会计稳健性外文翻译---会计稳健性的第一篇：解释和意义
会计准则外文文献翻译-财务会计专业
会计准那么外文文献及翻译-财务会计专业(含：英文原文及中文译文)文献出处：Buschhüter M, Striegel A. IAS 37 – Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets[M]// Kommentar Internationale Rechnungslegung IFRS. Gabler, 2021:955-974.英文原文Accounting Standard (AS) 37Contingent Liabilities and Contingent AssetsBuschhüter M, Striegel AThis International Accounting Standard was approved by the IASC Board in July 1998 and became effective for financial statements covering periods beginning on or after 1 July 1999.Introduction1. IAS 37 prescribes the accounting and disclosure for all provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets, except:(a) those resulting from financial instruments that are carried at fair value;(b) those resulting from executory contracts, except where the contract is onerous. Executory contracts are contracts under which neither party has performed any of its obligations or both parties have partially performed their obligations to an equal extent;(c) those arising in insurance enterprises from contracts with policyholders;(d) those covered by another International Accounting Standard. Provisions2. The Standard defines provisions as liabilities of uncertain timing or amount. A provision should be recognised when, and only when:(a) an enterprise has a present obligation (legal or constructive) as a result of a past event; (b) it is probable (i.e. more likely than not) that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation;(c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. The Standard notes that it is only in extremely rare cases that a reliable estimate will not be possible.3. The Standard defines a constructive obligation as an obligation that derives from an enterprise's actions where:(a) by an established pattern of past practice, published policies or a sufficiently specific current statement, the enterprise has indicated to other parties that it will accept certain responsibilities; (b) as a result, the enterprise has created a valid expectation on the part of those other parties that it will discharge those responsibilities.4. In rare cases, for example in a law suit, it may not be clear whether an enterprise has a present obligation. In these cases, a past event is deemed to give rise to a present obligation if, taking account of all available evidence, it is more likely than not that a present obligation exists at thebalance sheet date. An enterprise recognises a provision for that present obligation if the other recognition criteria described above are met. If it is more likely than not that no present obligation exists, the enterprise discloses a contingent liability, unless the possibility of an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits is remote.5. The amount recognized as a provision should be the best estimate of the expenditu required to settle the present obligation at the balance sheet date, in other words, the amount that an enterprise would rationally pay to settle the obligation at the balance sheet date or to transfer it to a third party at that time.6. The Standard requires that an enterprise should, in measuring a provision: (a) take risks and uncertainties into account. However, uncertainty does not justify the creation of excessive provisions or a deliberate overstatement of liabilities;(b) discount the provisions, where the effect of the time value of money is material, using a pre-tax discount rate (or rates) that reflect(s) current market assessments of the time value of money and those risks specific to the liability that have not been reflected in the best estimate of the expenditure. Where discounting is used, the increase in the provision due to the passage of time is recognised as an interest expense;(c) take future events, such as changes in the law and technological changes, into account where there is sufficient objective evidence thatthey will occur; and(d) not take gains from the expected disposal of assets into account, even if the expected disposal is closely linked to the event giving rise to the provision.7. An enterprise may expect reimbursement of some or all of the expenditure required to settle a provision (for example, through insurance contracts, indemnity clauses or suppliers' warranties). An enterprise should:(a) recognise a reimbursement when, and only when, it is virtually certain that reimbursement will be received if the enterprise settles the obligation. The amount recognised for the reimbursement should not exceed the amount of the provision; and(b) recognise the reimbursement as a separate asset. In the income statement, the expense relating to a provision may be presented net of the amount recognised for a reimbursement. 8. Provisions should be reviewed at each balance sheet date and adjusted reflect thecurrent best estimate. If it is no longer probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation, the provisioshould be reversed.9. A provision should be used only for expenditures for which the provision was originally recognised.Provisions - Specific Applications10. The Standard explains how the general recognition and measurement requirements for provisions should be applied in three specific cases: future operating losses; onerous contracts; and restructurings. Contingent Liabilities11. An enterprise should not recognise a contingent liability. , unless the12. A contingent liability is disclosed, as required by paragraph 86possibility of an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits is remote.13. Where an enterprise is jointly and severally liable for an obligation, the part of tobligation that is expected to be met by other parties is treated as a contingentThe enterprise recognises a provision for the part of the obligation for which an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits is probable, except in the extremely rare circumstances where no reliable estimate can be made.14. Contingent liabilities may develop in a way not initially expected. Therefore, theare assessed continually to determine whether an outflow of resources embodying probable. If it becomes probable that an outflow of economic benefits has become future economic benefits will be required for an item previously dealt with as a contingent liability, a provision is recognised in the financial statements of the period in which the change in probability occurs (except in the extremely rare circumstances where no reliable estimate can be made).Contingent Assets15. An enterprise should not recognise a contingent asset.16. Contingent assets usually arise from unplanned or other unexpected events that give rise to the possibility of an inflow of economic benefits to the enterprise. An example is a claim that an enterprise is pursuing through legal processes, where the outcome is uncertain. 17. Contingent assets are not recognised in financial statements since this may result in the recognition of income that may never be realised. However, when the realisation of income is virtually certain, then the related asset is not a contingent asset and its recognition is appropriate. 18. A contingent asset is disclosed, as required by paragraph 89 economic benefits is probable.19. Contingent assets are assessed continually to ensure that developments are appropriately reflected in the financial statements. If it has become virtually certain that an inflow of economic benefits will arise, the asset and the related income are recognised in the financial statements of the period in which the change occurs. If an inflow of economic benefits has become probable, an enterprise discloses the contingent asset.Measurement20. The amount recognised as a provision should be the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation at the balance sheet date.21. The best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation is the amount that an enterprise would rationally pay to settle the obligation at the balance sheet date or to transfer it to a third party at that time. It will often be impossible or prohibitively expensive to settle or transfer an obligation at the balance sheet date. However, the estimate of the amount that an enterprise would rationally pay to settle or transfer the obligation gives the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation at the balance sheet date. 22. The estimates of outcome and financial effect are determined by the judgement of the management of the enterprise, supplemented by experience of similar transactions and, in some cases, reports from independent experts. The evidence considered23. Uncertainties surrounding the amount to be recognised as a provision are dealt with by various means according to the circumstances. Where the provision being measured involves a large population of items, the obligation is estimated by weighting all possible outcomes by their associated probabilities. The name for thistatistical method of estimation is 'expected value'. The provision will therefore be different depending on whether the probability of a loss of a given amount is, for example, 60 per cent or 90 per cent. Where there is a continuous range of possible outcomes, and each point in that range is as likely as any other, the mid-point of thrange is used. 24. Where a single obligation is beingmeasured, the individual most likely outcome may be the best estimate of the liability. However, even in such a case, the enterprise considers other possible outcomes. Where other possible outcomes are either mostly higher or mostly lower than the most likely outcome, the best estimate will be a higher or lower amount. For example, if an enterprise has to rectify a serious fault in a major plant that it has constructed for a customer, the individual most likely outcome may be for the repair to succeed at the first attempt at a cost of1,000, but a provision for a larger amount is made if there is a significant chance that further attempts will be necessary.25. The provision is measured before tax, as the tax consequences of the provision, , Income Taxes. and changes in it, are dealt with under IAS 12,Income Taxes.Risks and Uncertainties26. The risks and uncertainties that inevitably surround many events and the best estimate of a circumstances should be taken into account in reachin the best estmeate of a provision.27. Risk describes variability of outcome. A risk adjustment may increase the amount at which a liability is measured. Caution is needed in making judgements under conditions of uncertainty, so that income or assets are not overstated and expenses or liabilities are not understated. However, uncertainty does not justify the creation of excessive provisions or adeliberate overstatement of liabilities. For example, if the projected costs of a particularly adverse outcome are estimated on a prudent basis, that outcome is not then deliberately treated as more probable than is realistically the case. Care is needed to avoid duplicating adjustments for risk and uncertainty with consequent overstatement of a provision. Present Value28. Where the effect of the time value of money is material, the amount ofa provision should be the present value of the expenditures expected to be required to settle the obligation.29. The discount rate (or rates) should be a pre-tax rate (or rates) that reflect(s) current market assessments of the time value of money and the risks specific to the liability. The discount rate(s) should not reflect risks for which future cash flow estimates have been adjusted. Future Events 30. Future events that may affect the amount required to settle an obligation should be reflected in the amount of a provision where there is sufficient objective evidence that they will occur.31. Expected future events may be particularly important in measuring provisions. For example, an enterprise may believe that the cost of cleaning up a site at the end of its life will be reduced by future changes in technology. The amount recognised reflects a reasonable expectation of technically qualified, objective observers, taking account of all available evidence as to the technology that will be available at the time of theclean-up. Thus it is appropriate to include, for example, expected cost reductions associated with increased experience in applying existing technology or the expected cost of applying existing technology to a larger or more complex clean-up operation than has previously been carried out. However, an enterprise does not anticipate the new technology for cleaning up unless it is supported by development of a completel sufficient objective evidence.32. The effect of possible new legislation is taken into consideration in measuring an existing obligation when sufficient objective evidence exists that the legislation is virtually certain to beenacted. The variety of circumstances that arise in practice makes it impossible to specify a single event that will provide sufficient, objective evidence in every case. Evidence is required both of what legislation will demand and of whether it is virtually certain to be enacted and implemented in due course. In many cases sufficient objective evidence will not exist until the new legislation is enacted.Expected Disposal of Assets33. Gains from the expected disposal of assets should not be taken into account in measuring a provision.34. Gains on the expected disposal of assets are not taken into account in measuring a provision, even if the expected disposal is closely linked to the event giving rise to the provision. Instead, an enterprise recognisesgains on expected disposals of assets at the time specified by the International Accounting Standard dealing with the assets concerned. Reimbursements35. Where some or all of the expenditure required to settle a provision is expected to be reimbursed by another party, the reimbursement should be recognised when, and only when, it is virtually certain that reimbursement will be received if the enterprise settles the obligation. The reimbursement should be treated as a separate asset. The amount recognised for the reimbursement should not exceed the amount of the provision.36. In the income statement, the expense relating to a provision may be presented net of the amount recognised for a reimbursement.37. Sometimes, an enterprise is able to look to another party to pay part or all of the expenditure required to settle a provision (for example, through insurance contracts, indemnity clauses or suppliers' warranties). The other party may either reimburse amounts paid by the enterprise or pay the amounts directly.38. In most cases the enterprise will remain liable for the whole of the amount in question so that the enterprise would have to settle the full amount if the third party failed to pay for any reason. In this situation, a provision is recognised for the full amount of the liability, and a separate asset for the expected reimbursement is recognised when it is virtuallycertain that reimbursement will be received if the enterprise settles the liability.39. In some cases, the enterprise will not be liable for the costs in question if the third party fails to pay. In such a case the enterprise has no liability for those costs and they are not included in the provision.40. As noted in paragraph 29,severally liable is a contingent liability to the extent that it is expected that the obligation will be settled by the other parties.Changes in Provisions41. Provisions should be reviewed at each balance sheet date and adjusted to reflect the current best estimate. If it is no longer probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation, the provision should be reversed.42. Where discounting is used, the carrying amount of a provision increases in each period to reflect the passage of time. This increase is recognised as borrowing cost.Use of Provisions43. A provision should be used only for expenditures for which the provision was originally recognised.44. Only expenditures that relate to the original provision are set against it. Setting expenditures against a provision that was originally recognised for another purpose would conceal the impact of two different events.Future Operating Losses45. Provisions should not be recognised for future operating losses.46. Future operating losses do not meet the definition of a liability in paragraph 10.the general recognition criteria set out for provisions in paragraph 1447. An expectation of future operating losses is an indication that certain assets of the operation may be impaired. An enterprise tests these assets for impairment under IAS 36, Impairment of Assets.Onerous Contracts48. If an enterprise has a contract that is onerous, the present obligation under the contract should be recognised and measured as a provision. 49. Many contracts (for example, some routine purchase orders) can be cancelled without paying compensation to the other party, and therefore there is no obligation. Other contracts establish both rights and obligations for each of the contracting parties. Where events make such a contract onerous, the contract falls within the scope of this Standard and a liability exists which is recognised. Executory contracts that are not onerous fall outside the scope of this Standard. 50. This Standard defines an onerous contract as a contract in which the unavoidable costs of meeting the obligations under the contract exceed the economic benefits expected to be received under it. The unavoidable costs under a contract reflect the least net cost of exiting from the contract, which is the lower ofthe cost of fulfilling it and any compensation or penalties arising from failure to fulfil it.51. Before a separate provision for an onerous contract is established, an enterprise recognises any impairment loss that has occurred on assets dedicated to that contract(see IAS 36, Impairment of Assets). Restructuring52. The following are examples of events that may fall under the definition of restructuring: (a) sale or termination of a line of business; (b) the closure of business locations in a country or region or the relocation of business activities from one country or region to another; (c) changes in management structure, for example, eliminating a layer of management; (d) fundamental reorganisations that have a material effect on the nature and focus of the enterprise's operations.53. A provision for restructuring costs is recognised only when the general recognition are met. Paragraphs 72-83 set out how criteria for provisions set out in paragraph 14the general recognition criteria apply to restructurings.54. A constructive obligation to restructure arises only when an enterprise:(a) has a detailed formal plan for the restructuring identifying at least: (i) the business or part of a business concerned;(ii) the principal locations affected;(iii) the location, function, and approximate number of employees whowill be compensated for terminating their services;(iv) the expenditures that will be undertaken;(v) when the plan will be implemented;(b) has raised a valid expectation in those affected that it will carry out the restructuring by starting to implement that plan or announcing its main features to those affected by it. . Evidence that an enterprise has started to implement a restructuring plan would be provided, 55for example, by dismantling plant or selling assets or by the public announcement of the main features of the plan. A public announcement of a detailed plan to restructure constitutes a constructive obligation to restructure only if it is made in such a way and in sufficient detail (i.e. setting out the main features of the plan) that it gives rise to valid expectations in other parties such as customers, suppliers and employees (or their representatives) that the enterprise will carry out the restructuring.56. For a plan to be sufficient to give rise to a constructive obligation when communicated to those affected by it, its implementation needs to be planned to begin as soon as possible and to be completed in a timeframe that makes significant changes to the plan unlikely. If it is expected that there will be a long delay before the restructuring begins or that the restructuring will take an unreasonably long time, it is unlikely that the plan will raise a valid expectation on the part of others that theenterprise is at present committed to restructuring, because the timeframe allows opportunities for the enterprise to change its plans.57. A management or board decision to restructure taken before the balance sheet date does not give rise to a constructive obligation at the balance sheet date unless the enterprise has, before the balance sheet date:(a) started to implement the restructuring plan;(b) announced the main features of the restructuring plan to those affected by it in a sufficiently specific manner to raise a valid expectation in them that the enterprise will carry out the restructuring. In some cases, an enterprise starts to implement a restructuring plan, or announces its main features to those affected, only after the balance sheet date. Disclosure may be , Events After the Balance Sheet Date, if the restructuring is of required under IAS 10 such importance that its non-disclosure would affect the ability of the users of the financial statements to make proper evaluations and decisions.58. Although a constructive obligation is not created solely by a management decision, an obligation may result from other earlier events together with such a decision. For example, negotiations with employee representatives for termination payments, or with purchasers for the sale of an operation, may have been concluded subject only to board approval. Once that approval has been obtained and communicated to the other parties, the enterprise has a constructive obligation to restructure, if theconditions of paragraph 72 are met.. 59. In some countries, the ultimate authority is vested in a board whose membership gement (e.g. employees) includes representatives of interests other than those of managment.or notification to such representatives may be necessary before the board decision is taken. Because a decision by such a board involves communication to these representatives, it may result in a constructive obligation to restructure.60. No obligation arises for the sale of an operation until the enterprise is committed to the sale, i.e. there is a binding sale agreement.61. Even when an enterprise has taken a decision to sell an operation and announced that decision publicly, it cannot be committed to the sale until a purchaser has been identified and there is a binding sale agreement. Until there is a binding sale agreement, the enterprise will be able to change its mind and indeed will have to take another course of action if a purchaser cannot be found on acceptable terms. When the sale of an operation is envisaged as part of a restructuring, the assets of the operation , Impairment of Assets. When a sale is only are reviewed for impairme-ent under IAS 36part of a restructuring, a constructive obligation can arise for the other parts of the restructuring before a binding sale agreement exists.62. A restructuring provision should include only the direct expenditures arising form the restrict-uring,which are those that are both:(a) necessarily entailed by the restructuring; and(b) not associated with the ongoing activities of the enterprise.63. A restructuring provision does not include such costs as:(a) retraining or relocating continuing staff;(b) marketing; or(c) investment in new systems and distribution networks.These expenditures relate to the future conduct of the business and are not liabilities for restructuring at the balance sheet date. Such expenditures are recognised on the same basis as if they arose independently of a restructuring.64. Identifiable future operating losses up to the date of a restructuring are not included in a provision, unless they relate to an onerous contract as defined in paragraph 10. , gains on the expected disposal of assets are not taken65. As required by paragraph 51into account in measuring a restructuring provision, even if the sale of assets is envisaged as part of the restructuring.Disclosure66. For each class of provision, an enterprise should disclose:(a) the carrying amount at the beginning and end of the period;(b) additional provisions made in the period, including increases toexisting provisions; (c) amounts used (i.e. incurred and charged against the provision) during the period; (d) unused amounts reversed during the period; and(e) the increase during the period in the discounted amount arising from the passage of time and the effect of any change in the discount rate. Comparative information is not required67. An enterprise should disclose the following for each class of provision:(a) a brief description of the nature of the obligation and the expected timing of any resulting outflows of economic benefits;(b) an indication of the uncertainties about the amount or timing of those outflows. Where necessary to provide adequate information, an enterprise should disclose the major assumptions made concerning future events, as addressed in paragraph 48(c) the amount of any expected reimbursement, stating the amount of any asset that has been recognised for that expected reimbursement.68. Unless the possibility of any outflow in settlement is remote, an enterprise should disclose for each class of contingent liability at the balance sheet date a brief description of the nature of the contingent liability and, where practicable:;(a) an estimate of its financial effect, measured under paragraphs 36(b) an indication of the uncertainties relating to the amount or timing of any outflow; (c) the possibility of any reimbursement.69. In determining which provisions or contingent liabilities may be aggregated to form a class, it is necessary to consider whether the nature of the items is sufficiently similar for a single statement about them to fulfil the requirements of paragraphs 85(a)and (b) and 86(a) and (b). Thus, it may be appropriate to treat as a single class of provision amounts relating to warranties of different products, but it would not be appropriate to treat as a single class amounts relating to normal warranties and amounts that are subject to legal proceedings.70. Where a provision and a contingent liability arise from the same set of -86 in a circumstances, an enterprise makes the disclosures required by paragraphs 84 that shows the link between the provision and the contingent liability.71. Where an inflow of economic benefits is probable, an enterprise should disclose a brief description of the nature of the contingent assets at the balance sheet date, and, where practicable, an estimate of their financial effect, measured using the principles set out for provisions in paragraphs 3672. It is important that disclosures for contingent assets avoid giving misleading ndications of the likelihood of income arising.73 In extremely rare cases, disclosure of some or all of the information required by paragraphs 84-89 can be expected to prejudice seriously the position of the enterprise a dispute with other parties on the subject matterof the provision, contingent or contingent asset. In such cases, an enterprise need not disclose the information, but should disclose the general nature of the dispute, together with the fact that, and reason why, the information has not been disclosed. Transitional Provisions74. The effect of adopting this Standard on its effective date (or earlier) should be reported as an adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings for the period in which the Standard is first adopted. Enterprises are encouraged, but not required, to adjust the opening balance of retained earnings for the earliest period presented and to restate comparative information. If comparative information is not restated, this fact should be disclosed. , Net Profit or Loss for the75. The Standard requires a different treatment from IAS 8requires Period, Fundamental Errors and Changes in Accounting Policies. IAS 8comparative information to be restated (benchmark treatment) or additional pro forma comparative information on a restated basis to be disclosed (allowed alternative reatment) unless it is impracticable to do so.。
会计稳健性
▪ 赵春光(2004)讨论了会计盈余稳健性的变化趋势，发现在 1999、2000和2001年有所提高。
▪ 陈旭东和黄登仕(2006)使用1993-2003年间我国上市公司 数据发现，会计稳健性在1998年后逐渐增强，2001年以 后上市公司的会计具有稳健性。
三、会计稳健性在我国的应用与发展
▪ 第一阶段：从无到有的突破阶段(1985年～ 1997年)
▪ 1985年7月1目，我国实施了《中外合资企业会计制度》， 是新中国成立以来第一部借鉴国际会计惯例制定的全新 的会计制度。它提出了稳健性原则，如存货以成本与可 变现净值孰低法计价等。
▪ 1992年l1月16日，财政部颁布了《企业会计准则》，初 步建立了适应市场经济发展的企业会计制度体系。基本 会计准则提出了会计核算的12项原则，其中规定“会计 核算应当遵循谨慎性原则的要求，合理核算可能发生的 损失和费用”，这是我国首次就稳健性原则(谨慎性原则) 明确提出要求。同时，在行业会计制度中稳健性原则主 要体现在三个方面：即存货计价方法采用后进先出法、 应收账款计提坏账准备、固定资产折旧采用加速折旧法。
6
▪ 会计稳健性的分类： (根据其性质的差异)
▪ 非条件稳健性(Unconditional Conservatism)也称为独立 稳健性(Independent Conservatism)，这种稳健性意味着 会计处理方法在资产或负债形成的时候就已经确定了，不会 再根据其后的经营环境而变化，它一般会导致不可确认的商 誉存在，使得股东权益的账面价值低于其市场价值。如有关 研究开发的费用化处理，以及大部分固定资产使用加速折旧 法等。它是一个总体的偏见，和当期的消息没有关系。
会计盈余的稳健性_发现与启示
会计盈余的稳健性_发现与启示会计盈余的稳健性: 发现与启示摘要: 会计盈余的稳健性是衡量一家企业财务健康状况的重要指标。
本文通过分析会计盈余的稳健性，探讨了稳健性的定义、原则以及影响因素，并深入探讨了它对企业的重要意义与启示。
一、稳健性的定义与原则会计盈余的稳健性是指企业对不利信息持保守态度，即在缺乏充分证据时不予承认预期盈利，但对于预期亏损则要提前进行计提。
稳健性原则强调谨慎态度，根据风险与利益的不对称性，确保财务报告表达真实、合理、可靠的信息。
二、稳健性的影响因素1. 企业规模：通常情况下，较大规模的企业更注重会计盈余的稳健性，因为它们面临着更大的风险。
2. 行业特点：某些行业如金融、房地产等风险更高，会计盈余的稳健性要求更高。
3. 法律法规要求：不同国家和地区对会计准则有不同的规定，一些国家对稳健性有着更为严格的要求。
三、稳健性的重要意义1. 提供可靠信息：稳健性原则保证了财务报告的可靠性和真实性，投资者和相关利益关系方可以凭借稳健性原则提供的信息做出明智的决策。
2. 防止财务欺诈：稳健性原则能够防止企业虚构盈余数据、操纵财务报告，有效减少企业间的不公平竞争。
3. 保护投资者利益：只有真实可靠的财务信息才能提供对投资者利益的保护，而会计盈余的稳健性则是实现这一目标的重要手段。
四、稳健性的启示1. 加强企业治理：企业应加强内部控制，确保财务报告的准确性和可靠性，保证会计盈余的稳健性。
2. 提高透明度：定期披露企业财务信息，提高信息透明度，为投资者提供充分的信息，增强市场的有效运作。
3. 加强监管：政府和监管部门应加强对企业财务报告的监管，确保企业遵守会计准则，保护投资者和市场的利益。
4. 提高会计人员专业素养：会计人员应具备高度的职业道德和专业技能，保证会计盈余的准确计算和稳健识别。
结论: 会计盈余的稳健性是确保财务报告可靠性和投资者利益保护的重要原则。
企业应根据自身情况加强会计盈余的稳健性管理，加强透明度、监管以及会计人员的专业素养，才能实现稳健健康的财务状况综上所述，会计盈余的稳健性对于确保财务报告的可靠性和投资者利益保护至关重要。
会计稳健性的研究综述_佟玲
＆ＦＯＲＥＩＧＮＥＮＴＲＥＰＲＥＮＥＵＲＳ２０１４年４月刊（总第４５６期）ＣＨＩＮＥＳＥ一、引言近年来，伴随着我国证券市场的发展，会计稳健性在会计实务中的重视程度逐步增加，这将很大程度上影响企业的会计稳健性水平。
市场经济条件下，企业生产经营过程中不可避免地会遭遇风险，实施谨慎原则，能够使企业在风险实际发生之前对其加以防范并化解，可以说，谨慎地选择会计政策，对企业的经营决策有正向的引导作用，使利益相关者的切身利益得以保护，并提高企业的竞争力。
二、会计稳健性的内涵与分类首先从定义上看，Ｂｌｉｓｓ（１９２４）会计师将稳健原则表述为“预见所有可能的损失，但不预期任何不确定的收益”。
国际会计准则委员会在其概念框架中将稳健性定义如下：“谨慎性是在不确定的条件下，需要运用判断做出必要的估计中包含一定程度的审慎，比如资产或收益不可高估，负债或费用不可低估。
”稳健性是会计确认与计量的传统和原则。
稳健性意味着会计人员在确认好消息的时候对可验证性的要求更高，所以稳健性就意味着对损失和收益确认的非对称性，即会计人员对于损失（坏消息）要及时确认而对于收益（好消息）直到有充分的证据时才予以确认。
会计实务也一直深受稳健性原则的影响，例如存货计价中的成本与市价孰低原则以及资产减值的处理都有着稳健性的烙印。
Ｂａｓｕ（１９９７）认为，稳健性对会计实务的影响至少有５００年以上的历史；Ｓｔｅｒｌｉｎｇ（１９７０）将稳健性作为会计实务中最有影响力的原则之一。
一般而言，稳健性意味着资产的账面价值低于其市场价值（因为存在着没有确认的商誉）。
在学术界，根据性质的差异将稳健性分为两种不同的类别’：条件稳健性和非条件稳健性。
首先非条件稳健性，也称为独立稳健性，这种稳健性意味着会计处理方法在资产或负债形成的时候就己经确定了，不会再根据其后的经营环境而变化，它一般会导致不可确认的商誉存在。
关于非条件稳健性的例子有研究支出的费用化处理，以及大部分固定资产使用加速折旧法，以及对净现值为正的项目使用历史成本等。
浅谈稳健性原则在会计中的运用
成本和市 价进行 比较 ， 认市价下跌而 不确认市 价上涨 ； 确 存货 跌价准 备则是期末 的时候对存 货的计价 采用成本和 可变净 现 值孰 低法 ， 避免在市场 经济下 ， 存货的价格 变化 导致 存货 的价 值减少 ； 长期投资 、 资产 、 固定 无形资产减值 准备则需要在期末 值 ， 需要计提相应 的减值准备 ； 建工程减值 准备 则是对长 则 在 准备 ； 而对企业 的委托贷款 本金需要进行 定期检 查 ， 按本金和
－ ＿ ＿ ＿ － ● － － ● ＿ ＿ － ＿ ＿ ＿ － ＿ ＿ ＿ ＿ ●－
＿ ｌ● ＿＿ ＿＿ ＿＿ －
ＣＯ ＮＴＥＭ ＲＡＲＹＥＣＯ ＮＯ Ｏ Ｐ
℃Ｓ
●■■■●
企业会计准 则中对 固定 资产 的折 旧方法有 直线 法和加速 折 旧法 ， 如果企业选择加速折 旧方法就会导致 其在固定资产使 用 的前几年 多计提折 旧 ， 而减少 企业 前几 年的利 润 ， 从 也加快 了物 资的淘汰 和推陈 出新 ， 科技不断 发展 、 产力不 断发展 在 生 的形 势下 ， 采用加 速折旧 法也 是谨慎原 则的 考虑 ， 也考 虑了 固
本文以企业 稳健 『 生原则的运用 为对象 ， 探讨 其具体的运用
目前稳健性 原则的运用和客观性原 则 、 比性原则 等还 存 可 在一定的冲突 。 例如稳健性原则和可比性原则的冲突体 现在 可 比性原 则要 求会 计核算要按照规定 的会 计处理方法进行 ， 到 做 口径一致 ， 但是稳健性原则则 要求企业可 以根 据 自身的具体 情 况变化改变核算 的 口径和方法 ， 者有一定 的冲突 。国家要 完 二
保 持足够 的警惕 ， 以应付外 界的变化 ， 将风 险和损失 缩小到可 接受 的范围。
认或有资产。 或有负债一旦变成损失就会影响到企业的偿债能 力 ， 认或有负债能 够全面反映 企业的负债 情况 ， 确 减少 企业的
会计四大假设介绍英语作文
会计四大假设介绍英语作文The accounting profession is built upon four fundamental assumptions, which serve as the foundation for financial reporting. These assumptions provide a framework for accountants to prepare and present financial statements in a consistent and reliable manner. Let's take a closer look at each of these four major assumptions.1. Going Concern Assumption: This assumption assumes that a business will continue to operate indefinitely unless there is evidence to the contrary. It implies that the company will not be forced to liquidate its assets or cease operations in the near future. By assuming the going concern, accountants can prepare financial statements that reflect the long-term nature of a business.2. Monetary Unit Assumption: The monetary unit assumption states that financial transactions should be recorded and reported in a common unit of currency. This assumption allows for the aggregation and comparison offinancial information across different entities and time periods. By using a common unit of currency, such as the US dollar or the euro, accountants can provide meaningful and comparable financial information to users of financial statements.3. Time Period Assumption: The time period assumption divides the life of a business into distinct and meaningful intervals for reporting purposes. This assumption allows accountants to prepare financial statements for specific periods, such as monthly, quarterly, or annually. By reporting financial information on a regular basis, stakeholders can assess the performance and financial position of a business over time.4. Historical Cost Assumption: The historical cost assumption requires that assets and liabilities be recorded at their original cost at the time of acquisition. This assumption implies that the value of assets and liabilities remains constant over time, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. While this assumption may not reflect the current market value of assets and liabilities, itprovides a reliable and objective basis for financial reporting.These four major assumptions play a crucial role in shaping the way financial information is prepared and presented. They provide a common language and framework for accountants to communicate financial information to stakeholders. By understanding and applying these assumptions, accountants can ensure the reliability and comparability of financial statements, ultimately enhancing the transparency and trustworthiness of the accounting profession.。
第九讲 会计稳健性
5.或有事项的确认和计量 《企业会计准则第13号——或有事项》第四条规定： “与或有事项相关的义务同时满足下列条件，应当确认 为预计负债： （1）该义务是企业承担的现时义务； （2）该义务的履行很可能导致经济利益流出企业； （3）该义务的金额能够可靠地计量。”同时第十三条 还规定：“企业不应当确认或有负债和或有资产。”
会计稳健性
小组分工：
陆明月负责第一、二部分 周娟负责第三、四部分 许庆玥负责第五部分
会计稳健性
（一）什么是会计稳健性 （二）会计稳健性与通常的会计谨慎性是何关系
（三）会计稳健性研究的重要意义何在
（四）如何度量会计的稳健性 （五）哪些因素会影响会计稳健性
一.什么是会计稳健性
（一）会计稳健性定义的发展历程 （二）实证研究中的会计稳健性定义 （三）条件稳健性和无条件稳健性
陆明月负责第一二部分周娟负责第三四部分许庆玥负责第五部分一什么是会计稳健性二会计稳健性与通常的会计谨慎性是何关系三会计稳健性研究的重要意义何在四如何度量会计的稳健性五哪些因素会影响会计稳健性一会计稳健性定义的发展历程二实证研究中的会计稳健性定义三条件稳健性和无条件稳健性1basu1997认为稳健性对会计实务的影响至少有500年以上的历史
回目录
2. 模型法 (1) 收益变化模型 稳健性意味着收益比损失更具有持续性。因为财务 报告不确认未被证实的资产价值增长 ( 经济收益) , 而是在未来期间现金流实现时才将其包含在会计收益中, 表现为公司正的收益或收益变化较为持续。而当发生损 失时, 公司及时确认表现为收益为负或负的变化, 这种 负的收益或收益变化是暂时的, 以后会出现反转。Basu、 Ball和Shivakumar用如下模型予以计量:
回目录
四.如何度量会计的稳健性
什么是会计稳健性
什么是会计稳健性稳健性原则是企业〔会计〕核算中运用的一项重要原则，《企业会计制度》和已发布的具体会计准则充分体现了这一原则。
稳健性原则又称慎重性原则，是指在处理企业不确定的经济业务时，应持慎重的态度。
那你知道什么是会计稳健性吗?接下来我告诉你什么是会计稳健性。
什么是会计稳健性：凡是可以预见的损失和费用都应予以记录和确认，而没有十足把握的收入则不能予以确认和入账。
在市场经济条件下，企业不可避免地会碰到风险，实施慎重原则，就能在风险实际发生之前化解风险，并防范风险，有利于企业做出正确的经营决策，有利于保护所有者和债权人的利益、提升企业在市场上的竞争力。
会计稳健性存在条件：会计的不确定性是指在一种或几种状况和境况下的最终结果是得利或损失，只有在发生或没发生一个或几个不确定的将来事项时，才干加以确认的会计信息。
在我们现在的社会中，由于科学技术的不断进步，经济的飞速发展，信息的传播速度也越来越快，致使会计领域中信息的不确定性问题也越来越复杂。
但会计不确定性问题产生的原因可以归纳为两个，一个是外因即由于会计系统外部环境的不断变化而产生的会计信息的不确定性如企业的承诺，以及与银行有关的资金借贷往来等信用，信用作为企业经营中一种必要的融通工具和交易保证，它是企业会计不确定性产生的一个重要原因;由于企业在外币业务中汇兑期限的不同而发生的汇兑损益，企业无形资产的摊销，合同生效的长短等也都会引起企业资产因时间的关系而不断的变化;企业在生产经营中，为了谋取超额的经济利益，就必定会存在着一定的风险性，由于这种风险性的存在，企业的会计信息中也就自然的存在着一种不确定性;另外，企业的生存与发展总是和社会，环境分不开的，那么会计信息就一定会受到税率例率、物价变动指数、通货膨胀等因素的影响，而使企业的资产不断发生变化。
另一个原因为内因，即指由于会计系统内部的信息加工过程中存在的不确定性问题而引起的会计信息的不确定性，如在会计人员确实认，计量、记录和报告中，因自身业务水平或职业道德素养的限制，而使企业的会计信息不断的发生变化。
- 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)。
会计稳健性的第一篇：解释和意义瓦茨,会计新视野,2006年内容提要：本文是会计稳健性两篇文章中的第一篇。
第一篇对稳健性进行了解释以及探讨了稳健性对会计监督的影响。
第二篇总结了稳健性的实验证据及对稳健性的解释，并提出未来研究方向。
文章证明了稳健性的存在，对不同程度下的稳健性进行了不同的解释。
会计稳健性的定义是指要求对收益与损失的不对称确认，其极端形式下传统的稳健性定义为“不预期收益，但预期所有的损失”。
尽管有人指责会计稳健性，但是稳健性已经存在了几个世纪，并在近30年中有所加强。
支持稳健性的一种理论解释是：契约理论、股东诉讼理论、税收理论和会计管制理论。
在文章的第二篇中用证据表明契约和股东诉讼是最重要的因素，证据表明税收和会计管制相对比较弱，盈余管理也可能产生稳健性，但这不能成为主要的因素。
对稳健性的解释和证明对会计管理机制有着重要的影响。
财务会计委员会曾试图禁止会计稳健性，以实现“信息中立”而忽略稳健性长期存在的原因，这种意图可能会失败并产生意想不到的后果。
消除会计稳健性将会改变会计管理行为，并且会增大经济上的费用。
同样的，研究人员和监管机构考虑把未来现金流量列入财务报表，其产生的成本会对会计管理行为存在影响。
本文是会计稳健性性研究的第一篇，研究的目的主要是：1、对会计稳健性的解释2、对财务法规和准则的设置文章的第二篇的研究目的是：1、总结稳健性存在的证据2、对证据进行评估去辨别不同稳健性的解释3、对证据进行评估去辨别稳健性与非稳健性对会计稳健性解释的讨论是大多是基于利用现有的文献。
然而，本文是立足于契约观，包括了债务合同的约束的解释(Watts 1993),以及与其使用的其他合同，如管理薪酬契约也会产生影响。
本文也提供了新的论点，即使不考虑契约，一旦信息成本变化后管理层的行为也会产生会计稳健性的现象进行了介绍。
稳健性的定义传统的稳健性定义是“不预期收益，但预期所有的损失”(Bliss 1924)。
预期收益是指所承认的收益是通过法律允许的，是可以被证实前的收益。
稳健性原则并不意味着所有的收入现金流应该在收入确认前收到——赊账销售是被认可的——但那些现金流应该是可以被证实的。
在实证文献中稳健性的概念被解释为“相比确认坏消息而言，会计人员倾向于寻找更多证据支持好消息的确认。
”(Basu 1997,7)稳健性是对收益和损失的不对称确认。
这种解释下收益与损失确认差异越大，稳健性程度也就越大，本文采用的就是这种“差异化验证”解释的稳健性。
稳健性的一个重要结果就是不对称地处理收益与损失，其后果是持续低估净资产值。
有些资本市场监管机构、准则制定者以及学者批评稳健性，因为当前的低估收益会导致未来收入的夸大。
例如会计研究公报(ARB)21美国注册会计师协会1939年规定：稳健性在资产负债表中如果不确定性影响到了利润表，这就是很重要的。
稳健性主义来描述利润表对某一特定时期的影响，这并不符合稳健性的定义。
稳健性是自公司营运开始在资产负债表的累计收入或盈利。
会计核算中稳健性的影响既长远又有意义。
Basu(1997,8)认为稳健性的影响至少有500年了。
最近的实证研究表明在过去的30年会计核算变得越来越稳健。
鉴于许多资本市场的监管机制、准则制定方和学者对稳健性的口诛笔伐，结果是令人吃惊的，稳健性长期存在却又遭受很多的批评1。
对稳健性的批评者忽视了稳健性存在的巨大利益，如果他们不理解稳健性原则的好处而由此产生的标准，很可能会严重损害财务报表。
稳健性原则的解释与概述研究人员提出很多对稳健性报告的解释，所有的题提议都是稳健性原则应是使用户收益的公司会计报表。
有一种解释是稳健性的产生是因为它的一部分是有效的技术应用于组织公司和与各方签订的合同契约。
在这种契约观的解释下，稳健性意味着是一种道德风险，是化解契约中由于各方报酬不对称而带来的道德风1例如监管机构、准则制定方、学院方的观点见Levitt (1998), FASB (1980, paras. 91-97), 和 Devine (1963, 127)。
险的一种手段。
例如，稳健性可以包含管理层的机会主义行为的合同用于会计核算。
即使把契约和管理会计行为从会计报告中分离，道德风险问题仍将存在与财务报告中，只要会计管理绩效措施告知投资者便会影响资产配置者的投资决策和管理层的福利。
管理层因此会倾向于使用有偏见的计量方法，稳健性可以抑制机会主义行为，抵消公司管理层的乐观偏见形成非对称的管理偏见。
在实践中，稳健性大大的抵消了更多的管理层偏见，而且延迟了收入和低估累计收益及近资产。
这些影响在契约中会增加公司的价值，因为它们限制了管理层中的机会主义向自己以及其他各方的支付，例如股东。
增加的公司价值是双方共享的，能提高双方的福利，在这个意义上说，稳健性是一种有效的契约机制。
稳健性很可能是一个高效的在契约情况下的财务报告机制。
下文讨论的其他稳健性的解释，除了稳健性是抵消管理层的偏见，非缔约双方也是能约束管理层和缔约方的机会付款。
鉴于此，稳健性和它所产生的净资产偏差也可能是必要的有效的财务报表的组成部分，是“好”而不是“坏”的。
2股东诉讼是稳健性的另一个来源。
管理层在高估利润和资产的时候更容易面临诉讼风险。
通过资产的低估可以降低预计的诉讼费用。
通过诉讼成本的不对称来限制投机性支付的风险，从这一程度的解释表明，个人当事人以外的公司也是这样约束的，用稳健性来降低诉讼风险。
税收也是稳健性产生的原因之一。
对立的和损失进行不对称的确认能使企业减少税收的现值，从而提升公司的价值，推迟收入确认加快支出确认从而推迟纳税。
最后，财务报告准则的制定机构和监管机构也在财务报告中有运用稳健性的动机。
正如类似一个不对称的诉讼成本，准则制定机构对会计实务的规范成本也是不对称的。
在会计信息被高估时监管方将面临更多的指责，所以稳健的会计信息可以降低政治成本。
政治成本的不对称就如不对称的诉讼成本时是一致的，非契约方谨慎的制约了管理层和其他各方的投机付款行为。
在对稳健性进行了解释，正如我们所见稳健性原则通过契约、诉讼、税收、信息观点的支持者没有看到稳健性的好处，因为他们对信息不对称所造成的结果和影响以及对信息投资者成本与效益的分析具有局限性。
会计管制来约束管理层和其他各方的投机付款行为。
最近的经验证据表明会计稳健性存在上升的趋势，以不同的程度体现在四个稳健性的解释中。
然而文中的第二篇中一些证据与两种解释一致并不意味着稳健性。
这些解释之一是通过盈余管理来低估资产，承担额外的费用和过度的冲销，以夸大未来收益(Hanna 2002)另一种解释是管理层选择放弃盈利(Hayn 1995)。
而这些解释可以解释公司属性所产生的保守主义，如暂时的损失。
它们无法共同或单独解释净资产，只是标志性地描述了稳健性原则。
文章的第二篇用各种各样对稳健性的解释来证明稳健性在财务报告中向资本市场的投资者提供信息的建设性作用。
这意味着会计监管机构和准则制定方都应反思其反对稳健性的行为。
契约观对稳健性的解释对稳健性的四个解释中，笔者认为契约观是最详尽的解释，因为它是稳健性的来源以及它的论点更有发展的空间。
越来越多的论点的解释都只是从信息质量的角度看问题的。
此外，契约观的解释强调正式的契约，如债务契约和合同管理层的报酬，它们扩大到了包括管理会计和管理系统的公司的组织安排，即使是税收观的解释也是属于契约观的解释之中。
会计中使用契约是非常那个古老的做法，跨越了几个世纪公司都在采用(Watts 和Zimmerman 1983)，用来进行管理控制(De Ste Croix 1956 和Chadwick 1992)。
研究者提出，这种长期过程中影响了当代会计和财务报告，导致稳健性倾向于使用偏见的计量方法(Watts and Zimmennan1986; Watts 1993; Basu1995)。
相比之下，其它稳健性的解释是最近一段时间才出现的。
股东诉讼的出现是在美国20世纪60年代，并随着其发展而成为稳健性的解释之一，税收系统影响财务报告的会计处理方法，是一种近期出现的解释，可追溯到1909年。
一些谨慎的会计管制机构的财务报告，它们的历史可以回溯到1933年和1934年。
契约的解释包含了三种属性：及时性、可核性、不对称性的可验证性。
在债务、赔偿和其他契约解释中稳健性成为了一个有效的契约机制，因为它对契约的性能测试中要求使对收益的确认比损失的确认有更严格的核查标准。
一如既往，由于不对称的确认导致收益的确认比损失延迟，其结果是净资产和累计收益不太可能被夸大，降低了违反契约的可能性。
出处：Watts R L. Conservatism in accounting part Ι:explanations and implication [J]. Accounting Horizons,2003,(3):207-221.原文：Conservatism in Accounting Part I: Explanations andImplicationsWatts R L. Accounting Horizons,2003SYNOPSIS: This paper is the first in a two-part series on conservatism in accounting. Part I examines alternative explanations for conservatism in accounting and their implications for accounting regulators. Part II summarizes the empirical evidence on conservatism, its consistency with alternative explanations, and opportunities for future research. The evidence is consistent with conservatism's existence and, in varying degrees, the various explanations.Conservatism is defined as the differential verifiability required for recognition of profits versus losses. Its extreme form is the traditional conservatism adage: "anticipate no profit, but anticipate all losses." Despite criticism, conservatism has survived in accounting for many centuries and appears to have increased in the last 30 years.The alternative explanations for conservatism are contracting, shareholder litigation, taxation, and accounting regulation. The evidence in Part II suggests the contracting and shareholder litigation explanations are most important. Evidence on the effects of taxation and regulation is weaker, but consistent with those explanations playing a role. Earnings management could produce some of the evidence on conservatism, but cannot be the prime explanation.The explanations and evidence have important implications for accounting regulators. FASB attempts to ban conservatism in order to achieve "neutrality of information" without understanding the reasons conservatism existed and prosperedfor so long are likely to fail and produce unintended consequences. Successful elimination of conservatism will change managerial behavior and impose significant costs on investors and the economy in general. Similarly, researchers and regulators who propose the inclusion of capitalized unverifiable future cash flows in financial reports should consider the costs generated by their proposal's effect on managerial behavior.INTRODUCTIONThis paper is Part I in a two-part series on conservatism in accounting. The objectives of this paper are to:1. Discuss the explanations for conservatism; and2. Draw implications for regulation and standard setting.The objectives of Part II in the series are to:1. Summarize the evidence on conservatism's existence;2. Evaluate the evidence's ability to discriminate among conservatism explanations; and3. Evaluate the evidence's ability to discriminate between conservatism andnon-conservatism explanations.The explanations discussion draws on existing literature. However, this paper develops a general contracting explanation for conservatism that encompasses the existing debt contract dividend constraint explanation (Watts 1993) and predicts that other contracts employed within the firm, such as managerial compensation contracts, will also generate conservatism. The paper also offers a new argument that, even without contracting considerations, an information perspective produces conservatism once the information costs of changed managerial behavior are introduced. Conservatism DefinedAccounting conservatism is traditionally defined by the adage "anticipate no profit, but anticipate all losses" (Bliss 1924). Anticipating profits means recognizing profits before there is legal claim to the revenues generating them and that the revenues are verifiable. Conservatism does not imply that all revenue cash flows should be received before profits are recognized—credit sales are recognized—butrather that those cash flows should be verifiable. In the empirical literature the adage is interpreted as representing "the accountant's tendency to require a higher degree of verification to recognize good news as gains than to recognize bad news as losses" (Basu 1997, 7). Conservatism is the asymmetrical verification requirements for gains and losses. This interpretation allows for degrees of conservatism: the greater the difference in degree of verification required for gains versus losses, the greater the conservatism. It is this "differential verification" interpretation of conservatism that is adopted in this paper.An important consequence of conservatism's asymmetric treatment of gains and losses is the persistent understatement of net asset values. Capital market regulators, standard setters, and academics criticize conservatism because this understatement in the current period can lead to overstatement of earnings in future periods by causing an understatement of future expenses. For example Accounting Research Bulletin (ARB) 2 (AICPA 1939) states:Conservatism in the balance sheet is of dubious value if attained at the expense of conservatism in the income statement, which is far more significant.Using "conservatism" to describe an income statement effect for a particular period was popularized by conservatism's critics. That usage does not fit with the conservatism definition employed here. Conservatism refers to the cumulative financial effects represented in the balance sheet and to income or earnings cumulated since the firm began operation.Conservatism's influence on accounting practice has been both long and significant. Basu (1997, 8) argues that conservatism has influenced accounting practice for at least 500 years. Sterling (1970, 256) rates conservatism as the most influential principle of valuation in accounting .Recent empirical research on conservatism suggests not only that accounting practice is conservative, but also that practice has become more conservative in the last 30 years. These results are surprising given the vocal opposition of many capital market regulators, standardsetters, and academics to conservatism.1The long survival of conservatism and its apparent resilience to criticism strongly suggests that conservatism's critics overlook its significant benefits. If regulator and standard-setter critics try to eliminate conservatism without understanding its benefits, the resultant standards are likely to be seriously detrimental to financial reporting.Overview of Explanations for ConservatismResearchers advance a number of explanations for conservative reporting; all of them suggest that conservatism benefits users of the firm's accounting reports. One explanation is that conservatism arises because it is part of the efficient technology employed in the organization of the firm and its contracts with various parties. Under this contracting explanation, conservative accounting is a means of addressing moral hazard caused by parties to the firm having asymmetric information, asymmetric payoffs, limited horizons, and limited liability. For example, conservatism can contain management's opportunistic behavior in reporting accounting measures used in a contract.Even if one separates contracting and managerial accounting from financial reporting, moral hazard problems will exist in financial reporting as long as the reports' accounting measures inform investors about managerial performance and affect investors' asset allocation decisions and managers' welfare. These effects on managers' welfare will motivate managers to introduce bias and noise into the same accounting measures that regulators hope will inform investors, just as they motivate managers to introduce bias and noise into contractual accounting measures. Absent constraints on this opportunistic managerial behavior, accounting measures in financial reports that a priori appear neutral will be significantly biased and noisy in practice. Conservatism constrains managerial opportunistic behavior and offsets managerial biases with its asymmetrical verifiability requirement.In practice, conservatism more than offsets managerial bias, and on average1For examples of the opposition of regulators, standard setters and academies to conservatism see Levitt (1998), FASB (1980, paras. 91-97), and Devine (1963, 127).defers earnings and understates cumulative earnings and net assets. In contracts these effects increase firm value because they constrain managements' opportunistic payments to themselves and other parties, such as shareholders. The increased firm value is shared among all parties to the firm, increasing everyone's welfare. In that sense, conservatism is an efficient contracting mechanism. Contracting explains three attributes of accounting measures: timeliness, verifiability, and asymmetric verifiability.Conservatism is likely to be an efficient financial reporting mechanism in the absence of contracting. Other conservatism explanations discussed below suggest that, in addition to conservatism offsetting managerial bias in financial reporting, non-contracting parties in society also value conservatism's constraint on opportunistic payments to managers and other contracting parties.Given that, conservatism and the net asset bias it generates are probably necessary components of efficient financial reporting that are "good" and not "bad" as implied by various statements by accounting regulators and academics.2Shareholder litigation is another source of conservatism in recent years. Litigation also produces asymmetric payoffs in that overstating the firm's net assets is more likely to generate litigation costs for the firm than understating net assets. By understating net assets, conservatism reduces the firm's expected litigation costs. The asymmetry in litigation costs is consistent with the legal system evolving to constrain opportunistic payments to managers and other parties to the firm. To that extent, the litigation explanation suggests that individuals other than the parties to the firm also value such constraint.The links between taxation and reporting can also generate conservatism in financial reporting. Asymmetric recognition of gains and losses enables managers of profitable firms to reduce the present value of taxes and increase the value of the firm.2The information perspective's proponents fail to recognize conservatism's benefits because of their limited analysis of the effects of asymmetric payoffs and limited liability on the costs and benefits of information to investors.Delaying the recognition of revenues and accelerating the recognition of expense defers tax payments.Finally, financial reporting standard setters and regulators have their own incentives to favor conservative accounting and reporting. Just as there is an asymmetry in litigation costs, there is an asymmetry in regulators' costs. Standard setters and regulators are likely to face more criticism if firms overstate net assets than if they understate net assets. Conservatism reduces the political costs imposed on standard setters and regulators. This asymmetry in political costs, like the asymmetry in litigation costs, is consistent with non-contracting parties (such as voters) valuing conservatism's constraint on opportunistic payments to managers and other parties.The commonalities among the four explanations suggest they might be manifestations of a single explanation. As we have seen, conservatism encouraged by contracting, litigation, and political costs.The recent empirical evidence suggesting that accounting conservatism exists and is on the rise in recent years is consistent, in varying degrees, with the four conservatism explanations. That however, some of the evidence examined in Part II is also consistent with two explanations that do not imply conservatism. One of those explanations involves earnings management—management understates assets by taking excessive charges and excessive write-offs, perhaps in a "big bath," in order to overstate earnings in the future (Hanna 2002). The other is that management elects to abandon operations that are not profitable (Hayn1995). While both of these other explanations can explain firm attributes generated by conservatism such as the transitory nature of losses, they cannot individually or jointly explain the systematic understatement of net assets that is the hallmark of conservatism.The consistency of the evidence in Part II with the various conservatism explanations implies conservatism has a productive role in financial reports providing information to capital market investors. That implication suggests regulators and standard setters should rethink or redirect their opposition to conservatism.CONTRACTING EXPLANATIONS FOR CONSERV ATISMOf the four conservatism explanations, I examine the contracting explanationmost exhaustively because it is an early source of conservatism and its arguments are more fully developed. The more developed arguments allow more complete articulation of the explanation's links to the standard setters' information perspective. Also, although contracting explanations emphasize formal contracts, such as debt and management compensation contracts, they extend to the firm's organizational arrangements including managerial accounting and control systems. Even the tax explanation is linked to the contracting explanation in that the early uses of accounting (and writing) were control of assets and tax collection for the nobility.The contracting use of accounting is very old, spanning many centuries of corporate use (Watts and Zimmerman 1983), and millennia for management control (de Ste Croix 1956; Chadwick 1992).Researchers suggest that long usage influenced the development and nature of contemporary accounting and financial reporting and led to the conservative bias examined here (Watts and Zimmennan1986; Watts 1993; Basu1995).In contrast, other conservatism explanations rely on more recent phenomena. The increase in shareholder litigation that began in the U.S. in the 1960s, and grew significantly afterward, is a" relatively recent explanation for conservatism. The tax system's influence on financial reporting accounting methods, producing conservative methods such as LIFO, is another relatively recent explanation dating in the U.S. from 1909.Finally, and perhaps ironically given FASB's recent preference for neutrality over conservatism, some hypothesize that government regulation of financial reporting, dating from the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934, actually contributes to conservatism.Contracting explains three attributes of accounting measures: timeliness, verifiability, and asymmetric verifiability. In debt, compensation, and other contract explanations, conservatism emerges almost naturally as an efficient contracting mechanism because it is optimal for contracts' performance measures to have more stringent verification standards for gains than for losses. As before , the asymmetry in standards leads to greater delay in the recognition of gains than in the recognition of losses. The result is that net assets and cumulative earnings are less likely to beoverstated at any point in time, reducing the likelihood of distributions that violate contracts.Source: Watts R L. Conservatism in accounting part Ι:explanations and implication [J]. Accounting Horizons,2003,(3):207-221.。