customer list acquired in abusiness combination? Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts (SFAC) 7, Using Cash Flow Information and Present Value in Accounting, provides a framework for using the present value of future cash flows to establish fair value. According to SFAC 7, “the only objective of present value, when used in accounting measurements … is to estimate fair value.Stated differently, present value should attempt to capture the elements that when taken together would comprise a market price, if one existed.”Essentially, SFAC 7 provides a discussion of present-value techniques that can be used to estimate fair value when a market-based value does not exist. By providing a method for establishing fair value, FASB extended the potential uses of fair-value accounting.Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 141. FASB released Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 141, Business Combinations, in June 2001. This was a groundbreaking standard, because intangible assets that had never been recognized now had to be separately identified and reported in a business combination. FASB indicated that numerous users had indicated a desire for better information regarding intangible assets because they had become increasingly important in the U.S. “knowledge economy.”Thus, SFAS 141 requires that all intangible assets acquired in a business combination “be recognized as an asset apart from goodwill if it arises from contractual or other legal rights … or if it is separable.” The intangible assets now required to be separately measured and recognized include such items as trade dress, customer lists, computer software, and employment contracts.SFAS 141 further indicates that intangible assets acquired in a business combination “should initially be assigned an amount based on their fair value.” Fair value is defined as the amount at which the asset could be bought or sold in a current transaction between willing parties. The statement also notes that “judgment is required in estimating the period and amount of expected cash flows,” and that these judgments should be consistent with the objective of measuring fair value.While assets required to be measured at market value in this standard are related to arm’s-length transactions, there was previously no requirement to separately identify intangible assets such as customer lists and employment contracts. This statement suggests that FASB is changing its focus from measuring only hard assets to also measuring the “soft” assets that are increasingly important in the current U.S. economy.Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 142. SFAS 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, covers three topics: 1) the postacquisition accounting treatment for all intangibles, including those acquired through a business combination; 2) accounting for the acquisition of intangible assets in circumstances outside of business combinations; and 3) accounting for internally generated intangible assets.First, SFAS 142 defines the requirements for postacquisition accounting of intangible assets. If the intangible asset has a definite useful life, amortization is required over the life of the asset. If the intangible asset has an indefinite useful life (e.g., goodwill), it is not subject to amortization and is instead tested annually for impairment. Second, SFAS 142 requires that intangible assets acquired outside of business combinations be recorded at fair value (see Rose Marie L. Bukics and J. Chapman Benson, “The Big Splash: Goodbye, Pooling; Hello, Goodwill Impairment Testing,” The CPA Journal, March 2002). Finally, SFAS 142 clearly states that the “costs of internally developing, maintainin g, or restoring intangible assets that are not specifically identifiable, that have indeterminate lives, or that are inherent in a continuing business and related to an entity as a whole, shall be recognized as an expense when incurred.”Consistent with SFAS 141, this standard requires recognition of intangible assets that were previously not reported in historical-cost financial statements. This standard also recognizes that the value of assets may not decline equally over time, thus they should be measured for impairment. This requires companies to establish methods for assessing value for individual assets and operating units.Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 144. SFAS 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, uses fair-value measurements to assess whether long-lived assets are permanently impaired. This standard, issued in August 2001, states that impairment “is the condition that exists when the carrying amount of a long-lived asset (asset group) exceeds its fair va lue.” This statement again requires using fair-value measurements to determine the appropriate accounting treatment.SFAS 144 provides “traditional” guidance on assessing fair value. In particular, it indicates that the fair value of an asset is the amount that the asset could be purchased or sold for in a third-party transaction. Paragraph 22 dictates that actively quoted market prices are the best measure but that prices of similar assets may be used when necessary. Paragraph 23 provides that it may be necessary to use thepresent value of discounted cash flows technique presented in SFAC 7 when a market value cannot be used to establish a reasonable value.Interestingly, in numerous scenarios (SFAS 144, lower of cost or market for inventory, and others) FASB believes it is appropriate to use fair-value measurements to record asset impairments. Supporters of fair-value accounting could use these scenarios to support the use of fair-value accounting for all assets and liabilities on the balance sheet. The question arises: If fair value can be used to develop relevant and reliable measures of impairment, then why aren’t fair-value measures relevant and reliable measures of appreciation?FASB Exposure Draft, Fair-Value Measurements. In June 2004, after more than five years of work, FASB issued an exposure draft on fair-value measurements. This proposal provides guidance for valuing assets and liabilities that are required to be measured at fair value under other pronouncements. The ultimate goal of the fair-value project is to improve comparability, consistency, and reliability of fair-value measurements by creating a model that can be broadly applied to financial and nonfinancial assets and liabilities. The framework would also remove policies that disagree with SEC guidelines for investment funds, and clarify the use of fair-value measurements in other authoritative pronouncements.The exposure draft would not replace, but instead would expand upon, current disclosures relating to the use of fair-value measurements for assets and liabilities. Disclosures would include information about fair-value amounts, how they are determined, and the effect of any remeasurement on earnings, including unrealized gains and losses (see Joseph V. Carcello and Jan R. Williams, “Fa ir Value Measurement,” in Miller GAAP 2004). These new disclosures would apply to securities that are perpetually measured at fair value and to assets that are periodically measured for impairment. Carcello and Williams note that this standard would have broad implications, affecting or amending more than 30 accounting standards.In summary, this exposure draft does not expand the assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value. Instead, it provides a consistent framework for measuring these assets and liabilities and for disclosing information about their valuation. Although the standard does not increase the assets and liabilities currently measured at fair value, it provides a format that FASB could use in the future to measure additional assets and liabilities at fair value.Relevance Versus ReliabilityPerhaps the root of the disagreement over a shift to fair-value measurement is the philosophical debate over relevance versus reliability. Proponents of fair-value accounting argue that historical-cost financial statements are not relevant because they do not provide information about current values. The fair-value dissenters argue that the information provided by fair-value financial statements is unreliable because it is not based on arm’s-length transactions. They contend that if the information is unreliable it should not be used to make financial decisions. This trade-off should be at the core of any discussion about the use of fair value in financial statements.Relevance. Proponents of fair-value accounting argue that this measurement is more relevant to decision makers even if it is less reliable. First, fair-value accounting would produce balance sheets that are more representative of a company’s value. Specifically, unless the values of fixed ass ets are assumed to remain the same over time, historical-cost information is relevant only upon obtaining the asset. Furthermore, because historical-cost measures remain unchanged over time, users do not get valuable feedback about appreciation or depreciation following the purchase of the asset.For example, if ABC Corporation purchased a two-acre tract of land in 1980 for $1 million, then a historical-cost financial statement would still record the land at $1 million on ABC’s balance sheet. If XYZ purchas ed a similar two-acre tract of land in 2005 for $2 million, then XYZ would report an asset of $2 million on its balance sheet. Even if the two pieces of land were virtually identical, ABC would report an asset with one-half the value of XYZ’s land; histori cal cost is unable to identify that the two items are similar. This problem is compounded when numerous assets and liabilities are reported at historical cost, leading to a balance sheet that may be greatly undervalued. If, however, ABC and XYZ reported financial information using fair-value accounting, then both would report an asset of $2 million. The fair-value balance sheet provides information for investors who are interested in the current value of assets and liabilities, not the historical cost.Reliability. Despite the advantage of having more-relevant information, the change to fair-value accounting has met with much resistance. The primary argument against fair-value accounting is that it is not reliable. According to Colleen Cunningham, president and CEO of Financial Executives International (FEI), in “Fair Value Accounting: Fair for Whom?” (Financial Executive, March/April 2004): “Relevant information that is unreliable is useless to an investor. We must, therefore,be clear about the nature of the claim being made for an accounting number described as reliable.”One advantage of historical-cost financial information is that it produces earnings numbers that are not based on appraisals or other valuation techniques. Therefore, the income statement is less likely to be subject to manipulation by management. In addition, historical balance sheet figures comprise actual purchase prices, not estimates of current values that can be altered to improve various financial ratios. Because historical-cost statements rely less on estimates and more on “hard” numbers, proponents believe that historical-cost financial statements are more reliable than fair-value financial statements.Furthermore, fair-value measurements may be less reliable than historical-costs measures because fair-value accounting provides management the opportunity to manipulate the bottom line. Continuing the example from above, ABC could argue that its tract of land is undervalued by $1 million and that it should record a gain in the financial statements. What if ABC argued that its tract of land was worth even more because it had a slightly better location? Therefore, instead of a $1 million gain, ABC could choose to report a $1.5 million gain, recognizing an additional $500,000 gain on the income statement.Developing reliable methods of measuring fair value so that investors trust the information reported in financial statements is critical if FASB continues its movement toward fair-value accounting. This is no easy task, especially in light of recent scandals in financial reporting.The Debate ContinuesFASB’s recent activities with SFAC 7, SFAS 141, SFAS 142, SFAS 144, and the fair value exposure draft are steps toward fair-value measurement that will no doubt result in countless debates in the business world. SFASs 141 and 142 require companies to record acquired intangible assets at fair value. However, intangible assets that are internally developed are expensed immediately. Because of this type of inconsistency, investors will likely remain uninformed regarding the true measure of many intangible assets. As Baruch Lev said in his “Remarks on the Measurement, Valuation, and Reporting of Intangible Assets” (Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, September 2003), fair-value information that is provided regarding intangible assets is largely inconsistent, partial, and confusing, and prevents boards of directors and investors from intelligently allocating resources.Undoubtedly, valuing tangible and intangible assets at fair value is extremely difficult and time-consuming. Current financial accounting standards, however, require the use of estimates every day; for example, the allowance for doubtful accounts, contingent liabilities, projected pension obligations, and goodwill impairment. It is not a significant leap to require companies to provide some measurement of the fair market value of both tangible and intangible assets, even if this information is reported only in the footnotes.The debate surrounding historical-cost and fair-market values will not end soon. If anything, this discussion is likely to intensify given FASB’s interest in the topic. One hopes the debate will provide insight into a more efficient system for presenting financial information and economic transactions to boards of directors, analysts, and investors.译文公允价值会计——不断变化的环境分析资料来源:注册会计师期刊作者：丽贝卡肖特里奇，阿曼达施罗德，和艾琳瓦格纳2006年4月- FASB的关于公允价值计量的征求意见稿再次引起了新的财务报表中有关历史成本测量和公允价值计量之间的争论。

有效市场假说专业英语小作文

有效市场假说专业英语小作文The Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) is a theory that suggests that financial markets are "informationally efficient," meaning that asset prices reflect all available information. This theory has significant implications for investors, as it suggests that it is impossible to consistently "beat the market" by exploiting mispricings in securities.There are three forms of the EMH: weak, semi-strong, and strong. The weak form asserts that all past market prices and data are already reflected in stock prices, making it impossible to predict future price movements based on historical data. The semi-strong form states that all publicly available information is already reflected in stock prices, making it impossible to achieve abnormal returns by trading on public information. The strong form suggests that all information, public and private, is reflected in stock prices, making it impossible to achieve abnormal returns even with insider information.The implications of the EMH are significant for both individual and institutional investors. If markets areindeed efficient, then it is impossible to consistently outperform the market through stock selection or market timing. This challenges the active management approach to investing, which relies on the belief that skilled managers can outperform the market through their stock-picking and market-timing abilities.Instead, the EMH suggests that investors should adopt a passive investment strategy, such as investing in index funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that track the performance of a broad market index. This approach aims to replicate the market return rather than attempt to outperform it, and it often comes with lower fees and expenses compared to actively managed funds.Despite its theoretical appeal, the EMH has been subject to criticism and debate. Critics argue that the assumption of "informational efficiency" does not hold in the real world, as there are instances of market anomalies and bubbles that cannot be explained by the EMH. Additionally, the presence of behavioral biases and irrational investor behavior suggests that markets may not always be efficient in processing information.In conclusion, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is a fundamental concept in finance that has significant implications for investment strategy. While it suggeststhat it is difficult to consistently outperform the market, it has also sparked debate and criticism regarding its assumptions and real-world applicability.有效市场假说（EMH）是一种理论，它表明金融市场是“信息效率的”，这意味着资产价格反映了所有可用信息。

观察价格的变化英文作文

观察价格的变化英文作文Title: Unfolding Price Dynamics: A Dynamic Sketch。

1. Embracing the Market's Melody。

In the realm of commerce, prices are like a symphony, their notes shifting with the rhythm of supply and demand. They dance to the beat of market fluctuations, never staying still for long. The rise and fall of prices, a testament to the ceaseless dance of economic life, is a fascinating spectacle to behold.2. The Art of the Unpredictable。

Each day, the price chart is a canvas painted by the hands of countless players. It's a game of cat and mouse, where the market's whimsy determines the hues. The unpredictability of price movements is what keeps investors on their toes, their eyes peeled for the next brushstroke.3. The Price Whisperer: Consumer Behavior。

Consumers, the ultimate price listeners, are the ones who set the tempo. Their buying habits, influenced by trends, news, and even emotions, shape the melody. A surge in demand can instantly raise the price, while a shift in preference can bring it crashing down.4. The Market's Mirror: Supply and Demand。

外文翻译--公允价值会计和经融危机：信差还是贡献者

本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：Fair Value Accounting and the Financial Crisis：Messenger or Contributor?出处：Serie Scientifique Scientific Series作者：Michel Magnan原文：Fair Value Accounting and the Financial Crisis:Messenger or Contributor?Did fair value accounting play a role in the current financial crisis? This appendix explores the issue. Fair value accounting implies that assets and liabilities get measured and reflected on a firm`s financial statements at their market value, or close substitutes. Extensive academic research done over the past 20 years shows that financial statements that reflect the market values of assets or liabilities provide information that is relevant to investors. In other context, fair value accounting is just a messenger carrying bad news. In contrast, there is also another research stream which is quite critical of the perceived merits of fair value accounting, and which worries about how it undermines what constitutes the core of financial reporting. More specifically, it is argued that fair value accounting is difficult to verify, may be based on unreliable assumptions or hypotheses and provides management with too much discretion into the preparation of financial statements. Hence, according to this view, fair value accounting is not necessarily a neutral or unbiased messenger. Moreover, fair value accounting creates a circular dynamic in financial reporting, with markets providing the input for the measurement of many assets, thus affecting reported ear nings which are then used by analysts and investors to assess a firm’s market value. If markets become volatile, as has been the case in recent months, reported earnings also become more volatile, thus feeding investors apprehensions. Therefore, since fair value accounting is associated with more volatile and less conservative financial statements and, it may have allowed managers to delay the day of recognition as well as distorted investors and regulators’ perceptions of financial performance and stability at the end of the financial bubble. However, once the economic pendulum swung back, fair value accounting may have magnified their views as to the severity of the current financial crisis, hence accelerating some negative trends.The purpose of the Appendix is to provide additional insights into the role played by fair value accounting in the financial crisis. Since the crisis is still ongoing, there is no direct or formalempirical evidence about such role, which may be perceived, actual or potential. However, by analyzing the conceptual and empirical foundations of fair value accounting, it may be possible to draw some inferences and to assess if and how fair value accounting underlies some of the recent turmoil in financial markets. In that regard, the Appendix aims to achieve the following objectives. First, I intend to provide a brief overview of fair value accounting, including its impact onfinancial statements. The overview includes a summary of the opposite viewpoints on the merits of fair value accounting. Second, I present and discuss the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of fair value accounting. Thirdly, I analyze the measurement and valuation challenges that arise from the use of fair value accounting. Finally, on the basis of the above analyses, I sketch a tentative framework to understand fair value accounting's role and potential contribution to the financial crisis. While fair value accounting can conceptually apply to all aspects of a firm's financial statements, I will purposefully focus on its application to financial instruments and financial institutions.Fair value is defined as the price at which an asset could be exchanged in a current transaction between knowledgeable, willing parties. For liabilities, fair value is defined as the amount that would be paid to transfer the liability to a new debtor. Under fair value accounting (FVA), assets and liabilities are categorized according to the level of judgment (subjectivity) associated with the inputs to measure their fair value, with three (3) levels being considered. At level 1, financial instruments are measured and reported on a firm's balance sheet and income statement at their market value, which typically reflects the quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets. It is assumed that the quoted price for an identical asset or liability in an active market provides the most reliable fair value measurement because it is directly observable to the market (« mark-to-market »). However, if valuation inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly, but do not qualify as Level 1 inputs, the Level 2 fair value assessment of a financial instrument will reflect a) quoted prices for similar financial instruments in active markets, b) quoted prices for identical or similar financial instruments in markets that are not active, c) inputs other than quoted prices but which are observable (e.g., yield curve) or d) correlated prices. Finally, certain financial instruments which, for example, are customized or have no market, will be valued by a reporting entity on the basis of assumptions that presumably reflect market participants' views and assessments (e.g., private placement investments, unique derivative products, etc.). Such valuation is deemed to be derived from Level 3 inputs and iscommonly referred as "mark-to- model" since it is often the outcome of a mathematical modelling exercise with various assumptions about economic, market or firm-specific conditions. In all cases, any unrealized gain (or loss) on financial instruments held by an institution translates into an increase (decrease) in its stockholders' equity and, consequently, an improvement (deterioration) in its capitalization ratios.Detractors, among them David Dodge, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada, argue vehemently that FV A has accelerated and amplified the current financial crisis. Their argument can be summarized as follows.Starting in 2007, the drop in the price of many types of financial instruments led financial institutions to mark down the asset values reported on their balance sheets, thus weakening their capitalization ratios (let's think about the first write-offs following the start of the subprime crisis). To improve their financial profile and to enhance their safety zone with respect to regulatory capital requirements, these institutions started to sell securities or close down positions on some financial instruments in markets that were increasingly shallow as a result of the emergence of a liquidity crisis. These sales magnified the downdraft in quoted prices, thus bringing additional devaluations, etc. Along these lines, William Isaac, former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, argues that "mark-to-market accounting has been extremely and needlessly destructive of bank capital in the past year and is a major cause of the current credit crisis and economic downturn".However, FVA can count on broad support from the accounting profession, standard setters and regulators. For instance, in a recent speech, Nick Le Pan, Canada's former Superintendent of Financial Institutions, argued that FVA is only a messenger and should not be criticized for merely reflecting the poor underlying economic outlook. Barbara Roper, from the Consumer Federation of America, argues that sound accounting principles, such as FVA,led to the exposure of underlying problem assets. In her view, FV A provides more accurate, timely and comparable information to investors than any other accounting alternative.Theoretical and Empirical Foundations Underlying FV AFAV’s theoretical and empirical premises are relatively solid. In fact, it is one of the few accounting standard that can be traced back directly to accounting-based scientific research. More specifically, there is consistent empirical evidence, accumulated over the past 20 years, that a firm's stock price is more closely associated with the market value of its underlying financial or real assets than with their historical cost, i.e., their purchase price plus related expenses. Thesuperior relevance of market-derived values is even more obvious in the case of financial derivatives which historical cost is often close to zero but which market value can fluctuate widely. In other words, fair values, or marked to market values, have been found to be more relevant indicators of firm value than traditional historical cost-based figures.An interesting early study on the relevance and implications from FVA was performed by Bernard, Merton and Palepu (1995). For many years, Denmark's accounting standard-setting and banking regulatory authorities have relied on mark-to-market valuation for the assets of their commercial banks. Bernard, Merton and Palepu find that Danish banks' book values, which reflect mark-to-market valuations, seem to provide more reliable information to investors than historical cost-based figures then provided by U.S. banks. Moreover, they do not find evidence that Danish bank executives manipulate mark-to-market numbers to circumvent regulatory capital ratios. However, they also point out that that the Danish and U.S. apital markets are not quite similar and that their findings may not completely hold in a U.S. setting.Measurement and Valuation ChallengesDespite its many tangible or perceived benefits to investors, the adoption and use of FVA undermines several critical foundations of financial reporting to which we have become accustomed. More specifically, the implementation of FV A explicitly confirms the primacy of financial markets and of investors in the determination of accounting standards. Essentially, the broader social issues and implications arising from accounting standards for stakeholders beyond investors are assumed away.The potential danger of relying on capital markets-based findings to directly prescribe accounting standard has been highlighted more than 30 years ago by Gonedes and Dopuch.Following a irst wave of capital markets-based studies that mapped their findings directly into standard-setting issues, Gonedes and Dopuch explain that observing an empirical relation between accounting amounts and equity prices or returns does not provide sufficient evidence about the desirability or effects of a particular standard,even if markets are informational efficient. Their conclusion rests on the fact that accounting standards are essentially a public good. Therefore, standard setters' mandate and responsibility is to develop standards after making the appropriate social welfare trade-offs, which do involve more parties than just investors. Hence, deciding about a particular accounting standard requires that social preferences be specified. From a different perspective, Holthausen and Watts (2001) put forward theargument that the value-relevance literature has little to say about standard-setting issues. In their view, without an underlying theory that explains, predicts and links accounting, standard setting, and valuation, value-relevance studies simply report associations.FVA and the Financial Crisis: Some ThoughtsIt is still too early to conclude on FVA's role in the current financial crisis: not all data is available, additional analyses must be completed and all its consequences cannot be observed. However, relying on prior research findings and on available data, it is possible to draw some inferences about thecontribution of FVA to the financial crisis.More Volatile Financial ResultsMost prior research shows that the adoption of FVA translates into more volatile financial results (earnings). Hence, financial markets' extreme volatility over the past two years has contributed to raise financial institutions' volatility, potentially amplifying the perception by investors, regulators and governments as to the seriousness of the crisis. More practically, the drop in reported earnings is even more dramatic in light of the record earnings reported in prior years, with FVA pushing down earnings in the current period but boosting earnings in prior years. Two examples illustrate the potential impact of FVA on the volatility of reported earnings.Crédit Suisse: Within the context of the subprime crisis, the stock market value of most financial institutions depends extensively upon investors' assessment of their direct and indirect exposure to subprime-related loans or derivatives. The valuation information disclosed by financial institutions that evolve in the same markets largely influences such an assessment, with more recent market quotes driving such valuation. In that regard, the saga surrounding Crédit Suisse's release of its 2007 earnings is quite enlightening. On February 12, 2008, Crédit Suisse reports record income from continuous operations of 8.5 billion Swiss Francs. On February 19, 2008.Crédit Suisse announces that some additional control processes have led to the repricing of certain asset-backed positions in its Structured Credit Trading business, with the current total fair value reduction of these positions being reduced by an estimated $U.S. 2.85 billion. Finally, on March 20, 2008, Crédit Suisse reports that its 2007 operating income has been revised downward by 1.18 billion Swiss Francs (789 million Swiss Francs after tax), close to a 10% difference with the initially reported figure. The Crédit Suisse story illustrates the difficulty of pinning down the fair value of many assets when the underlying valuation methodology is complex and subject toshifting hypotheses and assumptions about the future. Crédit Suisse`s experience also shows that reported results for a given period may be subject to a wide margin of error, or discretion, or even restated.Lehman Brothers: In its last reported financial statements before it went bankrupt, Lehman Brothers reported a loss of $U.S. 2.4 billion for the first six months ended May 31, 2008 (vs. a net income of $U.S. 2.4 billion for the first six months ended May 31, 2007). The shift of $U.S. 4.8 billion in net income is largely driven by a dramatic fall of $U.S. 8.5 billion in Lehman's revenues from principal transactions, which include realized and unrealized gains or losses from financial instruments and other inventory positions owned. A significant portion of the downward shift in principal transactions revenues is actually explained by unrealized losses of $U.S. 1.6 billion in the first semester of 2008 vs. unrealized gains of $U.S. 200 million in the first semester of 2007. Thus, accounting at fair value for some financial assets amplified Lehman's downward earnings performance.Hence, it can be put forward that FVA, through its magnifying impact on earnings volatility, may have contributed to aggravate investors', regulators' and governments' perceptions with respect to the severity of the crisis, itself characterized by record volatility in the prices of many securities and goods.On a related note, the increased volatility brought forward by FVA is conducive to the use of equity-based compensation, especially stock options, which value is then enhanced (according to the Black-Scholes model, volatility is one of the key inputs in option valuation). Prior research suggests that there is a strong association between performance volatility and the use of stock options. Through FVA, the outcomes from aggressive risk-taking in investment and financing strategies will directly flow into reported earnings, thus further leveraging the potential gains to be derived from stock options and other incentives. Many financial institutions involved in the current crisis made extensive use of stock options and other incentives, allowing unrealized gains on assets to be converted into cold hard cash..译文：公允价值会计和经融危机：信差还是贡献者公允价值会计在这次金融危机中是否起了重要作用？本文来探讨这个问题。

公允价值的披露,告诉我更多【外文翻译】

外文文献翻译译文原文：Fair Value Disclosures—Tell Me MoreOn benefit plans’financial statements, footnotes about the fair value of plan investments are becoming longer and more complex just as market volatility and alternative investments make it more difficult to determine fair value. The call for more transparency is resulting in further guidance from the Financial Accounting Standards Board that may make those footnotes even longer. The author provides a history of how fair value has been defined and recent updates to accounting standards, and discusses what lies ahead.D o you think you’ve had about enough of the fair value disclosures that your benefit plan makes? Brace yourself. In 2010, two more updates were released that may require even more lengthy and complex footnotes to the financial statements than ever before.A Little HistoryBecause there were different definitions of fair value and limited guidance for applying those definitions that were dispersed through many accounting pronouncements, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) worked for some time to update its guidance on fair value.The end result was Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, Fair Value Measurements (now codified under the FASB Accounting Standards Codification as ASC 820). It was issued in September 2006 and became effective in November 2007.The new standard defined fair value. Simple, right? There were no new requirements to report items at fair value, just a useful definition when an item is required to be reported at fair value under another accounting standard. FASB’s efforts were intended to clarify how to measure fair value so that financial statements were consistent and comparable across the board. Although the new standard retained the exchange price notion in earlier definitions of fair value, it clarified that the exchange price is the price in an orderly transaction between market participants tosell the asset. The definition focused on the price that would be received to sell the asset, not the price that would be paid to acquire the asset. Furthermore, the standard emphasized that fair value measurement was market-based and not entity-based. In other words, the fair value measurement of an asset should be based on the assumptions of a market participant (buyer) and not the assumptions of the entity holding the asset.Through SFAS No. 157, FASB also aimed to help financial statement readers discern just how subjective the process was to arrive at fair value. The standard was designed to create disclosures informing the reader that not all fair values are the same. FASB asserted that being educated about those differences would help the reader make better decisions about the information presented. Thus, the fair value hierarchy (Levels 1, 2 and 3) was born. The end result was a clarifying standard that simplified and fused the various definitions of fair value found throughout the accounting literature, while at the same time provided readers with improved and expanded disclosures.The Markets in CrisisHowever, not long after the fair value measurements accounting standard was issued in 2006, turmoil began to spread throughout the financial markets. By the time public companies and financial institutions had adopted SFAS No. 157, the subprime mortgage market crisis was in full swing. Because many write downs of assets were being reported to conform to fair value accounting, FASB was under a significant amount of pressure and scrutiny regarding its fair value guidance. Was the accounting standard at least partially to blame for the economic fallout? There were market commentators calling for the rescission or suspension of SFAS No. 157. In March 2009, FASB Chairman Robert Herz testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, answering questions about how FASB develops accounting standards, the role of accounting standard setters and the definition of fair value.Chairman Herz emphasized that fair value accounting was nothing new; SFAS No. 157 served only to unite and simplify disparate guidance throughout the literature. Furthermore, the role of FASB, Herz asserted, was to focus primarily on providingtransparent, neutral information in financial statements to aid the reader in decision making. While acknowledging that financial reports affect market behavior, Herz contended that it is not the role of FASB to try to dampen or counter such effects, but it is the role of the regulators to create sound markets. Herz likened blaming fair value accounting for the market crisis to blaming the doctor for telling you that you are sick. Updates in 2009.Although FASB held firm in upholding the new fair value standard, three updates to the guidance were issued the next month to appease some critics. The updates mainly addressed the valuations being assigned to securities in increasingly distressed and inactive markets and the determination of impairment. They were effective almost immediately. Although their effect was initially thought to be minimal for plan financial statements, implementing one of the updates (FASB Staff Position FAS 157-4) did require expanded disclosures of securities held at the major category level based on the nature and risk of the security. This meant that, for example, showing “common stock”as a Level 1 item in the fair value disclosure would not be transparent enough; the footnote table would now have to list the major concentrations of stock held by the plan, and common stock would need to be segregated by its nature or risk, such as business sector (e.g., consumer staples, energy, information technology, etc.) or investment objective or company size.Why the call for expanded categories? In one word: transparency. True, through the eyes of the financial statement preparer, each update to the accounting standards renders the fair value disclosures more lengthy and complex than before. The intention is not to overwhelm or confuse, however. Through the eyes of the financial statement reader, FASB’s updates provide more information and enable better decision making based on the details presented.Driving some of the additional clarification and implementation guidance is the advisory board established by FASB, the Valuation Resource Group (VRG). Composed of a cross-section of industry representatives including financial statement preparers, auditors, users and valuation experts, VRG assesses whether and to what extent additional and more specific guidance is needed for financial reporting, beyondFASB ASC 820 (formerly SFAS No. 157). Although nonauthoritative, VRG advises FASB on valuation issues, diversity in practice and alternative views throughout the industry.Based on recommendations by VRG and other constituents, FASB added a project to its agenda in 2009 on applying fair value accounting standards to interests in alternative investments. The result was the issuance in September 2009 of Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2009-12, Investments That Calculate Net Asset Value Per Share (Or Its Equivalent). This update became effective for periods ending after December 15, 2009 and impacts the financial statements of plans holding such investments as common collective trust funds, hedge funds, private equity funds, limited partnerships and real estate funds. These alternative investments do not have readily determinable fair values; that is, they are not listed on national exchanges or over-thecounter markets. Once the plan buys into the fund, it can exit (redeem its investment or receive distributions) only through the fund manager and not a secondary market. These redemptions typically are at times specified under the terms of the investment fund’s governing documents.When FASB issued its original guidance on fair value measurements, there were many uncertainties about just how it applied to these alternative investments. Typically for plans, an investment fund statement or report provides the net asset value (NA V) per share, and the plan administrator or accountant uses this amount to estimate the fair value of the alternative investment. Many financial statement preparers questioned which attributes of the investment would cause an adjustment to the NA V. Some of the features of these funds in question involved restrictions on redemptions such as gates, notice periods and lockup periods.One of the concerns had to do with liquidity. (If the NA V was $5 at year-end but the plan can’t redeem its shares for at least 12 months, is the fund really worth less than $5 per share right now?) Some had to do with fund closures. (If the plan bought into the investment fund at a NA V of $10 per share but the fund has ceased accepting subscriptions at year-end, would a potential buyer pay more than $10 per share right now for the privilege of getting into the fund?) Because of these complexities andpractical difficulties in estimating the fair value of alternative investments, FASB issued ASU No. 2009-12 to allow the use of NA V per share as a practical expedient and to provide guidance on when an adjustment to NA V per share would be appropriate. In other words, preparers were permitted the use of NA V as representing fair value, provided:•The investment fund calculated NA V in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles at the measurement date.•The financial statements included disclosures about the attributes of the investment funds, such as the nature of any restrictions on the ability to redeem its investments at the measurement date, any unfunded commitments and investment strategies of the investment fund.In order to assist in the implementation of ASU No. 2009-12, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) in December 2009 issued no less than ten technical practice aids on the following subjects:•Applicability of Practical Expedient•Unit of Account•Determining Whether NA V is Calculated Consistent With ASC 946, Financial Services-Investment Companies•Determining Whether an Adjustment to NA V Is Necessary•Adjusting NA V When It Is Not as of the Reporting Entity’s MeasurementDate•Adjusting NA V When It Is Not Calculated Consistent With FASB ASC 946 •Disclosures—Ability to Redeem Versus Actual Redemption Request•Impact of “Near Term”on Classification Within Fair Value Hierarchy•Categorization of Investments for Disclosure Purposes•Determining Fair Value of Investments When the Practical Expedient Is Not Used or Is Not Available.Included in these technical practice aids is a glossary of investment fund features to assist in understanding these complicated investment structures. This update to the FASB ASC and the numerous practice aids only bear witness to the sophistication andcomplexity related to valuing alternative investments. Stanley Feldman, chief valuation officer of Axiom Valuation Solutions, urges plan fiduciaries to demand more transparency from the managers of its alternative investments. Plan trustees should be asking for more detailed disclosures about a fund’s underlying investments from their investment fund managers and then use this information to analytically verify that selfreported investment values are consistent with fair value financial reporting standards, ERISA fiduciary requirements and their social responsibilities to all plan stakeholders, asserts Feldman.2010 UpdatesAt the time this article was written, halfway through 2010, we already have two more updates calling for even greater transparency regarding fair value. In January 2010, FASB issued ASU No. 2010-06, Improving Disclosures About Fair Value Measurements. Although not effective until periods beginning after December 15, 2009, this update requires financial statement footnotes to show the transfers between Levels 1 and 2 as well as Level 3 (and the reasons for such transfers). Furthermore, for fair value measurements categorized as Levels 2 and 3 under the fair value hi- erarchy, financial statement preparers are required to include quantitative information about the valuation inputs used and to describe the nature and characteristics of the asset. For example, a footnote would need to convey some of the major attributes regarding residential mortgage-backed securities, such as the types of underlying loans, a description of the collateral, guarantees or other credit enhancements, the seniority level of the tranches of securities, the year of issuance, the weighted-average coupon rate, the maturity of underlying loans, the geographical concentration or the credit ratings of the loans.ASU No. 2010-06 also requires disclosures about how third-party information such as broker quotes, pricing services, NA Vs and relevant market data was considered in fair value measurements categorized within Levels 2 and 3.Yet there was more to be said about fair value measurements. On June 29, 2010, FASB released a proposed Accounting Standards Update, Amendments for Common Fair Value Measurements and Disclosure Requirements. Although the final versionmay ultimately differ from this exposure draft, the proposed requirements reveal how the demand for even more transparency continues. Working to converge definitions and disclosures under both U.S. generally accepted accounting standards and international accounting standards, FASB is proposing changing the wording used to describe the principles and requirements for measuring fair value. These changes are meant to improve comparability between financial statements prepared under either set of standards; however, financial statement preparers should not see great effects on how they apply current fair value measurement standards.Although the changes to the measurement principles should not significantly affect benefit plan financial statements, the proposed standard also requires additional disclosures that would further expand the fair value measurements footnote in the financial statements. It appears that FASB has been receiving requests from users of financial statements for more information on the measurement uncertainty inherent in Level 3 measurements. For example, one of the expanded disclosures is the so-called sensitivity disclosure. This would describe the effect of changing one or more of the unobservable inputs that could have been reasonably used to measure fair value in the circumstances. Implementing this new update would require that the plan calculate the effect on the fair value measurement of changing one or more of the unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurement with the different inputs available as reasonable alternatives.AICPA also issued more technical practice aids in June 2010, including:•Certificates of Deposit and FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures•Applicability of Fair Value Disclosure Requirements and Measurement Principles in FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, to Certain Financial Instruments.FASB documents including proposed standards can be found at , and AICPA publications are available at .When all is said and done, the expanding fair value measurement disclosures, although difficult and time-consuming for many financial statement preparers, helpinvestors understand just how an asset’s value was determined.It just so happens that at the same time that accounting standards are forcing all of us to get more informed about plan investments, the financial markets are behaving unevenly and plans are facing funding deficits, forcing plan fiduciaries to seek higher returns in nontraditional investments that maximize inefficiencies in the market.Yet an unintended result of holding these “hard-to-value”investments is that the more complex the investment, the lengthier and more complicated the financial statement footnotes become. Alvin Toffler, author of Future Shock, said, “You can use all the quantitative data you can get, but you still have to distrust it and use your own intelligence and judgment.”After sifting through all the hefty disclosures, plan trustees, administrators and professionals still have to ask, for each investment, how fair is this fair value?Source: Brassil, Eileen. Fair Value Disclosures—Tell Me More. Benefits & Compensation Digest, Oct2010, V ol. 47 Issue 10, p36-40, 5p一、翻译文章译文：公允价值的披露，告诉我更多在有关福利计划的财务报表的作用下，公允价值计划投资的脚注正在变得更长、更复杂，就像市场波动和另类投资一样，使它更难以确定公允价值。

会计专业外文翻译--公允价值测量1

外文原文：Fair Value Measurements1 In February 2006 the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) published a Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming their commitment to the convergence of US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) and to their shared objective of developing high quality, common accounting standards for use in the world’s capital markets. The convergence work programme set out in the Memorandum reflects the standard-setting context of the ‘roadmap’ developed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in consultation with the IASB, FASB and European Commission for the removal of the reconciliation requirement for non-US companies that use IFRSs and are registered in the US. The work programme includes a project on measuring fair value.2 The FASB has recently issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), on which work was well advanced before the Memorandum of Understanding was published. SFAS 157 establishes a single definition of fair value together with a framework for measuring fair value for US GAAP. The IASB recognised the need for guidance on measuring fair value in IFRSs and for increased convergence with US GAAP. Consequently, the IASB decided to use the FASB’s standard as the starting point for its deliberations. As the first stage of its project, the IASB is publishing in this discussion paper its preliminary views on the principal issues contained in SFAS 157.3 The IASB plans to hold round-table meetings on this discussion paper in conjunction with the development of an exposure draft. Please indicate in your response to this Invitation to Comment if you are interested in taking part in a round-table meeting. Please note that, because of timing and space constraints, not all of those indicating an interest may be able to take part.4 The IASB will consider responses to this Invitation to Comment and the related round-table discussions in developing an exposure draft of an IFRS on fair value measurement. The exposure draft will be prepared specifically for application to IFRSs. Although provisions of SFAS 157 may be used in the preparation of an exposure draft, they may be reworded or altered to be consistent with other IFRSs and to reflect the decisions of the IASB. The IASB plans to publish an exposure draft by early 2008.5 In November 2005 the IASB published for comment a discussion paper, Measurement Bases for Financial Accounting – Measurement on Initial Recognition, written by the staff of the Canadian Accounting Standards Board. Although that paper contained a discussion of fair value, its primary purpose was to discuss which measurement attributes were appropriate for initial recognition. That paper is part of the ongoing Conceptual Framework project that seeks to establish, among other things, a framework for measurement in financial reporting. Because of the different scope and intent of that paper, it is not discussed in this discussion paper. However, comments on that discussion paper relatingto the measurement of fair value will be considered in the development of the exposure draft of an IFRS on fair value measurement as well as in the Conceptual Framework project. Issue 1. SFAS 157 and fair value measurement guidance in current IFRSs6 IFRSs require some assets, liabilities and equity instruments to be measured at fair value in some circumstances. However, guidance on measuring fair value is dispersed throughout IFRSs and is not always consistent. The IASB believes that establishing a single source of guidance for all fair value measurements required by IFRSs will both simplify IFRSs and improve the quality of fair value information included in financial reports. A concise definition of fair value combined with consistent guidance that applies to all fair value measurements would more clearly communicate the objective of fair value measurement and eliminate the need for constituents to consider guidance dispersed throughout IFRSs.7 The IASB emphasises that the Fair Value Measurements project is not a means of expanding the use of fair value in financial reporting. Rather, the objective of the project is to codify, clarify and simplify existing guidance that is dispersed widely in IFRSs. However, in order to establish a single standard that provides uniform guidance for all fair value measurements required by IFRSs, amendments will need to be made to the existing guidance. As discussed further in Issue 2, the amendments might change how fair value is measured in some standards and how the requirements are interpreted and applied.8 In some IFRSs the IASB (or its predecessor body) consciously included measurement guidance that results in a measurement that is treated as if it were fair value even though the guidance is not consistent with the fair value measurement objective. For example, paragraph B16 of IFRS 3 Business Combinations provides guidance that is inconsistent with the fair value measurement objective for items acquired in a business combination such as tax assets, tax liabilities and net employee benefit assets or liabilities for defined benefit plans. Furthermore, some IFRSs contain measurement reliability criteria. For example, IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment permits the revaluation model to be used only if fair value can be measured reliably This project will not change any of that guidance. Rather, that guidance will be considered project by project. However, the IASB plans to use the Fair Value Measurements project to establish guidance where there currently is none, such as in IAS 17 Leases, as well as to eliminate inconsistent guidance that does not clearly articulate a single measurement objective.9 Because SFAS 157 establishes a single source of guidance and a single objective that can be applied to all fair value measurements, the IASB has reached the preliminary view that SFAS 157 is an improvement on the disparate guidance in IFRSs. However, as discussed in more detail below, the IASB has not reached preliminary views on all provisions of SFAS 157.Issue 2. Differences between the definitions of fair value in SFAS 157 and in IFRSs10 Paragraph 5 of SFAS 157 defines fair value as ‘the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.’Bycomparison, fair value is generally defined in IFRSs as ‘the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction’ (withsome slight variations in wording in different standards). Thedefinition in SFAS 157 differs from the definitionin IFRSs in three important ways:(a)The definition in SFAS 157 is explicitly an exit (selling) price. Thedefinition in IFRSs is neither explicitly an exit price nor an entry (buying) price.(b)The definition in SFAS 157 explicitly refers to market participants. The definition in IFRSs refers to knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction.(c)For liabilities, the definition of fair value in SFAS 157 rests on the notion that the liability is transferred (the liability to the counterparty continues; it is not settled with the counterparty). The definition in IFRSs refers to the amount at which a liabilitycould be settled between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction.11 These differences are discussed in more detail below.Issue 2A. Exit price measurement objective12 The Basis for Conclusions of SFAS 157 includes the following discussion:C26The transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability is a hypothetical transaction at the measurement date, considered from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, the objective of a fair value measurement is to determine the price that would be received for the asset or paid to transfer the liability at the measurement date, that is, an exit price. The Board [FASB] concluded that an exit price objective is appropriate because it embodies current expectations about the future inflows associated with the asset and the future outflows associated with the liability from the perspective of market participants. The emphasis on inflows and outflows is consistent with the definitions of assets and liabilities in FASB Concepts Statement No. 6, Elements of Financial INVITATION TO COMMENT Statements. Paragraph25 of Concepts Statement 6 defines assets in terms of future economic benefits (future inflows). Paragraph 35 of Concepts Statement 6 defines liabilities in terms of future sacrifices of economic benefits (future outflows).13 Paragraph 49 of the IASB’s Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements similarly defines assets and liabilities in terms of inflows and outflows of economic benefits. The majority of IASB members believe that a fair value measurement with an exit price objective is consistent with these definitions and is appropriate because it reflects current market-based expectations of flows of economic benefit into or out of the entity.14 Other IASB members agree with this view, but in their view an entry price also reflects current market-based expectations of flows of economic benefit into or out of the entity. Therefore, they suggest replacing the term ‘fair value’ with terms that are more descriptive of the measurement attribute, such as ‘current entry price’ or ‘current exit price’.15 An entry price measurement objective would differ from the exit price objective in SFAS 157 in that it would be defined as the price that would be paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Some members of the IASB are of the view that an entry price and an exit price would be the same amount in the same market, assuming that transaction costs are excluded. However, an entity might buy an asset or assume a liability in one market and sell that same asset or transfer that same liability (ie without modification or repackaging) in another market. In such circumstances, the exit price in SFAS 157 would be likely to differ from the entry price.16Some fair value measurements required by IFRSs might not be consistent with an exit price measurement objective. In particular, the IASB observes that this might be the case when fair value is required on initial recognition, such as in:(a)IFRS 3,(b)IAS 17 for the initial recognition of assets and liabilities by a lessee under a finance lease, and(c)IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement for the initial recognition of some financial assets and financial liabilities.17In developing an exposure draft, the IASB may propose a revised definition of fair value. If so, it will complete a standard-by-standard review of fair value measurements required in IFRSs to assess whether each standard’s intended measurement objective is consistent with the proposed definition. If the IASB concludes that the intended measurement objective in a particular standard is inconsistent with the proposed definition of fair value, either that standard will be excluded from the scope of the exposure draft or the intended measurement objective will be restated using a term other than fair value (such as ‘current entry value’). To assist in its review, the IASB would like to understand how the fair value measurement guidance in IFRSs is currently applied in practice. It therefore requests respondents to identify those fair value measurements in IFRSs for which practice differs from the fair value measurement objective in SFAS 157.Issue 2B. Market participant view18SFAS 157 emphasises that a fair value measurement is a market-basedmeasurement, not an entity-specific measurement. Therefore, a fairvalue measurement should be based on the assumptions that marketparticipants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Furthermore, evenwhen there is limited or no observable market activity, the objective ofthe fair value measurement remains the same: to determine the pricethat would be received to sell an asset or be paid to transfer a liability inan orderly transaction between market participants at the measurementdate, regardless of the entity’s intention or ability to sell the asset ortransfer the liability at that date.19Paragraph 10 of SFAS 157 defines market participants as buyers andsellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset orliability who are:(a)Independent of the reporting entity; that is, they are not related parties(b)Knowledgeable, having a reasonable understanding about the asset or liability and the transaction based on all available information, including information that might be obtained through due diligence efforts that are usual and customary(c)Able to transact for the asset or liability(d)Willing to transact for the asset or liability; that is, they are motivated but not forced or otherwise compelled to do so.20In comparison, the definition of fair value in IFRSs refers to‘knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction’.Paragraphs 42-44 of IAS 40 Investment Property provide a description of this concept:42The definition of fair value refers to ‘knowledgeable, willing parties’.In this context, ‘knowledgeable’ means that both the willing buyer and the willing seller are reasonably informed about the nature and characteristics of the investment property, its actual and potential uses, and market conditions at the balance sheet date. A willing buyer ismotivated, but not compelled, to buy. This buyer is neither over-eager nor determined to buy at any price. The assumed buyer would not pay a higher price than a market comprising knowledgeable, willing buyers and sellers would require.43A willing seller is neither an over-eager nor a forced seller, prepared to sell at any price, nor one prepared to hold out for a price not considered reasonable in current market conditions. The willing seller is motivated to sell the investment property at market terms for the best price obtainable. The factual circumstances of the actual investment property owner are not a part of this consideration because the willing seller is a hypothetical owner (ega willing seller would not take into account the particular tax circumstances of the actual investment property owner).44The definition of fair value refers to an arm’s length transaction.Anarm’s length transaction is one between parties that do not have a particular or special relationship that makes prices of transactions uncharacteristic of market conditions. The transaction is presumed to be between unrelated parties, each acting independently.21The IASB’s preliminary view is that the market participant view is generally consistent with the concepts of a knowledgeable, willing party in an arm’s length transaction that are currently contained in IFRSs. However, in the IASB’s view, the proposed definition more clearly articulates the market-based fair value measurement objective in IFRSs.中文译文：公允价值测量1 在 2006 年二月，国际会计准则委员会 (IASB) 和美国财务会计标准委员会 (FASB) 公布了再断言他们对美国公认会计原则 (GAAP) 和国际的金融报告标准 (IFRSs) 的集中承诺的一个备忘录和对他们的发展中高级质量的被分享的目的, 公共的为全球的使用资本市场的会计准则。

外文翻译--公允价值和国际会计准则财务会计准则概念框架项目另一种观点

本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译外文题目Fair Value and the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework Project : An Alternative View 外文出处 ABACUS外文作者 Whittington, Geoffrey原文：Fair Value and the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework Project: AnAlternative ViewThis paper analyses various controversial issues arising from the current project of the IASB and FASB to develop a joint conceptual framework for financial reporting standards. It discusses their possible implications for measurement and, in particular, for the use of fair value as the preferred measurement basis. Two competing world views are identified as underlying the debate: a Fair Value View, implicit in the IASB’s public pronouncements, and an Al ternative View implicit in publicly expressed criticisms of the IASB’s pronouncements. The Fair Value View assumes that markets are relatively perfect and complete and that, in such a setting, financial reports should meet the needs of passive investors and creditors by reporting fair values derived from current market prices. The Alternative View assumes that markets are relatively imperfect and incomplete and that, in such a market setting, financial reports should also meet the monitoring requirements of current shareholders (stewardship) by reporting past transactions and events using entity-specific measurements that reflect the opportunities actually available to the reporting entity. The different implications of the two views are illustrated by reference to specific issues in recent accounting standards. Finally, the theoretical support for the two views is discussed. It is concluded that, in a realistic market setting, the search for a universal measurement method may be fruitless and a more appropriate approach tothe measurement problem might be to define a clear measurement objective and to select the measurement method that best meets that objective in the particular circumstances that exist in relation to each item in the accounts. An example of such an approach is deprival value, which is not, at present, under consideration by the IASB.Key words:Conceptual framework; Fair value; Financial reporting;International accounting standards; Measurement.The project by the IASB and FASB to develop a joint conceptual framework,derived from their existing frameworks, is likely to influence the development of accounting standards for many years to come. It is therefore not surprising that the first discussion papers resulting from the project have attracted much fiercer criticism than the standard setters seem to have anticipated, or that much of this criticism has come from within the European Union, which is committed to adopting the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) of the IASB.The issue that seems likely to attract most controversy is that of measurement,which has not yet reached discussion paper stage within the conceptual framework project. In particular, the IASB’s perceived preference for fair value as a measurement objective is likely, if expressed in the conceptual framework discussions, to be strongly contested. This issue has already been raised by an earlier discussion paper issued (but not endorsed) by the IASB, and authored by staff of the Canadian Accounting Standards Board (2005), which praised the positive properties of fair value.Controversy has been stirred further by the IASB’s publication, as a discussion paper (November 2006), of the FASB’s SFAS 157 (2006), which attempts to prescribe the interpretation of fair value within FASB standards as being a current market sale price, ignoring transaction costs and free of entity specific assumptions. Many critics feel that the adoption of this within IASB standards would change present practice significantly and adversely, because IFRS apply fair value more widely to non-financial assets than do FASB standards. Sale prices are seen as less relevant and less reliable in the case of non-financial rather than financial assets.Although fair value is a focus for much of the recent cr iticism of the IASB’sstandards and is also likely to be so for its conceptual framework project, the reasons for the criticism lie in other elements of the framework. Critics of fair value are, in fact, offering an alternative world view of financial reporting, although this view is usually not well articulated. Nor, for that matter, is the fair value world view well articulated: the argument is usually conducted on the basis of accepting a few simple assumptions that make fair value seem to be an obvious choice, whereas the assumptions themselves should be under discussion.The objective of this paper is to make some progress towards identifying these alternative world views and therefore to clarify the nature of the dispute about the conceptual framework in general and fair value in particular. The perspective is that of the IASB, of which the author was a member from 2001 to 2006, rather than the FASB, which is its partner in the project. The author’s own experiences in writing a number of alternative views to IASB drafts and standards inform the discussion. These were written piecemeal, but gradually a more coherent pattern began to be apparent, which expressed a different set of assumptions, or world view, described here as the Alternative View. This is in contrast with the view that is implicit in many of the IASB’s pronouncements, described here as the Fair Value View. This account is likely to be subjective and incomplete, and there are likely to be many other world views. However, when there is such a fierce debate between supporters and opponents of a view, it must surely help understanding to identify the main sources of disagreement. It must also be acknowledged that some of the contentious issues arise within the existing conceptual frameworks, but, as the frameworks are being revised, it is appropriate to question them.The paper proceeds as follows. First, a description is given of the current project to develop a joint conceptual framework for the IASB and FASB, including its motivation and objectives. Next, there is a discussion of the controversial aspects of the first two draft chapters of the new framework, on the purpose of financial reporting and the desirable properties of accounting information, which have already been issued in discussion paper form. This is followed by a discussion of the issues raised by the subsequent chapters of the new framework that are currently in variousstages of development, including definition of the elements of accounts, recognition and measurement. An attempt is then made to identify the two competing world views represented by opposing sides of the arguments on specific issues. We then consider how these competing views have been reflected in past IASB pronouncements, and in alternative views expressed on them. We conclude by considering the theoretical support for the Alternative View.THE IASB/FASB CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK PROJECTBoth the FASB and the IASB already have conceptual frameworks. The FASB’s was the first, dating mainly from the 1970s, and consists of seven substantial concepts statements, each published separately.The IASB’s Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements (1989) is a much briefer single document of 110 paragraphs, dating from 1989. Its content shows a strong affinity with the FASB’s earlier work, although there are important differences of detail. One important similarity is that, like the FASB framework, it lacks a treatment of measurement and is therefore incomplete. This is a legacy of the fierce and unresolved debates that took place particularly in the 1970s, when standard setters struggled unsuccessfully to achieve a solution to the inflation accounting problem that would be accepted by both users and preparers of accounts. Another legacy of the pressures and controversies of that period is that both frameworks emphasize decision usefulness, particularly to investors in capital markets, as the primary focus of general purpose financial statements. This was a bold step at the time, sweeping away the traditionalist view that accounting is primarily for legal and stewardship purposes, with decision usefulness as a useful possible additional benefit. It is argued later that this change of focus may be carried too far by the current revision of the frameworks.A primary motivation for the joint project is to converge the frameworks of the two boards in order to provide a consistent intellectual foundation for the convergence of the two sets of standards, to which both boards committed themselves in the Norwalk Agreement of 2002. Convergence is not, however, the only motivation: Improvement is equally important.There are two aspects to improvement: filling gaps to achieve completeness,and removing internal contradictions to improve consistency.The most obvious gap that needs to be filled is to develop guidance on measurement. There are many aspects of the coherence of the IASB’s framework that need improvement. An area that has given particular difficulty recently is the definition of a liability and especially the distinction between a liability and equity.The joint project started in 2005. Its planned sequence of topics and current achievements is listed in Table 1. The working papers for the project are developed by a joint IASB/FASB staff team, there being a different staff team for each stage. FASB’s greater staff resources mean that they are usually in the majority, although staff from the Canadian standard-setting body are currently developing the proposals on elements and recognition. Each paper is discussed by both boards, usually separately but sometimes in joint meetings. Thus, the project is truly a joint one, although the greater bulk of the FASB’s existing framework and its strong staff input mean that the starting point tends to be the FASB’s existing d ocument rather than the IASB’s. In most aspects, there is little difference between the current IASB and FASB frameworks, so that the FASB’s distinct influence is seen mainly in the bulk and style of exposition and argument (which may be politely described as ‘thorough’) in the two draft chapters and working papers that have appeared to date. The present paper is, however, written from the IASB perspective, and this means that some matters which look like changes from that perspective are the result of conv erging with the FASB’s existing position.OBJECTIVES AND QUALITATIVE CHARACTERISTICSThe first stage of the revision project (Phase A in Table 1) was initially considered to be so uncontroversial that it was intended that the first publication would be an exposure draft, which would be the only public consultation. However, wiser counsel prevailed and it was decided that the first stage would be (as with all subsequent stages of the revision) a discussion paper, which would be followed later by an exposure draft.This Preliminary Views paper, entitled The Objective Of Financial Reporting And Qualitative Characteristics Of Decision-useful Financial Reporting Information, was published in July 2006, with the comment period ending on 3 November. The comments received have demonstrated that the proposals arecontroversial and have justified the decision to issue a discussion paper, allowing further consultation on the subsequent exposure draft. They were originally conceived as being uncontroversial because they substantially reiterate much of the material that is in the existing frameworks. However, they do contain some significant reconstruction of the form and argument, certainly relative to the IASB’s currently slender document, and these contain the seeds of controversy. Moreover, the retention of some of the concepts in the existing framework is also controversial, particularly in those countries that are recent adopters of IFRS and that were not involved in the original development of the framework.The Objective of Financial ReportingChapter 1 of the Discussion Paper, on the objective of financial reporting, is fundamental to the remainder of the Framework. It reiterates the existing concern to produce general purpose financial statements , that is, ones that meet the needs of all external users who do not have privileged access to the entity’s internal information. It also continues the present policy of selecting investors and creditors as the focus group for establishing needs. This includes potential as well as present investors and lenders as well as equity investors. The needs of investors are assumed to be to make resource allocation decisions , which will be served by providing‘information to help present and potential investors and creditors and others to assess the amounts, timing and uncertainty of the entity’s future cash inflows and outflows’(para. OB3).Source:ABACUS,2008:139-144译文：公允价值和国际会计准则/ 财务会计准则概念框架项目:另一种观点本文分析了各种各样的国际会计准则与财务会计准则有争议的问题，从而形成标准的财务报告联合概念框架，讨论了他们对计量的影响，特别是以公允价值为基础的计量。

公允价值的解释及其利益关系[外文翻译]

外文翻译Explanation and Benefits of Fair Value AccountingMaterial Source: international securities industry association rules1. DefinitionFair value is an estimate of the price an entity would realize if it were to sell an asset, or the price it would pay to relieve a liability. Familiar with the situation of buyers and sellers in fair trading conditions are determined, and the price of the parties or association in fair trade under the conditions of an asset can be buying and selling price. In the fair value measurement, the assets and liabilities in the fair transaction, according to the circumstance with asset exchange between parties or the amount of liabilities. Many financial instruments – such as shares traded on an exchange, debt securities (U.S. Treasury bonds), and derivatives are measured and reported at fair value.2. Use of Fair ValueFair value is a required measure for many financial instruments. Determining whether a financial instrument should be recorded at fai r value in a company’s financial statements depends in part on what type of institution owns the instrument and the intended use of that instrument. For example, in the case of a broker-dealer, a high percentage of its assets typically are traded and must therefore be accounted for at fair value. Other institutions record financial instruments at fair value depending on what their intent is for holding the instrument or the nature of the business activity. If an institution decided to hold a U.S. Treasury bond to maturity, for example, the bond can be shown at its original cost. If the institution purchases another identical Treasury bond that it intends to sell in the near future, that bond would be accounted for at fair value.In addition to using fair value measures to comply with public reporting requirements, companies measure their financial instruments at fair value for a number of internal processes, including: making investing and trading decisions, managing and measuring risks, determining how much capital to devote to various lines of business, and calculating compensation. The use of fair value measurements is deemed to be relevant in these areas.Adoption of fair value financial reporting not only will be of little value to any constituent, but it would make financialinformation both more opaque and of less utility to financial managers. What may be required for external reporting is not necessarily better for internal controls and performance measurement.3. Determining Fair ValueThe process of valuing an instrument to its fair value depends on how easy it is to determine a price for that instrument. Since fair value is the price at which a willing buyer and seller agree to trade, finding the right price is the key to valuation. In the simplest case, a firm can find the price or value of an instrument in a newspaper or other quotation system. These prices typically reflect the last price reported to the secondary market. This usually works very well because listed prices are generally available for such securities. Listed, published prices are not available, however, for all financial instruments. In those cases, some estimation is often required to determine fair value. Firms use valuation models that take into account a variety of relevant data, such as current economic forecasts, general market conditions, the price of similar financial instruments, etc. to measure fair value. For example, corporate bonds typically trade in a well-defined range over Treasury securities of a similar maturity. Contemporaneous transaction prices in such instruments will generally be very helpful in estimating the fair value of similar securities. In most cases, some verifiable market data exists to bolster the objective determination of fair value through modeling. Firms rely primarily on judgment only for the very complex instruments where market parameters and prices do not exist.4. Ensuring AccuracyAlthough judgment is involved in the fair valuation process, most firms have a robust internal control process for ensuring valuations are reasonable and consistent. Management review and oversight key to ensuring accuracy. Valuation models are subject to independent review as part of the internal control process to ensure that they reflect underlying market conditions; moreover, they cannot be changed without approvals. In addition, estimates generated by the models are compared to actual trades to determine the reasonableness of the estimates. Firms also employ other means of independent verification, such as comparing estimates to the value of the instrument at termination.These transactions in matters of the fair and equitable value measurement model, overcome by using the cost for the pattern of valuation of enterprise assets value and the defects, which can be underestimated more reflect the enterprise value of the assets and business performance.Financial institutions, regulators and finance ministers worldwide have, thisyear, been pressing the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to relax its rules on fair-value accounting. The rules force banks and others to value their assets at current market prices. Asset holders argue that in times of illiquid and falling markets it is difficult or impossible to value assets accurately. Fair-value accounting is resulting in assets being valued at distressed sale prices, rather than at their fundamental value, creating a downward spiral. The IASB has countered that any relaxation in the fair value rules would cloud the picture for investors and regulators and could sow the seeds of the next crisis. But last month it made a significant amendment to the rules.5. BenefitsFair value provides important information about financial assets and liabilities as compared to values based only on their historical cost (original price paid or received). Since fair value reflects current market conditions, it provides comparability of the value of financial instruments bought at different times. In addition, financial disclosures that use fair value provide investors with insight into prevailing market values, further helping to ensure the usefulness of financial reports.Regardless of whether financial instruments are reported at fair value on the face of a firm’s balance sheet, the financial statement footnotes contain information about the fair values of all a firm’s financial instruments. These footnotes provide details on how such values are determined. Quoted prices, comparison to similar instruments, other valuation models, etc. In addition, firms will begin highlighting thei r most critical accounting policies in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of their financial statements for years ended 2001. Many view the fair valuation process as one of those critical policies.Such as the enterprise to make full use of idle capital, to make for the purpose of buying from a secondary market shares, bonds, funds, Be like again, not as effective hedging instrument enterprise of derivatives, such as long-term contracts, futures contract, exchange and options, etc. In addition, the enterprise can be based on risk management needs or for the elimination of financial assets or financial liabilities in accounting recognition and measurement are inconsistent, direct assigned certain financial assets or financial liabilities to the fair value measurement. These are listed as the fair value measurement instruments, its value is to report the market value, and its change directly included in the current profits and losses. This also means that, if the enterprise can grasp the market and the trend of performance,which varies with the changes in the fair value "increased profits", Conversely, if the enterprise's investment strategy and market, the current conflicted profits will suffer damage. Therefore, the fair value measurement attribute can be considered a "double-edged sword", and "old standards suffer not only good news", thus make financial instruments often underestimated the value of report of gething lower is quite different.6. Glossary of TermsQuotation System: A quotation system can include: newspaper quotes, broker quotes, electronic systems where prices of Treasuries and other securities can be viewed, or subscription services that provide price data for specific instruments Secondary Market: When a security is initially purchased from the firm issuing it, that transaction takes place in the primary market. Subsequent transactions in that security take place in what is sometimes called the after- market or the secondary market. This is what most people mean when they refer to "the market.”Valuation Model: Statistical techniques that take into account various factors so as to provide an estimate of the value of a financial instrument. These are often called pricing or valuation models. These models are regularly subject to rigorous review by the firms employing them to ensure that they accurately reflect current market realities.译文公允价值的解释及其利益关系资料来源:国际证券行业协会条例1．公允价值的定义公允价值是当一项资产将要被出售时或者一项负债被清偿时所要得到的对价或因此而减轻的责任。

公允价值外文文献

The quality of fair value measures for property,plant,and equipmentDon Herrmann a,∗,Shahrokh M.Saudagaran b,1,Wayne B.Thomas c,2a William S.Spears School of Business,Oklahoma State University,401Business Building,Stillwater,OK74078,USAb School of Business,University of Washington,Tacoma,Tacoma,WA98402-3100,USAc Price College of Business,University of Oklahoma,307West Brooks,Room200D,Norman,OK73019,USAAbstractBased on Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts(SFAC)No.2,this paper argues for fair value measures of property,plant,and equipment and challenges the primary arguments in support of maintaining the current status quo in the United States—strict historical costs for all property,plant,and equipment unless the asset is impaired.Weﬁrst provide a summary of the valuation of property,plant,and equipment internationally noting that revaluations to fair value are an acceptable practice under international and many national accounting standards.We also provide a brief historical perspective of accounting in the United States where prior to1940the upward valuation of property,plant,and equipment was an acceptable accounting alternative.We then evaluate fair value versus historical cost measures for property,plant,and equipment based on the qualitative characteristics of accounting information in SFAC No.2.We argue that fair value measures for property,plant,and equipment are superior to historical cost based on the characteristics of predictive value,feedback value,timeliness,neutrality,representational faithfulness,comparability,and consistency.Veriﬁability appears to be the sole qualitative characteristic favoring historical cost over fair value.Finally,we address key measurement concepts for property,plant,and equipment.The United States could learn from the practices already established in other countries and in International Financial Reporting Standards by reconsidering fair value measures for property,plant,and equipment.©2005Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.Keywords:Fair value measures;Conceptual framework;Fixed assets∗Corresponding author.Tel.:+14057448602.E-mail addresses:don@(D.Herrmann),shahrokh@(S.M.Saudagaran),wthomas@(W.B.Thomas).1Tel.:+12536924580.2Tel.:+14053255789.0155-9982/$–see front matter©2005Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.accfor.2005.09.00144 D.Herrmann et al./Accounting Forum30(2006)43–591.IntroductionThe International Accounting Standards Board(IASB)recently set up a Working Group to propose a convergence model for the revaluation of property,plant,and equipment.This proposal will be submitted to the IASB in the development of an Exposure Draft of a revised IAS16 Property,Plant,and Equipment and a revised IAS36Impairment of Assets.On a much broader level,the IASB has engaged national standard setters,with Canada taking the lead role,in the development of a discussion paper on measurement issues.In May2005,the IASB approved for publication the discussion paper entitled“Measurement Bases for Financial Reporting:Mea-surement on Initial Recognition.”The document will be issued in the third quarter of2005for a nine-month comment period.The work of the IASB has important implications to standard setting by the Financial Accounting Standards Board(FASB)in the United States and standard setting in many other countries as well.1At a joint meeting in September2002,the FASB and the IASB entered into a Memorandum of Understanding formalizing the FASB’s and IASB’s commitment to convergence.The FASB and IASB pledged to use their best efforts to make their existingﬁnancial reporting standards fully compatible and coordinate their future work programs to ensure that compatibility is maintained. The two boards agreed to undertake a short-term convergence project directed at removing a variety of individual differences between U.S.and international standards.Furthermore,the Boards are committed to removing remaining differences through continued progress on joint projects and the coordination of future work programs.The U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC), responsible for the enforcement of U.S.accounting standards,strongly supports the agreement between the FASB and IASB to work together toward greater convergence between U.S.standards and International Financial Reporting Standards(IFRS).The Chairman of the SEC said,“This is a positive step for investors in the United States and around the world.It means that reducing the differences in two widely used sets of accounting standards will receive consideration by both boards,as they work to improve accounting principles and address issues inﬁnancial reporting (SEC Press Release,October29,2002).”In response to concerns about the quality and transparency of U.S.ﬁnancial accounting and reporting,the FASB issued a proposal for a Principles-Based Approach to U.S.Standard Setting (FASB October,2002).A primary concern is that U.S.accounting standards have become increas-ingly detailed and complex.Because much of the detail and complexity results from rule-driven implementation guidance,the standards may allow companies to structure transactions around the rules,circumventing the intent and spirit of the standards.In response to these concerns, the FASB is considering the feasibility of adopting a principles-based approach to U.S.standard setting similar to the approach already in place for IFRS.The SEC will also carefully consider comments to the FASB proposal as Section108(d)of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires the SEC to conduct a study on the adoption of a principles-based accounting system in the United States and to submit a report to Congress.As indicated in the proposal,a principles-based approach could facilitate convergence between the FASB,IASB,and other national standard setters in developing common high-quality accounting standards.The purpose of this paper is to provide guidance to the IASB,FASB,and other national accounting standard setters as they propose a convergence model addressing the revaluation of1Listed companies in the European Union and all reporting entities in Australia will follow International Financial Reporting Standards(IFRS)beginning in2005.In2007,New Zealand companies will also adopt IFRS.D.Herrmann et al./Accounting Forum30(2006)43–5945 property,plant,and equipment.Weﬁrst provide an overview of the valuation of property,plant, and equipment internationally including a historical perspective on the valuation of property,plant, and equipment in the United States.We then evaluate fair value versus historical cost measures for property,plant,and equipment based on SFAC No.2.The conﬂict between fair value and historical cost measures can be linked to the qualitative characteristics of relevance,reliability, comparability,and consistency described in SFAC No.2and provides a natural framework in which to evaluate fair value versus historical cost measures for property,plant,and equipment. Finally,we address key measurement concepts for property,plant,and equipment.Recently,the issue has taken on even greater importance due to the current changes taking place internationally in the valuation of property,plant,and equipment.2The paper proceeds as follows.Section2provides an overview of the valuation practices for property,plant,and equipment acrossﬁve countries and allowable practices under current IFRS. Section3examines the use of fair value versus historical cost measures in the valuation of property, plant,and equipment based on the qualitative characteristics of accounting information outlined in SFAC No.2.Section4addresses measurement concepts for property,plant,and equipment. Section5concludes the paper,brieﬂy summarizing the major points.2.The valuation of property,plant,and equipment across countries2.1.International Financial Reporting StandardsThe current rules for the measurement of property,plant,and equipment are provided in IAS16(IASC,2003).Separate rules for the accounting of investment property and agriculture are outlined in IAS40and IAS41,respectively.IAS16permits two accounting models for the measurement of property,plant,and equipment subsequent to initial recognition.Under the cost model,property,plant,and equipment are carried at historical cost less accumulated depre-ciation and any accumulated impairment losses.Under the revaluation model,property,plant, and equipment are carried at fair value at the date of revaluation less subsequent depreciation. Revaluations are to be made often enough so that the carrying amount does not signiﬁcantly differ from fair value at the balance sheet date.The practice of upward asset revaluations for ﬁrms reporting in accordance with international standards appears to be common.Ashbaugh and Olsson(2002,p.122)indicate that13of the19IASﬁrms in their sample reported upward asset revaluations.Under the revaluation model,fair value is normally determined by appraisal.When property, plant,and equipment are revalued,the entire class to which that asset belongs should be revalued (IAS16,para.34).This is to avoid the selective revaluation of certain property,plant,and equip-ment and to avoid reporting a mixture of historical costs and fair values for the same asset class in theﬁnancial statements.Initial upward revaluations are credited to a revaluation surplus in stockholders’equity and initial downward revaluations are recognized as an expense.The reval-uation surplus in stockholders’equity may be transferred to retained earnings when the surplus is realized(i.e.,through sale,disposal,or as the asset is used).Upward revalued amounts do not affect income except for the subsequent increase in depreciation expense as depreciation is based on the revalued amount.2An analysis similar to the one used in this paper may also be useful in the debate on the use of fair values forﬁnancial instruments.46 D.Herrmann et al./Accounting Forum30(2006)43–59Requirements for measuring impaired assets are outlined in IAS36(IASC,1998b).Like the United States,an impairment loss should be recognized whenever the recoverable amount of an asset is less than its carrying amount.Unlike the United States,the recoverable amount of an asset is the higher of its net selling price and its value in use,both based on present value calculations. Net selling price is the amount obtainable from the sale of the asset in an arm’s length transaction. Value in use is calculated as the present value of estimated pre-tax future cashﬂows over the asset’s useful life and subsequent disposal.An impairment loss should be recognized as an expense in the income statement for assets carried at cost and treated as a revaluation decrease for assets carried at revalued amounts.An impairment loss should be reversed(and income recognized) when there has been an increase in the estimates used to determine an asset’s recoverable amount since the last impairment loss was recognized.For assets carried at revalued amounts,a reversal of an impairment loss should be recognized as a revaluation increase up to what the current carrying value would have been had the asset never been impaired.2.2.United StatesRevaluations have not always been a violation of U.S.GAAP.Prior to about1940,upward valuations of property,plant,and equipment were an acceptable accounting alternative in the United States.Montgomery’s1940edition of Auditing makes reference to write-ups or footnote disclosures of appraisal values for property,plant,and equipment as though,from an auditing perspective,these practices were clearly acceptable accounting alternatives(Montgomery,1940, pp.238–241).After1940,accounting academics in the United States continued to express support for either the upward valuation of property,plant,and equipment or the footnote disclosure of current market values(Graham&Dodd,1951,p.180;Paton&Dixon,1958,p.457;Weston, 1953,p.489).The demise of fair value measures for property,plant,and equipment in the United States can be linked to the early years of the SEC.Neither the SEC nor the earliest private accounting standard setting body in the United States(i.e.,the Committee on Accounting Procedures)produced explicit rules addressing the issue of upward asset valuations.Rather,the removal of fair value measures and/or fair value disclosures of property,plant,and equipment inﬁnancial reporting was imposed through progressively more stringent informal administrative procedures by the SEC(Walker, 1992).The SEC began discouraging fair value accounting for property,plant,and equipment in response to unsubstantiated asset revaluations by corporations made in the1920s prior to the establishment of the SEC(Zeff,1995,p.59).According to Walter Schuetze,former chief accountant to the SEC,the SEC considered fair value numbers to be too soft(Schuetze,2001,p.10).Initially in the mid to late1930s,the SEC discouraged,but did not restrict,asset write-ups to fair value in theﬁling ofﬁnancial information leading to the registration of securities for public offering.By the1940s,the SEC had essentially removed the option of upward revaluation of property,plant,and equipment through the enforcement ofﬁnancial statement informationﬁled with SEC registration statements.By the1950s,this ban had been extended to the disclosure of fair values in the footnotes to theﬁnancial statements.All of this was accomplished indirectly through internal enforcement procedures within the SEC without ever issuing a formal statement disallowing the practice of fair value accounting for property,plant,and equipment.It was many years later that APB Opinion No.6(AICPA,1965)formally stated that“...property,plant,and equipment should not be written up by an entity to reﬂect appraisal,market or current values which are above cost to the entity”(para.17).D.Herrmann et al./Accounting Forum30(2006)43–5947 Table1Valuation of property,plant,and equipment acrossﬁve countries and under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)Australia UnitedKingdom NewZealandJapan UnitedStatesIFRSValuation basis Cost or fairvalue Cost or fairvalueCost or fairvalueCost a Cost Cost or fairvalueIndependent appraisal requiredfor revaluationsNo No Yes N/A N/A No Treatment of initial revaluation gain/lossUpward Equity Equity Equity Equity N/A Equity Downward Expense Expense Expense Equity N/A Expense Impairment if recoverableamount<carrying amount?Yes Yes Yes No b Yes Yesa Under a special law regarding the revaluation of land,Japaneseﬁrms were permitted to revalue land from March31, 1998to March31,2002(Article7of the Commercial Code,1999).Other than this one time exception,Japan requires the valuation of property at cost.b Impairment is currently not recorded in Japan.New impairment rules in Japan are effective forﬁscal years beginning April1,2005.An exception to reporting property,plant,and equipment at historical cost is made for impair-ments under the guidelines of SFAS144(FASB,2001).SFAS144states that an impairment exists when the sum of the undiscounted expected future net cashﬂows of an asset is less than its carrying amount.When this occurs,the asset is written down from its current carrying amount to either fair value,or present value of expected future net cashﬂows if no active market exists for the asset,and a loss is recognized in the income statement.The reporting of asset impairments can have a signiﬁcant impact on a company’sﬁnancial statements(Nurnberg&Dittmar,1997)and empirical research documents evidence of their usefulness to decision makers(Alciatore,Easton, &Spear,2000).2.3.Overview of country standards and IFRSThe IASB has indicated that items on its convergence agenda will be based on selecting the “best of breed”standard from existing national standards and IFRS.Along these lines,Table1 provides an overview of the valuation of property,plant,and equipment in Australia(AASB 1041;AASB1010),the United Kingdom(FRS15;SSAP19;SAS520),New Zealand(FRS-3), Japan(Article7of the Commercial Code,1999),the United States(APB Opinion No.6;SFAS 144),and IFRS(IAS16;IAS36).3While Australia,the United Kingdom,New Zealand,and International Standards allow for revaluations to fair value,the United States and Japan do not generally allow revaluations.However,Japan,with a strong reputation for strict adherence to historical cost,recently made a one-time exception.Under a special law regarding the revaluation of land,Japaneseﬁrms were permitted to revalue land from March31,1998to March31,20023The table is intended to provide only a brief overview.Interested readers may obtain a more detailed comparison in the revised International/U.S.GAAP comparison of standards published by the IASB.The Big Four accountingﬁrms also publish detailed comparisons of individual country GAAP with International Standards.48 D.Herrmann et al./Accounting Forum30(2006)43–59Fig.1.A hierarchy of accounting qualities.(Article7of the Commercial Code,1999).This law permitted a one-time option during the four-year period to report land held for their own use at fair value on their balance sheet.4 Accounting standards in countries that allow for revaluations encourage the use of independent appraisals in assessing fair value;however,only New Zealand requires a separate independent appraisal in recording a revaluation adjustment.Upward revaluation adjustments are taken directly to equity,unless it represents the reversal of a revaluation decrease previously recognized as an expense,in which case it should be recognized as income.Downward revaluation adjustments are used initially to reverse any previous upward revaluations in equity and then recorded as an expense in Australia,the United Kingdom,New Zealand,and International Standards.5However, initial downward revaluations adjustments bypass the income statement and are taken directly to equity in Japan.Finally,with the exception of Japan,an impairment is recognized if the recoverable amount is less than the carrying amount of the asset.Similar impairment rules have been adopted in Japan,but are not effective untilﬁscal years beginning April1,2005.3.Evaluation of fair value and historical cost measures for PPE based on SFAC No.2The FASB’s Conceptual Framework was developed to“describe concepts and relations that will underlie futureﬁnancial accounting standards and practices and serve as a basis for evaluating existing standards and practices(FASB,1978,Par.3).”In this spirit,we base our analysis on the use of fair value measures versus historical cost measures for property,plant,and equipment on the qualitative characteristics of accounting information in SFAC No.2.The qualitative characteristics of accounting information are summarized in Fig.1.Deﬁnitions of the qualitative characteristics in this section are taken from the glossary of terms in SFAC No.2.An important user-speciﬁc factor in both the FASB’s and the IASB’s Conceptual Framework is the quality of understandability.Understandability is deﬁned in SFAC No.2as“the quality of information that enables users to perceive its signiﬁcance.”Similarly,the IASB framework deﬁnes understandability as“information should be presented in a way that is readily understandable by users who have a reasonable knowledge of business and economic activities and accounting and4If the revaluation alternative is selected by a company using International Financial Reporting Standards,property, plant,and equipment must be appraised periodically.Hence,the one-time option to revalue land in Japan would be a violation of International Financial Reporting Standards.5The reversal of a previous revaluation adjustment is measured for a class of assets under Australian and New Zealand GAAP,but for individual assets under International standards.D.Herrmann et al./Accounting Forum30(2006)43–5949 who are willing to study the information diligently.”However,while understandabilit y is one of four principal qualitative characteristics in the IASB’Framework it is not given the same status in SFAC No.2.SFAC No.2contends that as a user-speciﬁc quality,understandability represents a link between the characteristics of decision makers and the decision-speciﬁc qualities of information used in evaluating fair value measures versus historical cost measures,as discussed in more detail below.The role of understandability in a revised joint IASB/FASB conceptual framework is discussed in FASB Action Alert No.05-26.3.1.RelevanceRelevance is deﬁned as“the capacity of information to make a difference in a decision by helping users to form predictions about the outcomes of past,present,and future events or to conﬁrm or correct prior expectations(SFAC No.2).”The three primary characteristics of rele-vant information are predictive value,feedback value,and timeliness.All three characteristics of relevance favor fair value measures over historical costs in the valuation of property,plant,and equipment.3.1.1.Predictive valuePredictive value is deﬁned as“the quality of information that helps users to increase the like-lihood of correctly forecasting the outcome of past or present events(SFAC No.2).”Although fair values are generally assumed to provide greater predictive value than historical cost mea-sures,until recently,no empirical evidence on the issue was available.Several important papers examine the relation between stock prices,returns,earnings forecasts,and/or future earnings and the revaluation of property,plant,and equipment in Australia(Barth&Clinch,1998;Easton, Eddey,&Harris,1993)and in the United Kingdom(Aboody,Barth,&Kasznik,1999).These studies generallyﬁnd that asset revaluations are incrementally value-relevant beyond historical cost amounts for purposes of explaining current returns and prices.These studies alsoﬁnd that the revaluation of property,plant,and equipment improves forecasts of future earnings(out of which dividends may be paid).Furthermore,the predictive value of fair values over historical cost extends to situations in which the entity is no longer a going concern.Fair values are clearly preferable to historical costs in estimating an acquisition price or in liquidating the assets of the ﬁrm.Fair values of assets may also provide relevant information in the prediction of dividend restrictions in the United States.The maximum allowable dividend distribution in the United States is based on state incorporation law.Many states have adopted the1984Revised Model Business Corporation Act as a guide to the legality of distributions.Under this act,as long as the fair value of assets exceeds the fair value of liabilities after the distribution,the company is considered to be solvent and can pay dividends even in cases where stockholders’equity is negative(Roberts,Samson,&Dugan,1990,p.42).Therefore,in many states,dividend restric-tions are unrelated to the equity numbers reported on the statement ofﬁnancial position.Rather, dividend restrictions are dependent on the fair value of assets and liabilities.Roberts et al.(1990) provide an illustration based on Holiday Inns of America,a hotel chain with property values that on average greatly exceed the depreciated historical cost used inﬁnancial reporting under U.S. GAAP.In1987,Holiday Inns of America distributed a US$1.55billion dollar dividend to prevent a hostile takeover,thereby reducing stockholders equity from US$639million at the beginning of1987to a US$770million deﬁcit at the end of1987.The US$1.55billion dividend,ﬁnanced with borrowed funds,was made possible due to the undervaluation of assets(i.e.,hotels)on the balance sheet.Without information on the fair value of assets,predictive estimates of dividend50 D.Herrmann et al./Accounting Forum30(2006)43–59restrictions in states that have adopted the1984Revised Model Business Corporation Act are not possible.63.1.2.Feedback valueFeedback value is deﬁned as“the quality of information that enables users to conﬁrm or correct prior expectations(SFAC No.2).”At the point of initial acquisition,historical cost is equivalent to fair value for most property,plant,and equipment.However,over time the two measures diverge.Fair value changes over time and thus,if changes in the fair value of property, plant,and equipment are recognized inﬁnancial reporting,this information has the potential to provide valuable feedback to users.It can conﬁrm or correct prior expectations formed by users based on current economic conditions and the most recent revaluation.For example,subsequent changes in the fair value of aﬁrm’s substantial investments in real estate could provide important feedback to investors and creditors.On the other hand,historical cost by deﬁnition,does not change over time,providing limited feedback to users subsequent to acquisition.7Book values, measured as historical cost less accumulated depreciation,may even provide feedback in the wrong direction.Book values systematically decrease over time even when the underlying asset is appreciating.Under the current historical cost model for property,plant,and equipment in the United States, one situation in which historical cost measures provide feedback value subsequent to acquisition is when historical cost measures exceed expected future cashﬂows(i.e.,an impairment).Assuming impairment,property,plant,and equipment are written down to fair value potentially providing users with important feedback(Alciatore et al.,2000;Nurnberg&Dittmar,1997).Yet,impairment adjustments for property,plant,and equipment are based on fair value measures not historical costs.3.1.3.TimelinessTimeliness is deﬁned as“having information available to a decision maker before it loses its capacity to inﬂuence decisions(SFAC No.2).”The reporting of changes in the fair value of prop-erty,plant,and equipment has the potential to provide timely information to investors,creditors, and other interested users ofﬁnancial information.Investors beneﬁt from current information as to the value of assets and liabilities provided such information is considered reliable(Aboody et al., 1999;Barth&Clinch1998).Creditors,when using property,plant,and equipment as security for a loan,generally require a current appraisal to determine the fair value of the assets to be used as collateral.Other interested users ofﬁnancial information might also beneﬁt from information on current changes in the value of property,plant,and ernment regulators in capital-intensive industries such as utilities,oil and gas,or airlines,are likely to consider recent changes in the fair value of property,plant,and equipment,if available,in negotiations between industry and government representatives.Historical cost also has the capacity to inﬂuence decisions as 6Dividend distributions in the United Kingdom are based on the concept of distributable proﬁt.Distributable proﬁt is computed as accounting proﬁt based on generally accepted accounting principles adjusted for certain items deemed non-distributable,including those related to the revaluation of marketable securities,capitalization of development costs, and foreign currency translation.A detailed summary of the dividend distribution law in the United Kingdom is provided in Leuz,Deller,and Stubenrath(1998).7Calculating return on investment(ROI)based on historical costs is a potential example of feedback value as to whether management’s decision to invest in property,plant,and equipment was a wise decision.D.Herrmann et al./Accounting Forum30(2006)43–5951 long as book values reasonably approximate fair values.As book values under historical cost deviate from fair values,the capacity to inﬂuence decisions under historical cost weakens.3.2.ReliabilityReliability is deﬁned as“the quality of information that assures information is reasonably free from error and bias and faithfully represents what it purports to represent(SFAC No.2).”The three primary characteristics of reliability are veriﬁability,neutrality,and representational faithfulness.3.2.1.VeriﬁabilityVeriﬁability is“the ability through consensus among measurers to ensure that information represents what it purports to represent(SFAC No.2).”Arguments for the measurement of property,plant,and equipment at historical cost are based primarily on the characteristic of veriﬁability(Nichols&Buerger,2002).Historical cost,deﬁned as the costs incurred upon acqui-sition,is assumed almost without question to be highly veriﬁable.Yet,this is not always the case.The historical cost of some types of property,plant,and equipment,as discussed below, is not easily veriﬁed.This section on veriﬁability concludes with a discussion of numerous departures from historical cost accounting for property,plant,and equipment currently allowed under U.S.GAAP whereby fair value measures are used effectively in place of historical cost measures.Self-constructed assets challenge the veriﬁability of historical monly,only a por-tion of a self-constructed asset is made up of materials supported by actual costs incurred.The remaining portion of the asset’s cost may include a variety of more subjective items such as direct and indirect labor costs,overhead allocations,and capitalized interest.The degree of subjectivity in arriving at historical cost for self-constructed assets raises the question whether historical cost in these speciﬁc circumstances is more veriﬁable than fair value based on an independent external appraisal.The frequency of business acquisitions has grown extensively in recent years.Manyﬁrms have acquired ten,twenty,even hundreds of other businesses.In an acquisition,the property, plant,and equipment of the acquiredﬁrm are reported on the consolidatedﬁnancial statements at fair value.While this is consistent with the historical cost concept of cost representing the fair value at the time of acquisition,it raises an interesting issue regarding the veriﬁability of fair values for property,plant,and equipment.The fair value of the individual assets in a business acquisition are not subject to separate veriﬁable transactions,but rather are based on appraisals of fair value.Why then,is the veriﬁability of fair values for property,plant,and equipment such an impediment when it is already common practice in business acquisitions? It seems that a greater concern in business acquisitions relates to the valuation of acquired intangible assets and goodwill than to the valuation of property,plant,and equipment at fair value.Fair values are used rather extensively under certain exceptions to historical cost in the valua-tion of property,plant,and equipment under current U.S.GAAP.As mentioned previously,assets subject to impairment are written down to fair value.Similarly,fair values are used to record prop-erty,plant,and equipment subject to discontinued operations.Another departure from historical cost is made for donations whereby donated property,plant,and equipment are measured at fair value as there is no historical cost alternative.Fair value estimates for real property are used in theﬁnancial reporting of deﬁned beneﬁt pension plan assets.Fair values of property,plant,and。

未来的变化+原因+证据英语作文

未来的变化+原因+证据英语作文The Future Changes, Reasons and EvidenceIn the past few decades, we have witnessed rapid changes in various aspects of our lives. From technological advancements to social transformations, the future seems to hold even more changes in store for us. In this essay, we will explore the reasons behind these changes and provide evidence to support our claims.One of the main reasons for the changes we are experiencing is the fast-paced development of technology. With the exponential growth of artificial intelligence, automation, and data analytics, our world is becoming more interconnected and efficient. This has led to significant changes in the way we work, communicate, and live our daily lives. For example, the rise ofe-commerce platforms has revolutionized the way we shop, while social media has transformed the way we connect with others.Another important factor driving change is climate change and environmental degradation. As global temperatures continue to rise and natural resources become increasingly scarce, there is a growing awareness of the need to shift towardsmore sustainable practices. This has led to the rise of renewable energy sources, eco-friendly products, and efforts to reduce waste and pollution. As a result, we can expect to see significant changes in the way we produce and consume goods in the future.Furthermore, demographic shifts are also playing a significant role in shaping the future. With an aging population in many parts of the world, there is a growing demand for healthcare services and products tailored to the needs of older individuals. At the same time, younger generations are more diverse and tech-savvy, leading to changes in consumer preferences and market trends. These demographic changes are likely to have a profound impact on industries such as healthcare, education, and entertainment.To provide evidence for these claims, we can look at recent trends and developments in various sectors. For instance, the rapid growth of electric vehicles and solar energy installations demonstrates the increasing adoption of sustainable technologies. Likewise, the rise of online platforms for remote work and education highlights the shift towards a more digital and flexible economy. These examples show that the changes weare experiencing are not just theoretical but are already manifesting in tangible ways.In conclusion, the future holds many changes for us, driven by technological advancements, environmental concerns, and demographic shifts. By understanding the reasons behind these changes and looking at the evidence around us, we can better prepare for the future and adapt to the new realities that lie ahead. Embracing change and staying open to innovation will be key in navigating the challenges and opportunities that the future brings.。

2022年会计科目中英文对照cpa版

第一课财务会计导读Glossaryaccrual basis 权责发生制Asset 资产balance sheet资产负债表capital adequacy ratio 资本充足率cash basis 收付实现制cash flow statement 现金流量表double entry method 复式记账法Expenses费用Fair value公允价值financial reports 财务汇报going concern 持续经营guarantee 担保Historical cost历史成本Impairment 减值impairment provision减值准备income statement利润表Liabilities负债Maturity 到期Net realizable value可变现净值Owners’ Equity 所有者权益post-amortization costs摊余成本Present value现值Profit 利润Replacement cost重置成本stewardship 受托责任transferor转出方transferee转入方1.资产类科目Assets现金：Cash and cash equivalents银行存款：Bank deposit应收账款：Account receivable应收票据：Notes receivable应收股利：Dividend receivable应收利息：Interest receivable其他应收款：Other receivables原材料：Raw materials在途物资：Materials in transport库存商品：inventory存货跌价准备：provision for the decline in value of inventories坏账准备：Allowance for doubtful acounts待摊费用：Prepaid expense交易性金融资产：Trading financial assets持有至到期投资：held-to-maturity investment可供发售金融资产：Available-for-sale financial assets短期投资：Short-term investment长期股权投资：Long-term equity investment固定资产：Fixed assets合计折旧：Accumulated depreciation在建工程：Construction-in-process固定资产减值准备：provision for the decline in value of fixed assets无形资产：Intangible assets合计摊销：Accumulated amortization商誉：Goodwill递延所得税资产：deferred tax assets （DTA）2.负债类Liability短期借款：Short-term loans/ borrowing长期借款：Long-term loans/ borrowing预收账款：advance from customers/ Deposit received 应付票据：Notes payable应付账款：Account payable应付工资薪酬：wages payable应付股利：Dividends payable应付利息：Interest payable应交税费：Tax payable其他应付款：Other payables递延所得税负债：Deferred tax liabilities3.所有者权益类OWNERS' EQUITY实收资本：Paid-in capital资本公积：Additional paid-in capital 盈余公积：Surplus reserves未分派利润：Retained earnings4.成本类科目Cost生产成本：Manufacturing Cost制造费用：Manufacturing overhead劳务成本：labor costs研发支出：R & D expenditure5.损益类Profit and loss主营业务收入：Main operating revenue其他业务收入：Other operating revenue营业外收入：Non-operating income投资收益：Investment income产品销售收入：sales revenue主营业务成本：Main operating costs；cost of goods sold / cost of sales其他业务支出：Other operating costs营业外支出：Non-operating expenditure销售费用：Selling expense（advertisement）管理费用：General and administration expense （G&A expense）财务费用：Finance expense公允价值变动损益：Gain/loss of the change of fair value所得税：Income tax第二课流动资产GlossaryAllowance Method 备抵法Bad debts坏账Cash 现金Cash Discounts现金折扣Cash Equivalents 现金等价物consigned goods代销存货Current Asset 流动资产Direct Write-Off直接转销法finished products竣工产品FIFO, First-in-first-out 先进先出法general and administrative expenses管理费用goods in transit在途存货Gross Method总价法Inventory 存货LIFO: Last-in-first-out后进先出法Maturity 到期Merchandise 商品Net Method净价法NRV(Net Realizable Value) 可变现净值Notes Receivable应收票据Periodic system定期盘存Perpetual system永续盘存physical count 盘点purchase costs采购成本Specific Identification个别认定法the provision for the loss on decline in value of inventories存货跌价准备Trade Discounts商业折扣Receivables 应收款work in progress 在产品第3课非流动资产GlossaryAccumulated amortization合计摊销Amortization 摊销capitalize资本化Construction-in-process在建工程Costs Subsequent to Acquisition后续支出Discard 报废Depreciation折旧Disposal 处置double declining balance method双倍余额递减法expense费用化fiscal year 会计年度fixed assets 固定资产Goodwill 商誉Impairment 减值Intangible Asset 无形资产Noncurrent Asset 非流动资产recoverable amount 可收回金额research and development(R&D) 研发salvage value 残值sum of the years digits年数总和法the straight-line method直线法unit of production method工作量法useful life 使用寿命第四课负债GlossaryContingency 或有事项Contingent 或有旳contingent asset或有资产contingent Liability或有负债Coupon息票Current liability 流动负债Discount折价effective yield有效利率face value面值interest利息Liability 负债loss contract亏损协议Market rate市场利率nominal rate名义利率Off-Balance-Sheet Financing表外融资Operating Leases经营租赁Capital leases 融资租赁par 面值pending litigation 未决诉讼Premium溢价principal本金virtually certain基本确定第五课投资Glossaryavailable for sale 可供发售Consolidate 合并Control 控制Debt securities债务证券Derivative 衍生品Equity securities权益性证券Financial Asset 金融资产Held-to-maturity 持有至到期Investee 被投资人Issuer 发行方Repurchase 回购post-amortization cost 摊余成本Security 有价证券Significant influence 重大影响Trading financial assets交易性金融资产Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss以公允价值计量且其变动计入当期损益旳金融资产, including:Trading financial assets交易性金融资产andthe financial assets which are measured at their fair values and of which the variation is included in the current profits and losses指定为以公允价值计量且其变动计入当期损益旳金融资产；the investments which will be held to their maturity;持有至到期投资loans and the account receivables; and贷款和应收款项Financial assets available for sale.可供发售金融资产第六课所有者权益(股东权益)GlossaryAdditional paid-in capital资本公积cash-settled share-based payment以现金结算旳股份支付equity-settled share-based payment以权益结算旳股份支付grant date授予日Owner s’ equity所有者权益Net asset净资产Paid-in capital （paid-up）实收资本percentage-of-completion method竣工比例real interest method实际利率法Retained earnings留存收益royalty revenue使用费收入sales discounts and allowance销售折扣与折让sales return销售退回Surplus reserves盈余公积vesting date行权日第七课其他会计准则GlossaryAccounting changes 会计变更changes in policy, changes in estimates, and corrections of errors会计政策、会计估计变更及会计差错改正deductible temporary differences可抵扣临时性差异Deferred taxes 递延所得税finance lease / capital lease融资租赁income tax 所得税Leases租赁Lessee 承租人Lessor 出租人operating lease经营租赁prospectively未来合用retrospectively追溯reverse 转回taxable income需纳税收入/应纳税收入taxable temporary differences应税临时性差异Temporary differences 临时性差异第八课财务报表列报GlossaryBalance sheet 资产负债表call option买入期权convertible bonds 可转换债券Dilute 稀释Direct method直接法EPS（Earnings Per Share）每股收益Free Cash Flow(FCF) 自由现金流Gains利得Income statement 利润表indirect method间接法Interim reports 中期汇报Losses亏损Multiple-Step Income Statement多步式损益表Single-Step Income Statement 单步式损益表Notes附注Option 期权statement of cash flow 现金流量表taxable income需纳税收入/应纳税收入taxable temporary differences应税临时性差异Temporary differences 临时性差异。

【公允价值_外文文献】

公允价值计量属性与上市公司利润外文翻译英文原文：FAIR V ALUE ACCOUNTING IN THE BANKING SECTORMary PacaperscuThe Financial Instruments Joint Working Group (JWG) of Standard Setters issued in December 2000 the consultative document entitled “Draft Standard and Basis for Conclusio ns –Financial Instruments and Similar Items”. The Draft Standard reviews and assesses an extensive use of fair value accounting (FV A) as the basis for the valuation of all financial instruments in a bank’s balance sheet. The work of the JWG is linked to t he long-term strategy of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) – recently replaced by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) –to introduce a comprehensive FV A framework for the recognition and measurement of financial instruments. The JWG invited comments on the Draft Standard from all interested parties by 30 September 2001. The IASB will evaluate the long-term prospects of FV A in the light of the comments received.This note conveys the comments of the European Central Bank (ECB) on an important dimension of the proposal put forward by the JWG, notably the application of FV A to the banking sector. After reviewing the main innovations of the Draft Standard, the note focuses on the critical aspects associated with the application of a full FV A regime to the banking sector and presents a possible way forward.I. The main innovations of the Draft Standard for the banking sectorThe present accounting rules for banks in the European Union distinguish between financial instruments held for trading purposes (in the trading book) and those intended to be held to maturity (in the banking book). Instruments held in the trading book are valued at market prices. A profit and/or loss arising from the revaluation of trading book instruments is recognised in the profit and loss account. The accounting rules for the trading book thereby take all market risks (i.e. price risk, interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk and liquidity risk) into account. Banking book instruments, by contrast, are carried in the balance sheet at the lower of historical cost and market value. Whereas a loss on a banking book instrument is transferred to the profit and loss account, unrealised gains are not recognised and can therefore become hidden reserves in the balance sheet. Therefore, the accounting rules for the banking book do not take market risks into account (except for the foreign exchange risk, where the end-period value is usually applied to almost all balance sheet items).The Draft Standard proposes a uniform rule for all financial instruments. The assets and liabilities are carried in the balance sheet at market values, if they are available, or at fair values calculated as an approximation of the market value by using a present value model for discounting the expected future cash flow. For banks, this would imply that the trading and banking books would receive equal accounting treatment, whereby all changes in value would be recognised in the balance sheet and transferred to the profit and loss account. The foreseen revaluation applies irrespective of whether a profit or loss has been realised or remains unrealised because all instruments are either marked to market or the fair value is estimated. The hidden reserves that may arise under the existing accounting rules thus disappear. Marketrisks would be taken into account when calculating the value of financial instruments in both the trading and the banking book.II. Critical aspectsAccording to its proponents, an FV A regime may constitute, from a conceptual point of view, an alternative approach to reporting financial performance in order to avoid some of the problems associated with the current historical cost accounting. One of its main advantages would be to enhance the degree of transparency of financial statements. However, this point of view remains theoretical due to the absence of homogeneity and therefore comparability in FV A methodologies. Furthermore, the possible concrete application of a full FV A regime (applying to all assets and liabilities) to the banking sector gives rise to some serious problems and concerns.The application of FV A may be suitable for the trading book of banks, which refers to transactions (buying and selling) of marketable securities and related instruments with the objective of making a profit from short-term price variations. The use of fair value for these transactions is consistent with the availability of market prices and the short-term horizon. However, the application of FV A to the banking book of banks, i.e. to non-negotiable instruments such as loans, appears to be inappropriate for at least three main reasons.First, the issue of relevance. FV A principles do not reflect properly the way in which banks manage their core business, namely the granting of loans. The essence of bank management in this area lies in taking long-term decisions about credit quality and concentration and fostering customer relationships over the life of the contracts. It is less concerned about short-term variations that represent the basis for the use of FV A principles. Therefore, there is the possibility that the introduction of FV A for the banking book might in principle create incentives for banks to alter their core business. This would be the case if banks decided to reduce their exposure to increased volatility of income (stemming from the accounting recognition of interest rate risk in the banking book) by shortening the average maturity of loans. Other ways to achieve the same goal would be the recourse to hedging techniques and the increased use of variable interest rates. The decision to reduce the average maturity of loans would depend also on other factors, including the nature of customer demand and the specific cost structure of individual banks.Second, the issue of feasibility. There are serious doubts that an adequate fair value can be determined for bank loans, which are non-negotiable instruments precisely because they embody elements that cannot be easily quantified in a standardised manner. First, there are, by definition, no secondary markets for these instruments. This is particularly true where credit risk markets do not appear to be sufficiently deep and liquid for the purpose concerned. Second, some relevant information for the determination of the fair value of loans (i.e. that stemming from the bilateral relationship between the borrower and the lender) would never be priced in a market. Third, the estimation techniques currently available (including the one proposed in the Draft Standard) suffer from methodological problems (e.g. modelling of non-interest income, appropriate discount rate, etc.), which increase the risks of error. Accordingly, they do not represent an effective benchmark for obtaining reliable fair values for loans. Therefore, the application of FV A to bank loans would give rise to many uncertainties hindering and working against the transparency and comparability of financialstatements. It is acknowledged, however, that the current and future developments in banks’ credit risk management systems –recognised also in the new capital adequacy regime proposed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision –may provide accounting standard-setters with useful elements to refine their methodologies, in particular regarding the measurement of credit risk.Doubts are also raised with regard to the application of FV A to the liability side of banks. For instance, the suggested methodology (the so-called “own credit risk”) to determine the fair value of debt instruments issued by banks entails that, if the rating of a bank deteriorates, the value of its equity will ultimately increase (since the difference in revaluation of debt instruments is accounted in the profit and loss account). This outcome is counter-intuitive and can be misleading for shareholders and creditors.Third, the issue of prudence. The use of FV A in the banking book would entail that potential profits and losses would be treated in the same way, by being recognised as soon as they emerge. This goes against the principle of prudence according to which losses stemming from the banking book should be recognised as soon as they are known, even if only potential, whereas profits should be recognised only if they are actually realised. Potential profits should be recognised only for marketable instruments. Therefore, there is the possibility that the application of FV A to the banking book might induce banks to adopt an imprudent behaviour. This is a crucial aspect also from the viewpoint of the banking supervisory function.III. Possible way forwardIn light of the critical aspects mentioned above, the ECB has a negative stance towards the possibility of applying an FV A regime to the banking book of banks. Against this background, the following developments could be considered in order to make a constructive use of the valid arguments that lie behind FV A.A first development would entail that, whereas FV A would not be recognised as an accounting standard for the banking book of banks, supervisory authorities might use it as a supplementary instrument to complement their assessment of the situation of individual credit institutions.A second development involves the adoption by banks of the so-called “dynamic provisioning”. This entails recognising that a proportion of the loan portfolio can deteriorate in the future and that this proportion can be measured ex ante on the basis of a specific statistical analysis. It would also involve the disclosure by banks of the results of stress-test analyses conducted on the interest rate sensitivity of the banking book. This approach would allow two criticisms associated with the current accounting standards to be overcome, notably that potential credit losses remain hidden until signs of deterioration are evident and that market participants have insufficient information about the interest rate risk profile of banks.翻译：银行业公允价值会计核算玛利亚·帕卡拉佩斯库联合工作组的标准制定金融工具在2000年12月发出题为“金融工具及其标准草案和结论的基础”类似的项目的咨询文件。

历史成本和公允价值对比(英文)

1.The disclosure –oriented accounting standards for financial report include AASB108, AASB110, and AASB1031.2.AASB108 changes in Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates &Errors①Accounting policies are the specific principles, bases or rules adopted by a company in preparing and presenting its financial reports.AASB108 paragraph 13 require accounting policies to be applied in a manner that ensures that financial information is comparable. However, if a change in accounting policies will provide more relevant or more reliable information, the company should make the change. Policies can only be changed in the following circumstances: the change is required by a standard and The change will provide reliable and more relevant information. Thus ,unless a change will result in improve financial reporting ,the same accounting policies should be used each year. retrospective restatement will be applied in new policy as if it had always been applied . An entity must adjust the opening balance of each affected component of equity for the earliest prior period presented.②Accounting estimates are regularly changed as new information arises. Changes in accounting estimates require prospective application.For example, The useful life assessment of non-current assets change due to technological advancements –i.e. the actual useful life is shorter than the original estimate of useful life. In such cases, the depreciation expense recognised in prior periods is not changed, but the remaining carrying amount of the asset is written off over its remaining (shorter) useful life.③Errors may arise as a result of an mathematical error, misinterpretation of information, mistakes in applying accounting policies or fraud Discovered errors (where material) must be corrected retrospectively by–Restating the comparative amount in the prior period; or–If the errors occurred before the earliest prior period presented, restating the opening balances3.AASB110 Events Occurring After Reporting Date. AASB 110 defines an after reporting date event as those events…that occur between the reporting date and the date when the financial report is authorized for issue. Such information or event must bematerial, and provide a clearer picture of the company’s situation at reporting date or since. Those events can be classified into two types: adjusting events and Non-adjusting events. Adjusting Events are Those which provide more information about conditions that existed at reporting date. AASB 110 requires that an adjustment to the financial statements be made for such events. Non-Adjusting Events are Those which do not relate to conditions existing at reporting date but which are material to an evaluation of the reports prepared at that date. AASB 110 requires information about such events to be disclosed in the notes attached to the financial statementsIf after reporting date there is an indication that the entity is no longer a going concern. Financial statements are no longer to be prepared on the going concern basis. Requires a fundamental change in the basis of accounting rather than an adjustment to the amounts recognized Determining whether or not an entity is a going concern is dependent on professional judgment.4. AASB1031 Materiality AASB 1031 states that information is material if its Omission,misstatement or non-disclosure could adversely affect user’s decisions or management discharge of their accountability. In short, material information corresponds to relevance, . Relevance is a qualitative requirement; therefore materiality is a quantitative requirement. Material information is reliable information, but reliable information isn’t material information. Materiality assessments require judgment and apply to both the nature and amounts of misstatements.AASB 1031 provides guidelines to help determine whether the amount of an item is material. If error/omission > than 10% of base - materialIf error/omission < than 5% of base - immaterialIf between 5 and 10% - apply judgment5.All the above standards focus on information users , The disclosure –oriented accounting standards aim at to help users make correct decisions .关于历史成本的那题！1. The historical cost principle requires that assets should be credited according to the actual transaction price and the book records are generally not adjusted .constant price dependents two factors. The stability of the currency assumptions and Labor productivity unchanged assumptions .The historical cost principle is applicable only in the specific historical period. In the pre-industrial society, social progress is slow and science and technology’s role in promoting the economy is not obvious. So the improvement of labor productivity is also very slow. Labor productivity to rise slowly, not only determines the slow change of intrinsic value of goods, but also determines the slow change of the value of the currency itself , which makes the price of goods in a fairly long period of time to maintain relative stability. In this condition, the historical cost principle naturally becomes the approximate scientific, reasonable and optimal pricing model.2. Historical cost is a generally accepted accounting principle requiring all financial statement items be based upon original cost. Historical cost means what it cost the company for the item. It is not fair market value.3. The historical cost principle has many benefits:①The recording transactions would be subjective and the historical cost system provides managers with a significant range of alternatives in recognizing, reporting and measuring economic information②Under historical cost accounting there is no room for manipulation and the data is supported by evidence such as invoices, receipts, etc.③Historical cost method can simplify accounting procedures, without having to constantly adjust the account4. The historical cost principle has many disadvantages:①The historical cost principle will affect the balance sheet . According to the original cost principle, no matter how price changes, assets and liabilities are always recorded at original price. Original cost will be lower than the market price on the financial statements when Prices continued to rise .Sometimes the data difference is very large which will cause information distortion .②The historical cost principle will affect the income statement .because the assets are recorded at original cost and Profits are recorded according to the current price which will Over measure profit, and seriously damage to the enterprise's sustainable management .③The historical cost principle will affect the Tax cost and cash flow .Due to the price fluctuation and inflation，the enterprise sales revenue and sales cost can not be matched reasonably which will lead to inflated profits, and increase in tax and cash flow .④All in all , When price is fluctuant or currency is unstable, historical cost can not reflect an entity's financial position and operating performance . It will finally weaken the usefulness of accounting information, and influence the current decision.5. Over the years accounting bodies have introduced a number of alternative accounting methods ,such as fair value. Fair value is the amount at which the asset could be bought or sold in a current transaction between willing parties. Fair value requires that accounting reports be compiled according to the current market price, which will make the information more relevant and help users make better decision . this advantage of fair value will make up the disadvantage of historical cost .however ,fair value also has its disadvantage which can be made up by historical cost, fair value is more subjective which will affect the objectivity and reliability of accounting data and increase information cost .6. Although the several limitations of historical cost, it has several advantages and it has now been widely recognized and accepted by corporations across the globe. Regardless of historical cost or fair value, they have their own advantages and disadvantages, there is no good or bad side, the key depends on whether the method is suitable for use in enterprise.那是心与心的交汇，是相视的莞尔一笑，是一杯饮了半盏的酒，沉香在喉，甜润在心。

未来公允价值的变化【外文翻译】

未来公允价值的变化【外文翻译】外文文献翻译原文，Fair VaIUe ChangeS AheadThe USe Of fair VaIUe in financial reporting is not new; it is required Or Permitted Under many Standards, SOme Of WhiCh have been in PIaCe for decades・ Yet, given its role in the asset Write-downs and market VOIatility PreCiPitated by the financial CriSiSJ there has been COnSiderabIe discussion anddebate about the USe Of fair VaIUe in financial reporting・ AS the financial CriSiS has broadened, the debate has evolved into a global One involving not OnIy FASB and its international COUnterpart, the InternatiOnaI ACCOUnting StandardS BOard (IASB)J but also SeCUritieS PartiCiPantS in the global CaPitaI markets・ ReSPOnSeS to the financial CriSiS have focused On fair VaIUe accounting and have Ied to ChangeS in the StandardS that WilI affect financial reporting going forward・The Fair VaIUe DebateAt the Center Of the fair VaIUe debate is SFAS 157, Fair VaIUe Measurements, WhiCh Went into effect for financial assets and IiabilitieS in 2008・ SFAS 157 CIarifieS that When fair VaIUe is USed in financial reporting, the measurement ShOUId represent a CUrrent market PriCe・ SFAS 157 establishes a framework for determining fair VaIUeJ but it does not SPeCify When to USe fair VaIUe・ SFAS 157 and its CUrrent market PriCeObjeCtiVe OnIy apply When Other StandardS require Or Pernlit the USe Of fair VaIUe・The reporting model in the United StateS (and abroad) is a mixed- attribute model that USeS a COmbinatiOn Of measurements, includinghistorical cost, fair value, and Other bases, SUCh as IOWer Of COSt Or fair VaIUe・ The USe Of fair VaIUe has expanded in recent years・ FOr example, more fair VaIUeS are now required When accounting for a business COmbinatiOn Under SFAS 141 (R)J BUSineSS COmbinatiOnS・ In addition, COmPanieS have the OPtiOn to VOIUntariIy USe fair VaIUe for Certain financial items for WhiCh fair VaIUe is not OtherWiSe required in SPeCified CirCUmStanCeS Under SFAS 159, TheFair VaIUe OPtiOn for FinanCiaI ASSetS and FinanCiaI LiabilitieS・NeVertheIeSSJ fair VaIUe is StilI USed most frequently for financial assets ・ BUt fair VaIUe is not alwaysUSed on an OngOing basis (mark-to-market); it Often is USed OnIy When a financial asset is impaired・ In today, S distressed markets, many Of the financial assets that trade in those markets (e.g・,mortgage一 related SeCUritieS) are impaired・The requirement to record impairment IOSSeS based On fair VaIUeS that represent CUrrent market PriCeS has raised COnCernS about When to USe fair VaIUe in financial reporting・ The COnCernS tocus mainly on IOng-Standing issues Of relevance and reliability, as WelI as theVOIatility CaUSed by reportingChangeS in fair VaIUe in net income, especially in the absence Of ObSerVabIe market data to SUPPOrt the fair VaIUeS・Some, including banking institutions SUbjeCt to regulatory CaPitaI requirements, CIaim that fair VaIUe accounting has Ied to PrO-CyCIiCaI behavior by forcing impairment Write-downs to amounts that do not reflect the true economic VaIUeS Of ihe assets・ They Say that the writedowns have CaUSed a downward SPiraI that has exacerbated the financial CriSiS and that fair VaIUe accounting ShOUId be SUSPended Or modified・ FOr example, in a PUbliC SEC roundtable On mark-to-market accounting On OCtOber 29, 2008, Willialn M・ Isaac, Chairman Of the SeCUra GrOUP Of LECG and former FDlC Chairman, stated: When there are temporary impairments Of asset VaIUeS due to economic and marketplace turmoil, regulators must give institutions an OPPOrtUnity to SUrViVe the temporary impairment・ Permanent impairment ShOUld be recognized, but assets ShOUId not be marked to UnreaIiStiC fire-sale PriCeS・ RegUIatOrS must evaluate the assets On the basis Of their true economic VaIUe OVer a reasonable time horizon∙∙∙[I]t is the USe Of MTM accounting, When markets are not functioning properly, that has PrOdUCed terribly misleading accounting and disclosures that VaIUe assets WelI below their true economic VaIUe・・・I believe it is extremely important that bank regulation be counter-cyclical, not PrO-CyCliCa1.・・It is not SOUnd PUbIiC POliCy to CaUSe banks to hesitate in the CreatiOn Of reserves during good timesWhen they Can best afford the hit to earnings.Others, however, including many investors, Say that the information COnVeyed through fair VaIUe accounting is USefUI for decision making and enhances thetransparency Of financial information, WhiCh is CritiCaI in times Of StreSS・ They Say that fair VaIUe accounting has exposed the deteriorating financial COnditiOn Of many financial institutions and that SUSPending fair VaIUe accounting WOUId Weaken investor COnfidenCe and add to instability in the CaPitaI markets・ FOr example, in a joint Statement OPPOSing the SUSPenSiOn Of mark-to-market accounting issued OnOCtOber 1, 2008, the Center for AUdit QUaIityJ the COUnCiI Of InStitUtiOnaI InVeStOrSJ and the CFA InStitUte stated: SUSPending fair VaIUe accounting during these ChalIenging economic times WOUId deprive investors Of CritiCaI financial information When it is needed most・ Fair VaIUe accounting With robust disclosures PrOVideS more accurate, timely, and COmParabIe information to investors thanamounts that WOUId have been reported Under Other alternative approaches ・ InVeStOrS have a right to know the CUrrent VaIUe Of an investment, even if the investment is falling ShOrt Of the PaSt Or future expectations・The EmergenCy ECOnOmiC StabiliZatiOn ACt Of 2008 (EESA) required the SEC to COndUCt a StUdy On the USe Of mark-to-market (fair VaIUe) accounting by financial institutions (SeCtiOn 133)・ In DeCember 2008, the SEC issued RePOrt and ReCOmmendatiOnS PUrSUant to SeCtiOn 133 Of theEmergenCy ECOnOmiC StabiliZatiOn ACt Of 2008: StUdy On Mark-to- Market ACCOUnting・ BaSed on its StUdyJ the SEC COnCIUded that fair VaIUe accounting PrOVideS decision-useful information to investors and did not PIay a meaningful role in recent bank failures・ The SEC recommended that fair VaIUe accounting be improved, not SUSPended・ Tn its report, the SEC emphasizedthat having StandardS inPIaCe that meet the needs Of investors is critical, noting that the ObjeCtiVe Of financial reporting is to PrOVide relevant, transparent, and UnbiaSed financial information to investors and the CaPitaI markets in Order to facilitate informed investment decisions・Fair VaIUe ChangeS for 2009 RePOrtingAt this point, the key PrinCiPIeS OUtIined in SFAS 157 are in effect for 2009 reporting・ ReCentIy issued fair VaIUe guidance CIaritIes-but does not Change-those PrinCiPIeS・ TheSe recent CIarifiCatiOnS emphasize the need for judgments that COUld Change how SOme are applying those PrinCiPIeS in the CUrrent environment, and requires more fair VaIUe disclosures・EXit PriCe・ SFAS 157 emphasizes that fair VaIUe ShOUId represent the PriCe that WOUIcl be received to SelI an asset Or Paid to transfer aIiability in an OrderIy transaction for the asset Or IiabiIity at the measurement date (i・e・,the exit PriCe)・The Clarifying guidance affirms the fair VaIUe ObjeCtiVe in SFAS 157. ThiS means that fair VaIUe is a CUrrent market PriCe (the PriCe that WOUId be received Or Paid today Under CUrrent market COnditiOnS), not a future market PriCe (What might be received Or Paid at SOme future date Under differentmarket COnditiOnS)・ BeCaUSe fair VaIUe is a market-based measurement, the CUrrent market PriCe is determined based On the assumptions that market PartiCiPantS WOUId USe When determining fair value.InPUt hierarchy. The fair VaIUe hierarchy in SFAS 157 PriOritiZeS the USe Of ObSerVabIe market PriCeSJ WhiIe allowing for the USe Of Other inputs that WOUld be COnSidered by market PartiCiPantS When making decisions・The CIarifying guidance affirms the fair VaIUe hierarchy approach in SFAS 157 but emphasizes that market PriCeS ShOUId not be the SOIe basis for a fair VaIUe measurement UnIeSS they Can be ObSerVed in an active market for identical items and result from OrderIy transactions in that market (LeVeI I inputs)・ In all Other cases, the VaIUatiOnS WilI involve more WOrk and analysis requiring informed judgments, but the fair VaIUe ObjeCtiVe in SFAS 157 remains the Same・ACtiVe market・ SFAS 157 refers to an active market as One in WhiCh transactions OCCUr With SUffiCient frequency and VOIUme to PrOVide OngOing and CUrrent PriCing information. The CIarifying guidance emphasizes that determining Whether the market for an item is (Or COntinUeS to be) active requires judgment, COnSidering the VOIUme and IeVeI Of activity for the item in COmPariSOn to normal levels.OrderIy transaction. SFAS 157 refers to an OrderIy transaction as Onethat involves a Willing buyer and a WilIing SelIer and allows for SUffiCient exposure to the market; that is, the SelIer has had SUffiCient time to market the asset and Undertake marketing activities that are USUaI and CUStOmary for transactions involving SimiIar items・The CIarifying guidance emphasizes that determining Whether a transaction is OrderIy Or disorderly (i・ e., a distressed SaIe Or forced transaction Where the SelIer is COmPelIed to transact) requires judgment and the COnSideratiOn Of factors SPeCifiC tothe transaction, not the market・ FOr example, a disorderly transaction might be indicated if the SelIer is in Or near bankruptcy Or receivership, if the SelIer WaS forcedto SelI to meet regulatory requirements, Or if the SelIer WaS forced to SelI Within a PeriOd that did not allow for USUaI and CUStOmary marketing activities Under CUrrent market COnditiOnS・ The transaction focus applies even When markets are dislocated・ It is not appropriate to automatically COnCIUde that all market activity represents disorderly transactions・Conversely, it is not appropriate to automatically COnCIUde that all market activity represents OrderIy transactions representative Of fair VaIUe・AdjUStmentS・ SFAS 157 indicates that market PriCeS that are not LeVeI 1 inputs must be evaluated for adjustment・ The CIarifying guidance emphasizes that market PriCeS that are not LeVeI I inputs are not determinative, especially When there has been a SignifiCant decrease in the VOIUme and IeVeI Of activity for an item・ ThOSe market PriCeS include market PriCeS that Canbe ObSerVed in active markets for SimiIar items, that Can be ObSerVed in markets that are not active for identical Or SimiIar items, and that result from disorderly transactions (LeVeI 2 inputs)・ When those are USed to determine fair value, they must be evaluated for adjustment and COnSidered together With the results Of VaIUatiOn techniques USing Other available inputs・When there are different indications Of fair value, determining the POint Within the range that is most representative Of fair VaIUe-the PriCe at WhiCh market PartiCiPantS WOUId transact Under CUrrent market COnditiOnS-requires judgment, especially a COnSideratiOn Of the extent to WhiCh the inputs USedin the VaIUatiOn techniques are relevant in the CirCUmStanCeS・MOSt PrOgreSS NeededThe Obama administration has PrOPOSed financial regulatory reforms that CalI On StandardS SetterSto make SUbStantiaI PrOgreSS On improvements to financial reporting in key areas highlighted by the U.S. DePartment Of the Treasury,U FinanCiaI RegUIatOry Reform: A NeW FOUndation, V CalIS for improvements in the areas Of fair VaIUe accounting, accounting for financial instruments, and IOan IOSS PrOViSiOning (See also U RePOrt Of the FinanCiaI StabiIity FOrUm On AddreSSing PrO-CyCIiCaIity in the FinanCiaI System, ' , APriI 2009)・ It also CalIS for PrOgreSS On the development Of aSingIe Set Of high-quality global StandardS・The FinanCiaI CriSiS AdViSOry GrOUP (FCAG)J a group formed by FASB andthe IASB to advise On the StandardS-Setting implications Of the financialCriSiS and POtentiaI ChangeS to the global regulatory environment,highlighted the need for SimiIar improvements in its JUIy 28, 2009, report to FASB and the IASB.Fair VaIUe ChalIengeSNOtWithStanding the many CIarifiCatiOnS PrOVided by StandardSSetterSJ determining fair VaIUe in the CUrrent environment WilI COntinUe to be ChalIenging・ The markets for many financial assets that PreViOUSIy Were active are no IOnger and IaCk the infrastructure needed to facilitate market PriCing・ ThiS means that the VaIUatiOnS (Under U.S. GAAP and IFRS) WilI involve more WOrk and analysis requiring informed judgments・GiVen CalIS from the PUbliC and investors to increase transparency, there have also been many fair VaIUe (and Other) U diSCIOSUre solutions, n and more are yet to COme・At the Same time, U・S・ issuers face the PrOSPeCt Of a move to IFRS・In the meantime, ChangeS to reduce Or eliminate differences between SFAS 157 and the PrOPOSed IFRS guidance On fair VaIUe measurement are likely, as FASB and the IASB move forward On COnVergenCe initiatives・ It is too SOOn to tell Whether ChangeS WilI be made to SFAS 157, the PrOPOSed IFRS, Or both・ BUt given the role Of fair VaIUe in U・ S・ GAAP and IFRS today, and the need for improvements going forward, a COnVerged SOIUtiOn that PrOdUCeS the Same fair VaIUe Standard for U. S・ GAAP and IFRS ShOUld bePreferabIe to two SimiIar~but different- fair VaIUe StandardS・Source: MaCDOnaid, Linda A・ Fair VaIUe ChangeS Ahead・ CPA JOUrna1・ VO 180 ISSUe I.Jan 2010, 24-27译文：未来公允价值的变化公允价值在财务报告中的使用并不是新想法,它在许多标准中是要求或存许可被使用的,其中-作已经实施了长达数十年之久。

外文翻译--公允价值的利率施行

本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译外文出处 New York City外文作者 Alfred M.King原文：FAIR V ALUE FOR RATE PURPOSESIn considering fair value for rate purposes it is important to bear in mind that the determination of fair value is a part of the process of determining a reasonable rate of charge. The content of fair value may therefore depend largely on our conception of what constitutes rate reasonableness. It will aid to a clearer determination of this intricate problem if for the moment we forget "fair value" and concentrate our attention on the fundamentals of a reasonable rate of charge. By "reasonable rate" as here used we mean the reasonableness of the rate schedule as a whole, and not the adjustment of the various specific rates that go to make up the complete rate schedule. It is the total price or compensation collected from the public for its entire service, rather than the price for any particular service or class of services. A reasonable rate of charge in this sense of a reasonable rate schedule is a rate that gives the company reasonable compensation for the entire service which it renders the public.What, then, is reasonable compensation in the case of the appropriate and normally successful public utility enterprises?Reasonable compensation is here equivalent to the normal cost of production. What other basis can there be for the determination of a fair price in the case of a virtual monopoly?If a commodity can be freely and quickly produced, its market price will follow quite closely its cost of production. This must be so, because under the assumed conditions there could be no reason for paying more than the cost of production.If a commodity may be freely produced, but only by specially trained workmen, a large fixed investment, and great business risks, the cost of production will still in the long run tend to limit market price. It is clear that the production of a particularcommodity will not be permanently carried on unless the price received covers all the costs of production. Under free competition it is also clear that a price higher than that necessary to cover special risk, interest, profits, and operating expenses will bring new capital into the industry, and thus bring the price down to the cost of production.For a freely produced commodity, therefore, a price that does not conform to cost of production is not a stable or normal price. In a static society, with perfectly free competitionThe market price would conform to cost of production. In our present highly dynamic society, with many actual limitations upon perfect freedom of competition, market price and cost of production are often very far apart. Economists have used the term " normal price " to indicate in the case of a freely produced commodity that price that corresponds to cost of production. It is the normal price, because it is the price toward which market prices tend; it is the price that under assumed conditions would be stable.The above presupposes competitive conditions. In the case of unregulated virtual monopoly the force that tends to limit prices charged to the cost of production is lacking. This creates the necessity for public regulation of the rates of charge of public service companies. The aim of public regulation is to accomplish what in other industries is assumed to be accomplished automatically by free competition, that is, to limit the price charged to the normal cost of production. In the case of authorized and regulated monopoly,ordinarily the reasonable rate of charge will correspond exactly to the economist's conception of normal price. The reasonable rate is ordinarily the one fixed by the normal cost of production.It is fixed by normal operating expenses plus a normal rate of return on a normal capital cost. Normal cost is ordinarily the determining factor in fixing fair, reasonable, or normal prices in the case of a regulated monopoly.There is no reason why in the case of a virtual monopoly the public should be required to pay more than the normal cost of production, and sound reason why in the long run the public cannot pay less. Normal cost of production is the amount which in the long run it is necessary to pay to secure the utilities demanded by the public. It isthe amount that will secure an equilibrium between demand and supply.In the case of a commodity requiring no capital outlay the normal cost of production is easily determined. It is the present normal cost of the labor and materials entering into its production. Cost consists merely of "operating expenses," and is not complicated by the question of capital cost, and interest and profits thereon. In the case, however, of a commodity requiring a large fixed investment, the determination of a normal cost of production is a complex process, in the working out of which there is room for a wide divergence of opinion. To the normal cost of labor and materials there must be added a fair estimate for depreciation and a fair return on capital cost. The normal cost of labor and materials is complicated by the necessity of including provision for maintenance,repairs, and depreciation. The determination of a normal return on a normal capital cost requires a determination of two very difficult and complicated problems: (i) What is the amount of the normal capital cost, and (2) what constitutes a normal return on such amount.Normal capital cost as applied to a new enterprise is a comparatively simple concept. But what is it as applied to a long established enterprise — to a water supply plant, a gas plant, or a railroad system? Is it normal cost at the time originally installed or last renewed, or, on the other hand, is it the present cost of reproduction?Is it actual cost or reproduction cost? We start with the premise that the reasonable rate of charge is to be determined by the fair cost of production. The point at issue between actual cost and reproduction cost is really whether by cost of production we mean cost at a particular moment or cost averaged over a period of years. In favor of present-moment cost it is asserted that what the public is entitled to is service at a rate of charge sufficient only to pay a fair return, under present investment conditions, upon the capital cost that would be required at present to furnish this service;and, conversely, what the company is entitled to receive is a fair return, under present investment conditions, on the capital cost that it or another company would have to expend at present in order to provide the service. A rate of charge measured on this basis is said to' correspond to the present economic cost of the service.The determination of a normal capital cost is one step in the process of determininga normal price, and this normal price is the amount which in the long run it is necessary to pay to secure the utilities demanded by the public. It is the amount which constitutes an adequate inducement for investment. Starting with the necessary investment as a base, the investor will estimate all the risks and hazards of the business, of every kind and nature,and against this will place all the possible chances of profit. The possible rate of return adequate to induce investment is naturally and necessarily a percentage on the actual cost. From the standpoint of the investor, a rate of profit based on any amount that is less than the actual cost is in excess of the actual rate of profit,and a rate of profit based on any amount that is greater than the actual cost is less than the actual rate of profit.The fair rate of return could be altered so as in a measure to offset the appreciation or depreciation of the base to which such rate of return is applied. With declining prices the risk of depreciation in reproduction cost would be offset by an increase in rate of return, and with advancing prices the probability of appreciation would be offset by a decrease in the rate of return. This, however, is but a poor method of accomplishing what can be more fairly and logically effected by directly basing the rate of return on actual capital cost. Any method that is permanently fair to both parties must get back to actual capital cost as the base for actual as distinct from nominal profits.The normal actual capital cost as a basis for rate determination,moreover, has a distinct advantage from the standpoint of public policy. It is desirable that rate schedules should have stability and should not fluctuate with the price of iron pipe or copper wire or with real-estate activity or reactions. A utility is not established for the purpose of speculating in copper wire or iron pipe or land. It must, however, in furnishing its service invest its money permanently in these things. The utility should not be expected to assume the risks of fluctuations in the price of the land and materials it uses. The public interest is best subserved and the cost of production is lowered by reducing the risks incident to public utility enterprises. The tendency of modern public service regulation is to establish more definite and equitable relations between the public and the company. These more definite relations mean decreasedrisk, and decreased risk means decreased cost of production.The public utility renders a continuous service, and in doing so requires a permanent fixed capital. Both the plant and the business are a gradual growth. This essential continuity of growth and service is the fact that seems to be lost sight of in present-moment reproduction methods of determining cost of production. The service and its present cost are the result of a complex interplay of factors starting with the initiation of the enterprise. Such cost is as much the result of past life and growth as it is of present conditions.Investment, depreciation, operating costs, risk, are all bound up in the past growth and development of the existing utility.As Justifying the reproduction method it may be argued that the public is always entitled to secure service under present conditions as to cost of production. It is entitled to secure service at a rate of charge sufficient only to cover cost of operation,interest, and profits of a substitute plant of the most modem approved design, capable of performing the same service as the existing plant. The company assumes the risk and enjoys the profit,if any, incident to this arrangement. This method involves a reproduction of the service rather than a reproduction of the plant.If the old plant were wiped out, what would it cost at present to construct and operate a plant capable of performing the service now performed by the old plant? In the case of a water plant, perhaps an entirely new source of supply would be used and the distribution system radically changed; in the case of a gas plant,a different process of production employed and a few gas-holders substituted for many small ones; in the case of an electric plant,larger units of production employed; in the case of a railroad, there might be a radical relocation and realignment of roadbed and important changes in the method of construction, leading to great economies in operating cost. It has been stated that ''if our railways were to be built anew, in the light of our present knowledge and with our present traffic offerings and financial resources, vast changes would be made in the character of construction."As thus stated, the reproduction method has so many difficulties that it is practically never employed. The reproduction of the service involves not only the determination of the cost of the most efficient substitute plant, but the determinationof the present cost of reproducing the business, the proper allowance under present conditions for interest and profit, and the operating costs for the substitute plant. In most cases it is exceedingly difficult and expensive to determine the design of an equally efficient substitute plant. In the case of a railroad, for example, the cost of determining a substitute location and of estimating the operating costs thereon would be so great as to render it entirely impractical as a factor in rate regulation. It would require a careful survey of various available locations, and estimates of construction and operating costs. The engineering costs of such survey and estimates would be enormous.The cost of reproduction in practice, therefore, instead of meaning the cost of a substitute plant of the most modern approved design, capable of performing the same service as the existing plant, has come to mean the cost of a substantially identical reproduction of the existing plant. This is the usual method. It involves, however,a partial abandonment of the reproduction of the service theory, and a somewhat imperfect recognition of the fact that cost of production is necessarily related to the past as well as to the present and future. It constitutes an imperfect recognition of the necessary continuity in the life of the plant and its service.By a further modification of the cost of reproduction method,cost of reproduction is made to mean not the cost at present prices of land, labor, and materials of reproducing a substantially identical plant under present conditions, but the cost at present prices of land, labor, and materials of reproducing a substantially identical plant under the actual conditions under which the existing plant was originally constructed. Under this method expenditures actually incurred in the development of the present property are fully allowed for, even though they would not be met with in the reproduction of an identical substitute plant. On the other hand, certain expenditures that have not been incurred in the development of the existing property, but would be incurred in the reproduction of the existing property, are excluded. The following is a statement of expenditures that would be included under this interpretation of the reproduction method. "If trees were cleared, then he [the appraiser] must allow for the cost of clearing, although not a tree may now bestanding. If streets were graded, then that grading must be estimated, though to-day the entire city is as level as a floor. If quicksand was encountered in laying a pipe-line, then the added cost of excavating it must be allowed, even though subsequent works have drained the line so that it no longer has a yard of quicksand. If money was spent to educate the public to the use of the commodity sold by the corporation, then that money is a development expense which must be allowed, even though the expense would not now be incurred by a new corporation of like character." Pavement over mains laid at the expense of the city, on the other hand, is an example of a reproduction cost that would not be included under the modified rule above mentioned.The consideration under the reproduction method of piecemeal construction depends upon whether the modified view of cost of reproduction above referred to is adopted. Under a strict application of the reproduction method there would be no occasion for the application of piecemeal methods. The entire property would be reconstructed by the quickest and most economical method. The actual cost of constructing gas mains has doubtless increased where from time to time additional mains have been laid in the same street to meet increased demands. In the laying of telephone conduits and cables by the piecemeal method additional cost is also incurred. On the other hand, certain overhead charges, such as organization, engineering, and interest during construction,may be lower where the property is constructed by the piecemeal process. Various authorities in using the reproduction method have considered it proper to allow for piecemeal construction.To this extent they have abandoned the strict reproduction method.A strict application of the reproduction method means that interest and profits shall be determined by present conditions. If the existing property were wiped out, upon what terms could capital be induced to invest in a similar property under existing conditions as to interest and risk? This theory disregards entirely the risk assumed when the existing enterprise was started and when the successive additions to investment were made. Most authorities recognize, however, that a fair return on investment cannot be determined in this way. Consideration must necessarily be givento initial risks and past earnings.The reproduction method does not fit in with depreciation and accounting methods. The annual allowance for depreciation under approved accounting methods is not the amount required to replace the existing unit, but the amount required to write off the cost of the existing unit when it is necessary to replace it. Under approved methods the actual cost of a car when replaced is deducted from the capital account, and the cost of the new car is added to the capital account. An allowance for depreciation estimated on reproduction cost is consequently inaccurate in proportion as the reproduction cost differs from the actual cost. As long as the science of accounts is predicated on actual cost it is inconsistent and confusing in any proceeding to determine cost of production, to base either the accrued depredation or the annual allowance for depreciation, on reproduction rather than actual cost.The question of actual cost has been usually dismissed in connection with valuation cases and discussions by the simple statement that inasmuch as its determination was entirely impracticable any consideration of the subject must be purely academic. This,it seems, has been largely the result of a somewhat confused conception of actual cost. Actual cost properly considered may in a great majority of cases be determined with much greater accuracy than reproduction cost. The term "actual cost" may possibly be taken in three senses: (i) book cost; (2) the first cost of the original units;(3) the first cost of the identical units now in use. The confusion has arisen from identification of actual cost with book cost or first cost of original units, or both. Properly speaking, actual cost is the first cost of the identical units now in use. In the past both the terms "actual cost" and "original cost" have been used, the term "original cost" being more frequently employed. The term "actual cost" should be substituted, as the term "original cost" appears to mean the first cost of the original units.Book cost would be the same as actual cost, i. e., the first cost of the identical units now in use,assuming that approved accounting principles had been strictly applied from the initiation of the enterprise. Correct accounting principles are, however, of comparatively recent acceptance and application. Book costs as actually developed often include discount on securities issued, exorbitant profits to promoters, cost ofreplacing wornout or superseded property, dividends paid out of capital and money sunk in unsuccessful experiments. On the other hand, book cost may exclude various actual costs, such as improvements and betterments constructed out of earnings, and overhead construction charges included in operating expenses.Original cost, or the first cost of the original units, is extremely difficult of ascertainment in the case of aU the older enterprises.Accounts and records are lacking, and even if at hand would not necessarily be illuminating, inasmuch as the accounting principles and methods applied are not in evidence. A particular unit may have been replaced many times; there may be no record of the time when it was originally installed or of the character and quality of the vinit when installed. To the first cost of the original unit there would be added or deducted at the time of successive replacements the proportion of the cost of the new unit represented by any increase or diminution in the capacity of such unit. When a street car with a carrying capacity of 24 is replaced by one having a carrying capacity of 30, one-fifth of the cost of the new car would be added to capital cost. When in turn the 30 passenger car came to be replaced by a 40 passenger car, one-fourth of the cost of such new car would be added to capital cost. Thus the determination of original cost in this sense would require a complete knowledge of the physical and accounting history of the enterprise.If actual cost be taken in the sense of original cost or first cost of the original unit, it may be ruled out as impracticable of ascertainment in the majority of cases. Under approved accounting principles, however, actual cost is not the first cost of the original unit, but the first cost of the identical unit now in use. Under approved accounting methods, when a given unit is replaced, the cost of the replaced unit is deducted from the capital account and the cost of the new unit is added to capital account. Thus the true book cost corresponds with the first cost of the identical unit now in use. This greatly simplifies the problem of determining actual cost. Assuming that existing accounts and records may be only partially relied upon, an estimate of actual cost can be ascertained by much the same methods and with greater accuracy than an estimate of reproduction cost. The first essential in either case is a complete inventory of property units in use. A second requirement in both cases is thedetermination of the. approximate time at which each such unit was installed. This information is essential under the reproduction method in order to determine the age and accrued depreciation of each unit or class of units. It is essential under the actual cost method in order that unit costs varying with the period of purchase may be applied. Records are available showing for any period the prevailing prices of labor and materials entering into construction costs. From such records, supplemented in many cases by fragmentary data obtainable from the books of the company, it is possible to apply unit costs. In the electrical industries particularly, a large part of the property is short-lived, so that even if records are at hand for the past five or ten years, only data that will fix within narrow limits the actual cost of a large proportion of the existing property can be ascertained. The actual cost of land, even in the case of old enterprises, can often be obtained from the company's records. If such records are entirely lacking, the value of the land at the time of its purchase may be estimated from tax assessments and records of purchases and sales at the time. Such an estimate will, in most cases, come nearer to the true purchase price than present estimates of reproduction cost of the land will come to the true reproduction cost. A succinct statement of the method to be employed by the engineer in estimating actual cost is contained in a recent book by Hammond V. Hayes, entitled "Public Utilities, their Cost New and Depreciation""By far the larger part of these difficulties is removed if the original cost is determined in substantially the same manner as was the replacement cost. An inventory is prepared showing all plant units now in useful service. Such an inventory is identical with that required for ascertaining replacement cost. The age of each unit is ascertained and entered in the inventory. As will be explained later, this figure for age is necessary for a determination of the loss in value of the investment arising from depreciation. From this age figure it is possible to find how many units of each class of elements were constructed in each year in the past. The engineer and an accountant familiar with the company's records can ascertain the unit costs of all elements for each year in the past. The sum of the products of the numbers of units constructed each year by the unit costs for that year will give the original cost.Overhead chargescan be found for each year and applied to the cost of construction each year in a manner similar in all respects to that described under replacement cost. Thus it is seen that the method of determining original cost is practically the same as replacement cost,except that in the case of the original cost there are several unit costs,one for each year in the past, for each element, whereas for replacement cost there is but one unit cost applicable to all units of the same kind."If public service industries were not already long established and our problem was that of devising a general policy that would serve as an adequate but not excessive inducement to obtain the establishment of the desired services, it seems clear that the actual and necessary outlay would naturally be taken as the normal capital cost upon which a fair rate of return would be allowed. The future cost of production of the service in a particular community would therefore depend somewhat on the prices of land, labor, and materials prevailing at the time the particular plant was established or last renewed. This seems natural and fair. The normal price of a virtual monopoly is necessarily something of an average. It cannot be determined wholly without reference either to past or future. The normal price is not the present moment hypothetical cost of production, assuming a reproduction at the present moment of the existing plant. Utilities requiring a large fixed investment cannot be permanently carried on on this basis, with justice to the investor and economy to the public.But our public service industries have for the most part been long established. A vested right to increments, especially in land values, is claimed. In the past, theories of public control have been but vaguely formulated and very imperfectly applied. Consequently many believe that the cost of reproduction method of determining capital cost or fair value is essential as a starting point, but for the future, fluctuations in the price of land, labor,and materials should result neither in an unearned increment nor an unmerited loss to the investor.What is equitable and just as regards the past depends upon the nature of the implied understanding between the public utility and the public at the time these investments were made. It is probably correct to say that no more definite understanding could have been implied than that the service would be supplied at thecost of production. Cost of production here means the actual cost of producing the service, including interest and normal profit, but excluding monopoly gains. Whether interest and normal profit were to be based on actual cost or on cost of reproduction was probably seldom considered, and there has certainly been no authoritative statement that could justify a conclusion that either the one or the other method would prevail.If it were generally true that public utility properties could now be reproduced at less than actual cost, the argument for the acceptance of actual cost as a normal standard for fair value would appeal very strongly to the public utility interests. As, however, prices of land, labor, and material have in general advanced enormously since 1896, most utility enterprises can only be reproduced to-day at a cost considerably in excess of the actual necessary cost. It is natural, therefore, that public utility interests should incline strongly toward the reproduction method.It may be argued that it has, at least for a considerable number of years, been recognized by the highest courts that the company is entitled to earn a fair return on the fair value of its property. The courts have used the terms "value," "present value," "fair value," "reasonable value," and "just value" in relation to the amount upon which the fair rate of return should be based. That they have not usually had current exchange value in mind is clearly apparent from the fact that the chief weight in determining value has been given to cost, either actual cost or reproduction cost. They have usually used "value" in the sense of "normal value," as that term is understood by economists, i. e., a value corresponding to the cost of production. It seems at first thought that reproduction cost corresponds more nearly to any proper use of the term "value" than does actual cost. It does have a closer relation to exchange value, but not necessarily a closer relation to normal value or cost of production, which is the only sense in which the term "value"can be properly used in this connection.It may be argued, nevertheless, that constant use of the term"value" in this connection has, whether rightly or not, produced the impression in the minds of investors and others that utilities would be allowed to earn upon a value represented by their reproduction cost. This argument seems particularly forceful in regard to land.。

会计科目中英文对照cpa版

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

外文文献翻译原文：Fair Value Changes AheadThe use of fair value in financial reporting is not new; it is required or permitted under many standards, some of which have been in place for decades. Yet, given its role in the asset write-downs and market volatility precipitated by the financial crisis，there has been considerable discussion and debate about the use of fair value in financial reporting. As the financial crisis has broadened, the debate has evolved into a global one involving not only FASB and its international counterpart, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), but also securities participants in the global capital markets. Responses to the financial crisis have focused on fair value accounting and have led to changes in the standards that will affect financial reporting going forward.The Fair Value DebateAt the center of the fair value debate is SFAS 157, Fair Value Measurements, which went into effect for financial assets and liabilities in 2008. SFAS 157 clarifies that when fair value is used in financial reporting, the measurement should represent a current market price. SFAS 157 establishes a framework for determining fair value, but it does not specify when to use fair value. SFAS 157 and its current market price objective only apply when other standards require or permit the use of fair value.The reporting model in the United States (and abroad) is a mixed-attribute model that uses a combination of measurements, including historical cost, fair value, and other bases, such as lower of cost or fair value. The use of fair value has expanded in recent years. For example, more fair values are now required when accounting for a business combination under SFAS 141 (R), Business Combinations. In addition，companies have the option to voluntarily use fair value for certain financial items for which fair value is not otherwise required in specified circumstances under SFAS 159，The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. Nevertheless, fair value is still used most frequently for financial assets. But fair value is not alwaysused on an ongoing basis (mark-to-market); it often is used only when a financial asset is impaired. In today's distressed markets, many of the financial assets that trade in those markets (e.g., mortgage-related securities) are impaired.The requirement to record impairment losses based on fair values that represent current market prices has raised concerns about when to use fair value in financial reporting. The concerns tocus mainly on long-standing issues of relevance and reliability，as well as the volatility caused by reporting changes in fair value in net income, especially in theabsence of observable market data to support the fair values.Some, including banking institutions subject to regulatory capital requirements, claim that fair value accounting has led to pro-cyclical behavior by forcing impairment write-downs to amounts that do not reflect the true economic values of ihe assets. They say that the write-downs have caused a downward spiral that has exacerbated the financial crisis and that fair value accounting should be suspended or modified. For example, in a public SEC roundtable on mark-to-market accounting on October 29，2008, William M. Isaac, chairman of the Secura Group of LECG and former FDIC chairman, stated: When there are temporary impairments of asset values due to economic and marketplace turmoil, regulators must give institutions an opportunity to survive the temporary impairment. Permanent impairment should be recognized, but assets should not be marked to unrealistic fire-sale prices. Regulators must evaluate the assets on the basis of their true economic value over a reasonable time horizon…[I]t is the use of MTM accounting, when markets are not functioning properly, that has produced terribly misleading accounting and disclosures that value assets well below their true economic value...I believe it is extremely important that bank regulation be counter-cyclical, not pro-cyclical...It is not sound public policy to cause banks to hesitate in the creation of reserves during good times when they can best afford the hit to earnings.Others, however, including many investors, say that the information conveyed through fair value accounting is useful for decision making and enhances thetransparency of financial information, which is critical in times of stress. They say that fair value accounting has exposed the deteriorating financial condition of many financial institutions and that suspending fair value accounting would weaken investor confidence and add to instability in the capital markets. For example, in a joint statement opposing the suspension of mark-to-market accounting issued on October 1, 2008, the Center for Audit Quality, the Council of Institutional Investors, and the CFA Institute stated: Suspending fair value accounting during these challenging economic times would deprive investors of critical financial information when it is needed most. Fair value accounting with robust disclosures provides more accurate, timely，and comparable information to investors than amounts that would have been reported under other alternative approaches. Investors have a right to know the current value of an investment, even if the investment is falling short of the past or future expectations.The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) required the SEC to conduct a study on the use of mark-to-market (fair value) accounting by financial institutions (section 133). In December 2008, the SEC issued Report and Recommendations Pursuant to Section 133 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: Study on Mark-to-Market Accounting. Based on its study, the SEC concluded that fair value accounting provides decision-useful information to investors and did not play a meaningful role in recent bank failures. The SEC recommended that fair value accounting be improved, not suspended. Tn its report, the SEC emphasized that having standards in place that meet the needs of investors is critical, noting that the objective of financial reporting is to provide relevant, transparent, and unbiased financial information to investors and the capital markets in order to facilitate informed investment decisions. Fair Value Changes for 2009 ReportingAt this point, the key principles outlined in SFAS 157 are in effect for 2009 reporting. Recently issued fair value guidance claritles-but does not change-those principles. These recent clarifications emphasize the need for judgments that could change how some are applying those principles in the current environment, and requires more fair value disclosures.Exit price. SFAS 157 emphasizes that fair value should represent the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction for the asset or liability at the measurement date (i.e.，the exit price).The clarifying guidance affirms the fair value objective in SFAS 157. This means that fair value is a current market price (the price that would be received or paid today under current market conditions), not a future market price (what might be received or paid at some future date under different market conditions). Because fair value is a market-based measurement, the current market price is determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use when determining fair value.Input hierarchy. The fair value hierarchy in SFAS 157 prioritizes the use of observable market prices, while allowing for the use of other inputs that would be considered by market participants when making decisions.The clarifying guidance affirms the fair value hierarchy approach in SFAS 157 but emphasizes that market prices should not be the sole basis for a fair value measurement unless they can be observed in an active market for identical items and result from orderly transactions in that market (Level I inputs). In all other cases, the valuations will involve more work and analysis requiring informed judgments, but the fair value objective in SFAS 157 remains the same.Active market. SFAS 157 refers to an active market as one in which transactions occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide ongoing and current pricing information. The clarifying guidance emphasizes that determining whether the market for an item is (or continues to be) active requires judgment, considering the volume and level of activity for the item in comparison to normal levels.Orderly transaction. SFAS 157 refers to an orderly transaction as one that involves a willing buyer and a willing seller and allows for sufficient exposure to the market; that is, the seller has had sufficient time to market the asset and undertake marketing activities that are usual and customary for transactions involving similar items.The clarifying guidance emphasizes that determining whether a transaction is orderly or disorderly (i.e., a distressed sale or forced transaction where the seller is compelled to transact) requires judgment and the consideration of factors specific tothe transaction, not the market. For example, a disorderly transaction might be indicated if the seller is in or near bankruptcy or receivership, if the seller was forcedto sell to meet regulatory requirements, or if the seller was forced to sell within a period that did not allow for usual and customary marketing activities under current market conditions. The transaction focus applies even when markets are dislocated. It is not appropriate to automatically conclude that all market activity represents disorderly transactions.Conversely, it is not appropriate to automatically conclude that all market activity represents orderly transactions representative of fair value.Adjustments. SFAS 157 indicates that market prices that are not Level 1 inputs must be evaluated for adjustment. The clarifying guidance emphasizes that market prices that are not Level I inputs are not determinative, especially when there has been a significant decrease in the volume and level of activity for an item. Those market prices include market prices that can be observed in active markets for similar items, that can be observed in markets that are not active for identical or similar items, and that result from disorderly transactions (Level 2 inputs). When those are used to determine fair value, they must be evaluated for adjustment and considered together with the results of valuation techniques using other available inputs.When there are different indications of fair value, determining the point within the range that is most representative of fair value-the price at which market participants would transact under current market conditions-requires judgment, especially a consideration of the extent to which the inputs used in the valuation techniques are relevant in the circumstances.Most Progress NeededThe Obama administration has proposed financial regulatory reforms that call on standards setters to make substantial progress on improvements to financial reporting in key areas highlighted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Finan cial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation，” calls for improvements in the areas of fair value accounting, accounting for financial instruments, and loan loss provisioning (see also “Report of the Financial Stability Forum on Addressing Pro-cyclicality in theFinancial System，’，April 2009). It also calls for progress on the development of asingle set of high-quality global standards.The Financial Crisis Advisory Group (FCAG), a group formed by FASB and the IASB to advise on the standards-setting implications of the financial crisis and potential changes to the global regulatory environment, highlighted the need for similar improvements in its July 28, 2009, report to FASB and the IASB.Fair Value ChallengesNotwithstanding the many clarifications provided by standards setters, determining fair value in the current environment will continue to be challenging. The markets for many financial assets that previously were active are no longer and lack the infrastructure needed to facilitate market pricing. This means that the valuations (under U.S.GAAP and IFRS) will involve more work and analysis requiring informed judgments.Given calls from the public and investors to increase transparency, there have also been many fair value (and other) “disclosure solutions,” and more are yet to come.At the same time, U.S. issuers face the prospect of a move to IFRS. In the meantime, changes to reduce or eliminate differences between SFAS 157 and the proposed IFRS guidance on fair value measurement are likely, as FASB and the IASB move forward on convergence initiatives. It is too soon to tell whether changes will be made to SFAS 157, the proposed IFRS, or both. But given the role of fair value in U.S. GAAP and IFRS today, and the need for improvements going forward, a converged solution that produces the same fair value standard for U.S. GAAP and IFRS should be preferable to two similar-but different- fair value standards.Source: MacDonald, Linda A. Fair Value Changes Ahead. CPA Journal. Vo 180 Issue I.Jan 2010： 24-27译文:未来公允价值的变化公允价值在财务报告中的使用并不是新想法，它在许多标准中是要求或存许可被使用的，其中-作已经实施了长达数十年之久。