会计学外文翻译--新会计准则下的公允价值计量模式

合集下载

外文翻译--公允价值会计

本科毕业设计（论文）外文翻译外文题目Fair Value Accounting外文出处 Fair Value Accounting[J].Federal ReserveBulletin,2005.91(1):26—29.外文作者苏珊.施密特原文:Fair Value AccountingAdapted from remarks by Susan Schmidt Bies，Member，Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System，to the International Association of Credit Portfolio Managers General Meeting，November 18，2004.Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in your Fall General Meeting. As my colleagues at the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) will agree，fair value accounting poses many challenges and has sparked significant industry debate.The subject of fair value accounting has been discussed in the United States for well over a decade. Advocates of fair value accounting believe that fair value is the most relevant measure for financial reporting. Others believe that historical cost provides a more useful measure because it more clearly represents the economics of business performance and because fair value estimates not be reliable or verifiable.So，which is more appropriate—fair value or historical cost? Let me share with you the Federal Reserve's long-standing position on this issue. As a supervisor of the U.S. banking system，we want to ensure that financial institutions follow sound accounting policies and practices. We continue to support improved transparency and enhanced financial disclosures，which promote market discipline and provide useful information to decision makers. We also support fair value accounting for assets and liabilities used in the business of short-term trading for profit，such asthe trading account for banks. We support enhanced disclosures of fair-value-based information as part of broader descriptions of risk exposures and risk management. we believe that the accounting industry should be very careful before moving toward a more comprehensive fair value approach，where all financial assets and liabilities are recorded on the balance sheet at fair value and changes in fair value are recorded in earnings, whether realized or not.The FASB recendy issued a proposed standard on fair value measurements that provides a general framework for valuing assets and liabilities that are currendy measured or disclosed at fair value.' At this time，it does not expand the use of fair values in the primary financial statements. I would like to summarize and share with you the Federal Reserve's views on the proposed standard，which were provided to FASB in a comment letter as part of the exposure process. ^ We see the proposal as a good first step toward enhancing measurement guidance in this area. However，as I will discuss in a moment，a number of important issues warrant further consideration，especially before dramatic moves are made Toward increased fair value accounting.But before discussing these specific issues，allow me to emphasize one important point. As a bank supervisor，the Federal Reserve believes that innovations in risk management are very important to the continued improvement of our financial system. New methods and financial instruments allow banking organizations to improve their risk management practices by selecting target levels of risk exposures and shedding or limiting unwanted positions. Accounting frameworks should improve transparency around business decisions and outcomes without providing a disincentive to better management of risk.Fair value measurement issues that warrant further considerationReliability and MeasurementIf markets were liquid and transparent for all assets and liabilities，fair value accounting clearly would be reliable information useful in the decision making process. However，because many assets and liabilities do not have an active market，the inputs and methods for estimating their fair value are more subjective and，therefore，the valuations less reliable.Research by Federal Reserve staff shows that fair value estimates for bank loans can greatly depending on the valuation inputs and methodology used. For example，observed market rates for corporate bonds and syndicated loans within lower rated categories have varied by as much as 200 to 500 basis points. Such wide ranges occur even in the case of senior bonds and loans when obligors are matched .The FASB statement on the proposed fair value standard suggests that reliability can be significandy enhanced if market inputs are used in valuation. However，because management uses significant judgment in selecting market inputs when market prices are not available，reliability will continue to be an issue.The proposal identifies three levels of estimates，with the lowest priority given to level-3 estimates. These estimates are not based on quoted prices in active markets for either identical or similar assets or liabilities，but rather on mark-to-model estimates. The proposal suggests that the use of multiple approaches，such as the market，income，and replacement-cost methods，will improve reliability of these estimates. However，the number of approaches adds little to reliability if all the methods are based on the same underlying information，as would often be the case for financial instruments.In our role as a bank supervisor，we have observed that minor changes in a number of assumptions in a pricing model can have a substantial effect. Generally，we are comfortable with the fair value measurement process for liquid trading instruments that financial institutions have had significant experience in valuing. However，we believe for less-liquid assets and liabilities，reliability is a significant Concern.Martagement BiasThe fact that management uses significant judgment in the valuation process，particularly for level-3 estimates，adds to our concerns about reliability. Management bias，whether intentional or unintentional，may result in inappropriate fair value measurements and misstatements of earnings and equity capital. This was thecase in the overvaluation of certain residual tranches in securitizations in recent years，when there was no active market for these assets. Significant write-downs of overstated asset valuations have resulted in the failure of a number of finance companies and depository institutions. Similar problems have occurred due to overvaluations in nonbank trading portfolios that resulted in overstatements of income and equity.The possibility for management bias exists today. We continue to see news stories about charges of earnings manipulation，even under the historical cost accounting framework. We believe that，without reliable fair value estimates，the potential for misstatements in financial statements prepared using fair value measurements will be even greater.VerificationAs the variety and complexity of financial instruments increases，so does the need for independent verification of fair value estimates. However，verification of valuations that are not based on observable market prices is very challenging. Many of the values will be based on inputs and verify. Both auditors and users of financial statements，including credit portfolio managers，will need to place greater emphasis on understanding how assets and liabilities are measured and how reliable these valuations are when making decisions based on them.Compound Values and Revenue RecognitionThe value of a financial instrument may，in some cases，be coupled with an intangible value. For example，a servicing asset can be considered to reflect two values: a financial instrument that is similar to an interest-only strip and an intangible value reflecting the contractual right to perform services over time in exchange for a fee. The current accounting framework often requires different accounting and disclosure treatments for financial and nonfinancial components. However，the accounting literature offers litde guidance on when these assets should be separated and how to determine the separate valuations. This lack of guidance may in some cases result in questionable or inappropriate practices，such as including projected income from cross-marketing activities in the valuation offinancial instruments. Additional guidance to address these issues is warranted.Also，consideration must be given to revenue recognition issues in a fair value regime. We must ensure that unearned revenue is not recognized upfront，as it inappropriately was by certain high tech companies not so long ago.DisclosuresFair values reflect point estimates and by themselves do not result in transparent financial statements. Additional disclosures are necessary to bring meaning to these fair value estimates. FASB's proposal takes a first step toward enhancing fair value disclosures related to the reliability of fair value estimates. I believe that additional types of disclosures should be considered to give users of financial statements a better understanding of the relative reliability of fair value estimates. These disclosures might include key drivers affecting valuations，fair-value-range estimates，and 'confidence levels.Another important disclosure consideration relates to changes in fair value amounts. For example，changes in fair values of securities portfolios can arise from movements in interest rates，foreign currency rates，and credit quality，as well as purchases and sales from the portfolio. For users to understand fair value estimates，I believe that they must be given adequate disclosures about what factors caused the changes in fair value.Considerations for credit portfolio/managementFair value estimates affect the information you use as credit portfolio managers. Today's financial statements are based on a mixed-attribute accounting model. This means that an entity's balance sheet may include certain values reported at historical cost and certain values reported at fair value.Fair values may be used as an analytic tool in the lending process and are compared with historical cost values. This historical cost information，along with associated disclosures，contains reliable information that provides insights into a firm's expected cash fiows. As the industry moves toward expanded use of fair value，I believe disclosure of certain historical cost information will remain essential.As indicated above，the reliability of the valuations and the transparency of the methods and inputs used to calculate the values are critically important. Clearly，fair valuations will have an impact on leverage ratios，capital ratios，and other ratios used in the lending an credit management process. Credit portfolio managers will need to identify and understand the impact of changes in fair value estimates that result from changes in specific factors，economic conditions，management judgment，modeling techniques，and so forth and distinguish these mark to model factors from realized gains or losses.Accounting treatment for credit derivativesUnder U.S. generally accepted accounting principles，credit derivatives are generally required to be recognized as an asset or liability and measured at fair value，and the gain or loss resulting from the change in fair value must be recorded in earnings. Most credit derivatives do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment，which would permit the gain or loss on the credit derivative to be reported in the same period as the gain or loss on the position being hedged，assuming the hedge is effective. Therefore，the use of credit derivatives can result in earnings volatility.Consider a credit derivative that hedges credit risk of a loan，for example. As the loan's credit quality deteriorates，the value of the credit derivative improves. Since the loan is recorded at historical cost，and the credit derivative is marked to fair value，a gain from the change in value of the derivative is recognized in earnings. Conversely，if the loan's credit quality improves，the value of the credit derivative declines，resulting in a reported loss. These gains and losses may be offset by the level of provisions that are established for estimated credit losses on the loan，but this would likely result in only a partial offset.As management attempts to reduce this earnings volatility，we may see changes in risk-management practices. Unfortunately，some managers might use fewer credit derivatives to reduce credit risk due to this potential earnings volatility. Accordingly，setters of accounting standards need to consider improvements to the accounting treatment that do not result in a disincentive to those who prudently use credit derivatives for risk-management purposes.Is fair value accounting the answer to this volatility issue? If the hedged asset were measured at fair value，the changes in values of the hedged item and the credit derivative may offset each other，reducing the volatility that arises when only the derivative is marked to market and not the hedged item. Of course，the degree of the earnings volatility under a full fair value accounting approach would depend on the effectiveness of the hedge.The IASB developed the new "fair value option" under International Accounting Standard (IAS) ing this option，companies that use international accounting standards will be permitted to apply fair value accounting to certain financial instruments that hey designate at the time of purchase or origination. Accordingly，firms using the fair value option could mark to market both the credit derivative and the hedged position and report changes in their fair values in current earnings.While at first glance the fair value option might be viewed as the solution to addressing the problems of the mixed-attribute model，it also raises a number of concerns. Many of these concerns，as well as recommendations to address them，were included in a comment letter to the IASB from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee) issued on July 30.3Many of the Basel Committee's concerns are similar to those I described above and can be summarized as follows. Addressing reliability and verifiability issues，the committee suggested that，without observable market prices and sound valuation approaches，fair value measurements are difficult to determine，verify，and audit. It also suggested that reporting will become more complex and less comparable.The Basel Committee comment letter also discussed the own credit risk issue. If an entity's creditworthiness deteriorates，financial liabilities would be marked down to fair value and a gain would be recorded in the entity's profit and loss statement. In the most dramatic case，an insolvent entity might appear solvent as a result of marking to market its own deteriorated credit risk.To address these concerns，the Basel Committee recommended certain restrictions on the fair value option，such as disallowing the marking to market of credit risk of the institution's own outstanding debt and prohibiting the fair valueoption for illiquid financial instruments. It also suggested that the fair value option be limited to transactions that seek to economically hedge risk exposures and to situations in which accounting volatility associated with the mixed attribute model can be reduced. Lastly，it recommended enhanced disclosures related to the fair value option.Representatives of the Basel Committee continue to work constructively with the IASB on these issues，and I believe this dialogue can lead to a more balanced approach to the fair value option that supports transparent accounting and sound risk management policies in a manner consistent with safe and sound banking practices.conclusionFASB's fair value measurement standard is a good first step toward developing enhanced guidance for the estimation of fair values. However，much more work needs to be done before fair value estimates are reliable，verifiable，and auditable. Credit portfolio managers will need to be aware of these movements to fair value accounting and how they will affect your understanding of companies you evaluate.Credit derivatives can be a useful tool in managing credit risk. However，they raise thorny accounting issues. While IASB's fair value option is one possible approach to addressing these problems，further development of this alternative accounting method should move forward in a balanced fashion to ensure that it results in an actual improvement in accounting practices.Source: Susan Schmidt Biers. Fair Value Accounting[J].Federal Reserve Bulletin，2005.91(1)：26—29.译文：公允价值会计改编自2004年11月18日，管理理事会的联邦储备银行系统、国际协会信用证券投资经理大会成员苏珊施密特的言论。

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。

新会计准则中的公允价值计量

新会计准则中的公允价值计量我国新的《企业会计准则——基本准则》明确地将公允价值作为会计计量属性之一，并在17个具体会计准则中不同程度地运用了这一计量属性，在部分领域交易或事项的确认和计量中，公允价值计量已经取代历史成本成为第一计量属性。

因此，认真学习和研究有关公允价值在新企业会计准则中的应用及其限制，对我国更好地应用公允价值这一计量属性有重要的现实意义。

一、公允价值相关分析（一）公允价值的定义。

国际会计准则委员会认为，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行资产交换或债务清偿的金额。

美国财务会计准则委员会认为，公允价值是双方在当前的交易（而不是被迫清算或销售）中，自愿购买（或承担）或出售（或清偿）一项资产（或负债）的金额。

我国《会计准则——基本准则》将公允价值定义为：资产和负债按照在公平交易中，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。

虽然各国对公允价值的理解不尽相同，但无论是国际会计准则委员会和美国财务会计准则委员会，还是在我国，对公允价值的定义有相同点，即公允价值体现了交易的公平性，是交易的双方在自愿而不是被迫的前提下进行资产交换或债务清偿的金额，并且公允价值存在以下几个特点：一是公允价值是在公平的交易中形成的；二是公允价值计量的对象是全面的；三是形成公允价值的市场是普遍存在的。

（二）运用公允价值的积极意义第一，公允价值体现了一定时间上资产或负债的实际价值，以公允价值计量能够真实反映资产给企业带来的经济利益或企业在清偿债务时需要转移的价值。

资产是指过去的交易、事项形成并由企业拥有或控制的资源，该资源预期会给企业带来经济利益。

而未来现金流量是以公允价值为目的，由于资产预期会带来经济效益，因此以未来流入企业经济利益的现值确定资产价值合乎资产定义。

同理，负债是指过去的交易、事项形成的现时义务，履行该义务预期会导致经济利益流出企业。

由于负债预期会导致经济利益流出企业，因此以未来流出企业的经济利益的现值计量负债，也符合负债的定义。

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。

财务会计公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献

财务会计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)译文：公允价值计量1.公允价值在国际财务报告准则中的规定在2005 年11月，国际财务会计准则理事会为注解准则发表了一个讨论意见,以财务会计为基础的公允价值的初始确认和计量，由加拿大会计准则委员会的全体职员编写。

虽然意见包含了对于公允价值的讨论，但它的主要目的是讨论哪些计量属性适合初始确认。

意见是不断更新的概念框架项目的一部分。

这个概念框架项目致力于构建一个为财务报表服务的计量概念。

因为意见范围和意图的不同，它不在此论文中讨论。

然而，关于那篇讨论意见的评论将会在国际财务报告准则的公允价值计量披露草案和美国财务会计准则概念框架计划的第1号第157条以及现行公允价值计量指南。

这篇讨论意见是关于公允价值计量的。

国际财务报告准则要求某些资产、负债和权益性工具应该在某些情况下用公允价值计量。

然而，指南在公允价值方面的要求通常被准则稀释了，并且准则在这方面的说明也并不是前后一致的。

国际会计准则理事会认为单一来源的那些准则中有关于公允价值方面的指南将会简化国际财务报告准则并且改善财务报表中公允价值的信息质量。

一个简明的公允价值的定义和一个适用于所有公允价值计量的前后一致的指南将会更清晰地表达公允价值的对象并且消除公众对于通过国际财务报告准则传播的指南方面的顾虑。

国际会计准则理事会强调公允价值计量项目并不是一种用来延伸公允价值在财务报表中应用的手段。

此外，项目的目标在于重新编写、明晰、简化在国际财务报告准则中广泛应用的现有指南。

然而，为了构建一个按准则要求对于所有公允价值的计量都能统一指南的单一标准，必须对现有的指南做出修改。

这些修改意见在第2号准则中做了进一步的讨论，这可能会使公允价值在某些标准下的计量和在准则要求下进行的解释和应用都做出调整。

在某些准则中，国际会计准则理事会（或其前身）有意识地纳入了一些计量指南。

这些指南会导致尽管它在公允价值的计量客体上并不是前后一致，但在这些客体的计量上仍被视为公允价值计量。

公允价值计量——一种新的会计评价方法【外文翻译】

外文翻译The Fair Value - A New Evaluation Method in Accounting ofCompanyMaterial Source:BulletinUASVMHorticulture,66(2)/2009 Author:Suceave，RomaniaAbstract. The fair value criterion is an evaluation method based on the supposit ion that the values expressed in the balance sheet reflect in every moment their exch ange value at the acquisition date, date at which the fair value and the historical cost are the same. But, in the following periods, the value of the assets and liabilities exp osed in the balance sheet is adjusted to a value equivalent to the value with which th e asset can be exchanged of the liability estimated, through a free transaction, betwe en 2 fully-aware parties, willing to make this operation. So, the exposed values base d on the fair value are current values, which might correspond to it in the conditions of a possible sale at that time. Certainly they are very useful values to the balance sh eet users, because they allow the approach to the entity’s economical capital quantifi cation. The problem is that the fair value quantification may not be credible for all th e posts in the balance sheet, because this parameter is often less likely to be docume nted about, or certain assets or liabilities do not have a market on which to obtain rea l quotations.The definition of the fair value is based on the supposition that an entity, in conditions of economical continuity, has no intention or necessity for liquidation, and as such is not interested in reducing relevantly its operations in disadvantageous conditions.INTRODUCTIONMaking abstraction of the initial evaluation of a received for good and valuable consideration, all the assessment measures enclosed in the balance are expressed in t he profit and loss account, influencing the result as income, respectively expense, he re counting the value modifications of assessment at the fair value at the date of the balance sheet and the income from the initial assessments of the assets produced. Th us the value modifications influenced by the market, as are the modifications of the physical substance that is due to biological transformations of the living animals and plants. The value modifications influenced due to the market influences are not sepa rately recognized in the profit and loss account, in the equity ownership, but they represent the result of the transaction in cause as well as the value modifications conditi oned by the transactions.The IAS 41 standard is one of the few standards that treat the accounting regul ations for one sector imposing in the first place the mandatory application of the fair value for the assets that are not classified as financial instruments as they are defined in IAS 39.The notion of fair value is based on the presumption that the company is contin uing its activity, without the intention or necessity to liquidate or limit significantly i ts activities and without the necessity to make a transaction in unfavorable condition s. Thus, the fair value is not the size that the company would receive or would pay w ith the cases of forced transactions or involuntary liquidation. The expression of fair value is formed out of two concepts:- Value- that comes from French an represents the sum of the quality that give p res to an object, a human being, a phenomenon;- Fair – that come from the French language and has more significations accor ding to the truth or the equity, according.According to the definition that we find in the International Standards of Financ ialReporting, the fair value represents the amount for which an asset could be will ingly transacted, between parties that are in conscience of cause, within a transaction with the price, where the price is determined objectively. From this definition we ca n identify the following general ideas about the fair value;- it represents a value equivalent, expressed more often in an amount of money;-it is an estimated value, that can undertake modifications in any moment;-the existence of a transaction between at least two parties that are in conscienc e of cause is mandatory;-the parties involved within the transaction, respectively the buyer and the selle r are supposed to have the sufficient information on the operation that is to take plac e.By determining the fair value within a contract each of the two parties can influenc e more the request-offer relation. We can emphasize the idea that the fair value result s from the comparison between the demand and the offer of biological assets, agricul ture products or additional biological assets.-The price concept is mentioned, from which we get the idea that we can add th e equal sign between the expressions of “fair value” and “fair price”.MATERIAL AND METHODSHowever the fair value reflects the credit risk of the instrument. On an active m arket, the fair value is determined when there are quoted prices on this market, such prices representing the best estimation of the fair value and they are used in order to measure the assets or the liabilities. A financial instrument is considered as being qu oted, on an active market, if the prices that reflect normal transactions on the market can be obtained rapidly and regularly, in the context of a stock exchange, of an inter mediary, of an assessment service or of a regulation agency. The quoted price adequ ate in the case of the assets detained or of the liabilities to issue is in general, the pric e asked. When the sale prices or the asked prices are not available, the fair value corr esponds to the price of the most recent transaction; if there have been no significant changes in the economic conditions, between the date of this transaction and the date of the assessment. If it is proved that the price of the most recent transaction is not t he fair value, then we proceed to the adjustment of the respective price. In the case where there is no active market, the fair value is determined by a special technique. The validation objectives of the assessment methods: the objective of the assessment techniques is to establish what would have been the price of an accomplished transa ction, at the date of the closure of the account that agree motivated by normal consid erations. Thus, the assessment includes all the factors that those active on the market would consider in determining the price, the hypothesis and the estimations retained must be coherent with the estimations and hypothesis that other participants would make on the market, for determining the price of the instrument.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSThe assessment methods susceptible to be used are: the assessment techniques established on the market, including the reference value existing on the market, of a similar instrument, the analysis of the future flows analyzed and the assessment met hods and options. The cost of depreciation and the method of the effective interest ra te。

新会计准则下公允价值计量在我国的应用

新会计准则下公允价值计量在我国的应用吴文英【摘要】公允价值(Fair Value)一直是中国会计界乃至国际会计界最为关注的话题之一。

上世纪90年代以来，随着货币与金融工具的大量产生，人们逐步衍生出对资产和负债的确认与计量。

然而随着各类全新的衍生工具的不断出现，旧的计量方式已经不能满足我国某些现行行业会计计量的要求，其运用的问题和弊端也逐渐呈现了出来。

近年来，我国的新会计准则开始实施，新会计准则在许多具体准则中直接或间接的运用了公允价值属性，公允价值再次进入到我国会计准则体系之中。

文章对新会计准则中“公允价值”的概念和特点进行了分析、探讨了其在新会计准则中的运用，并总结出公允价值计量模式推行给我国带来的影响。

【期刊名称】《湖南科技学院学报》【年(卷),期】2016(037)009【总页数】3页(P95-97)【关键词】公允价值;新会计准则;应用【作者】吴文英【作者单位】澳大利亚国立大学工商管理学院，澳大利亚堪培拉 2612551【正文语种】中文【中图分类】F2332008年国际金融危机爆发后，美国与欧盟的金融银行界认为公允价值计量导致了危机的恶化。

虽然金融危机的爆发是多种因素造成的，但提供公正透明的高质量会计信息是促进经济发展的必要手段。

为此，2009年国际会计准则委员会发布了公允价值计量准则征求意见稿。

在这一背景下，2010年4月我国发布《中国企业会计准则与国际财务报告准则持续趋同路线图》，决定完善我国公允价值计量。

 （一）进入阶段1998年和1999年财政部第一次将“公允价值”写入了“投资”、“非货币交易”以及“债务重组”这三个会计准则中，并将其具体的概念也一并写入了里面。

（二）尝试及废止阶段由于公允价值才刚刚实行，一些企业并不能适应，引起了许多利润操纵事件的发生，国家认为此政策不仅不能在市场上很好的运行，还能引起一些不良影响，于是就暂时将公允价值废止了。

（三）进步阶段由于公允价值在刚开始运行的时候遇到了一些阻碍，导致公允价值没能继续发展下去。

新会计准则下公允价值计量

新会计准则下公允价值计量汇报人：2024-01-03•新会计准则下公允价值计量的概述•新会计准则下公允价值计量的方法目录•新会计准则下公允价值计量的应用•新会计准则下公允价值计量存在的问题与对策•新会计准则下公允价值计量的未来发展目录01新会计准则下公允价值计量的概述0102公允价值的定义公允价值计量能够提供更相关、更可靠的会计信息，有助于投资者、债权人和其他利益相关者做出更合理的决策。

公允价值是指在公平交易中，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。

公允价值计量的目的和意义公允价值计量的目的是确保会计信息的相关性和可靠性，提高会计信息的质量，为利益相关者提供更有用的决策信息。

意义公允价值计量能够更好地反映企业的财务状况和经营成果，有助于投资者、债权人和其他利益相关者更好地评估企业的价值和风险，从而做出更合理的经济决策。

新会计准则下公允价值计量的特点动态性新会计准则下的公允价值计量具有动态性，能够及时反映市场环境的变化和企业的经济状况，提高会计信息的及时性和准确性。

相关性公允价值计量与市场环境密切相关，能够提供更相关、更可靠的会计信息，有助于利益相关者做出更合理的决策。

可靠性新会计准则下的公允价值计量强调可靠性的重要性，要求在计量过程中充分考虑各种因素的影响，确保计量的准确性和可靠性。

02新会计准则下公允价值计量的方法市场法是一种通过比较类似资产或负债的市场价格来评估公允价值的方法。

总结词市场法基于市场价格来评估公允价值，通过比较类似资产或负债的市场价格，考虑市场供求关系、交易条件等因素，确定公允价值。

这种方法适用于存在活跃市场的资产或负债，能够提供较为客观、可靠的价值信息。

详细描述收益法是通过预测资产或负债未来的收益，并将其折现至当前时点来评估公允价值的方法。

详细描述收益法基于未来现金流的折现值来评估公允价值，通过预测资产或负债未来的现金流，选择适当的折现率将其折现至当前时点。

这种方法适用于未来现金流可预测的资产或负债，如企业未来收益、房地产等。

公允价值计量——一种新的会计评价方法【外文翻译】

公允价值(Fair Value)

公允价值（Fair Value）公允价值（Fair Value）亦称公允市价、公允价格。

熟悉情况的买卖双方在公平交易的条件下所确定的价格，或无关联的双方在公平交易的条件下一项资产可以被买卖的成交价格。

在购买法下，购买企业对合并业务的记录需要运用公允价值的信息。

公允价值的确定，需要依靠会计人员的职业判断。

在实务中，通常由资产评估机构对被并企业的净资产进行评估。

[编辑]公允价值的三种来源[1]从理论上说公允价值的来源应该是两种：市价和未来现金流量贴现。

后者表面上看有普遍的适用范围，但是实际上要求详细的现金流量预测、终值的预计和合理的风险调整后的折现率，而这些数据的输入牵涉主观判断，其微小的变化对于所推导的公允价值具有很高的敏感性。

为了规避这些现实操作中的技术性风险，根据公允价值信息的获取条件，将其来源分为活跃市场的公开报价、价值评估模型和交易对手提供等三种，而现时中常用的现金流量贴现法应该慎用。

一、活跃市场的公开报价活跃市场的公开报价具有众多的市场参与者，并通过市场机制，根据有效市场假设，它能够忠实表达金融商品的公允价值。

同时，公开报价也具有容易观察获得、具有可验证性等特点，所以，如果存在活跃市场的公开报价，就必须将它作为公允价值的基础。

（一）公开报价的获取根据IAS39《金融工具：确认和计量》，对于已持有资产或将发行负债，适当的市场报价应该是当时买方的出价；对于将购入的资产或已发行的负债，适当的市场报价应该是当时卖方的要价。

当金融资产和金融负债的部位相当而有相互抵消的市场可能时，可以用市场中间价作为抵消部位公允价值的基础。

对单项的金融工具使用市场中间价是不适当的，因为这会导致企业进行盈余管理（确认利得或损失，即买入或卖出价与市场中间价的差额）。

（二）关于市场流动性和集中度的考量公允价值计量假设资产或负债的交易发生在主要市场或最有利市场。

主要市场是指对资产或负债而言有最大交易量或最高水平活跃程度的市场；最有利市场是指，考虑了交易成本后，能够实现不存在活跃市场时，可以采用价值评估模型确定公允价值，即通过价值评估技术和资料输入，取得符合实际的公允价值估计。

新会计准则公允价值【新会计准则下的公允价值探析】

新会计准则公允价值【新会计准则下的公允价值探析】一、公允价值的涵义公允价值的英文是“Fair Value”，“Fair”的相关解释是“公平的，正直的，公正的”，而中文将其翻译成“公允”，则包含了公正、允当的意思。

各国会计准则对公允价值的定义不尽相同。

国际会计准则委员会(IASC)对“公允价值”的定义是：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结算的金额”。

在美国，“公允价值”则指的是，市场参与者在相关市场中进行现实交易而获得的出售资产的金额或的转移负债的金额。

我国财政部在2021年2月15日发布的新《企业会计准则――基本准则》中，对“公允价值”的定义是：在公允价值计量下，资产和负债按照在公平交易中，熟悉情况的交易双方自愿进行资产交换或者债务清偿的金额计量。

二、我国公允价值的发展我国在公允价值的应用从1997年开始分三个阶段：提倡公允价值阶段，回避公允价值阶段和重新引入公允价值阶段。

由于入世的需要和国际经济一体化进程，且公允价值会计计量模式在国际上已经取得了广泛的应用，我国于1998年6月财政部颁布的《企业会计准则――债务重组》之后，公允价值作为一种计量属性，正式出现在会计准则中。

但是，由于主观和客观的原因，会计失真的情况大量出现。

为此，财政部在2021年紧急停止，在当年发布和修订的11项准则中强调了真实性和谨慎性，明确回避了公允价值计量。

修订的理由概括起来就是：由于当前要素市场不成熟，缺乏活跃的市场，公允价值往往难以获得，导致企业在运用会计准则时存在一定的随意性，出现了人为操纵利润的情况。

“因此，新准则和新制度对有关经济业务的处理，尽可能回避了按公允价值计价，改按账面价值入账。

”经过一年多的时间，通过20多项征求意见稿和对原有的16项准则的修订，财政部发表自己的立场，于2021年2月15日正式发布了39项新会计准则，要求在2021年1月1日起在上市公司执行，其中涉及公允价值的有22个。

会计专业外文翻译--公允价值测量1

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

新会计准则公允价值计量

新会计准则公允价值计量财政部颁布的新会计准则体系，自2007年1月1日起首先在上市公司实施。

新准则的主要特点就是与国际准则趋同，在很多方面实现了与国际通行做法的接轨，为中国经济更快地融入全球一体化作了基础性的铺垫。

在新准则体系中，最引人关注的一点就是公允价值的引入。

一、公允价值计量的必要性及其与历史成本计量的必然联系公允价值计量的必要性随着市场经济的不断发展，企业经营业务模式不断趋向于多样化、复杂化，企业对公允价值的内在需求日益增长，实际上有些企业已经在会计处理中变相地引入公允价值这一概念。

近年来，中国经济始终保持着强劲的增速，不动产和基础材料的市场价格不断上涨，无形资产的价值也日益体现。

对于一些历史悠久的老企业来说，其会计报表在现行准则框架体系下基本无法真实地反映企业的财务状况。

回避公允价值的使用导致企业在会计处理上前后不一致，在相关性、可靠性及可比性上无法找到较好的平衡点，同时也使我国的会计准则与国际准则始终存在较大的差异。

例如，对于不动产和固定资产我国采用的是历史成本计价，国际会计准则在固定资产的计量时除按其账面价值来计量外，还允许按公允价值进行重新估价；在所有者作为资本投入的无形资产计量上，我国是按投资各方确认的价值计量，IAS规定按公允价值计量；对于非货币性交易，我国是按换出资产的账面价值加上应支付的相关税费作为换入资产的入账价值，不确认利得或损失，IAS规定所有的资产变换交易均应以公允价值计量，除非该项交易不具有商业性质，或者收到资产和所放弃资产的公允价值均不能可靠地计量。

此时，以所放弃资产的账面价值作为收到资产的成本。

如果主体能可靠地确定收到资产或放弃资产的公允价值，应按所放弃资产的公允价值作为收到资产的成本，除非取得资产的成本更加可靠。

公允价值与历史成本计量的必然联系公允价值之所以被拿来与历史成本作对比，是因为我们常常将公允价值计量理解为按报表日的市价重新计量，如此则公允价值成为公允的现时价值，从而顺理成章地完成了与历史成本的二元对立。

新会计准则下公允价值的运用及其规范

新会计准则下公允价值的运用及其规范
李澄清
【期刊名称】《《管理观察》》
【年(卷),期】2009(000)011
【摘要】公允价值(fair value)亦称公允市价、公允价格。

熟悉情况的买卖双方在公平交易的条件下所确定的价格,或无关联的双方在公平交易的条件下一项资产可以被买卖的成交价格。

在购买法下,购买企业对合并业务的记录需要运用公允价值的信息。

公允价值的确定,需要依靠会计人员的职业判断。

在财政部于2006年2月发布的1项基本准则和38项具体准则的新会计准则体系中,公允价值计量属性的运用是最为显著的方面。

【总页数】2页(P250-251)
【作者】李澄清
【作者单位】东莞市长安镇会计核算中心广东东莞 523850
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】F2
【相关文献】
1.浅谈新会计准则下公允价值运用 [J], 曾婉琳
2.公允价值回归：新会计准则视角下的金融工具计量及其运用 [J], 申山宏
3.新会计准则下我国小企业公允价值计量的运用 [J], 刘亚茹
4.新会计准则下公允价值运用的动因分析 [J], 蒋金标;
5.新会计准则下公允价值运用的动因分析 [J], 杨维
因版权原因，仅展示原文概要，查看原文内容请购买。