外文翻译金融的工具公允价值会计银行监管的意义
外文翻译--金融工具公允价值会计银行监管的意义本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译外文题目 Fair value accounting for financial instrument：some implications for bank regulation外文出处 Working paper, University of North Carolina.外文作者 Wayne R. Landsman原文：Fair Value Accounting for Financial Instruments: SomeImplications for Bank RegulationIntroductionAccounting standards setters in many jurisdictions around theworld, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia,and the European Union, have issued standards requiring recognitionof balance sheet amounts at fair value, and changes in their fairvalues in income. For example, in the United States, the FinancialAccounting Standards Board requires recognition of some investmentsecurities and derivatives at fair value. In addition, as theiraccounting rules have evolved, many other balance sheet amounts havebeen made subject to partial application of fair value rules thatdepend on various ad hoc circumstances, including impairment e.g.,goodwill and loans and whether a derivative is used to hedge changesin fair value e.g., inventories, loans, and fixed lease payments .The Financial Accounting Standards Board and the InternationalAccounting Standards Boardhereafter FASB and IASB are jointlyworking on projects examining the feasibility of mandatingrecognition of essentially all financial assets and liabilities at fair value in the financial statements.In the US, fair value recognition of financial assets andliabilities appears to enjoy the support the Securities and ExchangeCommissionhereafter SEC . In a recent report prepared for aSEC, 2005 , the Office of the ChiefCongressional committee Accountant of the SEC states two primary benefits of requiring fair value accounting for financial instruments. First, it would mitigate the use of accounting-motivated transaction structures designed to exploit opportunities for earnings management created by the current “mixed-attribute”―part historical cost, part fairvalues―accounting model. For example, it would eliminate the incentive to use asset securitization as a means to recognize gains on sale of receivables or loans. Second, fair value accounting forall financial instruments would reduce the complexity of financial reporting arising from the mixed attributed model. For example, with all financial instruments measured at fair value, the hedge accounting model employed by the FASB's derivatives standard wouldall but be eliminated, making it unnecessary for investors to studythe choices made by management to determine what basis of accountingis used for particular instruments, as well as the need for management to keep extensive records of hedging relationships.But, as noted in the SEC report, there are costs as wellassociated with the application of fair value accounting. One keyissue is whether fair values of financial statement items can be measured reliably, especially for those financial instruments forwhich active markets do not readily existe.g., specializedreceivables or privately placed loans . Both the FASB and IASB state in their Concepts statements that they consider the cost/benefit trade off between relevance and reliability when assessing how best to measure specific accounting amounts, and whether measurement is sufficiently reliable for financial statement recognition. A cost to investors of fair value measurement is that some or even many rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrssssssssssssssssssssss'sfinancial position and earnings potential. This reliability cost is compounded by the problem that in the absence of active markets for aparticular financial instrument, management must estimate its fair value, which can be subject to discretion or manipulation.Assessing the costs and benefits of fair value accounting for financial reporting to investors and other financial statement usersin particular reporting regimes is difficult. Assessing the costs andbenefits of bank regulators mandating fair value accounting for financial institutions for the purpose of assessing a bank's regulatory capital is perhaps even more challenging. The purpose of this paper is to provide some preliminary views on the issues bankregulators face when assessing the costs and benefits of using fair value for determining regulatory capital and making other regulatorydecisions. To this end, I begin by reviewing extant capital market studies that examine the usefulness of fair value accounting to investors. I then discuss implementation issues of determining financial instruments' fair values. In doing so, I again look to evidence from the academic literature. Finally, I discuss marking-to-market implementation issues that are of particular relevance to bank regulators as they consider the effects of fair value measurement onbank earnings and capital, and the attendant effects on real managerial decisions.Background of Fair Value Accounting in Standard SettingDefinition of Fair ValueThe FASB defines “fair value” as “the price at which an assetor liability could be exchanged in a current transaction between knowledgeable, unrelated willing parties” FASB, 2004a . As the FASB notes, “the objective of a fair value measurement is to estimate an exchange price for the asset or liability being measured in theabsence of an actual transaction for that asset or liability.”Implicit in this objective is the notion that fair value is well defined so that an asset or liability's exchange price fully captures its value. That is, the price at which an asset can beexchanged between two entities does not depend on the entities engaged in the exchange and this price also equals the value-in-useto any entity. For example, the value of a swap derivative to a bank equals the price at which it can purchase or sell that derivative, and the swap's value does not depend on the existing assets and liabilities on the bank's balance sheet. For such a bank, Barth andLandsman1995 notes that this is a strong assumption to makeparticularly if many of its assets and liabilities cannot readily be traded. I will return to the implications of this problem whendiscussing implementation of marking-to-market issues below. Applications to standard settingIn the US, the FASB has issued several standards that mandate disclosure or recognition of accounting amounts using fair values. Among the most significant in terms of relevance to financial institutions are those standards that explicitly relate to financial instruments. Two important disclosure standards are Statement of Financial Accounting Standards SFAS No. 107, Disclosures about fairvalue of financial instrumentsFASB, 1991 and SFAS No. 119,Disclosure about derivative financial instruments and fair value of financial instruments FASB, 1994 . SFAS No. 107 requires disclosureof fair estimates of all recognized assets and liabilities, and as such, was the first standard that provided investors with estimatesof the primary balance sheet accounts of banks, including securities, loans, deposits, and long-term debt. In addition, it was the firststandard to provide a definition of fair value reflecting the FASB's objective of obtaining quoted market prices wherever possible. SFAS No. 119 requires disclosure of fair value estimates of derivative financial instruments, including futures, forward, swap, and optioncontracts. It also requires disclosure of estimates of holding gains and losses for instruments that are held for trading purposes.Among the most significant fair value recognition standards theFASB has issued are SFAS No. 115, Accounting for certain investmentsin debt and equity securities FASB, 1993 , SFAS No. 123 Revised ,Share-based payments FASB, 2004 , and SFAS No. 133, Accounting forderivative instruments and hedging activities FASB, 1998 . SFAS No.115 requires recognition at fair value investments in equity and debtsecurities classified as held for trading or available-for-sale. Fairvalue changes for the former appear in income, and fair value changesfor the latter are included as a component of accumulated othercomprehensive income, i.e., are excluded from income. Those debtsecurities classified as held to maturity continue to be recognizedat amortized cost. SFAS No. 123Revised requires the cost ofemployee stock options grants be recognized in income using grantdate fair value by amortizing the cost during the employee vesting orservice period. This requirement removed election of fair value or intrinsic value cost measurement permitted under the originalrecognition standard, SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-basedCompensationFASB, 1995 . Until recently, most firms elected tomeasure the cost of employee stock options using intrinsic value. However, for such firms, SFAS No. 123 requires they disclose a pro forma income number computed using a fair value cost for employeestock option grants, as well as key model inputs they use to estimate fair values.SFAS No. 133 requires all freestanding derivatives be recognizedat fair value. However, SFAS No. 133 retains elements of the existing hedge accounting model. In particular, fair value changes in those derivatives employed for purposes of hedging fair value risks e.g., interest rate risk and commodity price risk are shown as a componentof income, as are the changes in fair value of the hedged balancesheet iteme.g., fixed rate loans and inventories or firm-commitments i.e., forward contracts . If the so-called fair value hedge is perfect, the effect on income of the hedging relationship is zero. In contrast, fair value changes in those derivatives employedfor purposes of hedging cash flow risks e.g., cash flows volatilityresulting from interest rate risk and commodity price risk are shown as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income becausethere is no recognized off-setting change in fair value of an implicitly hedged balance sheet item or anticipated transaction.Outside of the US, standards issued by the IASB are oftenaccepted or required as generally accepted accounting principles GAAP in many countries. For example, the European Union generally requires member country firms to issue financial statements prepared in accordance with IASB GAAP beginning in 2005. IASB GAAP comprises standards issued by its predecessor body, the International Accounting Standards Committee IASC , as well as those it has issued since its inception in 2001. The IASC issued two key fair value standards, both of which have been adopted by the IASB, IAS 32: Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation IASB, 2003 , IAS 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement IASB, 2003 . The former standard is primarily a disclosure standard, and issimilar to its US GAAP counterparts, SFAS Nos. 107 and 119. IAS 39 describes how particular financial assets and liabilities are measured i.e., amortized cost or fair value , and how changes intheir values are recognized in the financial statements. The scope of IAS 39 roughly encompasses accounting for investment securities andderivatives, which are covered under SFAS Nos. 115 and 133, although there are some minor differences between IAS and US GAAP.The IASB has also issued a key fair value standard, InternationalFinancial Reporting Standard 2, Accounting for Share-based Payment IASB, 2004 . IFRS 2 is very similar to SFAS No. 123 Revised FASB,2004 in requiring firms to recognize the cost of employee stock option grants using grant date fair value.As part of their efforts to harmonize US and internationalaccounting standards, the IASB and FASB recently issued relatedproposed or finished standards pertaining to disclosure of financialinstruments fair values, Exposure Draft: Fair Value MeasurementsFASB, 2004aand International Financial Reporting Standard 7,IASB, 2005 . The US ExposureFinancial Instruments: DisclosuresDraft describes a hierarchy of preferred approaches to fair valuemeasurement for all assets and liabilities measured at fair valueunder other FASB pronouncements, ranging from quoted market pricesfor the specific asset or liability to use of models to estimate fairvalues. Both the Exposure Draft and IFRS 7 require disclosure of fairvalue amounts at the end of each accounting period year, quarter ,how the fair values are determined, and the effect on income arisingfrom each particular class of assets or liabilities i.e., separatedisclosure of recognized and unrecognized gains and losses . IFRS 7is more comprehensive than the Exposure Draft in that it requiresdisclosure of detailed information for recognized financialinstruments, both those measured at fair value and those that are not,as well as qualitative information relating to financialinstruments' liquidity, credit, and market risks.Valuation TechniquesAs noted above, in its Exposure Draft: Fair Value Measurements,the FASB describes a hierarchy of preferences for measurement of fair value. The preferred level 1 fair value estimates are those based on quoted prices for identical assets and liabilities, and are most applicable to those assets or liabilities that are actively traded e.g., trading investment securities . Level 2 estimates are those based on quoted market prices of similar or related assets and liabilities. Level 3 estimates, the least preferred, are those based on company estimates, and should only be used if level 1 or 2 estimates are not available. With the emphasis on market prices, the FASB emphasizes that firms should base their estimates on market prices as model inputs wherever possible e.g., use of equity market volatility estimates when employing the Black-Scholes valuation model to estimate the fair value of employee stock options . Fair valueestimates can be constructed using entity-supplied inputse.g.,discounted cash flow estimates if other models employing market available. inputs are notSource: Wayne R. Landsman.2005. “Fair Value Accounting forFinancial Instruments: Some Implications for Bank Regulation”. Working paper, University of North Carolina.译文：金融工具公允价值会计:银行监管的意义介绍包括美国英国澳大利亚和欧盟在许多地区会计准则制定者发布了标准要求对资产负债表按公允价值公允价值。
金融监管对银行业的影响分析
金融监管对银行业的影响分析导语：金融监管是金融行业发展的重要保障，对于银行业而言，金融监管更是至关重要的一环。
本文将从多个角度探讨金融监管对银行业的影响，并分析其带来的利弊及应对之策。
一、金融监管对银行业的意义金融监管是对金融机构及其业务进行监督和指导的行为，目的在于维护金融市场稳定，防范金融风险，保护金融机构和投资者的合法权益。
对于银行业而言，金融监管不仅有助于提升其经营风险管理能力，还能够维护金融体系的安全稳定。
同时，金融监管还能促进银行业的健康发展，提高金融机构的诚信度，为金融体系的可持续发展提供保障。
二、金融监管对银行业的影响1. 资本充足率要求的提升金融监管对银行业的主要影响之一便是提高资本充足率要求。
资本充足率是指银行业的核心指标之一，用于衡量银行经营风险承受能力。
金融监管增加对银行的资本充足率要求，旨在提高银行的稳健经营能力及抵御风险的能力。
这种影响对银行业来说既是压力，也是机遇，压力在于银行需增加资本储备以满足监管要求，机遇则在于引发银行更加注重稳健经营，提高效益。
2. 业务范围限制金融监管对银行业的另一个主要影响是对其业务范围的限制。
为了防止金融风险的蔓延和扩大，金融监管通常会限制银行从事高风险和非银行业务。
这种限制对于银行业来说是一种保护，可以有效防范不良资产的增加和风险的扩大。
然而，一味限制业务范围也可能影响银行的盈利能力和市场竞争力，因此，银行需要在合规的前提下，探索拓展其他低风险、高附加值的业务。
3. 更严格的风险管理要求金融监管通常会对银行的风险管理要求更加严格，以防范和控制金融风险。
这对银行来说既是挑战，也是发展的重要动力。
通过加强风险管理，银行能够提高业务的可持续性和抗风险能力，并更好地服务实体经济。
三、金融监管对银行业的利弊及应对之策1. 利：提高银行体系的稳定性和可持续性；保护投资者和金融机构的合法权益；促进金融市场健康发展等。
2. 弊：增加银行的合规成本；限制银行业务发展空间；对小型银行可能带来更大的压力等。
探讨公允价值在金融工具中的应用
探讨公允价值在金融工具中的应用随着金融市场的不断发展，投资者对于金融工具的收益与风险的把握越来越关注。
而公允价值作为一种衡量金融工具真实价值的方法，已经被广泛应用于金融市场中。
本文将探讨公允价值在金融工具中的应用，从而进一步了解它在金融市场中的作用。
一、公允价值的概念及意义公允价值是指在市场上以自愿交易为基础，根据市场供求关系形成的价格。
在金融市场中，金融工具的公允价值是投资者认为其应该具有的价值。
公允价值反映了市场上的供求关系，是比较客观的价格，并与其他衡量方法相比更加准确和客观，可以更好地反映金融工具的真实价值。
公允价值在金融市场中发挥着重要作用。
投资者可以通过比较金融工具的公允价值来判断是否具有投资价值，并可作为一个参考指标进行投资决策。
同时，公允价值也是监管机构进行金融市场监管的依据。
二、公允价值在金融工具中的应用1.债券债券的公允价值通常是根据市场上同期债券的价格，以及债券发行者的信用等因素综合计算，从而形成一个较为准确的债券公允价值。
这种方法不仅考虑了债券的规模、到期日、利息等特性，也较好地刻画了市场对于债券的信用评价。
2.股票股票的公允价值同样是依据市场供求关系计算出来的。
投资者可以通过比较股票当前价格与公允价值来确定其是否有投资价值，并可进行投资决策。
同时，监管机构也可通过比较股票价格与公允价值来判断股票价格是否合理，在监管工作中发挥重要作用。
3.衍生品衍生品的公允价值通常是通过期权定价理论计算得出的。
这种方法结合了市场上的实际交易情况，并根据衍生品的实际特性、期限、波动率等因素进行综合计算，从而形成一个相对准确的公允价值。
三、公允价值在金融工具中的局限性虽然公允价值作为一种重要的衡量金融工具价值的方法，但也存在一定的局限性。
其一是公允价值可能存在价格偏离的情况，尤其是在市场情况波动较大的情况下，公允价值往往不能完全反映市场价格。
此外，公允价值的计算也可能受到市场信息不对称、流动性问题、市场交易规则和监管政策等因素的影响，不同市场之间的公允价值也可能存在差异。
我国新会计准则中公允价值的运用意义与特征
我国新会计准则中公允价值的运用意义与特征随着我国经济的快速发展以及国际贸易的不断加深，会计领域的规范也在不断更新。
作为会计准则中一个重要的概念，公允价值在我国新会计准则中得到了广泛的运用。
那么，在新会计准则中公允价值的运用意义与特征是什么呢？本文将从这两个方面展开讨论。
一、公允价值的运用意义1. 信息披露更加准确2. 有效风险管理公允价值能够更好地帮助企业进行风险管理。
通过实时地反映资产和负债的变化价值，企业能够更及时地发现并应对市场风险和利率风险，降低企业经营风险，保障企业的长期稳健发展。
3. 促进市场经济发展公允价值的运用能够促进市场经济的发展。
它能够更好地反映市场的供求关系和价格变动，为企业合理调整投资和资产配置提供了更准确的信息，进而促进资源配置的优化和市场经济的有效运行。
二、公允价值的特征1. 反映市场价格公允价值的核心特征是反映市场价格。
它不是根据企业自身的情况或者管理者的主观判断来确定资产和负债的价值，而是根据市场价格或公允价值的相对市场价格来进行核算。
这就要求企业必须及时关注市场动态，不断更新资产和负债的公允价值，以便更好地反映市场的变化。
2. 具有弹性和灵活性公允价值具有一定的弹性和灵活性。
它能够根据市场的变化实时地做出调整，能够更好地适应不同类型的资产和负债，包括固定资产、无形资产、金融工具等。
这就要求企业在进行公允价值核算时，必须根据具体的情况进行综合判断，不能一概而论。
3. 提高透明度和可比性公允价值的运用能够提高企业的财务透明度和可比性。
它能够更准确地反映企业的真实财务状况，使外部用户更容易理解和评估企业的业绩和价值。
并且，公允价值的运用还能够使不同企业的财务信息更具可比性，为投资者和其他利益相关方提供更好的决策依据。
4. 适用范围广泛公允价值的适用范围非常广泛，既适用于金融工具等涉及市场交易的资产和负债，也适用于固定资产、无形资产等不涉及市场交易的资产和负债。
这就要求企业在实际应用中，必须充分理解公允价值的概念和特征，确保公允价值的运用符合相关的会计准则和规定。
金融危机下的公允价值会计——会计类毕业论文中英文翻译、外文翻译
附件9：XXX科技学院学生毕业设计（论文）外文译文院（系）专业班级学生姓名XXX学号XXX文章来源：玛利亚卡门惠安库扎大学，亚历山大雅西，罗马尼亚金融危机下的公允价值会计摘要：2008年9月的金融风暴直击美国经济核心，并且迅速蔓延到世界各地，引发了对使用外来衍生金融工具和公允价值会计的激烈辩论。
或多或少受此次危机影响的银行﹑保险管理人员，审计师和政界人士就这一主题多次在新闻头版发表不同意见，本文的目的是审查金融市场的现状，使我们了解到公允价值会计及衍生品在预防这些巨大的丑闻时的重要性，制定准则。
同时阐述支持或反对使用公允价值和信用衍生产品的意见并提出应对未来金融危机的解决办法。
关键词：次贷危机金融衍生产品公允价值一、引言安然危机震撼了美国经济的核心。
监管机构在2000年初发行规则，以方便投资者了解公司资产的价值，并减少（至少部分减少）结构性融资的复杂性。
当时，一个最佳的解决方案似乎是合理价值会计，它旨在披露更具相关性和有价值的报告。
监管机构认为，鼓励公平价值的透明度和可比性，将有助于恢复投资者对金融市场及其机构的信任。
安然事件之后，美国的标准制定者-财务会计标准委员会（ FASB ）已行使任务，发出的公允价值测量标准（联邦反垄断局第157条）。
根据这一标准，资产必须属于这三类之一，如何分类取决于其相对流动性：1级，包括最流动资产，其价值源于在活跃市场的价格;2级，包括使用可观察市场的市场数据;3级，包括最难计量的资产的公允价值计量不可观察，只有通过以内部模式和估算为基础的价格。
正是这个第三级别提高了在没有市场参考价时有关强制使用市场价值为交易或金融资产/负债的计价模式。
关于公允价值会计的争论再度引发了新闻界把责任归咎于彻底崩溃的住房抵押贷款证券的市场和住房信贷市场1由于缺乏市场流动性产生了上述银行家，责任再次放在公允价值会计，但奇怪的1因为没有流动性的市场，这里第三级最具争议，它有关强制使用以市场价值为交易、金融资产或负债。
金融英语翻译
第二章银行与金融机构监管I.银行监管1.银行监管的重要性与监管目标A.银行的作用与银行监管的重要性从一般意义上来说,银行与一般的工商企业并无两样,都是通过管理经营获取利润,股东得到合理的投资回报。
然而,众所周知,银行与追逐利润的一般工商企业的明显区别在于,一国的经济与金融生活在以下三个重要方面依赖于银行•在为家庭、政府和企业提供支付手段方面,银行起着主导作用。
•吸收活期或定期存款,这些存款构成社会金融资产的一部分。
•在市场经济条件下,银行在分配金融资源方面发挥着主要作用,充当资金盈余的存款人和资金短缺的借款人的媒介,并对借款人的还款能力作出合理判断。
鉴于此,与其他企业相比,银行要受到更严格的监管。
强有力的银行监管是健康经济环境的一个重要组成部分,为人们提供了在市场上难以获得的公共产品。
伴随着有效的宏观经济政策,银行监管对一个国家的金融稳定有着决定性意义。
银行监管的成本很高,但是如果监管不力成本会更高。
另一方面,银行也有重要的官方保护。
例如,中央银行一般扮演着最后贷款人的角色,以防止商业银行因临时性的流动性问题而倒闭,这种保护是支撑银行体系的官方安全网中一个重要组成部分。
安全网的另一个组成部分是存款保险基金,它保证银行存款人在银行倒闭后能得到自己的存款。
B.银行监管的目标尽管银行监管在不同的国家有不同的做法,反映了每个国家独特的历史发展,但是,银行监管的总体目标和目的大致相似。
第一,银行监管的主要目标是保持金融稳定和公众对金融体系的信心。
第二,它可以确保银行安全、稳健地运行,银行持有的资本和存款准备金能够足以抵御业务风险。
第三,银行监管的目标是保护存款人的存款,尽量减少银行倒闭时由存款保险基金所承担的损失。
对存款人保护是保持公众对银行体系信心、防止发生银行挤兑的一个重要因素。
管理完善的银行是保护存款人的基本方式。
正像我们前面提到的,促使银行稳健发展,是银行监管的基本目标。
然而,银行确实会因这样或那样的问题而倒闭。
美国会计准则中文版15金融工具的公允价值-reviewedbyCathy-ok
美国会计准则中文版15金融工具的公允价值-reviewedbyCathy-ok15－1 会计定义概述所有的企业必须披露其拥有的金融工具的相关信息。
所有金融工具的重大信用风险都应予以披露。
对于可以合理估算出公允价值的金融工具，所有的企业都必须予以披露其公允价值。
企业被鼓励（但非要求）以可计量的方式披露金融工具的市场风险。
金融工具是指货币资金、企业所有权证明、或合同诸如：1．某企业的责任如(a) 向另一企业支付货币资金或交付金融工具(b)与另一企业以非有利的条款交换金融工具。
2．向另一企业转让(a) 向第三方企业收取货币资金或金融工具的权利(b) 与第三方企业以有利的条款交换金融工具的权利。
根据上述定义，金融工具包括以下项目：1．货币资金－包括现金、活期存款或其他具有与活期存款相似特征及可以随时存入及取出的资金。
尽管现金等价物不属于现金，但由于其流动性，也归类为金融工具；2．对另一企业拥有所有权的证明－普通股、优先股、合伙协议、利益或参与证明、购买某家企业的股票期权等；3．交换货币资金或金融工具合同须满足以下要求：a.附条件或不附条件的往来款合同如：应收帐款和票据、短期或长期应付票据、预计的应收款和预提的应付款；b.金融期权合同诸如：固定利率贷款、带预先支付权的按揭贷款和可转换借款等；c.财务担保或其他对于第三方债务担保；d.金融远期合同诸如按购买日企业价值确定股价的企业股票回购合同。
15－1－1 信用风险集中如果金融工具持有者在履行其合同义务时受到经济或其他情况变动的影响，就会产生金融工具的信用风险集中。
例如，企业有大量的应收帐款，而其大部分客户都集中在同一地区，则会产生信用风险集中。
同样，如果企业大量的应收帐款都来自于某一特殊行业（如国防工业），也会产生信用风险集中。
以下为必须披露的金融工具重大风险集中事项（会计准则委员会公告第107号，par 15，及其修正版会计准则委员会公告第133号par 531）:1.与风险集中相关的活动、地区及经济特征；2.如果引起风险集中的金融工具中的各方未能完全按照合同条款履行义务，且相关抵押品在到期日被证明已不具有任何价值所造成的最大损失；3.企业关于提供抵押品或证券方面的政策以保障受信用风险影响的金融工具，以及企业取得该些抵押品或证券的途径及可能性和关于该些抵押品或证券的性质的描述；4.企业关于利用组合结算协议的政策以减少金融工具的信用风险。
金融工具新准则对银行业的影响与对策
金融工具新准则对银行业的影响与对策金融工具新准则是指国际会计准则委员会（International Accounting Standards Board，IASB）颁布的关于金融工具会计处理的新标准，即国际财务报告准则第9号——金融工具（International Financial Reporting Standard 9，IFRS 9）。
这一准则于2018年1月1日起生效，对银行业的影响十分重大。
本文将从影响方面和应对策略两个方面对其影响进行分析。
1. 风险情况全面反映：新准则要求银行根据合同条款、经济现实和管理意图，将金融工具划分为三个分类（以公允价值计量分类、以摊余成本计量分类和可供出售金融资产分类），使得银行的风险状况能够更加全面地反映在财务报表中。
这对于投资者和监管机构更好地了解银行业的风险状况具有重要意义。
2. 信用损失准备计提政策：新准则将原先的实际信用损失模型替换为预期信用损失模型，要求银行在计提信用损失准备时考虑未来可能发生的风险，并在贷款发放之初就开始计提相应的准备金。
这一政策的实施将带来银行利润的大幅下降，对银行资本充足性等方面的要求也会更加严格。
3. 财务报表披露要求：新准则要求银行提供更加详细的信息，比如披露划分各类金融资产的原则和方法等。
这意味着银行需要加大对内部控制和信息管理的力度，以确保准确有效的披露信息，并使投资者和监管机构对银行业务的了解更加全面。
1. 优化贷款发放和风险管理：由于新准则对信用损失计提提出更高要求，银行应加强对贷款风险的管理和监控，优化贷款发放和风险控制过程，提高贷款的质量和回收率。
2. 提高数据质量和信息系统支持能力：新准则要求银行提供更详细的信息，因此银行需要加强对数据采集、处理和报告的能力，提高数据质量和信息系统的支持能力，确保准确有效地披露信息。
3. 加强内部控制和审计机制：新准则对财务报表披露要求更加详细，因此银行需要加强内部控制和审计机制，健全财务报表的准确性和可靠性，为投资者和监管机构提供真实可信的信息。
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。
公允价值会计在金融行业的应用
公允价值会计在金融行业的应用随着金融行业的发展和全球化的进程，公允价值会计作为一种新的会计准则，逐渐在金融行业中得到广泛应用。
公允价值会计是一种以市场价格为基础，通过反映资产和负债的当前市场价值来进行估计和计量的会计方法。
本文将探讨公允价值会计在金融行业的应用，并分析其优势和挑战。
公允价值会计在金融行业中的应用主要体现在金融工具的估值和金融资产的计量上。
金融工具是金融机构的核心业务，包括股票、债券、衍生品等。
传统的历史成本会计无法准确反映金融工具的真实价值，而公允价值会计可以更好地反映市场价格的变动对金融工具价值的影响。
通过公允价值会计，金融机构可以更准确地评估自身的风险暴露，提高风险管理能力。
公允价值会计在金融资产的计量上也发挥着重要作用。
金融资产是金融机构的主要资产，包括现金、存款、贷款等。
传统的历史成本会计无法反映金融资产的真实价值，特别是在面临市场波动和金融危机时。
公允价值会计可以更准确地反映金融资产的价值变动，提高金融机构的财务透明度和信息披露质量，增强投资者对金融机构的信心。
然而，公允价值会计在金融行业的应用也面临一些挑战。
首先，公允价值会计需要依赖市场价格来进行估值，但市场价格可能受到多种因素的影响，如市场情绪、流动性等。
这可能导致公允价值会计在市场波动较大时出现不稳定的情况。
其次，公允价值会计需要金融机构具备较强的估值能力和市场风险管理能力，这对金融机构提出了更高的要求。
此外，公允价值会计的应用还需要建立完善的会计准则和监管框架，以保证其正确和有效的运用。
尽管公允价值会计在金融行业的应用存在一些挑战，但其优势仍然是不可忽视的。
公允价值会计可以更准确地反映金融工具和金融资产的价值，提高金融机构的风险管理能力和财务透明度，增强投资者对金融机构的信心。
同时，公允价值会计也有助于提高金融市场的效率和稳定性，促进金融行业的健康发展。
综上所述，公允价值会计在金融行业的应用具有重要意义。
通过公允价值会计，金融机构可以更准确地估值金融工具和计量金融资产，提高风险管理能力和财务透明度。
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。