浅谈公允价值计量属性在新准则中的应用外文文献
公允价值计量在我国会计核算中的应用研究(外文翻译参考)
公允价值计量在我国会计核算中的应用研究(外文翻译参考)毕业设计（论文）外文参考资料及译文译文题目：公允价值会计的危机:正确理解最近的辩论学生姓名：葛慧敏学号： 0901208036 专业：会计学所在学院：商学院指导教师：王思武职称：讲师2013年3月10日The Crisis of Fair Value Accounting: Making Sense ofthe Recent Debate*Christian LauxGoethe-University FrankfurtandChristian LeuzThe University of Chicago Booth School ofBusiness & NBERApril 2009(Forthcoming in Accounting, Organizations andSociety)AbstractThe recent financial crisis has led to a vigorous debate about the pros and cons of fair-value accounting (FV A). This debate presents a major challenge for FV A g oing forward and standard setters’ push to extend FV A into other areas. In this article, we highlight four important issues as an attempt to make sense of the debate. First, much of the controversy results from confusion about what is new and different about FV A. Second, while there are legitimate concerns about marking to market (or pure FV A) in times of financial crisis, it is less clear that these problems apply to FV A as stipulated by the accounting standards, be it IFRS or U.S. GAAP. Third, historical cost accounting (HCA) is unlikely to be the remedy. There are a number of concerns about HCA as well and these problemscould be larger than those with FV A. Fourth, although it is difficult to fault the FV A standards per se, implementation issues are a potential concern, especially with respect to litigation. Finally, we identify several avenues for future research.Key Words: Mark-to-market；Fair value accounting；Financial institutions；Liquidity；Financial crisis；Banks；Procyclicality1. IntroductionThe recent financial crisis has turned the spotlight on fair-value accounting (FV A) and led to a major policy debate involving among others the U.S. Congress, the European Commission as well banking and accounting regulators around the world. Critics argue that FV A, often also called mark-to-market accounting (MTM),1has significantly contributed to the financial crisis and exacerbated its severity for financial institutions in the U.S. and around the world.2On the other extreme, proponents of FV A argue that it merely played the role of the proverbial messenger that is now being shot (e.g., Turner, 2008; Veron, 2008).3In our view, there are problems with both positions. FV A is neither responsible for the crisis nor is it merely a measurement system that reports asset values without having economic effects of its own.In this article, we attempt to make sense of the current fair-value debate and discuss whether many of the arguments in this debate hold up to further scrutiny. We come to the following four conclusions. First, much of the controversy about FV A results from confusion about what is new and different about FV A as well as different views about the purpose of FV A. In our view, the debate about FV A takes us back to several old accounting issues, like the tradeoff between relevance and reliability, which have been debated for decades. Except in rare circumstances, standard setters will always face these issues and tradeoffs; FV A is just another example. This insight is helpful to better understand some of the arguments brought forward in the debate.Second, there are legitimate concerns about marking asset values to market prices in times of financial crisis once we recognize that there are ties to contractsand regulation or that managers and investors may care about market reactions over the short term. However, it is not obvious that these problems are best addressed with changes to the accounting system. These problems could also (and perhaps more appropriately) be addressed by adjusting contracts and regulation. Moreover, the concern about the downward spiral is most pronounced for FV A in its pure form but it does not apply in the same way to FV A as stipulated by U.S. GAAP or IFRS. Both standards allow for deviations from market prices under certain circumstances (e.g., prices from fire sales). Thus, it is not clear that the standards themselves are the source of the problem. However, as our third conclusion highlights, there could be implementation problems in practice. It is important to recognize that accounting rules interact with other elements of the institutional framework, which could give rise to unintended consequences. For instance, we point out that managers’ concerns about litigation could make a deviation from market prices less likely even when it would be appropriate. Concerns about SEC enforcement could have similar effects. At the same time, it is important to recognize that giving management more flexibility to deal with potential problems of FV A (e.g., in times of crisis) also opens the door for manipulation. For instance, managers could use deviations from allegedly depressed market values to avoid losses and impairments. Judging from evidence in other areas in accounting (e.g., loans and goodwill) as well as the U.S. savings and loans (S&L) crisis, this concern should not be underestimated. Thus, standard setters and enforcement agencies face a delicate tradeoff (e.g., between contagion effects and timely impairment).Fourth, we emphasize that a return to historical cost accounting (HCA) is unlikely to be a remedy to the problems with FV A. HCA has a set of problems as well and it is possible that for 3certain assets they are as severe, or even worse than the problems with FV A. For instance, HCA likely provides incentives engage in so called “gains trading” or to securitize and sell assets. Moreover, lack of transparency under HCA could make matters worse during crises.We conclude our article with several suggestions for future research. Basedon extant empirical evidence, it is difficult to evaluate the role of FV A in the current crisis. In particular, we need more work on the question of whether market prices significantly deviated from fundamental values during this crisis and more evidence that FV A did have an effect above and beyond the procyclicality of asset values and bank lending.In Section 2, we provide a quick overview over FV A and some of the key arguments for and against FV A. In Section 3, we discuss the concern that FV A contributes to contagion and procyclicality as well as ways to address this concern, including how current accounting practices help to alleviate problems of contagion. We consider potential implementation problems in Section 4 and conclude with suggestions for future research in Section 5.2. Fair-value accounting: What is it and what are the key arguments?FV A is a way to measure assets and liabilities that appear on a company’s balance sheet. FAS 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.” When quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities are available, they have to be used as the measurement for fair value (Level 1 inputs). If not, Level 2 or Level 3 inputs should be used. Level 2 applies to cases for which there are observable inputs, which includes quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices from identical or similar assets in 4inactive markets, and other relevant market data. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs (e.g.,model assumptions). They should be used to derive a fair value if observable inputs are not available, which is commonly referred to as a mark-to-model approach.Fair value is defined similarly under IFRS as the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties, in an arm’s length transaction. In determining fair value, IFRS make similardistinctions among inputs as FAS 157: Quoted prices in active markets must be used as fair value when available. In the absence of such prices, an entity should use valuation techniques and all relevant market information that is available so that valuation techniques maximize the use of observable inputs (IAS 39). It is recognized that an entity might have to make significant adjustments to an observed price in order to arrive at the price at which an orderly transaction would have taken place (e.g., IASB Expert Advisory Panel, 2008).3. Fair-value accounting, illiquidity, and financial crisesFV A and its application through the business cycle have been subject to considerable debate (e.g., ECB, 2004; Banque de France, 2008; IMF, 2008). The chief concern is that FV A is procyclical, i.e., it exacerbates swings in the financial system, and that it may even cause a downward spiral in financial markets. U.S. GAAP and, more recently, also IFRS allow for a re-classification of fair-value assets into a category to which HCA and less stringent impairment tests apply. U.S. GAAP and IFRS have mechanisms to avoid negative spillovers in distressed markets and a downward spiral.To address contagion and procyclicality is not to have direct (mechanical) regulatory or contractual ties to FV A. For instance, it would be possible to adjust the accounting numbers for the purpose of determining regulatory capital. Such adjustments already exist. For example, for the purpose of calculating regulatory capital, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve adjust bank’s equity as reported under U.S. GAAP for unrealized losses and gains for available-for-sale (AFS) debt securities to obtain Tier 1 capital (e.g., Schedule HC-R in FR Y-9C). Thus, regulatory capital as calculated by U.S. banking regulators is not affected by changes in the fair value of AFS debt securities, unless they are sold or the impairments are other-than-temporary.13Similarly, Li (2008) documents that debt contracts often exclude fair-value changes in accounting-based debt covenants. These examples demonstrate that it is not clear that contagion and procyclicality are bestaddressed directly in the accounting system. Perhaps these issues are better left to the prudential regulators and contracting parties, who in turn can make adjustments to the numbers reported in the financial statements as they see fit. In our view, this is an interesting issue for future research. In summary, Allen and Carletti (2008) and Plantin et al. (2008a)provide important contributions to the FV A debate by illustrating potential contagion effects. However, they do not show that HCA would bepreferable. In fact, Plantin et al. (2008a) are quite explicit about the problems of HCA. Furthermore, they do not speak directly to the role of FV A in the current crisis because they do not model FV A as implemented in practice. As noted above, FV A as required by U.S. GAAP or IFRS as well as U.S. regulatory capital requirements for banks have mechanisms in place that should alleviate potential contagion effects. Whether these mechanisms work properly in practice is our next question.4. Are there implementation problems with fair-value accounting standards?Given the discussion in the preceding section, it is not obvious that extant accounting standards can be blamed for causing contagion effects. But it is possible that, in practice or in crises, the standards do not work as intended. Ultimately, this is an empirical question and answering it is beyond the scope of this article. But we can at least raise and discuss two important implementation issues.Many have argued that both the emphasis of FAS 157 on observable inputs (i.e., Level 1 and Level 2) and extant SEC guidance make it very difficult for firms to deviate from market prices, even if these prices are below fundamentals or give rise to contagion effects (e.g., Wallison, 2008a, Bigman and Desmond, 2009). Consistent with these claims, the relevant standards in U.S. GAAP and IFRSas well as guidance for these standards are quite restrictive as to when it is appropriate for managers to deviate from observable market prices.However,such restrictions should not be surprising. By allowing deviations from market price in some instances, standard setters face the problem of distinguishing between a situation in which a market price is indeed misleading and a situation in which a manager merely claims that this is soin order to avoid a write-down. Without restrictive guidance, the standards could be easily gamed. There is evidence that managers can be reluctant to take write-downs even when assets are substantially impaired.15Consistent with this concern, current estimates of banks’ loan losses far exceed the write-downs that banks have taken so far and they also exceed the difference between the loans’ carrying valu es and banks’ fair value disclosures for these loans according to FAS 107 (e.g., Citigroup, 2009; Goldman Sachs, 2009; IMF, 2009).16 While this expected feature of second-best standards is one explanation for the criticism of FV A during the crisis, it is clearly also possible that extant rules and guidance are too restrictive (even from a second-best perspective) and that we would have been better off giving managers more flexibility in the crisis.17This is in essence the view that the House Financial Services Committee adopted in a hearing on MTM accounting rules on March 12, 2009. As a result of this political pressure, the FASB relaxed the conditions for moving assets into Level 3 in April 2009. Moreover, the financial statements of U.S. banks for fiscal 2008 show that banks have been able to move assets into the Level 3 Category as the financial crisis unfolded, so it was clearly not impossible to move to models (see also IMF, 2008). But it is of course possible that banks did not move enough assets into the Level 3 category to prevent contagion effects. In the end, we need more research on this issue.18A second implementation problem may arise from litigation risk. Deviations from market prices under existing FV A standards require substantial judgement by the preparers and the auditors. However, managers, directors and auditors face severe litigation risks as well as substantial legal penalties, including prison terms, which recently have been increased by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. In this environment, managers, directors, and auditors are likely to weigh thepersonal costs and risks associated with deviations from market prices differently than investors. For example, it is conceivable that a manager is reluctant to use an appropriate model-based fair value that is higher than an observable price from a very illiquid market, especially when there is substantial down-side risk for the economy or the firm, as there typically is in financial crises.From a litigation risk perspective, guidance as to when deviations are appropriate is likely to play an important role, especially in litigious environments and when enforcement is strong. Thus, it is possible that, once we recognize the litigation aspect, improvements in the standards’ implementation were (and perhaps are still) needed. However, as litigation serves as an important enforcement mechanism, there are tradeoffs as we highlighted earlier in this section for SEC enforcement. This second implementation problem also highlights that it is important to evaluate accounting standards within the context of the institutional environment in which they operate.195、Conclusion and suggestions for future researchThe preceding sections illustrate that the debate about FV A is full of arguments that do not hold up to further scrutiny and need more economic analysis. Moreover, it is important to recognize that standard setters face tradeoffs, and in this regard FV A is no exception. One example is the tradeoff between relevance and reliability, which is at the heart of the debate of when to deviate from market prices in determining fair values. Another example is that FV A recognizes losses early thereby forcing banks to take appropriate measures early and making it more difficult to hide potential problems that only grow larger and would make crises more severe. But this benefit gives rise to another set of tradeoffs. First, FV A introduces volatility in the financial statement in “normal times” (when prompt action is not needed). Second, full FV A can give rise to contagion effects in times of crisis, which need to be addressed – be it in the accounting system or with prudential regulation. In our view, it may bebetter to design prudential regulation that accepts FV A as a starting point but sets explicit counter-cyclical capital requirements than to implicitly address the issue of financial stability in the accounting system by using historical costs. It is an illusion to believe that ignoring market prices or current information provides a foundation for a more solid banking system. But we admit that the tradeoff between transparency and financial stability as well as the interactions between accounting and prudential regulation needs further analysis (see also Landsman, 2006).A related issue is the question of how investors respond to additional disclosures that firms provide in times of crisis. There are a few studies that examine firms’ responses to transparency crises and their economic consequences (e.g., Leuz and Schrand, 2008). The current crisis provides an interesting setting to further explore these issues further. An analysis of European banks’ annual reports by KPMG (2008) suggests that, in 2007, banks increased their disclosures related to financial instruments, in part due to the beginning of the crisis. It would be interesting to study what determines disclosure (or non-disclosure), how investors reacted to these disclosures and whether there are signs that investors overreact to such disclosures.Finally, it is important to recognize that accounting rules and changes in them are shaped by political processes (like any other regulation). The role of the political forces further complicates the analysis. For instance, it is possible that changing the accounting rules in a crisis as a result of political pressures leads to worse outcomes than sticking to a particular regime (e.g., Brunnermeier etal., 2009). In this regard, the intense lobbying and political interference with the standard setting process during the current crisis provide a fertile ground for further study.In sum, the fair-value debate is far from over and much remains to be done. ReferencesAdrian, T., & Shin, H.S. (2008). Liquidity and leverage. Federal Reserve Bank ofNew York Staff Reports, No. 328.Allen, F., & Carletti, E. (2008). Mark-to-market accounting and liquidity pricing. Journal of Accounting and Economics45, 358-378.American Bankers Association (2008). Letter to SEC. September 23, 2008.Ball, R. (2008). Don’t shoot the messenger … or ignore the message, Note.Bank of America (2004). Letter to FASB. September 17. 2004.Banque de France (2008). Financial stability review. Special issue on valuation, No 12, October.Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. In G.M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. M. Stulz, Handbook of the Economics of Finance, vol. 1, chapter 18, pages 1053-1128. North Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Barth, M. (2004). Fair Values and Financial Statement Volatility. In: The Market Discipline Across Countries and Industries, Claudio Borio, William Curt Hunter, George G Kaufman, and Kostas Tsatsaronis (eds). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Barth, M.E., Beaver, W.H., & Landsman, W.R. (2001). The relevance of the value-relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting: another view. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31, 77-104.Beatty, A., Chamberlain, S. & Magliolo, J. (1995). Managing financial reports of commercial banks: The influence of taxes, regulatory capital and earnings. Journal of Accounting Research33, 231-261.Beaver, W.H. (1981). Financial reporting: An accounting revolution. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Benston, G. J. (2008). The shortcomings of fair-value accounting described in SFAS 157. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 27, 101-114.Berger, A.N., Herring, R.J., & Szegö, G.P. (1995). The role of capital in financial institutions. Journal of Banking and Finance19, 393-340.Bernard, V.L., Merton, R.C., & Palepu, K.G. (1995). Mark-to-market accountingfor banks and thrifts: Lessons from the Danish experience. Journal of Accounting Research 33, 1-32.Bigman, D., & Desmond, M. (2009). Mark-to-messy accounting change. , April 02, 2009.Brunnermeier, M.K., & Pedersen, L.H. (forthcoming). Market liquidity and funding liquidity. Review of Financial Studies.Brunnermeier, M.K., Crocket, A., Goodhart, C., Persaud, A. & Shin, H. (2009). The fundamental principles of financial regulation. Geneva Reports on the World Economy 11. International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies. Geneva, Switzerland.Citigroup (2009). Industry focus: U.S. Banks, Research report by Citigroup Global Markets, March 2, 2009.Credit Suisse (2008). Letter to the SEC, File Number 4-573, November 13, 2008. Coval, J.D., Jurek, J.W., & Stafford, E. (2009). The pricing of investment grade credit risk during the financial crisis. Working Paper.DeBondt, W.F.M., & Thaler, R. (1985). Does the stock market overreact? The Journal of Finance40, 793-805.Disclosure Insight (2009). Comment letter on proposed staff position under FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, March 25, 2009.ECB (2004). Fair value accounting and financial stability. By ECB staff team led by A. Enria. Occasional Paper Series, No. 13, April 2004.公允价值会计的危机:正确理解最近的辩论作者：Christian Laux and Christian Leuz出处：Forthcoming in Accounting,Organizations and Society摘要最近的金融危机已经导致了一个关于公允价值会计的优缺点(FVA)的激烈争论。
浅议新会计准则中公允价值的运用
浅议新会计准则中公允价值的运用【摘要】近年来，国际会计准则及美国等一些市场经济发达国家会计准则，纷纷将公允价值作为重要甚至是首选的计量属性加以运用，以提高会计信息的相关性。
从计量属性角度看，公允价值在某种程度上代表着财务会计的发展方向。
因此，其运用的范围和程度也就成了衡量一个国家或一个地区、一个组织会计国际化程度的重要标志。
公允价值在我国的运用道路很曲折，2006年2月15日财政部颁布的新会计准则大量启用了公允价值计量模式，为了适应社会主义市场经济发展需要，规范企业公允价值计量和披露，提高会计信息质量，今年财政部制定了《企业会计准则第39号——公允价值计量》，自2014年7月1日起施行。
本文根据公允价值的概念分析公允价值运用的范围，揭示公允价值在我国运用的必然性。
【关键词】新会计准则公允价值运用目录1 公允价值的概述 (1)1.1公允价值的概念 (1)1.1.1 公允价值的定义 (1)1.1.2公允价值的本质 (1)1.2公允价值的表现形式及特征 (1)1.2.1公允价值的表现形式 (1)1.2.2公允价值的特征 (1)1.3公允价值于其他计量属性的关系研究 (2)2 公允价值运用的范围 (2)2.1公允价值运用的理论基础 (2)2.1.1公允价值符合现代会计目标 (2)2.1.2公允价值符合相关性和可靠性质量特征 (2)2.1.3公允价值符合会计要素本质 (3)2.2 公允价值运用的层次性 (3)2.2.1公允价值层次性的概述 (3)2.2.2层次化公允价值计量的归宿：市场脱手价格 (3)2.2.3对公允价值进行分层计量时提高会计信息质量的要求 (3)2.2.4对公允价值进行分层计量时实现财务报告目标的需要 (4)2.2.5对公允价值进行分层计量有助于实现“决策有用的计量观” (4)2.3公允价值在会计核算中的运用 (4)2.3.1公允价值的确认 (4)2.3.2公允价值的计量 (4)2.3.3会计报告中的公允价值 (5)2.4公允价值在具体会计准则中的应用 (6)2.4.1非金融资产的公允价值计量 (6)2.4.2负债和企业自身权益工具的公允价值计量 (6)2.4.3其他业务的公允价值计量 (6)3 公允价值运用的意义 (6)3.1运用公允价值的理论意义 (7)3.2 运用公允价值的现实意义 (7)3.3 公允价值在实践运用中存在的不足 (8)3.3.1缺乏完善的理论体系指导 (8)3.3.2公允价值可靠性难以控制 (8)3.3.3公允价值不易直接获取 (8)3.3.4公允价值实际操作难度大 (8)3.4公允价值的前景展望 (9)【结语】 (9)【参考文献】 (10)浅议新会计准则中公允价值的运用一、公允价值概述（一）公允价值的概念1、公允价值的定义所谓公允价值，国际会计准则委员会（IASC）将其定义为：熟悉情况和自愿的双方在一项公平交易中，能够将一项资产进行交换或将另一项负债进行结算的金额。
浅析公允价值计量在新会计准则中的应用
的经济 价值 ， 从 而影 响 企业 管理 者制 定 价格 策 略 ， 并 且直 接 影 响市 场 营销环 节和 抽象 意义 上 的产 品价值 的实 现 。 ２ ． ２ ． ２公允 价值计 量往 往 只 限定于 商业业 务计 量 。现 代商 业 贸易 活 动 中 的货 物 流动 与 资本 运动 是相 互 重叠 的 ，通过 保理 业 务对 账 面 资金进 行 回笼 ，成 为大 宗 产 品生产 以及销售 过 程 中 的一 种 主 要 的经 营模 式 ，但是 公允 价 值制 定 过程 当 中得 出的产 品 价格 与企 业 经济 业 务运行过程中收取的实际货币资金不吻合 ，因此导致公允价值计量 结果 所 判定 的企业 资 产 以及 资 金 水平 与 实 际情 况 之 间 发生 了偏 离 ， 序交易中，出售一项资产所能收到或者转移一项负债所需支付 的价 不利 于企业 的决策 。 格。 而公允价值计量则指的是对资金变化量进行计量的过程。 在会计 ３加强公允价值在新会计准则 中的应用的策略 核算过程 中使用公允价值进行核算 ，可以对企业经营管理过程 中一 ３ ． １加 强对公 允 价值 的认 识 些还没有发生的现金流量进行核算 ，因此公允价值计量的运用范围 公允价值是企业会计活动中的一个重要 内容 ， 过去一直以来 ， 我 比较广泛， 在企业生产、 经营、 决策等多个方面都可 以有广泛的运用 ， 国的会计核算都采用比较传统的历史成本的计量模式，对公允价值 对于会计管理工作的职发挥有重要的意义。以公允价值计量的相关 的相关概念都比较模糊 ，因此在会计核算过程中运用公允价值计量 资产或负债可以是单项资产或负债 ， 比如企业的一项金融工具 、 非金 时 往往会 产 生一定 认识 偏差 。 在新 的会 计 准则 中 ， 公允 价值 指 的是 市 融资产 ，也可以是各种资产的组合、负债组合或者资产和负债的组 场参与者在计量 日发生的有序交易中，出售一项资产所能收到或者 合。企业在管理过程 中究竟是单项形式还是组合形式对企业的资产 转移一项负债所需支付的价格。有的会计人员对公允价值的概念认 以及负载进行公允价值计量 ，主要还是取决于企业的这项资产或负 识 比较模糊 ，因此对以公允价值为基础进行计量的资产或者负债的 债的计量单元。公允价值计量工作具有一定的前提 ， 首先 ， 买卖双方 整 合具 有较 大 的影 响。 应该对对方的信用状况有一定的了解。其次 ， 在交易过程 中， 都是以 ３ ． ２提高会计人员的综合能力素养 ， 实现对公允价值的正确运用 真实的交易信息为基础 的，交易的行为应该要符合国家法律 的相关 由于企业管理人员 以及会计人员对公允价值的认识程度不够 ， 规定 ， 要对 外进 行 财务状 况 的公 布 。第 三 ， 公允 价 值计 量 过程 中参 与 因此其 运用 能 力也 不 高 ，但 是企 业 管理 者 以及会 计 人员 是 运用 公 允 计 量管 理 的人 员应 该要 积 极与 其他 经 营管 理部 门之 间 的联 系 ，便 于 价值计量的主体 ，其业务素质以及职业道德观念水平高低对成功使 对 市场 经 济变化 过程 进行 详细 了解 ， 做 好 企业会 计管 理工 作 。 公 允 价 用公允价值计量具有十分重要的影响。 公允价值的确定有赖于市场 ， 值计量过程中的一个重要概念就是计量单元，计量单元指的是相关 需 要 会计 人员 进行 主 观判 断 ， 因此 ， 如果 会计 人 员 的综合 能力 水平 不 资产或负债以单项或者组合方式进行计量的最小单位。对企业 的相 高 ， 则 面 临一 些 不确 定 的会计 事 项 会感 到无 所 适从 ， 对此 ， 会 计 人 员 关资产或者负载进行计量时 ，计量单元应当由以公允价值计量 的其 应 该要 在 遵循 一定 的会计 准则 和 制度 的基 础上 加 强对 自身业 务能 力 他 相关 会计 准则 规定 所得 。 的训练 ， 凭借 自身的职业素质、 专业知识水平以及执业经验 ， 对会计 ２公允价值在新会计准则中的应用以及存在的问题 活动进行有效管理。同时， 企业管理者也应该要加强 自身能力素养的 ２ ． １公允价值在新会计准则 中的应用 提升 ， 能 够对 公允 价值 计 量 的相关 过 程进 行管 理 ， 及时 发 现计 量 过程 新会计准则对会计政策以及会计计量等各方面进行 了重新定 中存在的问题 ， 并且进行积极的处理 ， 促进企业 的可持续发展。 义， 并且 逐 渐缩 小 了 与税 法 之 间 的差 异 ， 在新 会 计 准则 的 内容 中 ， 公 ３ ． ３多 种计量 属 ． ｆ 生 并存 允价 值计 量 是一 个重 要 的方 面 。公 允 价值 在新 会计 准则 中的应 用 包 公 允价 值计 量在 应 用过 程 中表现 出很多 优点 ，但 是 公允 价值 计 括多个 方 面 。 量 的数 据资 料不 容易 获 取 ， 而 且计 量 过程 中的主 观性 比较 强 ， 计 量结 ２ ． １ ． １公允价值在投资性房地产准则中的应用。对投资性房地产 果的可靠性程度不高 ， 加上我 国的市场经济发展程度较低 ， 这些原因 采用公允价值计量 ， 可以提现出房产的真实价值 ， 并且能够对未来 的 都导致公允价值计量的应用受到一定 阻碍。对此 ， 在现阶段 ， 我 国的 盈种隋况进行分析 ， 从而提升各种报表信息的参考价值 。 但是与旧的 会计核算依 旧要坚持多种计量属性并存的模式 ，实现从传统 的会计 会计准则相 比， 采用公允价值对房产进行计量时 ， 折 旧已经不能抵扣 管理到现代化会计管理的转变 ，在经济形势不断发展和经济环境逐 税收， 因此 会导 致企 业 的税负 加重 。 渐完善的过程 中， 加强对公允价值计量的运用。 ２ ． １ ． ２公允价值在非货币性资产交换准则中的应用。新会计准则 ４结 束语 中规定 ，非货币性资产进行交换时 ， 需要保证交换过程具有商业性 公允价值计量是新会计准则中的一个重要组成部分 ， 近年来 ， 随 质、 对换人和换出资产的公允价值能够进行可靠的计量。 如果换入资 着会计准则 的不断改革 ， 公允价值计量方式的应用变得越来越广泛 ， 产和换 出资产均能够可靠计量 ，应该以换出资产 的公允价值作为确 但应用过程中的问题也逐渐暴露出来 ， 为了加强对公允价值的运用 ， 定换人资产成本 的基础 ， 因此 ， 与 旧的准则相 比， 利用公允价值进行 需要采取多种措施 ， 比如提高对公允价值 的认识 、 应用能力 ， 对外部 计 量时 将产 生一定 的利 润 。 环境进行改善等。 ２ ． １ ． ３公允价值在债务重组准则中应用 。与旧的会计准则相 比， 参考 文献 在会计活动管理过程中引入公允价值计量，对重组收益进行确认时 【 １ 】 彭海燕． 公 允价值在新会计准则 中的具体 运用分析【 Ｊ ］ ． 中国外资 ， 可以提高债务豁免 的上市公 司的受益量 ， 按照公允价值的概念 ， 对企 ２ ０ １ １ （ ３ ６ ） ． 业 的资产进行评估 ， 表现出利润操纵的空间。但是 当前我国资本市场 ［ ２ ］ 代 碉公． 允价值 在我 国新会 计 准则 中的应 用分析叨． 首 都经 济 贸易 大 要素不够完善 ， 国内很多评估机构的经验也不丰富 ， 公允价值很难实 学 ， ２ ０ １ １ ． 、 现公允 ， 因此导致一些违规人员趁机进行违规操作。 ［ ３ ］ 吴光辉 ， 李秋 荣． 论公允价值在新会计准则 中的应用叨． 现代商贸工 ２ ． ２公允
会计学外文翻译--新会计准则下的公允价值计量模式
学生毕业设计（论文）外文译文
学生姓名：XXX
学号：XXXXXXXX
专业名称：会计学
译文标题（中英文）:新会计准则下的公允价值计量模式NewAccountingStandardsUndertheFairValueMeasurementModel
译文出处:X.Zhang.NewAccountingStandardsUndertheFairValueMeasurementModel.Journal of Accounting and Public Policy.2009.4:101-114
3.其他业务的公允价值计量及其影响
据不完全统计，在新会计准则体系中，已颁布的38个具体准则中至少有17个不同程度地运用了公允价值计量属性，对企业影响较大的事项除前文分析过的两项外，还有非货币性资产交换、债务重组和非共
同控制下的企业合并等交易或事项。新会计准则之所以对这些交易或事项采用公允价值计量模式，主要是出于实质重于形式的原则。例如，对于企业间具有商业实质的非货币性资产交换，采用公允价值计量换出和换入的资产，实质上是确认企业非货币性资产的"售出"与"购入"，"售出"资产的公允价与账面价之差即为企业实现的收益。而同类业务在老会计准则下只能按账面成本计价，不能将公允价值与账面价值之间的差异确认为企业损益；类似地，如果企业在债务重组中用以清偿债务的非货币资产的公允价值高于其账面价值，则高出的部分连同获得的债务豁免，可以增加当期利润；在非共同控制下的企业合并中，购买方付出的资产、发生或承担的负债的公允价值与其账面价值的差额，体现在企业当期损益中。这些交易事项中对公允的低估的缺陷，从而可以更真实地反映企业的资产价值及经营业绩。
英文原文：
浅谈公允价值计量属性在新准则中的应用外文文献
外文文献：FAIR VALUE ACCOUNTING IN THE BANKING SECTOR The Financial Instruments Joint Working Group (JWG) of Standard Setters issued in December 2000 the consultative document entitled “Draft Standard and Basis for Conclusions –Financial Instruments and Si milar Items”. The Draft Standard reviews and assesses an extensive use of fair value accounting (FVA) as the basis for the valuation of all financial instruments in a bank’s balance sheet. The work of the JWG is linked to the long-term strategy of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) –recently replaced by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) –to introduce a comprehensive FVA 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 FVA in the light of the comments received.This note conveys the comments of the European CentralBank (ECB) on an important dimension of the proposal put forward by the JWG, notably the application of FVA 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 FVA regime to the banking sector and presents a possible way forward.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 thebalance 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 foreseenrevaluation 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. Market risks would be taken into account when calculating the value of financial instruments in both the trading and the banking book.Critical aspectsAccording to its proponents, an FVA 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 FVA methodologies. Furthermore, the possible concrete application of a full FVA regime(applying to all assets and liabilities) to the banking sector gives rise to some serious problems and concerns.The application of FVA 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 FVA 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. FVA 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 thatrepresent the basis for the use of FVA principles. Therefore, there is the possibility that the introduction of FVA 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, bydefinition, 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 FVA to bank loans would give rise to many uncertainties hindering and working against the transparency and comparability of financial statements. 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 FVA 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 FVA 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 ofprudence 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 FVA 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.Possible way forwardIn light of the critical aspects mentioned above, the ECB has a negative stance towards the possibility of applying an FVA 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 FVA.A first development would entail that, whereas FVAwould 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.中文译文：银行业公允价值会计核算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。
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,FASB,其他论文文档]公允价值：FASB的新准则及其对我国的启示(1)
![[公允,价值,FASB,其他论文文档]公允价值：FASB的新准则及其对我国的启示(1)](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/fa1764dd48d7c1c709a1452a.png)
公允价值：FASB的新准则及其对我国的启示(1)摘要：公允价值一直是我国会计界关注的一个热点，我国在使用公允价值计量的过程中，曾经有过惨痛的教训。
在2006年2月颁布的新会计准则中，作为会计国际化的重要步骤，我国又一次在很多具体会计准则中使用公允价值，这又引起大家的关注。
近期，美国财务会计准则委员会（FASB）就公允价值计量发布了一项新准则：第157号财务会计准则公告（SFAS No.157）——公允价值计量。
本文在介绍和分析FASB的新准则（公允价值计量）的基础上，认为我国可以适度的使用公允价值，并且要加强对公允价值的监管，尤其是关于衍生金融工具公允价值计量与披露的监管。
关键词：公允价值计量启示一、公允价值：FASB的新准则2006年9月15日，美国财务会计准则委员会（FASB）就公允价值计量发布了一项新准则：第157号财务会计准则公告（SFAS No.157）——公允价值计量。
新准则对使用公允价值计量资产和负债提出了改进性指南，并且对投资者的信息披露要求做出了回应，规定公司应就以公允价值计量的资产和负债的范围、公允价值计量中使用的信息以及公允价值计量对收入产生的影响等方面做出更多的披露。
在这一项新准则里（SFAS No.157），美国财务会计准则委员会（FASB）确定了公允价值的定义，确立了一个在一般公认会计准则（GAAP）范围内的公允价值计量的框架，详细地阐述了公允价值计量的披露事项。
这项会计准则适用于在FASB以期的会计准则公告中要求或者允许使用公允价值计量的会计实务中，同时该准则并没有扩大公允价值的应用范围。
1、FASB制定公允价值新准则的背景在157号财务会计准则公告（SFAS No.157）公布之前，美国一般公认会计原则（GAAP）中有超过40个会计准则要求（或允许）会计主体按照公允价值计量资产和负债。
在美国的会计实务中，存在着各种各样的关于公允价值的定义，但是对于公允价值在一般公认会计原则（GAAP）范围内使用的指导意见却是很少的，并且为数不多的指导意见分布在许多要求（或者是允许）使用公允价值计量的会计准则公告中。
论公允价值在新准则中的运用
论公允价值在新准则中的运用摘要公允价值一直是国际会计界关注的一个话题，完全实施公允价值会计是今后国际会计准则理事会的工作目标。
文章就公允价值的实施背景及涵义出发，分析新会计准则下公允价值计量模式的运用以及对我国上市公司信息披露的影响，同时指出在全球经济环境的影响下，公允价值计量在我国实行所面临的难点及顺利推行的对策与建议。
[关键词] 新会计准则公允价值会计信息AbstractFair value of the international accounting profession has been a topic of interest, full implementation of fair value accounting in the future work of the International Accounting Standards Board goals. Article on the implementation of the fair value of the background and meaning, analyzing the new accounting standards for the use of fair value model and the information disclosure of listed companies on China's impact, noting that the global economic environment, the fair value measurement are facing in our country Difficulties and smooth implementation of the countermeasures and suggestions.[Key words] New Accounting Standards Fair value Accounting information目录一、公允价值的产生、发展及实施背景 (4)二、公允价值实施的必要性 (5)（一）保持企业的经营能力，实现资本保全 (5)（二）提高会计信息的相关性，合理地反映企业的财务状况 (6)（三）会计国际化的必然要求和是我国经济形势发展的需要 (7)三、新准则中公允价值的计量及其影响 (8)（一）投资性房地产的公允价值计量及其影响 (9)（二）公允价值计量在债务重组中的运用及其影响 (12)（三）企业合并的公允价值计量及其影响 (13)四、我国运用公允价值计量面临的难点 (13)（一）缺乏成熟的市场环境 (13)（二）缺乏可操作性 (14)（三）法制不够完善和监管不力 (14)（四）会计人员素质需要提高 (15)五、在我国实施我国公允价值计量的对策 (15)（一）完善公允价值理论 (15)（二）加快市场经济发展，建立成熟的市场环境 (15)（三）加强监管 (16)（四）提高会计人员素质和职业道德 (16)参考文献 (17)论公允价值在新准则中的运用2006年2月15日，财政部发布了39项企业会计准则，其中公允价值的运用成为人们关注的焦点。
论公允价值在新企业会计准则中的应用观
论公允价值在新企业会计准则中的应用观前言随着经济的发展，企业的经营模式逐渐多样化和复杂化，传统的会计准则已经不能完全适应企业经营的要求。
因此，国际会计准则委员会（IASB）逐步推出新的企业会计准则（IFRS）以取代传统的会计准则。
其中，公允价值是IFRS的重要组成部分。
本文将就公允价值在新企业会计准则中的应用观进行探讨。
什么是公允价值公允价值是指以市场主体之间的交易价格为基础，采用市场相关数据，根据公允价值计量基准，测定某一项资产或负债在市场上被交易时实现的价值。
公允价值提供了一种更加准确地反映市场变化的信息，能够更好地反映企业的资产和负债实际价值。
公允价值的优势公允价值在新企业会计准则中被广泛应用，并具有以下优势：更准确的反映实际价值传统的会计准则一般使用成本计量法或折旧摊销法来计价，这种方法难以反映资产实际价值。
而公允价值能够及时反映资产或负债的真实价值，更加准确地反映企业商业活动的变化。
更好的风险管理功能公允价值能够提供更为准确的市场价格信息，防范企业在资产估值上的失误，降低风险，并且能为企业制定更为科学的投资和财务决策提供支持。
更清晰地反映企业业绩公允价值计量能够在财务报表中很好地反映企业的投资收益和净资产价值，使得企业业绩的变化更加清晰明了。
更利于透明度公允价值上市公司的资产评估更加透明，反应更及时，符合市场对上市公司内在价值的高度关注。
应用场景公允价值在新企业会计准则中得到了广泛应用，包括以下几个方面：非流动资产计量企业的非流动资产主要包括固定资产、土地使用权、投资性房地产等。
企业在取得非流动资产后，不仅要考虑成本价，还需要不断关注资产市场变化，及时采用公允价值测定非流动资产的价值。
这样做可以更好地反映资产价值，使企业持有的非流动资产价值更加准确。
支出资产的确认企业在取得支出资产时，需要衡量资产的公允价值，以便更准确地反映企业净利润的变化，并为企业制定更为科学的经营、投资和财务决策提供支持。
浅析公允价值计量属性在新会计准则中的应用
浅析公允价值计量属性在新会计准则中的应用公允价值计量属性，在新会计准则中得到广泛的应用。
公允价值是指可交易资产或负债的结算价格，或者是在充分竞争市场环境中，市场参与者相互协商达成的价格。
新会计准则强调公允价值计量属性的应用，是为了更好地反映企业的经济现状和财务状况，更准确地客观反映资产和负债的价值变化，使财务报表更具有可比性和可理解性，更加贴近实际情况，以期为公司管理、投资者和其他利益相关者提供更为准确、全面和透明的财务信息。
一、公允价值计量属性在资产计价中的应用在新会计准则中，公允价值计量属性在资产计价中得到了广泛的应用。
例如，在固定资产的计价中，公允价值计量属性被应用在重估固定资产时的计价处理。
企业可以根据市场价格、生产成本等因素对资产进行重估，以确定资产的实际价值，进而根据公允价值计量属性进行会计处理。
在无形资产的计价中，企业应当根据公允价值计量属性的要求，对无形资产进行公允价值的计量和披露。
此外，在应收账款中也应用了公允价值计量属性。
在资产计价中应用公允价值计量属性，使资产价值更加准确地反映出实际情况，客观反映资产的价值变化，更加全面地反映出企业的财务状况。
二、公允价值计量属性在负债计价中的应用在新会计准则中，公允价值计量属性不仅应用于资产计价中，也广泛应用于负债计价中。
例如，在金融负债的计价中，企业应当根据公允价值计量属性的要求计量回购协议、债券发行费、利息费用等负债相关的项目。
此外，在应付款项中也应用了公允价值计量属性。
通过公允价值计量属性的应用，可更加准确地反映出实际情况，客观反映负债的价值变化，使财务报表更具有可理解性和可比性。
三、公允价值计量属性应用的优势公允价值计量属性的应用，有着众多的优势。
其首要优势在于公允价值计量属性可以准确反映资产、负债的市场价值。
通过公允价值计量属性的应用，可以更加客观地反映资产的实际价值，使相关信息更加真实可靠。
其次，公允价值计量属性的应用有助于提高财务报表的可比性。
论公允价值在我国的运用的外文资料与中文翻译
本科毕业设计（论文）题目论公允价值在我国的运用附录外文资料与中文翻译院（系部）工商管理系专业名称会计学年级班级 08会计—4班学生XX 许欣指导教师2012 年 05月 23日附录外文资料与中文翻译外文资料：The application of fair value in the domestic andinternational comparative analysis1the definition of fair value1.1 fair value definition comparative analysisFrom the definition of fair value can be seen, different countries, institutions for fair value definition although expressed in different ways, but its connotation basically the same:(1) the transaction fairness. Fair value is familiar with the situation between the two sides in the voluntary transactions in form, not in the forced liquidation or formed in the process of.(2) market compatibility. Active market and the active market can form the fair value. Active market in the market is the best evidence of fair value, but not the only evidence. When there is no active market, can be used in a variety of valuation techniques to provide a good estimation of the fair value of the mouth.(3) emphasize the relativity, i.e. exchange to determine the fair value is in relatively reasonable under the circumstances. The fair value is for its essence is a kind of ideal under the assumption that the value embodiment of social reality, and this hypothesis is difficult to fully realize. No matter how perfect transaction market, how wise, not likely to collect all information and effective analysis of information make absolutely correct decision. Fair value is the market value, namely, the fair value of the" fair" is relative.(4) the comprehensive measurement. Fair value refers not only to the fair value of the assets, including the fair value of the latter over a long period of time had beenignored.1.2 china fair value definition theoretical defectsOn the definition of fair value is substantially consistent with international. But this definition was studied, and combined with the fair value of specific access technology, we can find that, the fair value of the definition itself is not with no chink in one's armour, it is certain to have some theoretical defects.First, the definition of fair value in the emphasis on " even bargain", but in actual application, fairness is vague and difficult to guarantee the. For example, in a buyer's market or seller's market, by the impact of supply and demand, the actual transaction price is very difficult to achieve the true fair. For example, a license plate number or a certain kind of tea, with hundreds of thousands or even millions of prices, completely is traded a willing willing to endure a voluntary exchange price, it's hard to say with the original meaning of fair. Again, due to the existence of asymmetric information, the active market for both buyers and sellers to reach transaction prices are not absolutely fair. For example, in the second-hand car market, buy a car to car quality information related to master far less than selling cars, and sell the car man as a rational economic person, want the car can sell a good price and try to exaggerate the car quality. If a car that sells car people, to pay the corresponding price, so buyers interests have been violated; if a car prior to realize this reason, in order not to be cheated will adhere to the low price, sell a car people reluctantly part with cheap shots, so the car is not fair the. Of course, in this game, buy a car and the car can choose to exit the market, finally appear inferior goods expel quality product of the" adverse selection" results, but in the real economic life, both the information asymmetry phenomenon indeed bow can be found. Fair value definition requires a " familiar situation both sides" exist in name only, although voluntary transactions, the transaction price fairness is miles away.Secondly, based on the fair value definition emphasizes the" transaction" and produce, but a lot of the fair value of the acquisition is not derived from trading. But more often to the enterprise resource in a transaction and although the transaction but no observable amount in case, according to the same or similar situation madeestimation and evaluation. For example, the fair value not only for the initial measurement, are often used in subsequent measurement, and subsequent measurement are mostly in the absence of trade situation, through for a supply of sth. to reach consensus on the actual transaction price will be out of the question. There is also controversy most, one is " fair value is what?", namely the definition of the fair value of the meaning not clear. This is also a question of the application of the fair value of the core problem, determine the meaning of fair value, fair value measurement to determine the direction and target. Our fair value describing ambiguous, connotation and extension of uncertainty, not specific, may lead to confusion in practice application. The fair value is what the understanding is different, the fair value measurement using assumptions, techniques and methods may be different, measuring the results of the difference can be large, measurement reliability will be reduced.1.3 the United States of America fair value definition development reference to China(1)orderly transaction. The United States of" orderly transaction" and the international accounting standards board ( IASB ) and our country Ministry of Finance stated" even bargain " concept has bigger difference. " Orderly transaction" emphasize in the market full disclosure and assets or liabilities owner's initiative, and" even bargain " emphasize the transaction itself the unforced. " Orderly transaction " concept can be covered " even bargain " concept.(2)compared to the SFASNO.157, China's new accounting standards will be the fair value is defined as the transaction both sides of transaction is generated based on the amount, but not clearly expressed concern at the price. In some cases ( such as the related party transaction ) even if the transaction both sides, the price is also a lack of fairness, but also reduces the reliability of. China's new accounting standards fair value makers provided only limited to both parties to the transaction, and not its extension to the participants of the market range, therefore, the fair value of the developed after the absence of sufficient market equilibrium, and contain more involved in subjective components or hypothetical components, reliability needs tobe improved. And in the SFASNO.57 definition."" price decision is the asset or liability owners outside of the market activity, in introducing more market factors, increase the fair value of the objective to make more efforts to make fair prices, more reliable SFASNO.157 more trust from the external market price.(3)the definition of " market" and the international definition of " involved in the transaction parties"," market participants" the scope to be bigger. Because, although the price in trading by parties to the transaction is selected, but there is an active market, the price actually depends on other market participants to trade between the equilibrium price; and in some cases, pricing is not a trading conditions, such as asset revaluation, the reference market pricing the other participant in the transaction price. Therefore, the introduction of market participants concept makes the fair value has more reliability, but also deepen the concept of fair value.2the application of the fair value of market conditions2.1fair value market conditionsThe definition of fair value can be seen in fair value and market conditions of the relationship. IASB and fair value in China is defined as:" the even bargain, the Party of be in voluntary basis for exchange of assets or liabilities repayment amount." The United States FASB accounting standards issued by the FASl57" fair value" in the definition of fair value in the measurement for: with market traders in an orderly transaction, sale of assets or liabilities received transfer price. As can be seen from the definition, the first is the fair value of assets or liabilities in the transaction price, the transaction usually refers to the market, i.e., between two or more parties in the market of commodity exchange. In the definition of fair value is similar to the market price, of course, the market price is not to leave the market access. Secondly, from China to the definition of fair value in, the transaction price is in even bargain, and familiar with the transaction both sides burst transaction prices, the United States of America 's Financial Accounting Standards Board noted that the transaction price is in an orderly transaction conducted, orderly market hypothesis in the measurement with a period of time before the market has existing assets or liabilities of the conventional transaction, the transaction is a kind of forced transaction.Whether fair value is active on the market the actual transaction price? In essence, the fair value is a kind of evaluation based on market information. The fair value of the identified three ways, namely, the existence of market trade, exchange price for the fair value; market price is all market participants fully consideration of an asset or liability in the future cash flow and its uncertainty after the formation of the consensus, if there is no evidence to the contrary that the transaction is unfair or not voluntary, market transaction price for the asset or indebted evenhanded value; in the absence of actual transaction situation, should search on the market similar to similar transaction, transaction price as the fair value measurement basis, an asset or liability if no observable, directly determines the price by the market, it is stipulated in the contract or can be expected in the future cash flow can be estimated, can use thepresent value of estimated fair value of technology.On the fair value measurement requirements of what kind of market environment, Hunan University professor Xie Shifen (2001) discusses the very good answer to this question:" fair value only require even bargain, does not require active market, the market economy and the developed market economy, the market demand is not high. That the fair value to active market economy, or the fair value is not used for the view is wrong. It hinders China's system of accounting standards and international accounting standards in the process, China has the right to establish the fair value measurement and its specific target path south."Commercialize degree, fair value is the premise of even bargain. The high degree of marketization, market activity is as fair value acquisition provides a good foundation, but in the low degree of market situation, voluntary, mutual benefit, equivalence based even bargain still exists, resulting even bargain prices through multiple channels can get. Even in the absence of actual transactions occur, may also through imitate market transaction parameters judgements and estimates, or through the present value method and mathematical method to calculate the fair value. In fact, the so-called active market is only relative, not a country or area, all sorts of assets and liabilities are active in the market, no one country or area, all sorts of assets and liabilities are not there is an active market. Of course, the market is more active, the fair value of the more favorable.2.2 China's application of fair value conditionsIn our country, many accounting profession of our country current element market is mature, the lack of active market, fair value is often difficult to obtain, the market environment is not suitable for the application of fair value, fair value application requires active mature market, while China is precisely the lack of this kind of market, so in our country it is difficult to apply fair value. The application of fair value needed to have certain market conditions, but we can not because the conditions are not ripe or not fully mature and avoid or resist the implementation of fair value and should take a positive attitude and continue to nurture and improve the fair value application environment. You can see from the above analysis, not onlythere is an active market in order to obtain the fair value. Our country has partial with use of the fair value of the actual conditions.(1) the development of the financial market for the application of fair value of laying a foundation for China's capital market after 10 years of development has accumulated a certain theoretical and practical basis. With international economic integration degree deepening, the international capital market between mutual infiltration and mutual restriction for our first implementation of the fair value in the financial market provides feasibility. More and more enterprises to participate in the financial markets for investment or hedging, resulting in a large number of related financial tools business. According to the transaction object, the financial market can be divided into the foreign exchange market, capital market and gold market, according to financial instruments duration, capital market can be divided into the money market and capital market. These markets on the current accounting theory and practice effects were the major foreign exchange market, monetary market and capital market. The development of the financial market for the use of fair value request also provided stage. From short-term financial markets such as the bill, bond market and stock market, many enterprises have participated in. With China's futures and options market development, large enterprises using the financial derivatives market investment, hedging and risk management has become a kind of trend. Corporate financial statements and financial tools related to business and the growing proportion, either table business or business outside statement is true.(2) the fair value measurement in terms of the technical problems have been breakthroughs in fair value not only as short-term investments and derivative financial instruments measurement basis, and continues to expand into other areas, such as long-term investments. In fact, since investors because of the decision to produce to company earnings information needs, fair value accounting is becoming more and more favored by investors and creditors, because of the need to calculate a company during a period of comprehensive income, the company 's assets and liabilities must adopt fair value measurement, just as fair value the attributes of the historical cost measurement attribute to the traditional accounting model deviation, can not be accepted accounting personnel, plus in practice, many of the assets andliabilities of the fair value is difficult to obtain, often requires a large number of estimation and prediction, its reliability is difficult to meet the information requirements of users, fair value accounting is not widely promotion and application of. Since the nineteen seventies of international financial market and the rapid development of financial instruments measurement model for the study of improving, so that the fair value accounting measurement reliability and facing the accounting method is operable in two big problems resolved gradually, as the fair value of our country carry out laid a technological basis. That is to say, in terms of financial instruments, fair value accounting is facing technical problems have been solved basically, therefore, in the financial tools in the field of the full implementation of the fair value measurement of the theoretical foundation and realistic conditions are ripe.3 the application of the fair value of international comparison3.1 international accounting standards in the application of fair valueFor all the derivatives using fair value measurement, is the goal of IASC. IASC is still on the financial tools are classified, the historical cost and fair value measurement patterns coexist, the existing international accounting standards of financial instruments, involving business there are three major, namely < International Accounting Standards No. thirtieth -- banking and other similar financial institutions in the financial statements disclosure"," international accounting standards thirty-second number -- presentation and disclosure of financial instruments" and" International Accounting Standards No. thirty-ninth -- recognition and measurement of financial instruments", in 2005August 18 R, the international accounting standards board and published the" International Financial Reporting Standards No. seventh -- financial tool is disclosed" ( effective January 1, 2007), the standard will replace" international accounting standards thirtieth on the" and" international accounting standard thirty-second. Presentation and disclosure of financial instruments" involved in the financial instruments disclosure content.IASC on fair value in financial instruments on the application of reflected the principle of step by step, which require some of the fair value of financial instruments are disclosed, gradually requirements to confirm some of the fair value of financial instruments. And confirm scope expands gradually. So that the final completion of all financial instruments are measured by fair value objective.IAS32 on the fair value of a financial instrument is disclosed to make following provisions:(1) for each class has confirmed the financial assets and liabilities of enterprises of Yu Rong, shall disclose the fair value information. If the time or cost constraints. When enough to reliably determine the financial assets or financial liabilities at fair value is not feasible, a fact that should be together with regard to their fair values related to financial tool is the main feature with disclosure.(2) when an enterprise or a number of financial assets to more than its fair value is the amount listed timekeeping. Enterprises should be disclosed: single asset or individual assets to the appropriate category of the carrying amount of the fair value: does not reduce the amount of paper will cause, including available to management so that the carrying amount of evidence that can be recovered. The fair value of the financial assets or financial liabilities, enterprise should according to its carrying amount is according to the market price, independent assessment and discounted cash flow analysis, or by other appropriate method to determine, and instructions for use of these methods for any important assumption. For financial assets and financial liabilities of the initial measurement, IAS39, when the financial assets or financial liabilities measured, should be based on the cost measure, namely for the financial assets or financial liabilities that pays pair of price ( the fair value of financial assets ) or received on the valence of the fair value ( financial liabilities ). IAS39although the "cost" of a word, but the cost is consistent with fair value definition.The subsequent measurement of financial assets, financial assets to IAS39will be divided into four categories : 1enterprise source but not to trade while holding the loans and receivables; II held to maturity with investment; the available-for-sale financial assets; the financial assets held for trading. On the different kinds of assets, IAS39made different rules: initial recognition, first and second class, should be considered if it has determinate the amortized cost or cost, in addition to the first and two class and its fair value cannot be reliably measured financial assets at historical cost measurement, enterprises should be measured at fair value financial asset. But if the intention of holding or the ability to change, make not appropriate at amortised cost or historical cost records a held-to-maturity investment, enterprises should be based on fair value measurement on the back. Or, if not to the fair value measurement before reliable financial assets, can now be measured reliably, it shall be measured at fair value. If the intention of holding and the ability to change, or the fair value can no longer be reliably measured, then the change in circumstances when the R, the financial assets to determine the fair value of the carrying amount of as its new amortised cost.For the financial liabilities and follow-up measurement, after initial recognition,the enterprise should be generally measured at amortised cost of various financial liabilities. Liabilities held for trading and derivatives that are liabilities in the initial confirmation should be measured at fair value.3.2 of China's accounting standards in the application of fair valueChina has established four accounting standards for financial instruments, namely the" Enterprise Accounting Standards No. twenty-second recognition and measurement of financial instruments"," Enterprise Accounting Standards No. twenty-third to the transfer of a financial asset"," Enterprise Accounting Standards No. twenty-fourth ~ hedging" and" Enterprise Accounting Standards No. thirty-seventh presentation of financial instruments"" enterprise accounting rule twenty-second - recognition and measurement of financial instruments" in measurement of financial instruments that: enterprise initial recognition of the financial assets or financial liabilities, shall, in accordance with the fair value measurement. Financial assets and financial liabilities and follow-up measurement, enterprises should be in accordance with the fair value of the financial asset to the subsequent measurement, and shall not deduct the future disposition of the engaged in financial assets may occur when the transaction cost. However, with the exception of the following circumstances, the held-to-maturity investments, loans and receivables, shall adopt the effective interest rate method, at amortized cost. In the active market does not offer and its fair value cannot be reliably measured, the equity investment instruments, and the rights and interests with hooks and shall be settled by delivering the equity instrument of derivative financial assets, should be in accordance with the cost measurement.The enterprise has the intention of holding or ability to change, so that an investment is no longer suitable to be classified as held-to-maturity investments, it shall be classified as available for sale financial assets at fair value, and a subsequent measurement." Enterprise Accounting Standards No. twenty-third" the transfer of a financial asset measurement of transfer of financial assets third chapter: financial assets transfer meet termination recognition conditions shall include the following two items, theamount of variance in the current profits and losses : the carrying amount of the transferred financial asset: II of consideration received from the transfer, and originally recorded in the the rights and interests of the owners of the accumulative amount of the changes in fair value ( involving the transfer of financial assets available for sale financial assets. ) and. Financial assets transferred to meet termination recognition conditions shall be transferred, the entire book value of the financial asset, the confirmation of the termination portion and an end portion between respective confirmation, in accordance with the relative fair value sharing."Enterprise Accounting Standards No. twenty-fourth" -- hedging hedging confirming and measuring third chapter: a hedged item is an unrecognized firm commitment, the firm commitment resulting from the hedged risk the accumulative amount of the changes in fair value shall be recognized as an asset or liability, the related gain or loss shall be included in the current profits and losses, related the changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument shall also be included in the current profits and losses. In the purchase of assets or liabilities assumed a definite undertaking of a fair value hedging, due to the firm commitment of the fair value hedging risk caused by the accumulative amount of the changes ( has been recognized as an asset or liability), should adjust the performance of the firm commitment income assets or liabilities assumed in the amount of the initial recognition."Enterprise Accounting Standards No. thirty-seventh -- presentation of financial instruments" financial instruments listed in chapter second: enterprise regulations issued non-derivative financial: l: includes liability and equity components. Shall at the time of initial recognition of the liability and equity components are analyzed, respectively, for processing. In the spin-off, should first determine the fair value of the liability component as its initial confirmation amount, according to the financial tool for overall price deduction of the liability component initial confirmation amount after determining the amount of equity component initial confirmation amount. The issue of non derivative financial transactions costs. Be in debt composition and equity components according to their relative between the fair value of share.The above three standards setting body of financial instruments in the application of fair value for comparison: first, in the classification of financial assets. The United States accounting standards will be divided into three categories. China and the international accounting standards will be divided into four categories, namely: the trading of financial assets, held-to-maturity investments, loans and receivables, financial assets available for sale. American accounting standards do not include loans and receivables, China's accounting standards with the exception of the four category also includes designated as at fair value and their changes are recorded in current profit and loss on financial assets. Secondly. For the initial measurement of financial instruments. Three regulatory authorities require the use of fair value measurement, although some differences in expression. Finally, on the subsequent measurement of financial instruments. American accounting standards require that in addition to hold due to the financial assets with amortized cost. Other financial assets are measured at the fair value. International accounting standards in addition to determine the duration of loans and receivables, held to maturity _ R investment and its fair value cannot be reliably measured by fair value of financial assets; accounting standards in China in addition to the international accounting standards, also provides: in the active market does not offer and whose fair value cannot be reliably measured equity investment instruments, and the rights and interests with hooks and shall be settled by delivering the equity instrument to spread dust financial assets, should be in accordance with the cost measurement. Compared with the hinge, China's Yu Rong tool subsequent measurement application of fair value in the narrowest.4 Application of fair value in our country a few proposalThe new enterprise accounting standards' promulgation and the implementation, no doubt in the use of fair value on a big step, the next task is to ensure the fair value in practice to get the correct use, really play its positive role. The fair value of the confirmation and measurement of a historical cost is more complex, the occupation judgment is very high. Whether a company and its accountants, registered accountants and other intermediary agencies, or the relevant regulatory institutions and financial statements users, are required in a limited period of time to adapt to and understand the new accounting standards in the relevant provisions of the fair value, as the correct use of fully prepared. Therefore, in order to ensure the smooth implementation of the new accounting standards system, the author puts forward the following suggestions.4.1 to improve the application of the fair value of market conditionsThe introduction of fair value measurement attribute of the premise, is essential to establish a uniform and fully competitive market. The fair value is not equal to the market price, but the market prices are the highest degree of objective, reliable, fair value is the most simple source. Market growth is good or bad for fair value accounting has great influence. So it should strive to cultivate the market at all levels, especially the means of production market and the secondary market trading, so that the fair value to obtain more objective, direct, the greatest extent to ensure the reliability of fair value. At present the market environment of our country, be badly in need of perfecting the capital market, expand the bond market, paper market, foreign exchange market, gold and other precious metals market, the establishment of full competition production factor market, especially the real estate market and financial market. At the same time, to break industry monopoly, reduce the financial, telecommunications, energy, electric power and other industries access conditions, allowing private, civilian endowment enter the financial, insurance and other fields; break the operation limits, encourage the operation mode, the introduction of full。
公允价值在新会计准则中的应用文献综述
公允价值在新会计准则中的应用文献综述[摘要]今年2月15日发布的新会计准则倍受各界瞩目，新准则将在2007年1月1日由上市公司首先推行。
按照新的会计准则，债务重组、非货币性交易、投资性房地产、非控制下的企业合并等具体准则都会用到公允价值。
对于公允价值的运用，专家、学者给予了积极的肯定，但有些学者也认识到了它的不足之处。
本文对新准则中有关公允价值应用进行归纳的同时，就公允价值及其在新准则中的应用相关文献给以综述，旨在分析利弊，从而呼吁新准则的配套管理制度等相关法规也尽快出台，使新会计准则真正有效地发挥作用。
众所周知，会计核算离不开“金额”，而在会计确认中，即使肯定某个项目已符合要素的定义，如果它不能计量也不能予以确认。
著名的会计学家Yuri lriji 在他的名著《会计计量理论》指出：“会计计量是会计系统的核心职能。
”新准则第一次明确提出了公允价值的概念，公允价值是指在公平交易中，熟悉情况并自愿交易双方进行资产交换或债务清偿的金额。
其与国际会计准则对公允价值的定义基本相同。
一、新会计准则中关于“公允价值”的应用(一)“长期股权投资”新准则：第四条(二)；第十二条。
“非货币性资产交换”新准则：第七条(一)；第七条(二)。
“债务重组”新准则：第五条；第六条；第七条；第八条；第十条；第十一条；第十二条；第八条。
“租赁”新准则中：第十一条。
“收入”新准则中：第五条。
新准则在“企业合并”、“金融工具确认和计量”、“投资性房地产”等具体准则中也有对公允价值的应用。
“企业合并”准则中，非同一控制下的企业合并(包括吸收合并和新设合并)，据双方认可的公允价值，确认为购买商誉。
“金融工具确认和计量”准则中，交易性金融资产应当按公允价值计量，公允价值变动形成的利得或损失，应当计入当期损益；可供出售金融资产应当按公允价值计量，公允价值变动形成的利得或损失，应当直接计入资本公积，直至该金融资产终止确认时再转出，计入当期损益。
《公允价值计量》会计准则文献研究综述
摘要上世纪90年代以来，随着经济的不断发展和金融衍生工具的大量产生，传统的历史成本计量属性的局限性日益凸显，而公允价值会计信息因其高度相关性和及时性，恰恰弥补了这一不足，成为目前国际会计界发展的方向。
在国际趋同的大环境下，我国充分考虑现阶段的基本国情，制定了新的会计准则体系，全面谨慎的采用了公允价值计量属性。
但在具体的应用过程中出现了一些巫需解决的问题，因而，对公允价值的研究具有十分重要的现实意义。
本文是对会计准则下公允价值计量的背景及今年在国际上以及国内的一些成果的调查和研究主题词: 公允价值会计计量会计准则Since the 1990 s, with the continuous development of economy and the production of large Numbers of financial derivatives, the traditional limitations of historical cost measurement attributes, and the fair value because of its high relevance and timeliness of accounting information, just make up for the shortage, has become the developing direction of the current international accounting profession. Under the circumstances of international convergence, fully consider the present stage in our country's basic national conditions, formulated the new accounting standards system, comprehensive and cautious adopted fair value measurement attributes. But in the specific application process there was some wu need to solve the problem, therefore, the study of the fair value has very important practical significance. This article is in under the background of fair value accounting standards and on the international and domestic this year some of the results of investigation and research一选题背景及意义（一）选题背景20世纪90年代以来，随着经济的不断发展和金融衍生工具的大量产生，传统的历史成本计量有可能导致会计信息缺乏相关性和及时性，使得现行财务报告存在注重成本、历史、利润，轻视价值、未来、现金流的局限性，而公允价值会计信启、因其高度相关性，恰恰弥补了这一不足，!月益被人们所重视，使其成为了国际会计界研究的热点问题之一。
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。
浅谈公允价值在新准则中的应用
浅谈公允价值在新准则中的应用摘要：2006年中国财政部颁布了新的《企业会计准则》，其中引入了公允价值计量模式。
公允价值的应用是会计准则的一个重大改进。
公允价值的应用满足了会计计量全面收益的需要，符合国际会计计量的发展趋势，代表着全面收益报告时代的来临。
关键词：公允价值；计量属性；全面收益引言20世纪90年代以来，随着衍生金融工具的产生，人们日益关注对企业商誉、衍生金融工具等资产和负债的确认和计量。
在fasb和iasb加快步伐采纳公允价值作为计量基础的背景下，中国财政部于2006年2月15日，正式发布新的企业会计准则体系，具体包括1项基本准则和38项具体准则。
新会计准则的发布和实施必将成为我国会计史上的又一重要里程碑。
公允价值的应用使得财务报告可以摆脱历史成本计量模式下报表数据重成本轻价值、重历史轻未来、重利润轻现金流的局限性，使得财务会计报告所提供的会计信息更加相关，更加合理可靠，更加符合全面收益的概念，更能真实地反映企业财产财务状况。
国内外公允价值运用在会计确认和计量方面的趋势是显而易见的，这也反映了财务报告今后改革和发展的一个方向。
可以预见，公允价值在国际上的运用将大大加强，有可能成为21世纪最主要的计量模式（黄世忠，1997）。
因此，公允价值在新准则中的应用代表着全面收益计量及报告时代的来临，一个新的时代即将揭开序幕。
一、公允价值的定义1.我国关于公允价值的定义。
新颁发的《企业会计准则——基本准则》中，公允价值的定义如下：“在公允价值计量下，资产和负债按照公平交易中，熟悉情况的交易双方自愿进行资产交换或债务清偿的金额计量。
”2.国际会计准则理事会（iasb）关于公允价值的定义。
“公允价值，指在公平交易中，熟悉情况的当事人自愿据以进行资产交换或负债清偿的金额。
”3.美国财务会计准则委员会（fasb）关于公允价值的定义。
2006年9月，fasb先发表美国财务会计准则第157号——《公允价值计量》（fas157），为公允价值及其运用建立了世界上独一无二的完整的计量和披露框架。
谈谈公允价值计量在新会计准则中的应用
谈谈公允价值计量在新会计准则中的应用提要：本文主要对公允价值的相关理论进行论述，继而对新会计准则中运用公允价值的具体情况及其在我国的发展前景进行了分析。
关键词：公允价值；计量模式；发展前景。
一、公允价值的本质（一）公允价值的涵义在会计领域，各国会计准则对于公允价值的定义不尽相同。
国际会计准则委员会(IASC)在1995年6月发布的第32号国际会计准则(IAS32)中，对公允价值这样定义：“公允价值是指在公平交易中，熟悉情况的当事人自愿据以进当是公允的。
F A S B在定义中虽然没有提到公平交易，但也强调了熟悉情况、没有关联的条件。
1、公平交易。
即强调交易是在交易双方自愿和熟悉市场情况下进行的。
由于在一个公平交易的市场上，集中了来自各方面的供给者和需求者，人们通过各自掌握的信息和估计进行竞价，从而消除了个别供给者或需求者的偏见，这种交易形成的价格自然应摘要本文主要探讨了公允价值的本质,并对公允价值在新会计准则中的具体应用及其产生的影响进行深入的分析。
2、持续经营。
即交易必须在企业持续、正常的生产经营条件下进行，清算及其他非持续经营下的价格不是公允价值。
IASC虽没有在定义中强调持续经营，但IAS39对公允价值定义进行了补充：在公允价值中隐含着一项假设，即企业是持续经营的，不打算或不需要清算，不会大幅度缩减其经营规模，或按不利的条件进行交易。
我国会计基本准则第一章第六条明确规定：企业会计确认、计量和报告应当以持续经营为前提。
3、动态时态观。
公允价值与历史成本都具有时态观的内涵，但公允价值与历史成本的时态观是有区别的。
历史成本计量的时态观是静态的，而公允价值计量的时态观则是动态的。
即公允价值计量中的时态观是跳跃性的，同样的资产和负债在不同的计量日或不同的交易日，其公允价值可能是不同的。
FASB使用的术语是“在当前交易中”，IASC在公允价值定义中尽管没有此类表述，但它在2004年6月发布的对修改IAS39的征求意见稿中对公允价值计量的目标进行这样的解释：“使用估价技术的目的，是为获得在计量日，由正常的商业考虑推动的、公平交易条件下的交易价格”。
公允价值理论在新会计准则中的运用(一)
公允价值理论在新会计准则中的运用(一)计量属性一直是会计研究的核心问题。
传统的会计模式是以历史成本计量为基础的。
但20世纪70年代以来，新的会计环境要求对其进行改进乃至彻底改革的呼声越来越高。
为适应这一要求，以FASB为首的会计准则制定机构提出了“公允价值”这一全新的计量模式，并随之逐步应用和推广至会计准则中。
我国也在2006年颁布的新会计准则体系中确定了公允价值的计量属性的地位。
一、公允价值理论的历史背景真实公允观是从英国会计原理衍生出来的概念，最早将公允价值这一理念纳入财务报表列报的则是美国。
由于公允价值提供的财务信息具有高度相关性，有利于信息使用者做出正确决策，以美国为代表的会计准则制定机构迅速反应，FASB于1984首次将公允价值运用于金融工具会计，发布了SFAS80（远期合同会计），之后公允价值运用经历了从表外披露到表内确认的过程。
公允价值会计日益受到各国会计界的重视和认可，成为发达国家重要的会计计量模式。
二、国际国内公允价值理论的发展历程1.美国《SFAS157——公允价值计量准则》（1）主要内容：①含义：公允价值是指计量日市场参与者之间的有序交易中，出售资产收到的或转让负债支付的价格。
②估价技术：市场法，依据相同或可比资产或负债的市场交易价格及其他相关信息进行估价。
收益法，运用某些估价技术将未来多笔金额（现金流量）转换成当前单笔金额（贴现后）。
成本法，使用当前重置一项资产的服务能力所需支付的金额进行估价（常指当前的重置成本）。
并非在所有情况下都要同时使用三种估价技术，也不可能适用于所有情况。
③公允价值级次：公允价值级次是根据公允价值计量时估价技术所用参数的可靠程度所划分的等级。
SFAS157将估价技术所用参数划分为三个等级：一级参数是计量日主体准入的活跃市场中相同资产或负债的报价（未调整）。
二级参数是一级参数之外、可直接或间接获得的其他可观察市场参数，包括活跃市场上相似资产或负债的报价、非活跃市场上相同或相似资产或负债的报价、报价之外的可观察市场参数及其他得到市场证实的信息。
论公允价值在新企业会计准则中的应用观
论公允价值在新企业会计准则中的应用观---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 编辑整理: 转账支票填写编辑:王菲文章来源：新浪摘要：财政部日前颁布了新的企业会计准则，其中扩大了公允价值的应用范围。
本文首先讨论了公允价值的定义；然后在决策有用性观点的基础上，从会计信息的可靠性和相关性的角度比较了账面价值与公允价值的利弊；进而详细阐述公允价值在新的企业会计准则中的应用观，用以帮助会计报表使用者做出正确的决策。
最后说明公允价值应能在会计核算中发挥更大的作用。
关键词：新企业会计准则公允价值账面价值2006年2月15日，财政部颁布了新的企业会计准则，其中包括39项企业会计准则和48项注册会计师审计准则，并宣布将于2007年在上市公司中正式实施。
对比当前正在施行的企业会计准则，新企业会计准则发生了较大的变化，其中公允价值的应用成为一大亮点。
此次准则体系中主要在金融工具、投资性房地产、债务重组、资产减值、租赁和套期保值等方面采用了公允价值计量。
但从总体上来说，笔者认为新会计准则体系对公允价值的运用还是比较谨慎的。
一、公允价值的定义对于公允价值（Fair Value），不同的机构有不同的定义。
国际会计准则委员会1999年发布的《国际会计准则第39号——金融工具：确认和计量》第98段指出：“在公允价值定义中隐含着一项假定，即企业是持续经营的，不打算或不需要清算，不会大幅度缩减其经营规模，或按不利条件进行交易。
因此，公允价值不是企业在强制性交易，非自愿清算或亏本销售中收到或支付的金额（IASC，1999）。
”美国财务会计准则委员会于2000年2月颁布的第7号概念公告对公允价值的定义是：“公允价值是当前的非强迫交易或非清算交易中，自愿双方之间进行资产（或负债）的买卖（或发生与清偿）的价格（FASB2000）。
- 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)。
浅谈公允价值计量属性在新准则中的应用外文文献Last revision on 21 December 2020外文文献：FAIR VALUE ACCOUNTING IN THE BANKING SECTORThe Financial Instruments Joint Working Group (JWG) of Standard Setters issued in December 2000 the consultative document entitled “Draft Standard and Basis for Conclusions –Financial Instruments and Similar Items”. The Draft Standard reviews and assesses an extensive use of fair value accounting (FVA) as the basis for the valuation of all financial instruments in a bank’s b alance sheet. The work of the JWG is linked to the long-term strategy of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) – recently replaced by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) – to introduce a comprehensive FVA 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 FVA 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 FVA 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 FVA regime to the banking sector and presents a possible way forward.The main innovations of the Draft Standard for the banking sector The 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 . 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 donot 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. Market risks would be taken into account when calculating the value of financial instruments in both the trading and the banking book.Critical aspectsAccording to its proponents, an FVA 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 FVA methodologies. Furthermore, the possible concrete application of a full FVA regime (applying to all assets and liabilities) to the banking sector gives rise to some serious problems and concerns.The application of FVA 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 FVA to the banking book of banks, . to non-negotiable instruments such as loans, appears to be inappropriate for at least three main reasons.First, the issue of relevance. FVA principles do not reflect properly the way in which banks manage their core business, namely the granting of loans. The essence of bankmanagement 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 FVA principles. Therefore, there is the possibility that the introduction of FVA 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 . 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 . 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 FVA to bank loans would give rise to many uncertainties hindering and working against the transparency and comparability of financial statements. It is acknowledged, however, that the current and future developments in ba nks’ 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 FVA to the liability side of banks. For instance, the suggested methodology (the so-called “own credit risk”) to determine the fairvalue 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 FVA 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 FVA 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. Possible way forwardIn light of the critical aspects mentioned above, the ECB has a negative stance towards the possibility of applying an FVA 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 FVA.A first development would entail that, whereas FVA 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.中文译文：银行业公允价值会计核算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。