财务会计公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献

合集下载

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。

外文翻译--公允价值会计和经融危机：信差还是贡献者

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

会计学财务报表中英文对照外文翻译文献

会计学财务报表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：中美财务报表的区别(1)财务报告内容构成上的区别1)美国的财务报告包括三个基本的财务报表，除此之外，典型的美国大公司财务报告还包括以下成分：股东权益、收益与综合收益、管理报告、独立审计报告、选取的5-10年数据的管理讨论与分析以及选取的季度数据。

2)我国财务报告不注重其解释，而美国在财务报告的内容、方法、多样性上都比较充分。

中国的评价部分包括会计报表和财务报表，财务报表是最主要的报表，它包括前述各项与账面不符的描述、财会政策与变化、财会评估的变化、会计差错等问题，资产负债表日期，关联方关系和交易活动等等，揭示方法是注意底部和旁注。

美国的财务范围在内容上比财务报表更加丰富，包括会计政策、技巧、添加特定项目的报告, 报告格式很难反映内容和商业环境等等，对违反一致性、可比性原则问题，评论也需要披露的，但也揭示了许多方面，比如旁注、底注、括号内、补充声明、时间表和信息分析报告。

(2)财务报表格式上的比较1)从资产负债表的格式来看，美国的资产负债表有账户类型和报告样式两项描述，而我国是使用固定的账户类型。

另外，我们的资产负债表在项目的使用上过于标准化，不能够很好的反映出特殊的商业项目或者不适用于特殊类型的企业。

而美国的资产负债表项目是多样化的，除此之外，财务会计准则也是建立在资产负债表中资产所有者投资和支出两项要素基础上的，这一点也是中国的财会准则中没有的。

2)从损益表格式的角度来看，美国采用的是多步式，损益表项目分为两部分，营业利润和非营业利润，但是意义不同。

我国的营业利润在范围上比美国的小，例如投资收益在美国是归类为营业利润的而在我国则不属于营业利润。

另外，我国的损益表项目较美国的更加规范和严格，美国校准损益表仅仅依赖于类别和项目。

报告收可以与销售收入及其他收入相联系，也可以和利息收益、租赁收入和单项投资收益相联系；在成本方面，并不是严格的划分为管理成本、财务成本、和市场成本，并且经常性销售费用、综合管理费用以及利息费用、净利息收益都要分别折旧。

会计公允价值财务外文翻译 3000多字译文 2013年

文献出处：Gîrbină M M. Lobbying towards IASB respondents’ influence on the Fair Value Option[J]. Analele Universităţii din Oradea, 2013, 16: 370-374.原文Lobbying towards IASB: respondent’s influenceOn the fair value option amendmentGîrbinăABSTRACT：The focus of our research is to analyze the environment in which IASB acts and to investigate its influence on the standard setting process using the theoretical framework of the institutional theory. We perform a case study illustrating the standard setting process for the amendments to IAS 39 after 2002 concentrating on the “Fair Value Option- amendment”. The examination is based on comments letters submitted, final standards and their basis for conclusion and pursues the dentification of the main parties involved, their opinions, incentives, interests and the arguments they use to support their position, the sources of controversies and also the reaction of the IASB to opposing arguments and the justification of its choices. Keywords: accounting standard setting, IASB, lobbying, fair value option1 IntroductionThere is a general presumption that accounting standards are intended to enhance the quality of accounting information and to reduce the asymmetry among market participants. Because the standards determine the information disclosed by companies and play an important role in the wealth distribution process, an accounting standard acceptable to all rarely exists. The affected parties will try to convince the standard setter to write rules to their advantage and the later will have to solve the inherent conflicts. In other words, accounting standard setting is not just about finding the “right solution” but is also about making choices among the views of different individuals and groups having conflicting interests.Private regulators develop their standards according to a due process which incorporates a formal public consultation by providing interested parties opportunities to express their views on debated issues before the adoption of the final standards. The standard setting is considered a political activity in which interested parties will seek to lobby the rule-making body.The study of the lobbying process is necessary because it gives insights into understanding the institutional features of standard setting. If prior research concentrated mainly on the work of standards setters from different countries, we considered that institutional particularities of IASB don’t justify thegeneralization of results.2 Literature ReviewAn important part of the literature on politics in standard setting identified interested parties their incentives and victories. Some research appealed economic models, the individual interest and the rationality of the actors to explain the standard setting process and the behavior of the actors. Other research studies classified participants and correlated their positions to accounting standard outcomes.In spite of the extensive literature on accounting standard-setting, few studies focused on the work of the IASB and its forerunner, IASC. A part of them analyzed the comment letters without focusing on characteristics of lobbyers. Kenny and Larson (1993) examined the comment letters on the Exposure Draft Financial Reporting of Interests in Joint Ventures and concluded that few individual firms lobby the IASC and that professional and trade organizations lobby on behalf of their constituents. Kenny and Larson (1995) analyzed also the comment letters on IASC proposals published between 1989 and 1992 and found that 40 organizations contributed about 60 % of all submitted responses. Larson (1997) tested empirically the applicability of ideas originating in the U.S.-based lobbying literature in an international context. Mac Arthur (1996) analyzed the content of the comment letters sent by companies to the IASC on ED 32 (comparability of financial statements) to test Gray's hypothesized linkages between accounting values and the cultural values identified by Hofstede. Later, MacArthur (1999) focused on the impact of cultural factors on the lobbying behavior of accounting bodies’ members on the IASC’s ED 32. The combined results suggested that cultural, accounting sub cultural and economic factors influence the preferences of accounting bodies’ members and corporate management. By exploring the effect of national characteristics on lobbying, Jorissen et al (2006) demonstrated that in countries with high levels of enforcement, with high judicial efficiency, and with a positive attitude towards tax compliance, companies engage more often in lobbying and that variables relating to domestic earnings management practices and the domestic information environment of the firm have no significant influence.3Research methodologyIn order to assess the influence of IASB’s institutional environment on its standard setting process we will examine the development of amendments to IAS 39 after 2002 concentrating on the “Fair Value Option-amendment”.4 The theoretical framework of the researchGrounded in social theory, institutional theory asserts that organizations adjust their structure, policies, and procedures to conform to norms, values, beliefs deemed legitimate in order to maintain credibility andsurvive. As Ritti and Silver (1986) suggest, the institutionalization of an organization and its success in gaining legitimacy depends on its ability to project myth about itself. Afterwards, the legitimacy is maintained by engaging in ritualistic enforcement to comply with institutional expectations and communicating the rational basis of these enforcement processes. In the case of IASB, actors with different national, professional background and diverging interests struggle to influence the process of rule setting. Given the variety of actors involved the diversity of their interests, traditions and languages it is somewhat surprising that the process of standard setting is still possible. It has been argued that the dominance of the expertise and professional discourse, the institutionalization of a due process which provided a coordination mechanism for actors with conflicting interests to collaborate in order to elaborate international standards transformed IASB in a legitimate mean of organizing contest all over the world ( Jorissen A. et al ,2006). Compromise is essential to maintain credibility in order to remain credible and survive.5 Case selectionConsidering that the case must be representative for the investigated phenomenon we decided that the study of the development of a standard which gave rise to much controversy is more likely to provide an insight into the standard setting process. This approach can be understood in terms of selecting an extreme case (Ryan et al, 2002). Issued in 1998, IAS 39 was the culmination of a long process aimed at defining and establishing recognition and measurement guidance for financial instruments. The negotiation process is far from the end having that, from its initial issuance in 1998, the standard has been amended seven times. Among the revisions to IAS 39 in 2002 was the introduction of an option that permitted entities to designate irrevocably on initial recognition any financial asset or financial liability to be measured at fair value with gains and losses recognized in profit or loss (the “fair value option”). Although many EU banks and insurers favored the fair-value option, banking regulators such as the European Central Bank (ECB) strongly opposed it and lobbied the European Commission which included the option in the 'carve-out'. This generated a situation where first time adopters outside the EU could use the full option, but EU listed companies could in theory only fair value assets, because the EU carve out excluded liabilities. Confronted with an unexpected problem, IASB decided to propose the limitation of the fair value option in an Exposure Draft issued in April 2004 (ED Proposed Amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement: The Fair Value Option ).6 Data analysisIn order to study the lobbying behavior it is essential to know which opportunities are given by IASB to its constituents to participate in the lobbying process. A possible source of intrusion might come from EU screening mechanism. The constituents may also use informal channels for lobbying. Obtaining evidence ofinformal lobbying activity is difficult because it is not directly observable. For this reason, our examination will be based on comment letters, decision summaries, press releases and other public information. Georgioiu (2004) shown that there is a strong link between the use of comment letters and the use of other lobbying mechanisms, so we will focus mainly on the study of lobbying behavior using publicly available comment letters. The research population consisted of comment letters that were written between 2002 and 2005 in response to exposure drafts that amended IAS 39.The 478 comment letters were first classified in different categories, whereby each category represented a different constituent party: preparers, the accounting profession, users, national standard setters, stock exchanges, governments, individuals, academics and other interested parties. Our analysis supports the hypothesis developed by Sutton (1984) that preparers lobby more often than users, because they have greater exposure to the effects of regulations and they are able to bear the costs of lobbying. The second largest participating group is the accounting profession. Hussein and Ketz (1991) explain their participation as a proactive concern over legal liability. Also, Puro (1984) demonstrated empirically that accountants lobby as advocates of their clients. Lindalh (1987) advanced the idea that they use comment letters submission as a political resource to create the image of professionalism or as a form of advertising. The group of users of financial statements seems to be almost absent in this influencing process. The preparers, professionals and standard setters represent also the majority of SAC. We tested if the different constituent parties lobby to the same extent towards all documents issued by the IASB related to amendments to IAS 39 and the hypothesis was rejected with a high significance (Kruskal–Wallis, asymptotic significance being 0.0001). Many participants disagreed with the board’s reasons to amend the fair value option. Accounting professionals and preparers (banks and insurance companies) had the most reluctant position related to the limitation of the fair value option. Most comment letters were received from UK (22), Germany (11), Australia (9) Switzerland (7), New Zeeland (6), France (6) Japan (4) Denmark (4) Belgium (4).In order to observe if external actors influenced IASB via their comment letters we identified the main issues raised by constituents in their letters and verified if they were integrated in the final standard (the methodology was proposed by Weetman, 2001) and we analyzed situations for which IASB changed in the final standard its position expressed in the ED. Most comments received an answer in the final standard. The justification of standard setter in the basis for conclusion is more detailed if the final standard reflects a different view from the view of constituents. In order to assess the respondents’ influence each comment letter was coded based on its concordance with the outcome in the final standard. Specifically if the comment letter favored the outcome in the standard it was coded +1 for that issue; if the comment letter opposed the outcome it was coded -1 for the issue. Then we realized a binomial test of the preference with the IASB’s position.This analysis tentatively ind icated that the IASB is influenced by respondents’ preferences as expressed in their letters. To statistically test for the association between the predictor variable, constituents groups and the influence on accounting issues, a chi-square test was used. It revealed that banks influenced the elimination of the verifiability test from the final standard. Also, most banks agreed with fair valuing debts without separating the effect of own creditworthiness. With the purpose of examination of the positions taken in relation to the specific issues related to the use of fair value option we realized a content analysis of comment letters. The number of arguments and supporting arguments presented on an issue was considered as an indication of strength, the idea being that the more arguments and supporting arguments provided in a submission the stronger the position of the submission. Companies may also use different types of arguments and supporting arguments, such as economic consequences or conceptually based arguments, in an attempt to convince standard setters of their view (Tutticci et al., 1992). We also interpreted as a strength indicator the number of phrases considering that measures based on word counts and pages are problematic because of different writing styles and different page set-ups, graphics and font size. We determined that the longest justifications were received from preparers and the accounting profession and most constituents used conceptual based arguments.7 Conclusions, limitations and suggestions for future researchActions to find a solution for this short circuit in standard setting. It underlies the necessity of deploying strategies to maintain the standard setter legitimacy under circumstances of large institutional distance between pressure forces. Our conclusions are supported also by the latest actions of IASB to review its Constitution, due process and to enhance transparency, which we interpret as attempts to gain more legitimacy. The empirical part of the research demonstrated that the external actors influenced IASB’s decisions via their comment letters. The content analysis illustrated that most constituents used conceptually based arguments to strengthen their position when they disagreed with the opinion of the standard setter. This demonstrates also that constituents prefer to use socially accepted arguments and to and hide their real reasons for lobbying accentuating standard setter myths. This case-study illustrates how IASB exploits its due process ceremony to impose its values through manipulation of cognitive legitimacy. The most important limitation of the research is related to the fact that is based on comment letters and other publicly available material. Also, the content analysis conclusions might be affected by the subjectivity of the researcher in classifying arguments and choosing indicators of lobbying position.译文对国际会计准则委员会的游说：公允价值摘要：本文中我们研究的重点是分析IASB（国际会计准则委员会）行为的环境，探讨利用制度上的理论框架来制定标准制度过程中的影响。

公允价值会计外文文献翻译财务2014年译文3200字

文献出处：Barth M E, Landsman W R. The influence of fair value accounting on the banking industry [J]. Journal of banking & finance, 2014, 19(3): 577-605s（声明：本译文归百度文库所有，完整译文请到百度文库。

）原文The influence of fair value accounting on the banking industryBarth M E, Landsman W RAbstractSince the eighties of the twentieth century，FASB and IASB decided to spare no effort to promote the application of the fair value in accounting standards in order to reduce the financial risks from Financial derivatives. However, banking and financial regulatory authorities have questioned the reliability of fair value. In addition, they have thought that the application of the fair value will increase the volatility of financial situation and business performance; and then, it can affect the stability of financial system. In 2007, the outbreak of sub-prime mortgage crisis made fair value become a hot topic. Basic economic theory using fair value accounting for financial institutions for financial report provides a reasonable basis (Heaton et al., 2010).The so-called Fair Value (Fair Value) is in the process of trading assets or liabilities, familiar with the market situation of the voluntary exchange assets or debt liquidation identified price. As a relatively new measurement model, fair value can provide more real-time, useful information to market participants, and thus more valuable.Key words: Fair value; Banking; Financial instruments.1 IntroductionIn the traditional economic environment, historical cost has been in a leading position. In external market price is relatively stable, can generally accompanied by risks and rewards of complete transfer deals, the historical cost, despite of its rationality. And financial accounting emphasizes the fiduciary responsibility, pay more attention to the reliability of the accounting information authenticity, historicalcost measurement can meet the demand of this kind of information to a certain extent.Historical cost measurement, however, is not perfect, began in the late 60 s inflation, said with nominal currency non-monetary assets continue to rise, the market price of the book value is much lower than market price, therefore, on the basis of the historical cost financial statements to distort the real performance of enterprise management. Through further research, points out that after the 1980 s due to the rapid development of the financial instruments, financial assets and financial liabilities of price fluctuations is very intense, on the basis of the historical cost measurement model can't reflect the market fluctuations caused by price fluctuations, therefore, fair value accounting arises at the historic moment. In addition, from the fiduciary duty to decision-making useful accounting target also create conditions for the emergence of the fair value measurement.Different accounting objectives is different to the requirement of measurement, the decision-making useful concept requires fair value, the historical cost measurement and the concept of fiduciary duty requirement. About the causes of the fair value accounting, many scholars believe that fair value to the attention of the relevance of accounting information quality is the main reason. This is because, the usefulness of accounting information is a function of relevance and reliability. Different users of accounting information under the environment of there is a difference on the relevance and reliability requirements. When interest rates and asset values steady, the historical cost can be on the premise of guarantee the reliability of meet the relevant requirements. With the development of knowledge economy and the application of financial instruments, interest rate and asset values established stable this assumption is no longer, the correlation of accounting information users of accounting information demand.2 In the banking industry faced by the use of fair value accounting problemsThe application of fair value accounting in the banking sector after a from table to table, from simple to complex, from a specific financial instruments to the entire process, so that all assets and liabilities of financial instruments. But the application of fair value accounting is not plain sailing, bankers and regulators strongly opposed tothe fair value of sharply criticized the show the shortcomings in the practical application. Points out that, due to the use of fair value accounting, financial instruments during the surviving caused by changes in the profit and loss may not be able to provide very relevant information may even use personnel misleading statements.This view in the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008 for."Apocalypse of the us subprime crisis to our country the article mentioned that us financial giants blame said, according to the fair value of asset-backed securities (ABS), mortgage backed securities (MBS) and collateralised debt obligation (CDO) measured grades: debt products, lead to financial institutions to confirm unrealized (unrealized) and no cash flow (non - cash flow) of huge losses. These paper losses caused investors panic to sell the stock holding subprime product financial institutions. This irrational speculation in turn forced financial institutions at any cost, reduce the risk of subprime products exposed positions in the account further confirm the impairment loss, the subprime crisis have been intensified. In addition to the pro-cyclical effect, the reliability of fair value accounting also has certain problem.3 The influence of fair value accounting for the banking industryBecause the United States have developed capital market and the perfect regulation system, relatively easy to eliminate the noise of other factors on the use of the fair value interference, therefore at present about the fair value of the empirical studies are mainly concentrated in the securities market. In general, the scholars on the research of the fair value on the banking industry can be roughly divided into the following three aspects: the fair value of the impact on the volatility of earnings and capital, the influence of fair value accounting on banking market behavior and the influence of fair value accounting for banking supervision behavior.Based on the concept of assets and liabilities, the fair value of assets and liabilities have been reflected on the balance sheet, and practice relation between financial statements determines the change of a report item is bound to cause another corresponding changes in the project, so the profit and loss account confirmation of unrealized profits inevitably affected by fair value.Hodder, Hopkins and wahlen (2006)to 202 American Banks of financial data from 1996 to 2004 as samples, to calculate the net income and comprehensive income (including the part of the fair value of financial instruments) and the fair value of the comprehensive income (including all of the fair value of financial instruments) of the three alternative income index fluctuation degree, and examined the different degree of volatility index of risk., according to the results of comprehensive income is twice the net income, and the fair value of income is three times under the comprehensive income, net income of 5 times. Barth (2004) should be based on economic substance behind the fluctuation of earnings volatility. Although some may question the volatility by factors such as the reliability of the valuation models and management manipulation, but the empirical research results show that the increase in earnings volatility to a certain extent, reflects the real business environment faced by firms, the risk early warning effect. While Plantin Sapra and Shin (2004) study put forward different views. Mark-to-market accounting they think will make the market price fluctuations under the influence of artificial factors. This volatility to reduce the information content of market prices, led to economic inefficiencies. For comments, the author thinks that, relative to the historical cost, fair value can more reflect the market value of bank assets and liabilities in a timely manner, and can be reflected in the income statement and balance sheet. In the normal operation of the external market, fair value can be more fair to reveal the bank's business performance, financial status and risk management information, increased the transparency of financial information, more conducive to investors to make decisions.Ernst & Young in 1993 and 1993, two years in a row against SFASll5 effect of questionnaire. In the questionnaire for the first time, more than half of the respondents believe that using SFAS115 will change their investment behavior, more than 95% claimed that can shorten the duration of the debt securities investment, about 40% think that increases the hedging activities, there are also some reply that may reduce the proportion of securities investment. The second questionnaire in the criterion has run after a period of time.60% of respondents claimed that actually has been changed the investment strategy, shortened the duration of the portfolio, and to reduce themortgage securities. Beatty (1995) study is in line with the results of the questionnaire. To cope with the due to the influence of SFAS115 implementation, Banks to reduce the proportion of holdings of securities investment, shorten the term securities, and when the bank average leverage and rights and interests of the average declines, the classified as available for sale securities held by the proportion of class will decline. Rule of the evidence suggests that the bank of the rights and interests of fluctuations caused by concerns led to the changes of bank portfolio management practices.Hara, m. (1993) focuses on the influence of market value accounting for loan maturity date, the study found that in the long-term of non-current assets fair value information asymmetry may result in an increase in long-term interest rates, Banks tend to make short-term loans to borrowers face excessive settlement problem.Hodder (2002) to 230 listed commercial Banks from 1993 to 1995 data as sample, the study found that, regardless of the implementation rule of SFAS115 successively, Banks into available for sale financial assets (AFS) was down; The early implementation of SFAS115 weak capital bank more assets to divide the available for sale financial assets, because this kind of bank intends to use securities regulatory capital unrealized gains. And when the regulatory capital falls, bank interest rate risk and credit risk according to modify portfolio holdings, which reduced portfolio, reduce the interest rate risk and credit risk; The interest rate of bank's loan portfolio risk after implementing SFAS115 increased. Securities management can not divided into AFS (for example, all securities classified as held-to-maturity) to eliminate the impact of regulation, but the division and the bank's liquidity.Under fair value accounting, conform to the requirements of the standards of financial instruments must be confirm measurement in the report, making it easier for the bank performance is affected by the capital market and presents the volatility, trigger regulatory intervention. For such situation, Banks tend to decompose and externalized the risk of those who belong to the traditional banking activities, through the hedging accounting, securitization, or transfer the risk to the customer (such as a floating interest rate or short-term loan contract) means of minimizing exposure risk positions in the fair value measurement, and at the expense of long-term customerrelationships and investment needs at the expense of the pursuit of short-term goals.译文公允价值会计对银行业的影响巴斯，兰兹曼摘要20 世纪80 年代以来，金融衍生工具大量出现，为了减少随之而来的金融风险，财务会计准则委员会（FASB）和国际会计准则理事会(IASB)决定不遗余力地推广公允价值在会计准则中的应用。

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。

公允价值外文文献1

FAIR V ALUE CAPITALIZATION OF MORTGAGE LOAN SERVICING RIGHTSRobert J.Cochran,Edward N.Coffman andDavid W.HarlessABSTRACTThis study examines whether the capitalization of mortgage loan servicing rights(MSRs)is consistent with FASB’s objective of fair value accounting. The FASB issued SFAS No.122,“Accounting for Mortgage Servicing Rights,an amendment of FASB Statement No.65”with the prescription that the MSRs be capitalized at their fair value.Fair value would imply that only servicing relatedﬁrm characteristics inﬂuence the capitalization of MSRs. This studyﬁnds that several non-servicing relatedﬁrm characteristics also exert a statistically signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the capitalization of MSRs.As such,the evidence suggests that signiﬁcant segments of the industry may have acted in a way that was at odds with the FASB’s stated objective of fair value capitalization.INTRODUCTIONThe Financial Accounting Standards Board(FASB)ﬁrst considered the issue of accounting for the activities of mortgage banking concerns in1982with the issuance of SFAS No.65,“Accounting for Certain Mortgage Banking Activities.”One of the primary issues considered in the statement was the accounting Research in Accounting RegulationResearch in Accounting Regulation,Volume17,153–165Copyright©2004by Elsevier Ltd.All rights of reproduction in any form reservedISSN:1052-0457/doi:10.1016/S1052-0457(04)17007-0153154ROBERT J.COCHRAN ET AL. treatment for the right of the mortgage company to service mortgage loans in the future for a fee,commonly known as mortgage loan servicing rights or MSRs. The statement was issued during a period when managerial excesses in the thrift industry(a major participant in the mortgage bankingﬁeld)were well documented and contributed to the highly public failure of numerous savings and loans.The statement institutionalized a contradictory treatment for the accounting for MSRs based on the method of acquisition.MSRs acquired through an arm’s-length purchase transaction were allowed to be capitalized on the balance sheet at the purchase price,but MSRs acquired through the loan origination process were not allowed to be capitalized on the balance sheet due to the lack of an objective measure of their value.The contradictory treatment did not sit well with either the affectedﬁrms or the FASB.Prior to1995the statement was amended twice (SFAS Nos.91and115(FASB,1986,1993)).In November1992,at the request of the Mortgage Bankers’Association,the FASB reconsidered the accounting for MSRs and eliminated the contradictory accounting.The approach adopted favored a“fair value”measure for originated MSRs and was prescribed in SFAS No.122,“Accounting for Mortgage Servicing Rights,an amendment of FASB Statement No.65.”Fair value implies that non-servicing related factors should not inﬂuence the determination of the value of MSRs.SFAS No.122offers managers a choice with respect to the capitalization of MSRs.This study examines whether the FASB achieved the objective of fair value accounting in the application of SFAS No.122,and SFAS No.125,“Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities”1 by examining non-servicing relatedﬁrm characteristics to determine their inﬂu-ence on the measurement of fair value.The non-servicing related characteristics that are considered are those suggested by positive accounting theory(Watts& Zimmerman,1978,1986,1990).Managers ofﬁrms engaged in the business of servicing mortgage loans must decide on the proper level of capitalization(fair value)for the intangible asset representing the right to service mortgage loans for a fee.MSRs are created constantly as a by-product of the loan origination/sale process,and the amount of capitalization on newly created MSRs can be different from the amount capitalized on previously recognized MSRs.If,through the issuance of SFAS No. 122,the FASB successfully achieved the goal of fair value accounting for MSRs then no non-servicing relatedﬁrm characteristics should inﬂuence the measure-ment of the fair value of MSRs.Weﬁnd that,cross-sectionally,there do exist statistically signiﬁcant relationships between non-servicing relatedﬁrm speciﬁc characteristics(size,debt-to-equity and the importance of bonus compensation) and the level of capitalization chosen by managers of mortgage bankingﬁrms.Fair Value Capitalization of Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights155 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ONMORTGAGE SERVICING RIGHTSMortgage loan servicing rights can be a signiﬁcant asset on the balance sheet of mortgage-banking concerns.In the case of Countrywide Credit Industries Inc.,the largestﬁrm in the sample,ﬁscal year-end2000MSRs were$5.3billion,or34% of theﬁrm’s total assets.The unpaid principal balance of the servicing portfolio supporting Countrywide’s MSRs was$248billion.2To better appreciate the impact of SFAS No.125,some aspects of the operation of a mortgage company are described below.3Firms engaged in mortgage banking produce and sell mortgage loans just as any manufacturer would produce and sell a product.Mortgage loans are their product,and during the time mortgage loans reside on their balance sheet they are inventory.Countrywide Credit Industries Inc.originated$66.7billion in mortgage loans inﬁscal2000.Of these originations,only$2.7billion remained on Coun-trywide’s balance sheet at year-end2000.When a mortgage loan is originated, two distinct assets are created:(1)the loan instrument;and(2)the mortgage loan servicing right(MSR).Typically,one or both of these assets will be sold after origination.Firms of interest in this study tend to retain the MSR and to sell the loan instrument to an institutional investor or one of two government-sponsored entities(GSEs),the Federal National Mortgage Association(Fannie Mae)and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation(Freddie Mac).4An entity can come to own MSRs by:(1)originating a loan(both assets)and selling only the loan asset(retaining the MSR);(2)buying a loan(both assets) and subsequently selling only the loan asset(again,retaining the MSR);or(3) buying an existing portfolio of servicing rights.The owner of the MSRs,the servicer,has an obligation to perform certain functions including,but not limited to:(1)collecting and accounting for the monthly mortgage payments and remitting on a monthly basis the principal and interest collected to the owner of the loans;(2)collecting taxes and insurance escrow payments and making the associated payments;and(3)providing collection and foreclosure services on delinquent accounts.For these services, the servicer will earn a gross annual fee(service fee)typically ranging from 0.25to0.50%of the servicing portfolio’s unpaid principal balance.5As required by SFAS No.125,MSRs are to be recorded on the balance sheet of the servicer at their fair value.The fair value of the MSRs is the present value of the future net servicing fees(gross fees collected less costs to service the loans)over the expected life of the loans.Many factors used in calculating the fair(or present) value of the future net servicing fees over the expected life of a loan must be156ROBERT J.COCHRAN ET AL. estimated,making the determination of the value of MSRs subjective.Estimates must be made about the servicing fees and servicing costs,the appropriate discount rate to reﬂect the risk inherent in the servicing asset,the life of the loans, the amount of ancillary income generated by the servicing function,and so on. In order to better appreciate the income decreasing/increasing choice made possible by SFAS No.125,it is helpful to contrast generally accepted accounting for servicing rights before and after the issuance of SFAS No.125.Prior to SFAS No.125,SFAS No.65,“Accounting for Certain Mortgage Banking Activities,”required a mortgage bankingﬁrm to capitalize the price paid to acquire servicing rights either by:(1)buying a loan and selling the loan asset but retaining the servic-ing rights;or(2)buying an existing portfolio of servicing rights.The price paid for the servicing rights was considered objective and quantiﬁable,and the capitalized asset was referred to as a“purchased mortgage servicing right”(PMSR).The PMSR asset was amortized annually against the servicing fee collected on the portfolio at a rate that approximated the amortization rate of the loans being serviced(including prepayments and payoffs).An entity with capitalized PMSRs had to test the asset for impairment on an annual basis.The present value of the estimated future net servicing fees over the expected life of the loans in the servicing portfolio was calculated.The calculation required estimates(as described earlier)and the use of a discount rate that reﬂected the entity’s view of the risk associated with the asset.The resultant present value was compared to the recorded book value of the PMSRs,and if the present value was less than the book value,a write down was required.If there was excess present value,then the book value remained at the original(but amortized)amount.Servicing rights acquired by aﬁrm originating a loan resulted in an“originated mortgage servicing right”(OMSR).Capitalization was not allowed because the price paid to acquire servicing rights in an origination transaction(i.e.a portion of the loan origination cost)was not easily allocable to the servicing rights,and any allocation of the origination cost to the servicing asset was considered subjective. When the loan portion of the originated asset was sold,the entire cost basis (including the portion related to the servicing rights)was included in the gain (loss)calculation.The result was that the current period cash gain(loss)related to the sale of the loan asset was understated,and no capitalized basis remained on the books for the servicing rights retained.A consequence of this method of accounting was that a servicer might have portions of its servicing portfolio acquired through one of the two purchase methods for which there would be amortizable basis.Amortization of the basis results in a reduction of the future net service fees earned with respect to that portion of the portfolio.At the same time,there would be portions of the servicing portfolio obtained as a result of the origination process for which there wouldFair Value Capitalization of Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights157 be no amortizable basis.The result was a signiﬁcantly higher reported return on the servicing function for the originated portfolio than for the purchased portfolio (i.e.total net service fee for the originated portfolio versus total net service fee less the current period amortization for the purchased portfolio).Two essentially similar assets could exist with different accounting treatments.Unlike SFAS No.65,SFAS No.125presents managers ofﬁrms actively participating in the mortgage loan-servicing environment with an accounting choice.SFAS No.125requires that the value of the OMSRs from the sale of an originated loan be capitalized on the balance sheet,6as are the PMSRs from a purchase transaction.PMSRs are the objectively measured result of an arm’s-length transaction;OMSRs are a function of a multi-variable calculation and may not be entirely objective.The choice presented by SFAS No.125relates to the level of OMSR capitalization and how conservative or aggressive aﬁrm chooses to be in the calculation of the MSRs.MSRs7are to be recorded at their“relative fair values”(SFAS No.125,p.21) at the time the loans are sold and the servicing retained.“Relative fair value”is determined by apportioning the total cost basis of the combination loan/MSR asset to each asset based on the individual asset’s fair value8at the time one or both of the assets are sold.It is common practice to account for loan sales on an aggregate cash basis,ig-noring the MSRs(in essence,this was the pre-SFAS No.125required accounting), and to capitalize the MSRs thereafter on an aggregate homogeneous portfolio basis.This second step is the additional accounting required by SFAS No.125.The determination of the fair value of MSRs is sufﬁciently subjective that the asset can be capitalized within a range of acceptable values.To be able to compare choices ofﬁrms with differing sizes of servicing portfolios,we compare standardized MSRs by measuring MSRs as a percentage of the unpaid principal balance of the underlying servicing portfolio((MSR%=capitalized MSRs($)÷servicing port-folio($))×100).For the sample companies reporting MSRs,the MSR%ranges from as low as0.00%to as high as3.80%(380basis points).The implication is that on a loan of$100,000,someﬁrms in the sample would capitalize no MSR while otherﬁrms would recognize as much as$3,800.The decision to capitalize3.80% ($3,800)versus0.00%($0)on a$100,000loan is an income increasing choice as the entire capitalized amount increases pre-tax net income dollar for dollar.It is important to note that knowledge of the absolute dollars capitalized, without knowledge of the principal balance to which the MSRs relate provides no information as to whether aﬁrm’s MSR capitalization choice represents an income decreasing/increasing position.Simply knowing that Firm A capitalized$4,000of MSRs while Firm B capitalized$8,000of MSRs during the same period does not allow us to conclude which of theﬁrms adopted an income decreasing/increasing158ROBERT J.COCHRAN ET AL. capitalization policy relative to the other.However,also knowing that Firm A’s MSRs related to a portfolio of$200,000(MSR%=2.00%)while Firm B’s MSRs related to a portfolio of$800,000(MSR%=1.00%)allows for the conclusion that Firm A made an income increasing accounting choice relative to Firm B.The MSR%(the dollars of MSRs standardized by the outstanding loan portfolio to which they relate)provides the information as to whether theﬁrm adopts an income decreasing/increasing position relative to the capitalization of MSRs.The0.00%–3.80%range of MSR capitalization implies a very large range of total MSR capitalization across the sampleﬁrms.If this range were applied to the servicing portfolio of Countrywide Credit Industries Inc.,the capitalized MSRs would range from as low as$0to as high as$9.42billion(calculated on the February28,2000year-end servicing portfolio of$248billion).This difference would translate to a dollar for dollar difference in the cumulative pre-tax net income of theﬁrm for the four-year period since SFAS No.125went into effect. Clearly,where managers choose to be on the spectrum of MSR%capitalization is an accounting choice.Lower levels of capitalization,as measured by the MSR%, represent income decreasing choices among accounting alternatives,while higher levels of capitalization represent income increasing choices.Additionally,over time,aﬁrm can change where it is on the spectrum of MSR%capitalization since the MSR%relative to the loans sold in one year can be,and often is,different than the MSR%in subsequent years.The choice of the MSR%presents a rich environ-ment not only for testing positive accounting theory,but also for testing whether the FASB was successful in its effort to implement“fair value”accounting relative to this asset.HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENTThe primary objective of this study is to determine if SFAS No.125accomplished the stated objective of fair value accounting.We examine the classic positive accounting theoryﬁrm characteristics,size,debt-to-equity and the importance of bonus compensation,to determine if they inﬂuence the level at which managers capitalize MSRs.Since theseﬁrm characteristics are non-servicing related they should have no inﬂuence on the determination of“fair value.”As such,we test the following hypotheses:H1.Managers of companies with greater total assets will choose income decreasing accounting alternatives and will capitalize MSRs at a lower level than will managers of companies with lower total assets.Fair Value Capitalization of Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights159 H2.Managers of companies with higher debt-to-equity ratios will choose income increasing accounting alternatives and will capitalize MSRs at a higher level than will managers of companies with lower debt-to-equity ratios.H3.Managers who operate under compensation plans with a higher bonus compensation percentage will choose income increasing accounting alterna-tives and will capitalize MSRs at a higher level than managers with lower bonus compensation percentage.SAMPLE DATA AND SOURCESSelection ofﬁrms for the sample was conﬁned to companies with the four-digit Standard Industrial Classiﬁcation(SIC)codes representingﬁrms in theﬁnancial services sector most likely to engage in the business of mortgage loan servicing as a material core business.The sample is restricted to publicly tradedﬁrms in the four years subsequent to the mandatory implementation date of SFAS No.122with data available on COMPUSTAT and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR database.9The capitalized value of the MSRs and the dollar value of the underlying servicing portfolios were obtained from each company’s Annual Report asﬁled on Form10-K(or Form10-KSB for“small business issuers”)on the EDGAR pensation data was obtained from each company’s Annual Proxy Statement asﬁled on Form DEF-14A provided on the EDGAR database. The resultant sample consisted of577ﬁrm/years.MODEL SPECIFICATIONThis study captures the accounting choice through a continuous dependent variable, MSR%,the book value of MSRs divided by the principal balance of the servicing portfolio.Our model is as follows:MSR BP it=␣0+00Y=97␣y YR it+␣1ln SERVPORT it+␣2(ln SERVPORT it)2+␣3ln TOTASSETS it+␣4DE it+␣5BONUS%it+␧itThe yearly dummy variables are included because the value of MSRs is sensitive to economic conditions.For example,the value of the MSRs is sensitive to the difference between the weighted average interest rate of the mortgages underlying the MSRs and the current market rate.Additionally,the variable ln SERVPORT160ROBERT J.COCHRAN ET AL. and(ln SERVPORT)2are included in the model to capture the effects of economies of scale in loan servicing.The servicing portfolio(the actual loans supporting the servicing rights)is not owned by the servicing entity and accordingly not included on the balance sheet of the servicing entity.Firms servicing larger portfolios can justiﬁably capitalize higher levels of MSRs due to their ability to generate a higher net servicing fee(resulting from a lower cost per loan serviced)due to economies of scale.Failure to include a proxy variable for economies of scale would bias the coef-ﬁcient for the ln TOTASSETS variable(since ln TOTASSETS and ln SERVPORT are correlated)potentially canceling or obscuring the two distinct effects.RESULTSTable1reports descriptive statistics for the variables used in the models as well as other variables of interest.The mean of the MSRs as a percentage of the book value of stockholders’equity is11.44%.Recognizing that stockholders’equity consists of contributed capital and retained earnings,it is apparent that the book value of the MSRs accounts for more than11.44%of the total net income earned and subsequently retained by the sampleﬁrms.Table1.Descriptive Statistics.Variable Mean Std.Dev.Minimum Maximum Model variablesMSR BP78.9550.940.00379.91 ln SERVPORT 6.33 2.20−0.6912.42 ln TOTASSETS7.37 1.630.6312.14 DE11.47 5.110.1244.95 BONUS%26.6919.430.0094.06 Other variablesTotal Assets(millions)6,38116,498 1.9186,514 MSRs(millions)914540.05,343 Servicing portfolio(millions)5,80622,2540.5247,680 Stockholders’equity(millions)4851,1240.49,597 Ratio of MSR to stockholders’equity11.440.300.00350.63 Notes:Means and deviations are calculated for the577cross-sectional pooled observations used in the model.MSR BP=Ratio of capitalized MSRs to the principal balance of the servicing portfolio (in basis points).ln SERVPORT=Natural log of the principal balance of the servicing portfolio.ln TOTASSETS=Natural log of the book value of total assets.DE=Ratio of the book value of total debt to the book value of total equity.BONUS%=(cash bonus÷(total cash bonus+ total cash salary))×100.Fair Value Capitalization of Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights161Table2.Regression Results.Regressors Expected Sign a i Intercept120.83(4.69)*** 1997 6.31(1.27) 199817.14(3.36)*** 199923.91(4.31)*** 200041.15(2.66)***ln SERVPORT+−23.37(−4.36)***ln SERVPORT2+ 2.66(6.22)***ln TOTASSETS−−7.34(−2.54)**DE+ 1.46(1.86)* BONUS%+39.81(1.98)** Sample size577Test of model signiﬁcance F(9,567)=29.56 p Value p=2.7E−42 Notes:The regression estimated is:MSR BP it=␣0+00y=97␣Y YR it+␣1ln SERVPORT it+␣2(ln SERVPORT it)2+␣3ln TOTASSETS it+␣4DE it+␣5BONUS%it+␧it Variables are deﬁned as follows:MSR BP it=MSRs divided by the principal balance of loans serviced(measured in basis points);ln SERVPORT=the natural log of the servicing portfolio;ln TOTASSETS=the natural log of the book value of total assets;DE=the book value of total debt as a percentage of the book value of total equity;BONUS%=cash bonus as a percentage of the sum of cash bonus and cash salary.∗Signiﬁcant at the10%level.∗∗Signiﬁcant at the5%level.∗∗∗Signiﬁcant at the1%level.Table2presents model estimation results.The parameter estimates from the model are consistent with the predictions of positive accounting theory.The results for Hypothesis1suggest that managers of largerﬁrms will be inclined to choose income decreasing accounting alternatives as compared to managers of smaller ﬁrms.The coefﬁcient for ln TOTASSETS,−7.34(p=0.011)suggests that,other things equal,aﬁrm with1%more total assets than anotherﬁrm will capitalize7.34 fewer basis points of MSRs.Hence,the results suggest that,acrossﬁrms,managers of largerﬁrms will select income decreasing accounting alternatives,choosing to capitalize lower levels of MSRs than will managers of smallerﬁrms. Hypothesis2suggests that managers ofﬁrms with higher debt-to-equity ratios will choose income increasing accounting alternatives.The model reports a positive and signiﬁcant coefﬁcient for DE.Acrossﬁrms,managers ofﬁrms with162ROBERT J.COCHRAN ET AL. higher debt-to-equity ratios(DE)will choose to capitalize MSRs at higher levels than will managers ofﬁrms with lower debt-to-equity ratios.Hypothesis3suggests that managers who operate under a bonus compensation plan where bonus compensation is a greater portion of total compensation will choose income increasing accounting alternatives as compared to managers who operate under a bonus plan where bonus compensation is a smaller portion of total compensation.The model generates a coefﬁcient for BONUS%that is in the predicted direction,and is signiﬁcant(p=0.048).This provides at least some evidence that managers ofﬁrms where bonus compensation is a higher proportion of total compensation will elect income increasing accounting alternatives and increase the level at which they capitalize MSRs as compared to managers of ﬁrms where bonus compensation is a lower proportion of total compensation. The size of the servicing portfolio is an important control variable.While the coefﬁcients for both ln SERVPORT and(ln SERVPORT)2are highly signiﬁcant, the coefﬁcient for ln SERVPORT is negative.The coefﬁcient for(ln SERVPORT)2 is positive and overcomes the effect of the coefﬁcient for ln SERVPORT at a low servicing portfolio size.The model suggests that,at low servicing portfolio levels, the marginal effect of increasing the servicing portfolio is negative.When the servicing portfolio exceeds$81.04million the marginal effect becomes positive. Hypothesis1is supported only when we control for differences in MSRs due to economies of scale through the natural log of the size of the servicing portfolio (and its square).Without the servicing portfolio variables,the coefﬁcient for ln TOTASSETS would be insigniﬁcant(p=0.739).Researchers should be cognizant of this possible source of omitted variable bias when there exist effects of size related to economies of scale that are distinct from(and in our case negatively correlated to)the effects of size related to political costs.CONCLUSIONSOur results support all three hypotheses of positive accounting theory.The FASB issued SFAS No.125with the prescription that the MSRs be capitalized at their fair value.If the recorded values were fair value,the recorded values would not be inﬂuenced by non-servicing relatedﬁrm characteristics(size,debt-to-equity and the importance of bonus compensation).Weﬁnd that recorded values are inﬂuenced by non-servicing relatedﬁrm characteristics.Thisﬁnding suggests that the MSRs are capitalized at something other than their fair value and that SFAS No.125has not accomplished the FASB’s stated objective.In light of the recent study published by the SEC(2003),“Study Pursuant to Section 108(d)of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002on the Adoption by the United StatesFair Value Capitalization of Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights163 Financial Reporting System of a Principles-Based Accounting System”in which the SEC advocates the development of standards on a“principles-based or objectives-oriented basis”the SEC should consider the results of this study.SFAS No.125,although published prior to the SEC’s advocacy of an objectives-oriented standards setting methodology,contained a clearly stated objective.The results of this study suggest that signiﬁcant segments of the industry may have acted in a way that was at odds with the FASB’s stated objective of fair value capitalization.NOTES1.SFAS No.122was issued in1995and is the most comprehensive and explanative document issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board covering the accounting treatment of mortgage loan servicing rights(MSRs).It has been superseded.In1996,SFAS No.125,“Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities,”was issued and covers a broad spectrum ofﬁnancial assets and liabilities. SFAS No.125supersedes SFAS No.122in its entirety,but makes no material change to the required accounting for MSRs.In September2000,SFAS No.140,“Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities,a replacement of FASB Statement No.125,”was issued.SFAS No.140is effective for transfers occurring after March31,2001.Early or retroactive application is not permitted. Theﬁrms examined in this study are subject only to the provisions of either SFAS No.122 or SFAS No.125.The results of this study are still relevant subsequent to the effective date of SFAS No.140since the provisions of SFAS No.125regarding MSRs remain substantially in force and the accounting treatment for MSRs remains unchanged from the accounting treatment as required by SFAS No.122and SFAS No.125.All subsequent references to SFAS No.125refer to both SFAS No.122and SFAS No.125.2.The servicing portfolio refers to the unpaid principal balance of the loans that are being serviced.The servicing portfolio itself is neither owned by Countrywide nor recorded on Countrywide’s balance sheet.Investors such as the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation own the serviced loans. Servicers only own and record the right to service the loans(the MSRs).3.For a detailed description of the operation of a mortgage banking concern see McConnell(1976)and Hendershott and Villani(1994).4.According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development,GSEs purchased $728billion of the$1,284billion(57%)of mortgage loans originated in1999.5.Services fees are not explicitly negotiated.The originator/servicer of a loan negotiates the sale of the loan at a speciﬁed time and yield to an investor.The yield is determined by the interest rate market at the time the sale is negotiated and has little to do with the stated rate on the loan itself.The majority of loans are sold in the form of Mortgage Backed Securities(MBSs)in a highly liquid market.The required yield on MBSs at any given time is generally lower than the rates quoted for mortgages.As such,if an originator/servicer is negotiating loan sales contemporaneously with the commitment to originate loans,there will arise a positive differential between the interest the originator/servicer receives from the borrower and the yield required to be remitted to the investor.This is the service fee.。

外文翻译--公允价值会计,金融经济和可靠性重塑

本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译外文出处Accoiinling and Business Research，InternationalAccounting Policy Forum外文作者Michael Power原文：Fair value accounting, financial economics and the transformationof reliabilityFair value and the reshaping of reliabilityThe concept of fair value measurement emerged in financial accounting and was accepted in the abstract long before it was a subject of analysis and dispute (Bromwich, 2007). Further more, fair value is not itself a single measurement methodology but encompasses a variety of approaches for the estimation of an exit value. So it is hardly surprising that many of the arguments which have been developed for and against the use of fair values in accounting are not well-supported by evidence; disputants often talk past each other. However, the relative absence of justifications by standard-setters is also responsible for the power of fair value accounting as a reference point in debate. As with operational risk, policy concepts can be articulated in the abstract by regulators and accepted by industry before complex and messy issues of implementation come into play(Power, 2005).Definitions of fair value vary in subtle ways that may end up mattering in law but from afar, and to the untutored eye, they look similar. FAS 157(FASB, 2006) defines fair value as: 'the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfera liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date'. LASB (2009)reproduces this as a core principle.This definition, which has existed in various slightly modified forms for many years, might appear uncontentious. Yet, it is a complex hybrid of ideas and assumptionswhich point to the estimated prices that might be received in a market, one which turns out to have specific and assumed characteristics. This causes several commentators to remark on the 'fictional' and 'imaginary' nature of fair values (e.g. Casson and Napier, 1997) and to bemoan their 'subjectivity' and potential for manipulation and bias. Indeed, Bromwich (2007)outlines how many assumptions underlie the production of fair values and draws the conclusion that the understanding of fair value may vary considerably.Regardless of whether these criticisms have substance, it is also the case that if enough people believe in fictions, then they can play a role in constituting markets. Mackenzie and Millo (2003)argue in the context of the development and institutionalisation of option pricing models that simplifying assumptions began life as being no descriptive of pricing processes, then came to be the preferred and dominant methodology. Once accepted, the Black-Scholes model contributed to the development of the depth and liquidity of the market, although Mackenzie and Millo note how this relationship was looser again after the 1987crash. The general message is that if key communities accept the usefulness of fictions, they have real consequences and can become regarded as real.Proponents of fair values in accounting often appeal to notions of telling things as they are and of improving transparency. They point to areas such as pension accounting or the savings and loans industry in North America where fair values would have made problems (deficits, poor performing loans) visible much earlier, thereby enabling corrective action. An often heard trope is that one should not shoot the messenger of poor asset quality. Yet sceptics argue that fair value accounting has created a false short-term visibility in the case of pension funding and hastened the demise of defined benefit schemes (Kiosse and Peasnell, 2009). More generally, critics argue that the financial crisis demonstrates the pro-cyclicality of fair values when accounting is tightly coupled to prudential regulatory systems, and the unreliability of marking to model in less than liquid asset markets, especially for assets which are being held for the long term.According to Laux and Leuz (2009) the fair value debate should not be polarised. The use of fair values is neither responsible for the financial crisis nor entirely innocent.Furthermore, arguments against fair value do not automatically translate into arguments for historical cost rmation about current values, or best estimates of those current values, is likely to be useful for management and market analysts in conjunction with lots of other bits of information. Contracts and covenants may be highly sensitive to mark to market strategies in a crisis, where breathing space may be valued over short-term volatility in contractual and regulatory compliance. This is echoed by the analysis in Plantin et al. (2004) of the different winners and losers from the shift to mark to-market for financial instruments in general, and helps to explain the intensity of the politics of fair value accounting, even prior to the financial crisis.While much of the heat generated by fair value concerns the politics of reporting discretion for banking institutions, Laux and Leuz (2009) suggest that the polarisation in the debate is founded primarily on different views about the goals of accounting. In parallel but somewhat differently, it can be argued that the debate is also driven by different, almost unconscious, views about what it is for an estimated accounting value to be reliable.One ofthe explicit motivations for the expanded significance ofthe use of fair values is its perceived potential to minimise the freedom to manipulate accounting numbers (CFA, 2007). Market-based values are, almost by definition, a non-management based referent and this is consistent with early standards on audit evidence quality hierarchies which prioritise sources of evidence which are independent of both auditee and auditor. So an important aspect of the 'fair value' concept is to establish distance from entity views of value and to locate reliability as far as possible in the collective judgment of the market.Reliability is one of the fundamental qualitative characteristics of accounting information as articulated in early conceptual fi-ameworks (FASB, 1980). Yet the reliability of accounting numbers is not a given: it is always founded on a consensus whose strength is an empirical and not a conceptual fact. The consensus is often implicit and taken for granted, but becomes more problematic at times of conflict and competition when questions of power and authority become visible. Ideas ofaccounting reliability may change over time, may have relative rather than absolute significance, and may only be grounded in the fiction of an ideal consensus among a community of reasonable measurers.Barth challenges the transactionally based view of reliability by arguing that it is no longer to be identified with verifiability but has to do essentially with faithful representation: just because an amount can be calculated precisely, it is not necessarily a faithful representation of the real-world economic phenomena it purports to represent. This statement, and others like it, constitute a reframing of the concept of reliability, essentially collapsing reliability into relevance. Against a transactionally grounded conception of reliability involving audit trails linking accounting events to reporting, Barth's conception shifts the centre of gravity for thinking about reliability to markets and the values they produce.This new conception of accounting reliability takes as its benchmark the most liquid, orderly markets, those typically associated with financial assets and liabilities. This benchmark, and the idea of reliability it embodies, is extended to analogies and models which simulate market prices using accepted economic methodologies' - the so-called levels 2 and 3 in the fair value hierarchy of valuation methods. It is not unusual for policy solutions in one setting to migrate fi-om their original context and expand their application in this way.It should be remembered that accounting policy discussions have visited the issue of measurement reliability many times before. For example, in the late 1980s, brand valuers using a mix of analogical and model-based reasoning challenged the prevailing prohibition against valuing internally generated brands. The debate, while conducted in technical terms, was highly sensitive to the credibility of valuation expertise proposed by non-accountant valuers (e.g. Interbrand). The UK Accounting Standards Committee sought to undermine the analogy between accepted practice of reliance on chartered surveyors and brand valuers, but they were on increasingly weak ground, especially when accounting firms developed their own brand valuation capacity (Power, 1992a).The brand accounting debate reminds us that conceptions of reliability in financial reporting can change as bodies of valuation knowledge become accepted as a basis fortransactions. In turn, market liquidity may be increased by the credibility of such methodologies which further increases their credibility in a virtuous performative circle (Napier and Power, 1992). Just as with the brand debate of the late 1980s, level 2 and 3 fair values pose resource and expertise challenges both for audit firms who must draw on valuation specialists trained in financial economics, and for global regulatory bodies in addressing the need for guidance on how to find evidence for estimates (IAASB, 2008).^ The model dependency of level 3 fair values poses knowledge problems for auditors who must gain confidence about the input, assumptions, and parameters of valuation modelsOne common mechanism for the creation of auditor confidence is the outsourcing of opinion or reliance on other experts (Power, 1996). In this respect the re-emergence of the International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC) in 2009 is significant.^ Created originally to provide guidance on property valuation, the IVSC has developed closer relations with IASB with a view to providing guidance on the valuation of financial instruments. Significantly, IVSC criticised the IASB exposure draft on fair value measurement for being too narrowly prescriptive about the range of possible valuation methods. It argued that accounting standard- setters should prescribe at the level of principle and leave space for the development of detailed valuation methods (IVSC, 2009).The implication is that fair valuation might move offshore in relation to accounting standard-setters leaving accountants as compilers rather than valuers. From this point of view, fair value can be understood as a potentially radical change programme for the expertise base of accounting. Far from being traded off against one another, reliability is progressively collapsed into relevance (Whittington, 2008) with clear implications for the need for external valuation expertise.This change programme has been contested by proponents of other current value measurement bases, such as replacement cost within a deprival value decision logic. These critics of fair value argue that they are subject to the very forms of management manipulation which they are intended to correct: 'discounting cash flows to derive a fair value invites deception' (Ronen, 2008). Fair values are never real market values butonly estimates of market prices which would or could be obtained. They are necessarily 'as if or fictional constructs which depend on critical assumptions about orderly markets (Bromwich, 2007).Nevertheless, many critics of the subjectivity of fair values miss the real point of Barth's challenge; the very idea of reliability is being reconstructed in front of their eyes by shifting the focus from transactions to economic valuation methods, and by giving these methods a firmer institutional footing. Deep down the fair value debate seems to hinge on fiindamantally different conceptions of the basis for reliability in accounting, making it less of a technical dispute and more one of the politics of acceptability. Indeed, the apparent threelevel hierarchy of reliability is much 'flatter' than might be immediately apparent. Under level 1, accounting systems are, in theory, passive observers of prices. Under level 3, accounting is a market value discovery system with the help of methodologies from financial economics. Yet once it is admitted that market prices may not reveal fiandamental value, due to liquidity issues or other reasons, then it can be argued that the real foundation of fair value lies in economic valuation methodologies; level 3 methods are in fact the engine of markets themselves, capable of discovering values for accounting objects which can only be sold in 'imaginary markets'. It follows that the hierarchy is more of a liquidity hierarchy than one of method, but overall it expresses the imperative of market alignment which informs fair value enthusiasts.The sociology of reliability to emerge from these arguments suggests that subjectivity and uncertainty can be transformed into acceptable fact via strategies which appeal to broader values in the institutional environment which even opponents must accept. Accounting 'estimates' can acquire authority when they come to be embedded in taken for granted routines - hence the significance of the IVSC and similar bodies. So long as a suflicient consensus holds, and asset markets are orderly and generally liquid, then the circle which links models and markets is virtuous and broadly performative. In this way fair values, for all their fictionality and apparent intellectual incoherence (Ravenscroft and Williams, 2009), could define what it is to be reliable at a point in time. Market liquidity would be the effect of consensus - the flipside of reliability. However, even before the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the consensus supporting the use of fair value measurement beyond highly liquid financial asset markets was problematic, thus making its social and institutional foundations more visible than they might ordinarily be.In summary, it has been argued that different conceptions of what it is for an accounting estimate to be reliable underlie the fair value debate as it has taken shape in the last decade. The language of subjectivity and objectivity is unhelpful in characterising what is at stake; it is more usefial to focus on. the question of how certain valuation technologies do or don't become institutionally accepted as producing facts (Napier and Power, 1992). This is a sociological question which will be further explored below. The analysis which follows is less concerned to adjudicate on the rights and wrongs of fair value and more focused on understanding the deep conditions of possibility for fair values to be widely promoted. From this point of view, the use of fair values in accounting represents a new basis for accounting fact production which, as we shall see, is grounded in the cultural authority of financial economics.Source:Michael Power．Fair value accounting, financial economics and the transformation of reliability[J]．Accounting and Business Research，International Accounting Policy Forum，2010，40(3)：197-210．译文：公允价值会计，金融经济和可靠性重塑公允价值与可靠性重塑公允价值的计量概念出现在财务会计，它在成为分析和争端的焦点之前，长期以抽象概念存在。

公允价值外文文献

公允价值计量属性与上市公司利润外文翻译翻译：银行业公允价值会计核算玛利亚·帕卡拉佩斯库联合工作组的标准制定金融工具在2000年12月发出题为“金融工具及其标准草案和结论的基础”类似的项目的咨询文件。

该标准草案的审查和评估的公允价值会计作为在银行的资产负债表所有的金融工具估值的基础被广泛使用。

联合工作组将"引入全面的公平价值的金融工具确认和计量会计框架"作为与国际会计准则委员会的长期战略合作。

该工作组从9月30日收集2001年所有对标准草案感兴趣的各种意见。

国际会计准则委员会将根据收到意见评估公允价值会计的长期前景。

这些都表明了欧洲中央银行（ECB）对的联合工作组在这方面提出的重要建议，即是公允价值会计在银行业的应用。

在审查了标准草案之后，重点说明关于与公允价值会计制度适用于银行业有关的关键问题，并提出一个可行的办法。

一、该标准草案对银行部门的主要创新目前这个会计规则在欧盟银行中用来区分交易性金融工具和那些打算持有至到期的银行账户。

这些金融工具持有的交易账户是按市场价格估价。

从交易账户中重估利润和亏损来确认损益帐户。

这个交易账户中的会计规则可以把一切市场风险（即价格风险，利率风险，外汇风险和流动性风险）都考虑在内。

相比之下，银行账户中资产负债表的历史成本比市场价值低。

而银行账上的一个工具损失转移到损益表，未实现的收益是无法识别，因此可以成为隐藏在资产负债表的储备。

因此，银行账的会计规则不考虑市场风险（外汇风险，在最终期限值通常适用于几乎所有的资产负债表项目除外）。

该标准草案建议规定所有的金融工具统一规则。

如果资产负债表中的资产和负债的市场价值是真实的，或者作为使用贴现的预计未来现金流量现值模型的市场价值近似公平价值计算。

对银行来说，这将意味着，贸易及银行账户将获得平等的会计处理方法，即在所有价值变动将被确认在资产负债表及转入4页损益表中的第2页。

不论是否盈利或亏损已经实现或者没有实现预期升值都适用，因为所有金融工具都是按市价或公平价值的估计。

财务报表分析中英文对照外文翻译文献

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：ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTSWe need to use financial ratios in analyzing financial statements.—— The analysis of comparative financial statements cannot be made really effective unless it takes the form of a study of relationships between items in the statements. It is of little value, for example, to know that, on a given date, the Smith Company has a cash balance of $1oooo. But suppose we know that this balance is only -IV per cent of all current liabilities whereas a year ago cash was 25 per cent of all current liabilities. Since the bankers for the company usually require a cash balance against bank lines, used or unused, of 20 per cent, we can see at once that the firm's cash condition is exhibiting a questionable tendency.We may make comparisons between items in the comparative financial statements as follows:1. Between items in the comparative balance sheeta) Between items in the balance sheet for one date, e.g., cash may be compared with current liabilitiesb) Between an item in the balance sheet for one date and the same item in the balance sheet for another date, e.g., cash today may be compared with cash a year agoc) Of ratios, or mathematical proportions, between two items in the balance sheet for one date and a like ratio in the balance sheet for another date, e.g., the ratio of cash to current liabilities today may be compared with a like ratio a year ago and the trend of cash condition noted2. Between items in the comparative statement of income and expensea) Between items in the statement for a given periodb) Between one item in this period's statement and the same item in last period's statementc) Of ratios between items in this period's statement and similar ratios in last period's statement3. Between items in the comparative balance sheet and items in the comparative statement of income and expensea) Between items in these statements for a given period, e.g., net profit for this year may be calculated as a percentage of net worth for this yearb) Of ratios between items in the two statements for a period of years, e.g., the ratio of net profit to net worth this year may-be compared with like ratios for last year, and for the years preceding thatOur comparative analysis will gain in significance if we take the foregoing comparisons or ratios and; in turn, compare them with:I. Such data as are absent from the comparative statements but are of importance in judging a concern's financial history and condition, for example, the stage of the business cycle2. Similar ratios derived from analysis of the comparative statements of competing concerns or of concerns in similar lines of business What financialratios are used in analyzing financial statements.- Comparative analysis of comparative financial statements may be expressed by mathematical ratios between the items compared, for example, a concern's cash position may be tested by dividing the item of cash by the total of current liability items and using the quotient to express the result of the test. Each ratio may be expressed in two ways, for example, the ratio of sales to fixed assets may be expressed as the ratio of fixed assets to sales. We shall express each ratio in such a way that increases from period to period will be favorable and decreases unfavorable to financial condition.We shall use the following financial ratios in analyzing comparative financial statements:I. Working-capital ratios1. The ratio of current assets to current liabilities2. The ratio of cash to total current liabilities3. The ratio of cash, salable securities, notes and accounts receivable to total current liabilities4. The ratio of sales to receivables, i.e., the turnover of receivables5. The ratio of cost of goods sold to merchandise inventory, i.e., the turnover of inventory6. The ratio of accounts receivable to notes receivable7. The ratio of receivables to inventory8. The ratio of net working capital to inventory9. The ratio of notes payable to accounts payableIO. The ratio of inventory to accounts payableII. Fixed and intangible capital ratios1. The ratio of sales to fixed assets, i.e., the turnover of fixed capital2. The ratio of sales to intangible assets, i.e., the turnover of intangibles3. The ratio of annual depreciation and obsolescence charges to the assetsagainst which depreciation is written off4. The ratio of net worth to fixed assetsIII. Capitalization ratios1. The ratio of net worth to debt.2. The ratio of capital stock to total capitalization .3. The ratio of fixed assets to funded debtIV. Income and expense ratios1. The ratio of net operating profit to sales2. The ratio of net operating profit to total capital3. The ratio of sales to operating costs and expenses4. The ratio of net profit to sales5. The ratio of net profit to net worth6. The ratio of sales to financial expenses7. The ratio of borrowed capital to capital costs8. The ratio of income on investments to investments9. The ratio of non-operating income to net operating profit10. The ratio of net operating profit to non-operating expense11. The ratio of net profit to capital stock12. The ratio of net profit reinvested to total net profit available for dividends on common stock13. The ratio of profit available for interest to interest expensesThis classification of financial ratios is permanent not exhaustive. -Other ratios may be used for purposes later indicated. Furthermore, some of the ratios reflect the efficiency with which a business has used its capital while others reflect efficiency in financing capital needs. The ratios of sales to receivables, inventory, fixed and intangible capital; the ratios of net operating profit to total capital and to sales; and the ratios of sales to operating costs and expenses reflect efficiency in the use of capital.' Most of the other ratios reflect financial efficiency.B. Technique of Financial Statement AnalysisAre the statements adequate in general?-Before attempting comparative analysis of given financial statements we wish to be sure that the statements are reasonably adequate for the purpose. They should, of course, be as complete as possible. They should also be of recent date. If not, their use must be limited to the period which they cover. Conclusions concerning 1923 conditions cannot safely be based upon 1921 statements.Does the comparative balance sheet reflect a seasonable situation? If so, it is important to know financial conditions at both the high and low points of the season. We must avoid unduly favorable judgment of the business at the low point when assets are very liquid and debt is low, and unduly unfavorable judgment at the high point when assets are less liquid and debt likely to be relatively high.Does the balance sheet for any date reflect the estimated financial condition after the sale of a proposed new issue of securities? If so, in order to ascertain the actual financial condition at that date it is necessary to subtract the amount of the security issue from net worth, if the. issue is of stock, or from liabilities, if bonds are to be sold. A like amount must also be subtracted from assets or liabilities depending upon how the estimated proceeds of the issue are reflected in the statement.Are the statements audited or unaudited? It is often said that audited statements, that is, complete audits rather than statements "rubber stamped" by certified public accountants, are desirable when they can be obtained. This is true, but the statement analyst should be certain that the given auditing film's reputation is beyond reproach.Is working-capital situation favorable ?-If the comparative statements to be analyzed are reasonably adequate for the purpose, the next step is to analyze the concern's working-capital trend and position. We may begin by ascertaining the ratio of current assets to current liabilities. This ratioaffords-a test of the concern's probable ability to pay current obligations without impairing its net working capital. It is, in part, a measure of ability to borrow additional working capital or to renew short-term loans without difficulty. The larger the excess of current assets over current liabilities the smaller the risk of loss to short-term creditors and the better the credit of the business, other things being equal. A ratio of two dollars of current assets to one dollar of current liabilities is the "rule-of-thumb" ratio generally considered satisfactory, assuming all current assets are conservatively valued and all current liabilities revealed.The rule-of-thumb current ratio is not a satisfactory test ofworking-capital position and trend. A current ratio of less than two dollars for one dollar may be adequate, or a current ratio of more than two dollars for one dollar may be inadequate. It depends, for one thing, upon the liquidity of the current assets.The liquidity of current assets varies with cash position.-The larger the proportion of current assets in the form of cash the more liquid are the current assets as a whole. Generally speaking, cash should equal at least 20 per cent of total current liabilities (divide cash by total current liabilities). Bankers typically require a concern to maintain bank balances equal to 20 per cent of credit lines whether used or unused. Open-credit lines are not shown on the balance sheet, hence the total of current liabilities (instead of notes payable to banks) is used in testing cash position. Like the two-for-one current ratio, the 20 per cent cash ratio is more or less a rule-of-thumb standard.The cash balance that will be satisfactory depends upon terms of sale, terms of purchase, and upon inventory turnover. A firm selling goods for cash will find cash inflow more nearly meeting cash outflow than will a firm selling goods on credit. A business which pays cash for all purchases will need more ready money than one which buys on long terms of credit. The more rapidly the inventory is sold the more nearly will cash inflow equal cash outflow, other things equal.Needs for cash balances will be affected by the stage of the business cycle. Heavy cash balances help to sustain bank credit and pay expenses when a period of liquidation and depression depletes working capital and brings a slump in sales. The greater the effects of changes in the cycle upon a given concern the more thought the financial executive will need to give to the size of his cash balances.Differences in financial policies between different concerns will affect the size of cash balances carried. One concern may deem it good policy to carry as many open-bank lines as it can get, while another may carry only enough lines to meet reasonably certain needs for loans. The cash balance of the first firm is likely to be much larger than that of the second firm.The liquidity of current assets varies with ability to meet "acid test."- Liquidity of current assets varies with the ratio of cash, salable securities, notes and accounts receivable (less adequate reserves for bad debts), to total current liabilities (divide the total of the first four items by total current liabilities). This is the so-called "acid test" of the liquidity of current condition. A ratio of I: I is considered satisfactory since current liabilities can readily be paid and creditors risk nothing on the uncertain values of merchandise inventory. A less than 1:1 ratio may be adequate if receivables are quickly collected and if inventory is readily and quickly sold, that is, if its turnover is rapid andif the risks of changes in price are small.The liquidity of current assets varies with liquidity of receivables. This may be ascertained by dividing annual sales by average receivables or by receivables at the close of the year unless at that date receivables do not represent the normal amount of credit extended to customers. Terms of sale must be considered in judging the turnover of receivables. For example, if sales for the year are $1,200,000 and average receivables amount to $100,000, the turnover of receivables is $1,200,000/$100,000=12. Now, if credit terms to customers are net in thirty days we can see that receivables are paid promptly.Consideration should also be given market conditions and the stage of the business cycle. Terms of credit are usually longer in farming sections than in industrial centers. Collections are good in prosperous times but slow in periods of crisis and liquidation.Trends in the liquidity of receivables will also be reflected in the ratio of accounts receivable to notes receivable, in cases where goods are typically sold on open account. A decline in this ratio may indicate a lowering of credit standards since notes receivable are usually given to close overdue open accounts. If possible, a schedule of receivables should be obtained showing those not due, due, and past due thirty, sixty, and ninety days. Such a, schedule is of value in showing the efficiency of credits and collections and in explaining the trend in turnover of receivables. The more rapid the turnover of receivables the smaller the risk of loss from bad debts; the greater the savings of interest on the capital invested in receivables, and the higher the profit on total capital, other things being equal.Author(s): C. O. Hardy and S. P. Meech译文：财务报表分析A.财务比率我们需要使用财务比率来分析财务报表，比较财务报表的分析方法不能真正有效的得出想要的结果，除非采取的是研究在报表中项目与项目之间关系的形式。

公允价值的披露,告诉我更多【外文翻译】

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

关于会计的英文文献原文(带中文翻译)

The Optimization Method of Financial Statements Based on Accounting Management TheoryABSTRACTThis paper develops an approach to enhance the reliability and usefulness of financial statements. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) was fundamentally flawed by fair value accounting and asset-impairment accounting. According to legal theory and accounting theory, accounting data must have legal evidence as its source document. The conventional “mixed attribute” accounting system should be re placed by a “segregated” system with historical cost and fair value being kept strictly apart in financial statements. The proposed optimizing method will significantly enhance the reliability and usefulness of financial statements.I.. INTRODUCTIONBased on international-accounting-convergence approach, the Ministry of Finance issued the Enterprise Accounting Standards in 2006 taking the International Financial Reporting Standards (hereinafter referred to as “the International Standards”) for reference. The Enterprise Accounting Standards carries out fair value accounting successfully, and spreads the sense that accounting should reflect market value objectively. The objective of accounting reformation following-up is to establish the accounting theory and methodology which not only use international advanced theory for reference, but also accord with the needs of China's socialist market economy construction. On the basis of a thorough evaluation of the achievements and limitations of International Standards, this paper puts forward a stand that to deepen accounting reformation and enhance the stability of accounting regulations.II. OPTIMIZA TION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SYSTEM: PARALLELING LISTING OF LEGAL FACTS AND FINANCIAL EXPECTA TIONAs an important management activity, accounting should make use of information systems based on classified statistics, and serve for both micro-economic management and macro-economic regulation at the same time. Optimization of financial statements system should try to take all aspects of the demands of the financial statements in both macro and micro level into account.Why do companies need to prepare financial statements? Whose demands should be considered while preparing financial statements? Those questions are basic issues we should consider on the optimization of financial statements. From the perspective of "public interests", reliability and legal evidence are required as qualitative characters, which is the origin of the traditional "historical cost accounting". From the perspective of "private interest", security investors and financial regulatory authoritieshope that financial statements reflect changes of market prices timely recording "objective" market conditions. This is the origin of "fair value accounting". Whether one set of financial statements can be compatible with these two different views and balance the public interest and private interest? To solve this problem, we design a new balance sheet and an income statement.From 1992 to 2006, a lot of new ideas and new perspectives are introduced into China's accounting practices from international accounting standards in a gradual manner during the accounting reform in China. These ideas and perspectives enriched the understanding of the financial statements in China. These achievements deserve our full assessment and should be fully affirmed. However, academia and standard-setters are also aware that International Standards are still in the process of developing .The purpose of proposing new formats of financial statements in this paper is to push forward the accounting reform into a deeper level on the basis of international convergence.III. THE PRACTICABILITY OF IMPROVING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SYSTEMWhether the financial statements are able to maintain their stability? It is necessary to mobilize the initiatives of both supply-side and demand-side at the same time. We should consider whether financial statements could meet the demands of the macro-economic regulation and business administration, and whether they are popular with millions of accountants.Accountants are responsible for preparing financial statements and auditors are responsible for auditing. They will benefit from the implementation of the new financial statements.Firstly, for the accountants, under the isolated design of historical cost accounting and fair value accounting, their daily accounting practice is greatly simplified. Accounting process will not need assets impairment and fair value any longer. Accounting books will not record impairment and appreciation of assets any longer, for the historical cost accounting is comprehensively implemented. Fair value information will be recorded in accordance with assessment only at the balance sheet date and only in the annual financial statements. Historical cost accounting is more likely to be recognized by the tax authorities, which saves heavy workload of the tax adjustment. Accountants will not need to calculate the deferred income tax expense any longer, and the profit-after-tax in the solid line table is acknowledged by the Company Law, which solves the problem of determining the profit available for distribution.Accountants do not need to record the fair value information needed by security investors in the accounting books; instead, they only need to list the fair value information at the balance sheet date. In addition, because the data in the solid line table has legal credibility, so the legal risks of accountants can be well controlled. Secondly, the arbitrariness of the accounting process will be reduced, and the auditors’ review process will be greatly simplified. The independent auditors will not have to bear the considerable legal risk for the dotted-line table they audit, because the risk of fair value information has been prompted as "not supported by legalevidences". Accountants and auditors can quickly adapt to this financial statements system, without the need of training. In this way, they can save a lot of time to help companies to improve management efficiency. Surveys show that the above design of financial statements is popular with accountants and auditors. Since the workloads of accounting and auditing have been substantially reduced, therefore, the total expenses for auditing and evaluation will not exceed current level as well.In short, from the perspectives of both supply-side and demand-side, the improved financial statements are expected to enhance the usefulness of financial statements, without increase the burden of the supply-side.IV. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONSThe current rule of mixed presentation of fair value data and historical cost data could be improved. The core concept of fair value is to make financial statements reflect the fair value of assets and liabilities, so that we can subtract the fair value of liabilities from assets to obtain the net fair value.However, the current International Standards do not implement this concept, but try to partly transform the historical cost accounting, which leads to mixed using of impairment accounting and fair value accounting. China's accounting academic research has followed up step by step since 1980s, and now has already introduced a mixed-attributes model into corporate financial statements.By distinguishing legal facts from financial expectations, we can balance public interests and private interests and can redesign the financial statements system with enhancing management efficiency and implementing higher-level laws as main objective. By presenting fair value and historical cost in one set of financial statements at the same time, the statements will not only meet the needs of keeping books according to domestic laws, but also meet the demand from financial regulatory authorities and security investorsWe hope that practitioners and theorists offer advices and suggestions on the problem of improving the financial statements to build a financial statements system which not only meets the domestic needs, but also converges with the International Standards.基于会计管理理论的财务报表的优化方法摘要本文提供了一个方法，以提高财务报表的可靠性和实用性。

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。

外文翻译--公允价值和国际会计准则财务会计准则概念框架项目另一种观点

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

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。

会计外文翻译外文文献英文文献新会计准则

附录外文资料：On February 15, 2006, the Ministry of Finance issued 1 item of basic accounting standards and 38 specific guidelines, the new set of accounting standards system. Standards issued, the community gave wide attention, the securities industry, business circles, academic circles gave height the opinion, think this is the second in 1993 accounting reform after another is of great significance to the accounting reform, marking China's convergence with international financial reporting standards of enterprise accounting standards system formally established, to improve the China's socialist market economic system, improve the level of opening up and accelerate China's integration into the global economy has important significance.Also expressed their concerns and worries, mainly reflected in the following aspects: a fair value is difficult to "fair", and is very likely to become the profit manipulation tools; two is the enterprise may to adjust earnings manipulation debt restructuring, debt restructuring will once again become the darling of the securities market; three is the new standard published may induce "fair" phenomenon, which may lead to the end of 2006 enterprises will impairment assault back, at the same time accounts receivable impairment will still give listing Corporation profit adjustment leaves lots of space. These concerns whether it can become a reality? The new standards will become the corporate profits manipulation of the tool? Here we have to this a few worry about one to launch the analysis:A moderate, fair value applicationThe history of our country is a listing Corporation with the fair value of profit manipulation. Fair value appeared in 1998 in "debt recombines", "non monetary transactions" specific accounting standards, after the actual operation in many companies the abuse of fair value and profit manipulation in 2001 revised guidelines by the restriction of the use of. The new criterion system in financial tool, real estate investment, not the combination under common control, debt restructuring andnon-monetary transactions etc. are carefully adopted the fair value accounting standards, thus becoming the one large window. Past episodes of "story" will repeat itself? To this one problem we analyzed from the following aspects:First of all, the fair value of the assets can be achieved by using fair value valuation is the international accounting standards, the United States and most market economic countries accounting standards in general practice. International already crossed the "want" present value and fair value debate stage, and mainly in "how to use" stage; International did not because of "Enron event" appear and delay the study and adopt present value and the fair value of the process. From the beginning of 1975, 30 years, FASB on the fair value measurement system research has not stopped, the fair value in the accounting standards in the United States are used more and more widely. As of 2004, at the end of 12, FASB has released a total of 153 financial accounting standards, fair value accounting standards and related 60 (forever, 2005).Fair value has a profound theoretical basis for the ten, it accords with the economic income concept, the comprehensive income concept, cash flow and market price of accounting assumption, accounting goal, modern relevance and reliability of quality characteristics of accounting elements, essential characteristics, future basic accounting, value and value concept, measurement values and net surplus theory and financial statements of the primitive logic (Xie Sifone, 2005).The use of fair value can effectively enhance the relevance of accounting information for investors, creditors, and other stakeholders to provide more help to the information for decision making. Take the investment real estate, book 20000000 yuan, if the city price rises to $200000000 accounting should reflect 200000000 yuan, such information is really true and useful. If still persist in the statements that the 20000000 yuan, accounting treatment is simple, but this information does not help the decision-making of investors, even misleading. Any reform will not give up eating for fear of choking, accounting reform is no exception. In line with international standards is the direction, is to represent the general trend, this point is in the affirmative.Secondly, suitable for the application of the fair value of the "soil" preliminary already form. Fair value is the product of the market economy. In 2003 the Central Committee made on perfecting the socialist market economic system a number of issues, symbolizes that our country market economy already from start-up to improve, the market economy status of China has been established. The securities market of our country after ten years of development and perfection, to strengthen corporategovernance, improve operational transparency, clear violations, establishing listing Corporation integrated supervision system has made great progress. China Securities Regulatory Commission promoting the share-trading reform pilot, listing and financing program, has issued a number of regulations, strengthen the listing Corporation information disclosure and fraud and strength; the Ministry of finance to increase the quality of accounting information and the CPA audit quality inspection; listing Corporation governance level rises further, CPA, assets assessment division, independent directors such as rational economic choice for listing Corporation irregularities built several "firewall"; the majority of investors in the analysis of accounting information to judge, effective screening capacity is enhanced, the effectiveness of the securities market gradually improve. In addition, after joining the WTO, large amount of foreign capital into China, financial derivatives trading activity, produce a number, different features of derivative financial instruments, such as futures (Futures), option (Options), forward contract (Forwards Contract), swap (Swaps) etc.. As the derivative financial instruments no initial net investment is required, or very few requirements of net investment, the historical cost of its incapable of action, only the fair value to carry on the accurate recognition and measurement..FASl33 stated: fair value measurement of financial instruments is the best measurement attribute, the derivative financial instruments, fair value measurement attribute is the only. Potential of time shift, which contributes to the application of the fair value of the environment is preliminary already implementation. We must adopt the development strategy view ", not" once bitten, twice shy of ten years".In third, the fair value of the criteria in the new application is more cautious, does not lead to abuse. Compared with international financial reporting standards: China accounting standards system in determining the scope of the application of fair value, the more fully consider China's national conditions, the improvement was prudent. The use of fair value must satisfy certain conditions, in the basic guidelines in section forty-third clearly pointed out that the replacement cost, net realizable value of, present value, fair value, should be to ensure that the identified elements of accounting amounts can be obtained and the reliable measurement. In relation to specific standards, the use of fair value measurement, has clearly defined constraints. For example, in real estate investment criteria specified by the fair value measurement model, the following conditions shall be met simultaneously: one is the investmentproperty real estate located in active trading market of real estate; two is the enterprise can from the real estate trading market on the same or similar real estate market prices and other information, thus the investment real estate to make a reasonable estimate of fair value.Visible in the investing real estate standards, ban contains more hypothetical valuation techniques used, only in a certain reliability on the basis that the use of fair value, and not all of the investment real estate can be applied the fair value. So as long as the strictly in accordance with the standards, fair value will really be fair.For instance in non monetary transactions for the use of fair value, the new standards in exchange of non-monetary assets, fair value and change the carrying value of the assets included in the current profits and losses of the difference between the two conditions, namely the exchange must be commercial in nature, and a change of assets or the fair value of the assets surrendered can be measured reliably. Commercial essence refers to, must be changed in the future cash flow of the assets at risk, time and amount of assets surrendered and were significantly different, or substitution of assets and the assets surrendered the present value of estimated future cash flows are different, and the difference between the assets and the change of the fair value of the assets is more significant than the. The new guidelines are also provided to determine whether is commercial in nature, an enterprise shall pay attention to whether or not the transacting parties are related party relationship. Related party relationship may lead to the occurrence of non monetary assets exchange is not commercial in nature. These preconditions, will effectively restricted to non monetary assets exchange way of earnings manipulation behavior. From these rules, we can see that, the application of fair value is strictly restricted conditions, the fair value is not allowed to abuse.The new standards require that the fair value to "reliable" and not "just, fair value estimate" is no longer the eraser ruler. The author thinks, fair value to be profit manipulation tools need to also have three elements: the listing Corporation management deliberate fraud, accounting audit staff lose occupation moral and securities market regulatory failure. In fact with the three elements, any system can effectively play a protective role, therefore, establishing and perfecting accounting standards supporting management system is urgent.Two, the debt restructuring reform from the bottomThe new debt restructuring guidelines stipulated in debt restructuring gains can be included in the current profits and losses. As a debtor's listing Corporation, the new debt restructuring guidelines means that, once the creditor concessions, listing Corporation acquired interests will be directly included in the current income, into a profit report. Debt restructuring is likely to increase profits, improve earnings per share. But this approach achieved with the international convergence of financial reporting standards, reflects the essence of transaction debt restructuring, debt restructuring gains is after all the creditors rather than owners concessions, the past will not pass the profit and loss statement directly included in the capital reserve, it is under the special background of a matter of expediency, now be included in the profit and loss, is not "white" the "black", but the reform from the bottom. The new guidelines on the definition of debt restructuring, made clear only in "the debtor's financial difficulties." the premise condition, can get debt concession confirmed as debt restructuring gains. This condition will be restricted to a certain extent, the new guidelines on abuse, prevent inappropriate acknowledgement of debt reorganization gains.Some people think that some affiliates can also through a remit a debt, a high performance to price manipulation, insider trading, is still small shareholders suffered losses. In fact, this fear is a bit much. This is because, first, for *ST and ST company, fantasy on debt restructuring benefit, reaching for the stars is futile. Because the 2004 amendment of the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchange rules, one is freed, after deducting non-recurring profits and losses, net profit is positive. Debt restructuring to listing Corporation profits, in actual accountant operation, will be included in operating income, which belongs to the non-recurring profit and loss, thus can in St, the stars are deducted from; second, has experienced more than 10 years of stock market investors' groundless talk, analysis and judgment ability and self protection consciousness had very big rise, debt restructuring guidelines requiring companies to disclose the fair value of the methods and basis for the ascertainment, investors can easily recognize the debt restructuring packaging profits, in order to make a rational choice .Investors blindly follow Zhuang, slaughter age has gone for ever.In three, the impairment of Chinese characteristicsNew guidelines for asset impairment provisions, asset impairment loss is confirmed, in the later period may not be back. It is based on the real situation of our country, last ditch of major change, it is with international accounting standards, with substantial differences in the. New guidelines for asset impairment will effectively curb the use impairment as a "secret reserve" adjusting profit situation. Guidelines for the implementation, use impairment adjusting profit space will become more and more small, the provision of manual adjustment of profits will be more and more difficult. Some people write civil point out new guidelines for asset impairment induced by releasing will "go" phenomenon, cause some "hidden profits" of the industry and Related Companies, possible impairment in 2006 will be ready to strike back, "crow change Phoenix" may reproduce. We analyze, first of all, if the listing Corporation snatches in the new guidelines before the implementation of the 2006 year rushs impairment, we must first examine whether such actions are the reasonable basis, namely the original has provision for the impairment of an asset value now is really picks up, and if so, to adjust the asset value will make the accounting information more real, related; secondly, in 2006 large red back impairment must make appropriate evidence of the original provision for the impairment of appropriateness, otherwise the previous provision is the abuse of accounting estimation results, should be in accordance with the accounting error handling, a reversal of impairment cannot be used as the 2006 annual profit. Moreover, the financial sector has been aware of this problem, and takes positive and effective measures, prevent the assault to adjust profit listing Corporation. In addition, some time ago the market that new guidelines will make A shares listing Corporation in 2006 to increase net profit 20000000000 Yuan hearsay, the survey is author's subjective, concerned media specially clarification.Others receivables and other four impairment expressed worry, think accounts receivable (especially the "shareholders of account") will become the "eight project" of the main means of profit manipulation. In fact, in the new guidelines, receivables is as financial assets, and the depreciation detailed provisions, requires that there must be "objective evidence" of impairment to provision for impairment, such evidence includes the debtor serious financial difficulties, is likely to fail or other financial restructuring. Can be said that the criterion is more and more perfect, then the "this year that cannot take back full provision, next year 'efforts' and back", this "to practice deception" approach, which itself has violated rules, to pass the CPA audit and hidfrom investors eye, I'm afraid some difficulty.Through the above analysis, we can see some people on the new criterion a few concerns, many in reality does not exist, or is in the process of the reform of the price to be paid for, and far from their imagination so serious. But these concerns also remind standards departments in the formulation of standards to the full attention of guidelines for the technical and economic consequences, in the setting of the new guidelines in the process, give full consideration to guideline implementation may arise in the course of the various problems, and further make a specific interpretation and explanation, improving guidelines operation, improve accounting information quality.Also need to point out in particular, accounting standards is a production of accounting information of the specification, it is to solve the problem of "how to do". On the accounting standards of the malicious misuse of guidelines for the implementation of the "people", from the perspective of the listing Corporation is the ecological problems, to strengthen supervision, occupation moral construction, improve the ability of investors screening accounting information system engineering to solve, cannot be attributed to the guidelines themselves. And the new accounting and auditing standards system come on stage; it is to promote the improvement of listing Corporation governance ecology effective measure. Say from this meaning, we are not going to worry about me, but "criteria for the beat and breathe out".Note: ① according to the "Shanghai Stock Exchange Listing Rules (2004 Revision)" provisions, *ST indicated the presence of terminating the listing of special processing and ST risk for other special treatment.Main referencesMinistry of finance. In 2006 accounting standards for business enterprises. Economic Science PressYu Monishing. The 2005 fair value in the United States of America's application research. Financial theory, 9Xie Stiffen, wearing Zili.2005 present value and fair value accounting: financial reform is the important premise of twenty-first Century. Theory and practice of Finance and economics, 9中文资料：2006年2月15日，财政部发布了包括1项基本准则和38项具体准则在内的新的一整套企业会计准则体系。

公允价值的解释及其利益关系[外文翻译]

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

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)。

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。

例如，关于第3号准则第16段企业合并的指南中公允价值计量的客体就与企业合并中所涉及的项目如税项资产、税项负债和特定收益计划中的员工福利经资产或负债不一致。

此外，一些准则包含了计量的可靠性的标准。

例如国际会计准则第16号固定资产中只有在公允价值能可靠确定时才可以使用公允模式计量。

此项规定一点也不会改变指南中的相关部分。

并且指南将会被逐项地探讨。

然而，国际会计准则理事会打算用公允价值计量项目对于目前没有定义的项目编写指南。

如第17号准则租赁协议，同时也是把指南中没有清晰表述的计量客体进行统一。

由于美国财务会计准则第157号单一来源的指南和单一的主体，而这个主体适用于所有公允价值的计量，国际会计准则理事会就最初的观点达成一致意见，那就是美国财务会计准则第157号对国际财务报告准则中不同指南的进行了改进。

2.美国财务会计准则和国际财务报告准则在公允价值定义方面的不同之处美国会计准则第157号第5段把公允价值定义为“在发生日一项合理交易中参与者能接受的卖出资产或转移负债的价格。

”通过比较，在美国会计准则中公允价值的定义通常为：“理性的、有交易意向的参与者在一系列正常交易中愿意交换资产或转移负债的价格（与准则原文在表达上略有不同）。

”美国会计准则第157号在以下三个方面与国际财务报告准则有实质性差异：1）美国财务会计准则第157号对于公允价值明确地说它是一个卖出价，而国际财务报告准则既没有说公允价值是一个卖出价，也没有说它是买入价。

2）美国财务会计准则第157号的定义指明了市场参与者，而国际财务报告准则的定义中说的是在一系列正常交易中理性的、有意愿的参与方。

3）对于负债，美国会计准则第157号的定义意在指明负债的转移（负债对于交易的另一方仍然存在，并不是负债有对方偿还），国际财务报告准则主要指明的是哪些负债能够在一系列正常交易中被理性的、有交易意向的参与者偿还。

2.1卖出价值的计量主体从持有资产或负有负债的参与者的角度看，在交易日假定一项交易是为了卖出资产或转移负债。

因此公允价值计量的主体就是在交易日决定买入资产或转移负债能被交易对方接受的价格，即卖出价值。

美国财务会计准则委员会认为以卖出价作为计量主题更适合，因为在市场参与者的角度来说它使对于与资产有关的未来现金流入和与负债有关的现金流出具体化。

对于流入与流出概念的强调也符合美国财务会计准则中概念准则的第6条财务要素注解中关于资产和负债的定义。

概念准则的第六条第25段中定义了资产的未来现金流入，第35段中定义了负债的未来现金流出。

国际财务报告准则的第49条财务报表的编制基础中类似地定义了经济利益方面的资产未来现金流入和负债现金流出量。

大部分国际会计准则理事会的成员认为以卖出价作为公允价值计量主体与这些定义是一致的并且是恰当的，因为它反映了以市场为基础的对经济利益流入或流出的预期。

其他成员同意这种观点，但是在他们看来卖出价也反映了对于经济利益流入或流出企业的预期。

因此，他们认为应该把“公允价值”替换为其他更能反映计量属性概念，例如“现行买入价”或“现有卖出价”。

在美国财务会计准则第157号中对于一个买入价的计量主体与卖出价的计量主体的规定有所不同。

买入价定义为交易日在一项合理的交易中市场参与者为购入一项资产或承担一项负债所付出的金额。

某些成员假设不考虑交易成本，买入价和卖出价在同一市场的价格相同。

然而，企业可能在一个市场买入一项资产或承担一项负债而在另一个市场卖出资产或转移负债。

在这种情况下，美国财务会计准则第157号中的卖出价可能与买入价不同。

在国际财务报告准则中规定的公允价值计量原则可能与卖出价的计量主体不一致。

特别地，国际会计准则委员会认为这可能是公允价值初始计量的情形，例如：1)国际财务报告准则第3号。

2)国际会计准则第17号租赁合同下融资租赁的资产和负债的初始确认。

3)国际会计准则第39号金融工具：某些金融资产和金融负债的初始确认和计量。

在披露草案的修订过程中，国际会计准则理事会可能会提出公允价值修改后的定义。

这样一来，它将完成对于公允价值计量在国际财务报告准则中的逐条审核。

这样做的目的在于评估每条标准规定的公允价值计量主体是否与准则给出的定义相一致。

如果国际会计理事会得出在特定标准下既定的计量主体与给出公允价值的定义不相一致，或者披露草案的范围又或是既定的计量主体把标准排除在外，则标准将被公允价值以外的概念重述（例如现行买入价）。

为了协助审核，国际会计理事会需要理解国际财务报告准则的公允价值计量指南在实务当中是如何运用的。

因此它要求被调查者去识别国际财务报告准则中的这些公允价值计量在实务中哪些方面与美国财务会计准则第157号有不同。

2.2市场参与者的看法美国财务会计准则第157号强调公允价值计量是以市场价为基础的计量，并不是针对某一家企业进行的计量。

因此，公允价值计量应当基于一个假设，那就是市场参与者是使用一项资产或负债的市场价格。

此外，即使没有活跃市场或市场活动受限，公允价值的计量目标仍是一致的：去判定交易价格。

这个交易价格是在合理交易中被市场参与者接受的卖出资产或转移负债的价格,不管企业是否有卖出资产或转移负债的能力和意图。

美国财务会计准则第157号第10段定义市场参与者作为资金市场上的买者或卖者是：1)不依赖报告个体，即他们不是关联方；2)理性的, 有关于财产或负债的合理理解和交易事项基于所有的可得数据, 包括通过应有的合理方式和习惯而取得的数据。

3)能够为持有财产或承担负债办理。

4)愿意持有财产或承担负债; 即他们是主动的而不是强迫这么做。

通过比较，公允价值在国际财务报告准则中的定义设计是“在一系列正常交易中理性的、有意向的第三方”为国际会计准则第40号第42至44段投资性房地产的定义提供了具体解释。

公允价值的定义中所指的“理性的、有意向的第三方”，在文中“理性的”意味者投资性房地产的买房和卖方对于其的属性和特征的信息是对称的，并且在资产负债表日它的实际和潜在的使用年限和市场行情双方都能获取合理信息。

有意向的购买者指的是购买者是资源的而不是被迫的。

潜在的购买者不会出比理智的、有意向的购买者更高的价格。

有意向的卖方不是急于卖出资产或受迫的卖方，这样的卖方打算以随意的价格卖出资产，或者不去考虑现有市场的合理价格。

有意向的卖方是以一个可得到的合理的价格自愿卖出投资性房地产的卖方。

实际情况中，处理投资性房地产的所有者不必做这些考虑，有意向的卖方只是假定的左右者。

（例如有意向的卖方不必考虑为投资性房地产的所有者考虑特定资源税。

）公允价值的定义设计的一系列合理的交易是一方与多方之间不存在特殊的关联方关系，交易是在不存在任何关联关系的独立各方之间进行的。

国际会计准则理事会最初的看法是市场参与者的看法通常与在国际财务报告中叙述合理的有意向的相关方的一系列合理交易的概念是一致的。

然而，在国际会计准则理事会看来，被提议的定义将更清楚地在国际财务报告准则中体现。

3.公允价值会计的应用和实施的障碍这一直是一个有争议的问题。

即是否继续使用传统历史成本会计措施还是选择使用公允价值作为计量基础,并且反对者和支持者就这一问题提出了几点质疑。

国际会计标准第39号(第9段)把公允价值定义为：在一项公平交易中，熟悉情况并且自愿交易的双方交换一项资产或清偿一基本原则债务所使用的金额。

3.1对于公允价值的理解虽然在理论上看起来比较简单, 但在实践中这个定义需要进一步的理解。

学者Barth 和Landsman认为,它可以被应用在完全竞争市场上,但事实并非总是如此。

公允价值会计准则的应用应遵循三个步骤。

市场价格是公允价值的最佳估计。

第二个最佳选择,在找不到所计量项目的市场价格或市场信息质量不高的情况下，可以使用所计量项目类似项目的市场价格作为其公允价值。

最后，如果以上两种价格都得不到的话，应当考虑采用适当的估价技术来确定资产或负债的公允价值。

因此,确定公允价值可能是通过使用几种不同的方法,包括发公布的市场价格,未来现金流贴现或估值方法。

最近发布的国际财务报告准则第9号准则的提案对金融工具的公允价值在交易成本可以被合理估计的情况下公允价值的计量做出指导。

（例如在在广泛意义上存在计量公允价值的可能性并且在这个范围内成本可以提供对公允价值的最佳估计值，但更近一步用来确定公允价值的信息是不充分的）。

国际财务报表告准则第9号准则还规定了不能成为最佳估计数的成本标准。

这些标准包含了预期投资者的重大转变，市场上投资产品的重大转变或是投资的经济环境的重大变化。

很多关于公允价值会计的争论在其辩论过程中已有暗示。

会计学文献中涵盖了相关学者的观点，即历史成本法与决策无关，因此需要有更好的方法来取而代之。

财务会计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

外文翻译--公允价值会计和经融危机：信差还是贡献者

会计学财务报表中英文对照外文翻译文献

会计公允价值 财务外文翻译 3000多字译文 2013年

公允价值会计外文文献翻译财务2014年译文3200字

论公允价值在我国的运用的外文资料与中文翻译

公允价值外文文献1

外文翻译--公允价值会计,金融经济和可靠性重塑

公允价值 外文文献

财务报表分析中英文对照外文翻译文献

公允价值的披露,告诉我更多【外文翻译】

关于会计的英文文献原文(带中文翻译)

公允价值外文文献

外文翻译--公允价值和国际会计准则 财务会计准则概念框架项目另一种观点

外文翻译--公允价值会计

会计 外文翻译 外文文献 英文文献 新会计准则

公允价值的解释及其利益关系[外文翻译]

会计公允价值财务外文翻译 3000多字译文 2013年

公允价值外文文献

外文翻译--公允价值和国际会计准则财务会计准则概念框架项目另一种观点

会计外文翻译外文文献英文文献新会计准则