财务会计公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献
公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献
公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)原文:Fair Value is here to stayThe fair value guidance in SFAS 157 Fair Value Measurements, does not represent, as many perceive, a radical departure from previous accounting rules. SFAS 157 is the result of a natural evolution that has been taking place for more than 30 years. SFAS 157 is the result of anatural evolution that has been taking place for more than 30 years.Many who oppose SFAS 157 do so because of the current economic environment. This current economy, during which many hedge funds and other institutional investors face significant other-than-temporary write-downs on illiquid assets, is, however, an anomaly. Any valuation method that does not require significant write-downs in the current environment would fail to provide a reasonable representation of fair value for those illiquid assets.When it was introduced in 2007, SFAS 157 amended, deleted, or otherwise affected more than 40 areas of accounting guidance, including SFAS 13, Accounting for Leases. SFAS 13, issued in 1976, introduced the fair value concept when it described an asset being sold in an "arm's length transaction between unrelated parties." Since then, the accounting framework has continued to move away from a historical cost model and toward a fair value model.Throughout this transition, accounting standards were issued that discussed fair value in different contexts. SFAS 157 was designed primarily to provide a uniform definition of fair value and a universal measurement framework. Contrary to popular perception, SFAS 157 does not require any new items to be measured at fair value; it specifies the framework to be used wherever other standards require that items be measured at fair value.Along the WayMany accountants were educated during an era when colleges taught the tenets of historical cost as part of the fundamental framework of accounting. To those watching the fair value model slowly supplant the cost model during the past 30 years, it may seem like a dramatic change in thinking has recently occurred, but much of this shift is attributable to the ongoing development of accounting standards and rules, rather than a change in approach.To those watching the fair value model slowly supplant the cost model during the past 30 years, it may seem like a dramatic change in thinking has recently occurred, but much of this shift is attributable to the ongoing development of accounting standards and rules, rather than a change in approach. Prior to SFAS 87,Accounting for Pensions, and SFAS 106, Employers' Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions, many companies paid for these benefits on a pay-as-you go cash basis, with little attention given to the fair value of the plan assets that were needed to be set aside to cover the cost of such benefits or how to account for them on an accrual basis. SASs 87 and 106 required companies for the first time to factor in the fair value of plan assets when determining their benefit obligations.The next sweeping implementation of fair value took place when companies began to adopt SFAS 133, Accounting for Derivatives and HedgingActivities, in 1999. Prior to SFAS 133, companies were not required to put all derivatives on their balance sheet at fair value; derivatives were not even defined in the literature. For the first time, complex financial instruments, many of which were involved in hedging relationships, were subject to fair valuation. Soon after, SFAS 140, Transfers of Financial Assets, gave rise to difficult-to-value seductive financial assets, such as residential and commercial mortgage-hacked securities RMBS and CMBS, which in turn gave rise to collateralized debt obligationsCDO and other financial instruments. A barrage of valuation techniques based on higher math designed to account for securitization followed.SFAS 157 had a significant impact on fair value accounting for illiquid securities, which are typically among the most difficult assets to value. Prior to SFAS 157, companies often cherry-picked information to support valuations for illiquid positions, regardless of accuracy. Now, they are required to consider all "reasonably available" information and use the best data available to support their market assumptions and parameters.Even though SFAS 157 has been in effect for more than a year, many illiquid assets are still being valued based on previous methodologies that are clearly inaccurate.Today's EnvironmentIn the current economic environment, air value accounting facesintensified scrutiny, challenging situations, and significant opposition. Attention is especially focused on three areas:? Other-than-temporary write-downs,? Fresh-start accounting, and? Illiquid securities.Other-than-temporary write-downs.With Level 1 securities, determining when to record an other-than-temporary impairment can he as straightforward as deciding how much time has passed since an impairment began. When the tech bubble burst, for example, companies often realized after six to nine months that asset values weren't going to recover any time soon, if at all.But what about Level 2 or Level 3 assets that are valued using sophisticated modeling techniques? Prior to SFAS 157, companies and their auditors might have agreed to hold off or postpone making an adjustment, due to a lack of relevant and reliable information. SFAS 157 has driven companies to consider new types and sources of information, and to work harder to support valuations for Level 2 and Level 3 assets. Companies are now expected to support their Level 2 and Level 3 assets almost as if they were Level I assets.In evaluating goodwill for other-than temporary impairment, SFAS 157 suggests that a publicly traded stock price, if available, is the best indicator of fair value. But even when a stock price is available, other,more traditional methods of fair value, such as discounted cash flow, must also be considered. The challenge lies in supporting these other methods in the current environment of declining prices.With the release of FASB Staff Position FSP FAS 1 15-2 and FAS 124-2,Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments, in April 2009, companies are able to bifurcate certain losses on debt securities classified as held-to-maturity or available-for-sale between the portion related to credit conditions and the portion related to noncredit conditions. The noncredit portion will be recognized on the balance sheet until the debt security matures or is sold. In many situations, the amount reclassified to the balance sheet will include losses previously recognized in other periods. This new rule has caused controversy among practitioners and standards setters, primarily because it delays the inevitable recognition of those losses in earnings when the debt security is sold or matures.Fresh-start accounting Companies petitioning for Chapter 11 bankruptcy need to know whether they will qualify for fresh start accounting based on their reorganization value according to the provisions of AICPA Statement of Position SOP 90-7, Financial Reporting by Entities in Reorganization Under the Bankruptcy Code.SOP 90-7 provides a two-step test. The first step requires a comparison of reorganization value with the value of postposition claimsand obligations immediately prior to court confirmation. This balance sheet solvency test is a moving target throughout a bankruptcy proceeding, because there may be large fluctuations in reorganization value and claims until the plan is implemented. The second step requires that holders of existing common shares immediately before court confirmation have, as a group, less than 50% of the new company's shares upon emergence from bankruptcy. The challenge here involves the negotiations that take place between debtor and creditor committees and the company, which are then subject to final court approval.Illiquid securities. When determining fair value, companies must consider the frequency with which securities are traded. Fair value is more readily supportable for a frequently traded security than for one that is thinly traded because SFAS 157 emphasizes the importance of observable prices.Today, a company's desire to hold a position, together with its requirement to value that position, is causing a unique anomaly in the valuation world, as securities that would otherwise trade normally are increasingly subject to write-downs. A good valuation model must take into account all facts and circumstances. For example, when the market is dry for a specific illiquid security, the valuation methodology must consider any widening credit spreads, liquidity premiums from the time of the last active trading activity to the then-current indications, and discountrates implicit in nonbinding broker quotes.With the finalization in April 2009 of FSP FAS 157-4, Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions that Are Not Orderly, companies are now subject to additional disclosure requirements and must carefully support how observable prices from inactive markets areused in valuations. Companies may also need to explain significant differences between different inputs to value.FSP FAS 157-4 did not come about without opposition; it generated nearly 400 comment letters within a short period. The author is not aware of any other proposed accounting rule that generated so many comment letters within such a short time and that underwent such a drastic turn around before being finalized.Tomorrow's EnvironmentU.S. companies are facing a seemingly inevitable changeover to International Financial Reporting Standards IFRS. Fair value guidance under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GAAP is primarily rules-based, while fair value guidance under IFRS is based on principles. Principles often evolve into rules, but, in this case, rules appear to be reverting back to their origin as principles.Fair value guidance under SFAS 157 and íFRS are different inseveral respects. For example, IFRS does not define the term "market participants," does not include the concepts of principal market or "highest and best use," and does not generally permit imaret pricing. While there will be convergence to eliminate many differences, companies will need to embrace and understand the principles based approach behind IFRS.Fair value will continue to generate challenges for accountants, especially if and when IFRS is adopted. The sooner companies come to grips with the impact of fair value accounting, the better, because fair value is here to stay.翻译:公允价值仍留在此处在美国财务会计准则委员会《财务会计准则公告第157号公允价值计量》(SFAS 157)的指导下,公允价值计量,并不代表尽可能多的感知,与以前的会计准则大相径庭。
外文翻译--公允价值会计和经融危机：信差还是贡献者
本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：Fair Value Accounting and the Financial Crisis：Messenger or Contributor?出处：Serie Scientifique Scientific Series作者：Michel Magnan原文：Fair Value Accounting and the Financial Crisis:Messenger or Contributor?Did fair value accounting play a role in the current financial crisis? This appendix explores the issue. Fair value accounting implies that assets and liabilities get measured and reflected on a firm`s financial statements at their market value, or close substitutes. Extensive academic research done over the past 20 years shows that financial statements that reflect the market values of assets or liabilities provide information that is relevant to investors. In other context, fair value accounting is just a messenger carrying bad news. In contrast, there is also another research stream which is quite critical of the perceived merits of fair value accounting, and which worries about how it undermines what constitutes the core of financial reporting. More specifically, it is argued that fair value accounting is difficult to verify, may be based on unreliable assumptions or hypotheses and provides management with too much discretion into the preparation of financial statements. Hence, according to this view, fair value accounting is not necessarily a neutral or unbiased messenger. Moreover, fair value accounting creates a circular dynamic in financial reporting, with markets providing the input for the measurement of many assets, thus affecting reported ear nings which are then used by analysts and investors to assess a firm’s market value. If markets become volatile, as has been the case in recent months, reported earnings also become more volatile, thus feeding investors apprehensions. Therefore, since fair value accounting is associated with more volatile and less conservative financial statements and, it may have allowed managers to delay the day of recognition as well as distorted investors and regulators’ perceptions of financial performance and stability at the end of the financial bubble. However, once the economic pendulum swung back, fair value accounting may have magnified their views as to the severity of the current financial crisis, hence accelerating some negative trends.The purpose of the Appendix is to provide additional insights into the role played by fair value accounting in the financial crisis. Since the crisis is still ongoing, there is no direct or formalempirical evidence about such role, which may be perceived, actual or potential. However, by analyzing the conceptual and empirical foundations of fair value accounting, it may be possible to draw some inferences and to assess if and how fair value accounting underlies some of the recent turmoil in financial markets. In that regard, the Appendix aims to achieve the following objectives. First, I intend to provide a brief overview of fair value accounting, including its impact onfinancial statements. The overview includes a summary of the opposite viewpoints on the merits of fair value accounting. Second, I present and discuss the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of fair value accounting. Thirdly, I analyze the measurement and valuation challenges that arise from the use of fair value accounting. Finally, on the basis of the above analyses, I sketch a tentative framework to understand fair value accounting's role and potential contribution to the financial crisis. While fair value accounting can conceptually apply to all aspects of a firm's financial statements, I will purposefully focus on its application to financial instruments and financial institutions.Fair value is defined as the price at which an asset could be exchanged in a current transaction between knowledgeable, willing parties. For liabilities, fair value is defined as the amount that would be paid to transfer the liability to a new debtor. Under fair value accounting (FVA), assets and liabilities are categorized according to the level of judgment (subjectivity) associated with the inputs to measure their fair value, with three (3) levels being considered. At level 1, financial instruments are measured and reported on a firm's balance sheet and income statement at their market value, which typically reflects the quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets. It is assumed that the quoted price for an identical asset or liability in an active market provides the most reliable fair value measurement because it is directly observable to the market (« mark-to-market »). However, if valuation inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly, but do not qualify as Level 1 inputs, the Level 2 fair value assessment of a financial instrument will reflect a) quoted prices for similar financial instruments in active markets, b) quoted prices for identical or similar financial instruments in markets that are not active, c) inputs other than quoted prices but which are observable (e.g., yield curve) or d) correlated prices. Finally, certain financial instruments which, for example, are customized or have no market, will be valued by a reporting entity on the basis of assumptions that presumably reflect market participants' views and assessments (e.g., private placement investments, unique derivative products, etc.). Such valuation is deemed to be derived from Level 3 inputs and iscommonly referred as "mark-to- model" since it is often the outcome of a mathematical modelling exercise with various assumptions about economic, market or firm-specific conditions. In all cases, any unrealized gain (or loss) on financial instruments held by an institution translates into an increase (decrease) in its stockholders' equity and, consequently, an improvement (deterioration) in its capitalization ratios.Detractors, among them David Dodge, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada, argue vehemently that FV A has accelerated and amplified the current financial crisis. Their argument can be summarized as follows.Starting in 2007, the drop in the price of many types of financial instruments led financial institutions to mark down the asset values reported on their balance sheets, thus weakening their capitalization ratios (let's think about the first write-offs following the start of the subprime crisis). To improve their financial profile and to enhance their safety zone with respect to regulatory capital requirements, these institutions started to sell securities or close down positions on some financial instruments in markets that were increasingly shallow as a result of the emergence of a liquidity crisis. These sales magnified the downdraft in quoted prices, thus bringing additional devaluations, etc. Along these lines, William Isaac, former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, argues that "mark-to-market accounting has been extremely and needlessly destructive of bank capital in the past year and is a major cause of the current credit crisis and economic downturn".However, FVA can count on broad support from the accounting profession, standard setters and regulators. For instance, in a recent speech, Nick Le Pan, Canada's former Superintendent of Financial Institutions, argued that FVA is only a messenger and should not be criticized for merely reflecting the poor underlying economic outlook. Barbara Roper, from the Consumer Federation of America, argues that sound accounting principles, such as FVA,led to the exposure of underlying problem assets. In her view, FV A provides more accurate, timely and comparable information to investors than any other accounting alternative.Theoretical and Empirical Foundations Underlying FV AFAV’s theoretical and empirical premises are relatively solid. In fact, it is one of the few accounting standard that can be traced back directly to accounting-based scientific research. More specifically, there is consistent empirical evidence, accumulated over the past 20 years, that a firm's stock price is more closely associated with the market value of its underlying financial or real assets than with their historical cost, i.e., their purchase price plus related expenses. Thesuperior relevance of market-derived values is even more obvious in the case of financial derivatives which historical cost is often close to zero but which market value can fluctuate widely. In other words, fair values, or marked to market values, have been found to be more relevant indicators of firm value than traditional historical cost-based figures.An interesting early study on the relevance and implications from FVA was performed by Bernard, Merton and Palepu (1995). For many years, Denmark's accounting standard-setting and banking regulatory authorities have relied on mark-to-market valuation for the assets of their commercial banks. Bernard, Merton and Palepu find that Danish banks' book values, which reflect mark-to-market valuations, seem to provide more reliable information to investors than historical cost-based figures then provided by U.S. banks. Moreover, they do not find evidence that Danish bank executives manipulate mark-to-market numbers to circumvent regulatory capital ratios. However, they also point out that that the Danish and U.S. apital markets are not quite similar and that their findings may not completely hold in a U.S. setting.Measurement and Valuation ChallengesDespite its many tangible or perceived benefits to investors, the adoption and use of FVA undermines several critical foundations of financial reporting to which we have become accustomed. More specifically, the implementation of FV A explicitly confirms the primacy of financial markets and of investors in the determination of accounting standards. Essentially, the broader social issues and implications arising from accounting standards for stakeholders beyond investors are assumed away.The potential danger of relying on capital markets-based findings to directly prescribe accounting standard has been highlighted more than 30 years ago by Gonedes and Dopuch.Following a irst wave of capital markets-based studies that mapped their findings directly into standard-setting issues, Gonedes and Dopuch explain that observing an empirical relation between accounting amounts and equity prices or returns does not provide sufficient evidence about the desirability or effects of a particular standard,even if markets are informational efficient. Their conclusion rests on the fact that accounting standards are essentially a public good. Therefore, standard setters' mandate and responsibility is to develop standards after making the appropriate social welfare trade-offs, which do involve more parties than just investors. Hence, deciding about a particular accounting standard requires that social preferences be specified. From a different perspective, Holthausen and Watts (2001) put forward theargument that the value-relevance literature has little to say about standard-setting issues. In their view, without an underlying theory that explains, predicts and links accounting, standard setting, and valuation, value-relevance studies simply report associations.FVA and the Financial Crisis: Some ThoughtsIt is still too early to conclude on FVA's role in the current financial crisis: not all data is available, additional analyses must be completed and all its consequences cannot be observed. However, relying on prior research findings and on available data, it is possible to draw some inferences about thecontribution of FVA to the financial crisis.More Volatile Financial ResultsMost prior research shows that the adoption of FVA translates into more volatile financial results (earnings). Hence, financial markets' extreme volatility over the past two years has contributed to raise financial institutions' volatility, potentially amplifying the perception by investors, regulators and governments as to the seriousness of the crisis. More practically, the drop in reported earnings is even more dramatic in light of the record earnings reported in prior years, with FVA pushing down earnings in the current period but boosting earnings in prior years. Two examples illustrate the potential impact of FVA on the volatility of reported earnings.Crédit Suisse: Within the context of the subprime crisis, the stock market value of most financial institutions depends extensively upon investors' assessment of their direct and indirect exposure to subprime-related loans or derivatives. The valuation information disclosed by financial institutions that evolve in the same markets largely influences such an assessment, with more recent market quotes driving such valuation. In that regard, the saga surrounding Crédit Suisse's release of its 2007 earnings is quite enlightening. On February 12, 2008, Crédit Suisse reports record income from continuous operations of 8.5 billion Swiss Francs. On February 19, 2008.Crédit Suisse announces that some additional control processes have led to the repricing of certain asset-backed positions in its Structured Credit Trading business, with the current total fair value reduction of these positions being reduced by an estimated $U.S. 2.85 billion. Finally, on March 20, 2008, Crédit Suisse reports that its 2007 operating income has been revised downward by 1.18 billion Swiss Francs (789 million Swiss Francs after tax), close to a 10% difference with the initially reported figure. The Crédit Suisse story illustrates the difficulty of pinning down the fair value of many assets when the underlying valuation methodology is complex and subject toshifting hypotheses and assumptions about the future. Crédit Suisse`s experience also shows that reported results for a given period may be subject to a wide margin of error, or discretion, or even restated.Lehman Brothers: In its last reported financial statements before it went bankrupt, Lehman Brothers reported a loss of $U.S. 2.4 billion for the first six months ended May 31, 2008 (vs. a net income of $U.S. 2.4 billion for the first six months ended May 31, 2007). The shift of $U.S. 4.8 billion in net income is largely driven by a dramatic fall of $U.S. 8.5 billion in Lehman's revenues from principal transactions, which include realized and unrealized gains or losses from financial instruments and other inventory positions owned. A significant portion of the downward shift in principal transactions revenues is actually explained by unrealized losses of $U.S. 1.6 billion in the first semester of 2008 vs. unrealized gains of $U.S. 200 million in the first semester of 2007. Thus, accounting at fair value for some financial assets amplified Lehman's downward earnings performance.Hence, it can be put forward that FVA, through its magnifying impact on earnings volatility, may have contributed to aggravate investors', regulators' and governments' perceptions with respect to the severity of the crisis, itself characterized by record volatility in the prices of many securities and goods.On a related note, the increased volatility brought forward by FVA is conducive to the use of equity-based compensation, especially stock options, which value is then enhanced (according to the Black-Scholes model, volatility is one of the key inputs in option valuation). Prior research suggests that there is a strong association between performance volatility and the use of stock options. Through FVA, the outcomes from aggressive risk-taking in investment and financing strategies will directly flow into reported earnings, thus further leveraging the potential gains to be derived from stock options and other incentives. Many financial institutions involved in the current crisis made extensive use of stock options and other incentives, allowing unrealized gains on assets to be converted into cold hard cash..译文：公允价值会计和经融危机：信差还是贡献者公允价值会计在这次金融危机中是否起了重要作用？本文来探讨这个问题。
会计学财务报表中英文对照外文翻译文献
会计学财务报表中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)译文：中美财务报表的区别(1)财务报告内容构成上的区别1)美国的财务报告包括三个基本的财务报表，除此之外，典型的美国大公司财务报告还包括以下成分：股东权益、收益与综合收益、管理报告、独立审计报告、选取的5-10年数据的管理讨论与分析以及选取的季度数据。
2)我国财务报告不注重其解释，而美国在财务报告的内容、方法、多样性上都比较充分。
中国的评价部分包括会计报表和财务报表，财务报表是最主要的报表，它包括前述各项与账面不符的描述、财会政策与变化、财会评估的变化、会计差错等问题，资产负债表日期，关联方关系和交易活动等等，揭示方法是注意底部和旁注。
美国的财务范围在内容上比财务报表更加丰富，包括会计政策、技巧、添加特定项目的报告, 报告格式很难反映内容和商业环境等等，对违反一致性、可比性原则问题，评论也需要披露的，但也揭示了许多方面，比如旁注、底注、括号内、补充声明、时间表和信息分析报告。
(2)财务报表格式上的比较1)从资产负债表的格式来看，美国的资产负债表有账户类型和报告样式两项描述，而我国是使用固定的账户类型。
另外，我们的资产负债表在项目的使用上过于标准化，不能够很好的反映出特殊的商业项目或者不适用于特殊类型的企业。
而美国的资产负债表项目是多样化的，除此之外，财务会计准则也是建立在资产负债表中资产所有者投资和支出两项要素基础上的，这一点也是中国的财会准则中没有的。
2)从损益表格式的角度来看，美国采用的是多步式，损益表项目分为两部分，营业利润和非营业利润，但是意义不同。
我国的营业利润在范围上比美国的小，例如投资收益在美国是归类为营业利润的而在我国则不属于营业利润。
另外，我国的损益表项目较美国的更加规范和严格，美国校准损益表仅仅依赖于类别和项目。
报告收可以与销售收入及其他收入相联系，也可以和利息收益、租赁收入和单项投资收益相联系；在成本方面，并不是严格的划分为管理成本、财务成本、和市场成本，并且经常性销售费用、综合管理费用以及利息费用、净利息收益都要分别折旧。
会计公允价值 财务外文翻译 3000多字译文 2013年
文献出处：Gîrbină M M. Lobbying towards IASB respondents’ influence on the Fair Value Option[J]. Analele Universităţii din Oradea, 2013, 16: 370-374.原文Lobbying towards IASB: respondent’s influenceOn the fair value option amendmentGîrbinăABSTRACT：The focus of our research is to analyze the environment in which IASB acts and to investigate its influence on the standard setting process using the theoretical framework of the institutional theory. We perform a case study illustrating the standard setting process for the amendments to IAS 39 after 2002 concentrating on the “Fair Value Option- amendment”. The examination is based on comments letters submitted, final standards and their basis for conclusion and pursues the dentification of the main parties involved, their opinions, incentives, interests and the arguments they use to support their position, the sources of controversies and also the reaction of the IASB to opposing arguments and the justification of its choices. Keywords: accounting standard setting, IASB, lobbying, fair value option1 IntroductionThere is a general presumption that accounting standards are intended to enhance the quality of accounting information and to reduce the asymmetry among market participants. Because the standards determine the information disclosed by companies and play an important role in the wealth distribution process, an accounting standard acceptable to all rarely exists. The affected parties will try to convince the standard setter to write rules to their advantage and the later will have to solve the inherent conflicts. In other words, accounting standard setting is not just about finding the “right solution” but is also about making choices among the views of different individuals and groups having conflicting interests.Private regulators develop their standards according to a due process which incorporates a formal public consultation by providing interested parties opportunities to express their views on debated issues before the adoption of the final standards. The standard setting is considered a political activity in which interested parties will seek to lobby the rule-making body.The study of the lobbying process is necessary because it gives insights into understanding the institutional features of standard setting. If prior research concentrated mainly on the work of standards setters from different countries, we considered that institutional particularities of IASB don’t justify thegeneralization of results.2 Literature ReviewAn important part of the literature on politics in standard setting identified interested parties their incentives and victories. Some research appealed economic models, the individual interest and the rationality of the actors to explain the standard setting process and the behavior of the actors. Other research studies classified participants and correlated their positions to accounting standard outcomes.In spite of the extensive literature on accounting standard-setting, few studies focused on the work of the IASB and its forerunner, IASC. A part of them analyzed the comment letters without focusing on characteristics of lobbyers. Kenny and Larson (1993) examined the comment letters on the Exposure Draft Financial Reporting of Interests in Joint Ventures and concluded that few individual firms lobby the IASC and that professional and trade organizations lobby on behalf of their constituents. Kenny and Larson (1995) analyzed also the comment letters on IASC proposals published between 1989 and 1992 and found that 40 organizations contributed about 60 % of all submitted responses. Larson (1997) tested empirically the applicability of ideas originating in the U.S.-based lobbying literature in an international context. Mac Arthur (1996) analyzed the content of the comment letters sent by companies to the IASC on ED 32 (comparability of financial statements) to test Gray's hypothesized linkages between accounting values and the cultural values identified by Hofstede. Later, MacArthur (1999) focused on the impact of cultural factors on the lobbying behavior of accounting bodies’ members on the IASC’s ED 32. The combined results suggested that cultural, accounting sub cultural and economic factors influence the preferences of accounting bodies’ members and corporate management. By exploring the effect of national characteristics on lobbying, Jorissen et al (2006) demonstrated that in countries with high levels of enforcement, with high judicial efficiency, and with a positive attitude towards tax compliance, companies engage more often in lobbying and that variables relating to domestic earnings management practices and the domestic information environment of the firm have no significant influence.3Research methodologyIn order to assess the influence of IASB’s institutional environment on its standard setting process we will examine the development of amendments to IAS 39 after 2002 concentrating on the “Fair Value Option-amendment”.4 The theoretical framework of the researchGrounded in social theory, institutional theory asserts that organizations adjust their structure, policies, and procedures to conform to norms, values, beliefs deemed legitimate in order to maintain credibility andsurvive. As Ritti and Silver (1986) suggest, the institutionalization of an organization and its success in gaining legitimacy depends on its ability to project myth about itself. Afterwards, the legitimacy is maintained by engaging in ritualistic enforcement to comply with institutional expectations and communicating the rational basis of these enforcement processes. In the case of IASB, actors with different national, professional background and diverging interests struggle to influence the process of rule setting. Given the variety of actors involved the diversity of their interests, traditions and languages it is somewhat surprising that the process of standard setting is still possible. It has been argued that the dominance of the expertise and professional discourse, the institutionalization of a due process which provided a coordination mechanism for actors with conflicting interests to collaborate in order to elaborate international standards transformed IASB in a legitimate mean of organizing contest all over the world ( Jorissen A. et al ,2006). Compromise is essential to maintain credibility in order to remain credible and survive.5 Case selectionConsidering that the case must be representative for the investigated phenomenon we decided that the study of the development of a standard which gave rise to much controversy is more likely to provide an insight into the standard setting process. This approach can be understood in terms of selecting an extreme case (Ryan et al, 2002). Issued in 1998, IAS 39 was the culmination of a long process aimed at defining and establishing recognition and measurement guidance for financial instruments. The negotiation process is far from the end having that, from its initial issuance in 1998, the standard has been amended seven times. Among the revisions to IAS 39 in 2002 was the introduction of an option that permitted entities to designate irrevocably on initial recognition any financial asset or financial liability to be measured at fair value with gains and losses recognized in profit or loss (the “fair value option”). Although many EU banks and insurers favored the fair-value option, banking regulators such as the European Central Bank (ECB) strongly opposed it and lobbied the European Commission which included the option in the 'carve-out'. This generated a situation where first time adopters outside the EU could use the full option, but EU listed companies could in theory only fair value assets, because the EU carve out excluded liabilities. Confronted with an unexpected problem, IASB decided to propose the limitation of the fair value option in an Exposure Draft issued in April 2004 (ED Proposed Amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement: The Fair Value Option ).6 Data analysisIn order to study the lobbying behavior it is essential to know which opportunities are given by IASB to its constituents to participate in the lobbying process. A possible source of intrusion might come from EU screening mechanism. The constituents may also use informal channels for lobbying. Obtaining evidence ofinformal lobbying activity is difficult because it is not directly observable. For this reason, our examination will be based on comment letters, decision summaries, press releases and other public information. Georgioiu (2004) shown that there is a strong link between the use of comment letters and the use of other lobbying mechanisms, so we will focus mainly on the study of lobbying behavior using publicly available comment letters. The research population consisted of comment letters that were written between 2002 and 2005 in response to exposure drafts that amended IAS 39.The 478 comment letters were first classified in different categories, whereby each category represented a different constituent party: preparers, the accounting profession, users, national standard setters, stock exchanges, governments, individuals, academics and other interested parties. Our analysis supports the hypothesis developed by Sutton (1984) that preparers lobby more often than users, because they have greater exposure to the effects of regulations and they are able to bear the costs of lobbying. The second largest participating group is the accounting profession. Hussein and Ketz (1991) explain their participation as a proactive concern over legal liability. Also, Puro (1984) demonstrated empirically that accountants lobby as advocates of their clients. Lindalh (1987) advanced the idea that they use comment letters submission as a political resource to create the image of professionalism or as a form of advertising. The group of users of financial statements seems to be almost absent in this influencing process. The preparers, professionals and standard setters represent also the majority of SAC. We tested if the different constituent parties lobby to the same extent towards all documents issued by the IASB related to amendments to IAS 39 and the hypothesis was rejected with a high significance (Kruskal–Wallis, asymptotic significance being 0.0001). Many participants disagreed with the board’s reasons to amend the fair value option. Accounting professionals and preparers (banks and insurance companies) had the most reluctant position related to the limitation of the fair value option. Most comment letters were received from UK (22), Germany (11), Australia (9) Switzerland (7), New Zeeland (6), France (6) Japan (4) Denmark (4) Belgium (4).In order to observe if external actors influenced IASB via their comment letters we identified the main issues raised by constituents in their letters and verified if they were integrated in the final standard (the methodology was proposed by Weetman, 2001) and we analyzed situations for which IASB changed in the final standard its position expressed in the ED. Most comments received an answer in the final standard. The justification of standard setter in the basis for conclusion is more detailed if the final standard reflects a different view from the view of constituents. In order to assess the respondents’ influence each comment letter was coded based on its concordance with the outcome in the final standard. Specifically if the comment letter favored the outcome in the standard it was coded +1 for that issue; if the comment letter opposed the outcome it was coded -1 for the issue. Then we realized a binomial test of the preference with the IASB’s position.This analysis tentatively ind icated that the IASB is influenced by respondents’ preferences as expressed in their letters. To statistically test for the association between the predictor variable, constituents groups and the influence on accounting issues, a chi-square test was used. It revealed that banks influenced the elimination of the verifiability test from the final standard. Also, most banks agreed with fair valuing debts without separating the effect of own creditworthiness. With the purpose of examination of the positions taken in relation to the specific issues related to the use of fair value option we realized a content analysis of comment letters. The number of arguments and supporting arguments presented on an issue was considered as an indication of strength, the idea being that the more arguments and supporting arguments provided in a submission the stronger the position of the submission. Companies may also use different types of arguments and supporting arguments, such as economic consequences or conceptually based arguments, in an attempt to convince standard setters of their view (Tutticci et al., 1992). We also interpreted as a strength indicator the number of phrases considering that measures based on word counts and pages are problematic because of different writing styles and different page set-ups, graphics and font size. We determined that the longest justifications were received from preparers and the accounting profession and most constituents used conceptual based arguments.7 Conclusions, limitations and suggestions for future researchActions to find a solution for this short circuit in standard setting. It underlies the necessity of deploying strategies to maintain the standard setter legitimacy under circumstances of large institutional distance between pressure forces. Our conclusions are supported also by the latest actions of IASB to review its Constitution, due process and to enhance transparency, which we interpret as attempts to gain more legitimacy. The empirical part of the research demonstrated that the external actors influenced IASB’s decisions via their comment letters. The content analysis illustrated that most constituents used conceptually based arguments to strengthen their position when they disagreed with the opinion of the standard setter. This demonstrates also that constituents prefer to use socially accepted arguments and to and hide their real reasons for lobbying accentuating standard setter myths. This case-study illustrates how IASB exploits its due process ceremony to impose its values through manipulation of cognitive legitimacy. The most important limitation of the research is related to the fact that is based on comment letters and other publicly available material. Also, the content analysis conclusions might be affected by the subjectivity of the researcher in classifying arguments and choosing indicators of lobbying position.译文对国际会计准则委员会的游说：公允价值摘要：本文中我们研究的重点是分析IASB（国际会计准则委员会）行为的环境，探讨利用制度上的理论框架来制定标准制度过程中的影响。
公允价值会计外文文献翻译财务2014年译文3200字
文献出处：Barth M E, Landsman W R. The influence of fair value accounting on the banking industry [J]. Journal of banking & finance, 2014, 19(3): 577-605s（声明：本译文归百度文库所有，完整译文请到百度文库。
）原文The influence of fair value accounting on the banking industryBarth M E, Landsman W RAbstractSince the eighties of the twentieth century，FASB and IASB decided to spare no effort to promote the application of the fair value in accounting standards in order to reduce the financial risks from Financial derivatives. However, banking and financial regulatory authorities have questioned the reliability of fair value. In addition, they have thought that the application of the fair value will increase the volatility of financial situation and business performance; and then, it can affect the stability of financial system. In 2007, the outbreak of sub-prime mortgage crisis made fair value become a hot topic. Basic economic theory using fair value accounting for financial institutions for financial report provides a reasonable basis (Heaton et al., 2010).The so-called Fair Value (Fair Value) is in the process of trading assets or liabilities, familiar with the market situation of the voluntary exchange assets or debt liquidation identified price. As a relatively new measurement model, fair value can provide more real-time, useful information to market participants, and thus more valuable.Key words: Fair value; Banking; Financial instruments.1 IntroductionIn the traditional economic environment, historical cost has been in a leading position. In external market price is relatively stable, can generally accompanied by risks and rewards of complete transfer deals, the historical cost, despite of its rationality. And financial accounting emphasizes the fiduciary responsibility, pay more attention to the reliability of the accounting information authenticity, historicalcost measurement can meet the demand of this kind of information to a certain extent.Historical cost measurement, however, is not perfect, began in the late 60 s inflation, said with nominal currency non-monetary assets continue to rise, the market price of the book value is much lower than market price, therefore, on the basis of the historical cost financial statements to distort the real performance of enterprise management. Through further research, points out that after the 1980 s due to the rapid development of the financial instruments, financial assets and financial liabilities of price fluctuations is very intense, on the basis of the historical cost measurement model can't reflect the market fluctuations caused by price fluctuations, therefore, fair value accounting arises at the historic moment. In addition, from the fiduciary duty to decision-making useful accounting target also create conditions for the emergence of the fair value measurement.Different accounting objectives is different to the requirement of measurement, the decision-making useful concept requires fair value, the historical cost measurement and the concept of fiduciary duty requirement. About the causes of the fair value accounting, many scholars believe that fair value to the attention of the relevance of accounting information quality is the main reason. This is because, the usefulness of accounting information is a function of relevance and reliability. Different users of accounting information under the environment of there is a difference on the relevance and reliability requirements. When interest rates and asset values steady, the historical cost can be on the premise of guarantee the reliability of meet the relevant requirements. With the development of knowledge economy and the application of financial instruments, interest rate and asset values established stable this assumption is no longer, the correlation of accounting information users of accounting information demand.2 In the banking industry faced by the use of fair value accounting problemsThe application of fair value accounting in the banking sector after a from table to table, from simple to complex, from a specific financial instruments to the entire process, so that all assets and liabilities of financial instruments. But the application of fair value accounting is not plain sailing, bankers and regulators strongly opposed tothe fair value of sharply criticized the show the shortcomings in the practical application. Points out that, due to the use of fair value accounting, financial instruments during the surviving caused by changes in the profit and loss may not be able to provide very relevant information may even use personnel misleading statements.This view in the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008 for."Apocalypse of the us subprime crisis to our country the article mentioned that us financial giants blame said, according to the fair value of asset-backed securities (ABS), mortgage backed securities (MBS) and collateralised debt obligation (CDO) measured grades: debt products, lead to financial institutions to confirm unrealized (unrealized) and no cash flow (non - cash flow) of huge losses. These paper losses caused investors panic to sell the stock holding subprime product financial institutions. This irrational speculation in turn forced financial institutions at any cost, reduce the risk of subprime products exposed positions in the account further confirm the impairment loss, the subprime crisis have been intensified. In addition to the pro-cyclical effect, the reliability of fair value accounting also has certain problem.3 The influence of fair value accounting for the banking industryBecause the United States have developed capital market and the perfect regulation system, relatively easy to eliminate the noise of other factors on the use of the fair value interference, therefore at present about the fair value of the empirical studies are mainly concentrated in the securities market. In general, the scholars on the research of the fair value on the banking industry can be roughly divided into the following three aspects: the fair value of the impact on the volatility of earnings and capital, the influence of fair value accounting on banking market behavior and the influence of fair value accounting for banking supervision behavior.Based on the concept of assets and liabilities, the fair value of assets and liabilities have been reflected on the balance sheet, and practice relation between financial statements determines the change of a report item is bound to cause another corresponding changes in the project, so the profit and loss account confirmation of unrealized profits inevitably affected by fair value.Hodder, Hopkins and wahlen (2006)to 202 American Banks of financial data from 1996 to 2004 as samples, to calculate the net income and comprehensive income (including the part of the fair value of financial instruments) and the fair value of the comprehensive income (including all of the fair value of financial instruments) of the three alternative income index fluctuation degree, and examined the different degree of volatility index of risk., according to the results of comprehensive income is twice the net income, and the fair value of income is three times under the comprehensive income, net income of 5 times. Barth (2004) should be based on economic substance behind the fluctuation of earnings volatility. Although some may question the volatility by factors such as the reliability of the valuation models and management manipulation, but the empirical research results show that the increase in earnings volatility to a certain extent, reflects the real business environment faced by firms, the risk early warning effect. While Plantin Sapra and Shin (2004) study put forward different views. Mark-to-market accounting they think will make the market price fluctuations under the influence of artificial factors. This volatility to reduce the information content of market prices, led to economic inefficiencies. For comments, the author thinks that, relative to the historical cost, fair value can more reflect the market value of bank assets and liabilities in a timely manner, and can be reflected in the income statement and balance sheet. In the normal operation of the external market, fair value can be more fair to reveal the bank's business performance, financial status and risk management information, increased the transparency of financial information, more conducive to investors to make decisions.Ernst & Young in 1993 and 1993, two years in a row against SFASll5 effect of questionnaire. In the questionnaire for the first time, more than half of the respondents believe that using SFAS115 will change their investment behavior, more than 95% claimed that can shorten the duration of the debt securities investment, about 40% think that increases the hedging activities, there are also some reply that may reduce the proportion of securities investment. The second questionnaire in the criterion has run after a period of time.60% of respondents claimed that actually has been changed the investment strategy, shortened the duration of the portfolio, and to reduce themortgage securities. Beatty (1995) study is in line with the results of the questionnaire. To cope with the due to the influence of SFAS115 implementation, Banks to reduce the proportion of holdings of securities investment, shorten the term securities, and when the bank average leverage and rights and interests of the average declines, the classified as available for sale securities held by the proportion of class will decline. Rule of the evidence suggests that the bank of the rights and interests of fluctuations caused by concerns led to the changes of bank portfolio management practices.Hara, m. (1993) focuses on the influence of market value accounting for loan maturity date, the study found that in the long-term of non-current assets fair value information asymmetry may result in an increase in long-term interest rates, Banks tend to make short-term loans to borrowers face excessive settlement problem.Hodder (2002) to 230 listed commercial Banks from 1993 to 1995 data as sample, the study found that, regardless of the implementation rule of SFAS115 successively, Banks into available for sale financial assets (AFS) was down; The early implementation of SFAS115 weak capital bank more assets to divide the available for sale financial assets, because this kind of bank intends to use securities regulatory capital unrealized gains. And when the regulatory capital falls, bank interest rate risk and credit risk according to modify portfolio holdings, which reduced portfolio, reduce the interest rate risk and credit risk; The interest rate of bank's loan portfolio risk after implementing SFAS115 increased. Securities management can not divided into AFS (for example, all securities classified as held-to-maturity) to eliminate the impact of regulation, but the division and the bank's liquidity.Under fair value accounting, conform to the requirements of the standards of financial instruments must be confirm measurement in the report, making it easier for the bank performance is affected by the capital market and presents the volatility, trigger regulatory intervention. For such situation, Banks tend to decompose and externalized the risk of those who belong to the traditional banking activities, through the hedging accounting, securitization, or transfer the risk to the customer (such as a floating interest rate or short-term loan contract) means of minimizing exposure risk positions in the fair value measurement, and at the expense of long-term customerrelationships and investment needs at the expense of the pursuit of short-term goals.译文公允价值会计对银行业的影响巴斯，兰兹曼摘要20 世纪80 年代以来，金融衍生工具大量出现，为了减少随之而来的金融风险，财务会计准则委员会（FASB）和国际会计准则理事会(IASB)决定不遗余力地推广公允价值在会计准则中的应用。
论公允价值在我国的运用的外文资料与中文翻译
本科毕业设计（论文）题目论公允价值在我国的运用附录外文资料与中文翻译院（系部）工商管理系专业名称会计学年级班级 08会计—4班学生XX 许欣指导教师2012 年 05月 23日附录外文资料与中文翻译外文资料：The application of fair value in the domestic andinternational comparative analysis1the definition of fair value1.1 fair value definition comparative analysisFrom the definition of fair value can be seen, different countries, institutions for fair value definition although expressed in different ways, but its connotation basically the same:(1) the transaction fairness. Fair value is familiar with the situation between the two sides in the voluntary transactions in form, not in the forced liquidation or formed in the process of.(2) market compatibility. Active market and the active market can form the fair value. Active market in the market is the best evidence of fair value, but not the only evidence. When there is no active market, can be used in a variety of valuation techniques to provide a good estimation of the fair value of the mouth.(3) emphasize the relativity, i.e. exchange to determine the fair value is in relatively reasonable under the circumstances. The fair value is for its essence is a kind of ideal under the assumption that the value embodiment of social reality, and this hypothesis is difficult to fully realize. No matter how perfect transaction market, how wise, not likely to collect all information and effective analysis of information make absolutely correct decision. Fair value is the market value, namely, the fair value of the" fair" is relative.(4) the comprehensive measurement. Fair value refers not only to the fair value of the assets, including the fair value of the latter over a long period of time had beenignored.1.2 china fair value definition theoretical defectsOn the definition of fair value is substantially consistent with international. But this definition was studied, and combined with the fair value of specific access technology, we can find that, the fair value of the definition itself is not with no chink in one's armour, it is certain to have some theoretical defects.First, the definition of fair value in the emphasis on " even bargain", but in actual application, fairness is vague and difficult to guarantee the. For example, in a buyer's market or seller's market, by the impact of supply and demand, the actual transaction price is very difficult to achieve the true fair. For example, a license plate number or a certain kind of tea, with hundreds of thousands or even millions of prices, completely is traded a willing willing to endure a voluntary exchange price, it's hard to say with the original meaning of fair. Again, due to the existence of asymmetric information, the active market for both buyers and sellers to reach transaction prices are not absolutely fair. For example, in the second-hand car market, buy a car to car quality information related to master far less than selling cars, and sell the car man as a rational economic person, want the car can sell a good price and try to exaggerate the car quality. If a car that sells car people, to pay the corresponding price, so buyers interests have been violated; if a car prior to realize this reason, in order not to be cheated will adhere to the low price, sell a car people reluctantly part with cheap shots, so the car is not fair the. Of course, in this game, buy a car and the car can choose to exit the market, finally appear inferior goods expel quality product of the" adverse selection" results, but in the real economic life, both the information asymmetry phenomenon indeed bow can be found. Fair value definition requires a " familiar situation both sides" exist in name only, although voluntary transactions, the transaction price fairness is miles away.Secondly, based on the fair value definition emphasizes the" transaction" and produce, but a lot of the fair value of the acquisition is not derived from trading. But more often to the enterprise resource in a transaction and although the transaction but no observable amount in case, according to the same or similar situation madeestimation and evaluation. For example, the fair value not only for the initial measurement, are often used in subsequent measurement, and subsequent measurement are mostly in the absence of trade situation, through for a supply of sth. to reach consensus on the actual transaction price will be out of the question. There is also controversy most, one is " fair value is what?", namely the definition of the fair value of the meaning not clear. This is also a question of the application of the fair value of the core problem, determine the meaning of fair value, fair value measurement to determine the direction and target. Our fair value describing ambiguous, connotation and extension of uncertainty, not specific, may lead to confusion in practice application. The fair value is what the understanding is different, the fair value measurement using assumptions, techniques and methods may be different, measuring the results of the difference can be large, measurement reliability will be reduced.1.3 the United States of America fair value definition development reference to China(1)orderly transaction. The United States of" orderly transaction" and the international accounting standards board ( IASB ) and our country Ministry of Finance stated" even bargain " concept has bigger difference. " Orderly transaction" emphasize in the market full disclosure and assets or liabilities owner's initiative, and" even bargain " emphasize the transaction itself the unforced. " Orderly transaction " concept can be covered " even bargain " concept.(2)compared to the SFASNO.157, China's new accounting standards will be the fair value is defined as the transaction both sides of transaction is generated based on the amount, but not clearly expressed concern at the price. In some cases ( such as the related party transaction ) even if the transaction both sides, the price is also a lack of fairness, but also reduces the reliability of. China's new accounting standards fair value makers provided only limited to both parties to the transaction, and not its extension to the participants of the market range, therefore, the fair value of the developed after the absence of sufficient market equilibrium, and contain more involved in subjective components or hypothetical components, reliability needs tobe improved. And in the SFASNO.57 definition."" price decision is the asset or liability owners outside of the market activity, in introducing more market factors, increase the fair value of the objective to make more efforts to make fair prices, more reliable SFASNO.157 more trust from the external market price.(3)the definition of " market" and the international definition of " involved in the transaction parties"," market participants" the scope to be bigger. Because, although the price in trading by parties to the transaction is selected, but there is an active market, the price actually depends on other market participants to trade between the equilibrium price; and in some cases, pricing is not a trading conditions, such as asset revaluation, the reference market pricing the other participant in the transaction price. Therefore, the introduction of market participants concept makes the fair value has more reliability, but also deepen the concept of fair value.2the application of the fair value of market conditions2.1fair value market conditionsThe definition of fair value can be seen in fair value and market conditions of the relationship. IASB and fair value in China is defined as:" the even bargain, the Party of be in voluntary basis for exchange of assets or liabilities repayment amount." The United States FASB accounting standards issued by the FASl57" fair value" in the definition of fair value in the measurement for: with market traders in an orderly transaction, sale of assets or liabilities received transfer price. As can be seen from the definition, the first is the fair value of assets or liabilities in the transaction price, the transaction usually refers to the market, i.e., between two or more parties in the market of commodity exchange. In the definition of fair value is similar to the market price, of course, the market price is not to leave the market access. Secondly, from China to the definition of fair value in, the transaction price is in even bargain, and familiar with the transaction both sides burst transaction prices, the United States of America 's Financial Accounting Standards Board noted that the transaction price is in an orderly transaction conducted, orderly market hypothesis in the measurement with a period of time before the market has existing assets or liabilities of the conventional transaction, the transaction is a kind of forced transaction.Whether fair value is active on the market the actual transaction price? In essence, the fair value is a kind of evaluation based on market information. The fair value of the identified three ways, namely, the existence of market trade, exchange price for the fair value; market price is all market participants fully consideration of an asset or liability in the future cash flow and its uncertainty after the formation of the consensus, if there is no evidence to the contrary that the transaction is unfair or not voluntary, market transaction price for the asset or indebted evenhanded value; in the absence of actual transaction situation, should search on the market similar to similar transaction, transaction price as the fair value measurement basis, an asset or liability if no observable, directly determines the price by the market, it is stipulated in the contract or can be expected in the future cash flow can be estimated, can use thepresent value of estimated fair value of technology.On the fair value measurement requirements of what kind of market environment, Hunan University professor Xie Shifen (2001) discusses the very good answer to this question:" fair value only require even bargain, does not require active market, the market economy and the developed market economy, the market demand is not high. That the fair value to active market economy, or the fair value is not used for the view is wrong. It hinders China's system of accounting standards and international accounting standards in the process, China has the right to establish the fair value measurement and its specific target path south."Commercialize degree, fair value is the premise of even bargain. The high degree of marketization, market activity is as fair value acquisition provides a good foundation, but in the low degree of market situation, voluntary, mutual benefit, equivalence based even bargain still exists, resulting even bargain prices through multiple channels can get. Even in the absence of actual transactions occur, may also through imitate market transaction parameters judgements and estimates, or through the present value method and mathematical method to calculate the fair value. In fact, the so-called active market is only relative, not a country or area, all sorts of assets and liabilities are active in the market, no one country or area, all sorts of assets and liabilities are not there is an active market. Of course, the market is more active, the fair value of the more favorable.2.2 China's application of fair value conditionsIn our country, many accounting profession of our country current element market is mature, the lack of active market, fair value is often difficult to obtain, the market environment is not suitable for the application of fair value, fair value application requires active mature market, while China is precisely the lack of this kind of market, so in our country it is difficult to apply fair value. The application of fair value needed to have certain market conditions, but we can not because the conditions are not ripe or not fully mature and avoid or resist the implementation of fair value and should take a positive attitude and continue to nurture and improve the fair value application environment. You can see from the above analysis, not onlythere is an active market in order to obtain the fair value. Our country has partial with use of the fair value of the actual conditions.(1) the development of the financial market for the application of fair value of laying a foundation for China's capital market after 10 years of development has accumulated a certain theoretical and practical basis. With international economic integration degree deepening, the international capital market between mutual infiltration and mutual restriction for our first implementation of the fair value in the financial market provides feasibility. More and more enterprises to participate in the financial markets for investment or hedging, resulting in a large number of related financial tools business. According to the transaction object, the financial market can be divided into the foreign exchange market, capital market and gold market, according to financial instruments duration, capital market can be divided into the money market and capital market. These markets on the current accounting theory and practice effects were the major foreign exchange market, monetary market and capital market. The development of the financial market for the use of fair value request also provided stage. From short-term financial markets such as the bill, bond market and stock market, many enterprises have participated in. With China's futures and options market development, large enterprises using the financial derivatives market investment, hedging and risk management has become a kind of trend. Corporate financial statements and financial tools related to business and the growing proportion, either table business or business outside statement is true.(2) the fair value measurement in terms of the technical problems have been breakthroughs in fair value not only as short-term investments and derivative financial instruments measurement basis, and continues to expand into other areas, such as long-term investments. In fact, since investors because of the decision to produce to company earnings information needs, fair value accounting is becoming more and more favored by investors and creditors, because of the need to calculate a company during a period of comprehensive income, the company 's assets and liabilities must adopt fair value measurement, just as fair value the attributes of the historical cost measurement attribute to the traditional accounting model deviation, can not be accepted accounting personnel, plus in practice, many of the assets andliabilities of the fair value is difficult to obtain, often requires a large number of estimation and prediction, its reliability is difficult to meet the information requirements of users, fair value accounting is not widely promotion and application of. Since the nineteen seventies of international financial market and the rapid development of financial instruments measurement model for the study of improving, so that the fair value accounting measurement reliability and facing the accounting method is operable in two big problems resolved gradually, as the fair value of our country carry out laid a technological basis. That is to say, in terms of financial instruments, fair value accounting is facing technical problems have been solved basically, therefore, in the financial tools in the field of the full implementation of the fair value measurement of the theoretical foundation and realistic conditions are ripe.3 the application of the fair value of international comparison3.1 international accounting standards in the application of fair valueFor all the derivatives using fair value measurement, is the goal of IASC. IASC is still on the financial tools are classified, the historical cost and fair value measurement patterns coexist, the existing international accounting standards of financial instruments, involving business there are three major, namely < International Accounting Standards No. thirtieth -- banking and other similar financial institutions in the financial statements disclosure"," international accounting standards thirty-second number -- presentation and disclosure of financial instruments" and" International Accounting Standards No. thirty-ninth -- recognition and measurement of financial instruments", in 2005August 18 R, the international accounting standards board and published the" International Financial Reporting Standards No. seventh -- financial tool is disclosed" ( effective January 1, 2007), the standard will replace" international accounting standards thirtieth on the" and" international accounting standard thirty-second. Presentation and disclosure of financial instruments" involved in the financial instruments disclosure content.IASC on fair value in financial instruments on the application of reflected the principle of step by step, which require some of the fair value of financial instruments are disclosed, gradually requirements to confirm some of the fair value of financial instruments. And confirm scope expands gradually. So that the final completion of all financial instruments are measured by fair value objective.IAS32 on the fair value of a financial instrument is disclosed to make following provisions:(1) for each class has confirmed the financial assets and liabilities of enterprises of Yu Rong, shall disclose the fair value information. If the time or cost constraints. When enough to reliably determine the financial assets or financial liabilities at fair value is not feasible, a fact that should be together with regard to their fair values related to financial tool is the main feature with disclosure.(2) when an enterprise or a number of financial assets to more than its fair value is the amount listed timekeeping. Enterprises should be disclosed: single asset or individual assets to the appropriate category of the carrying amount of the fair value: does not reduce the amount of paper will cause, including available to management so that the carrying amount of evidence that can be recovered. The fair value of the financial assets or financial liabilities, enterprise should according to its carrying amount is according to the market price, independent assessment and discounted cash flow analysis, or by other appropriate method to determine, and instructions for use of these methods for any important assumption. For financial assets and financial liabilities of the initial measurement, IAS39, when the financial assets or financial liabilities measured, should be based on the cost measure, namely for the financial assets or financial liabilities that pays pair of price ( the fair value of financial assets ) or received on the valence of the fair value ( financial liabilities ). IAS39although the "cost" of a word, but the cost is consistent with fair value definition.The subsequent measurement of financial assets, financial assets to IAS39will be divided into four categories : 1enterprise source but not to trade while holding the loans and receivables; II held to maturity with investment; the available-for-sale financial assets; the financial assets held for trading. On the different kinds of assets, IAS39made different rules: initial recognition, first and second class, should be considered if it has determinate the amortized cost or cost, in addition to the first and two class and its fair value cannot be reliably measured financial assets at historical cost measurement, enterprises should be measured at fair value financial asset. But if the intention of holding or the ability to change, make not appropriate at amortised cost or historical cost records a held-to-maturity investment, enterprises should be based on fair value measurement on the back. Or, if not to the fair value measurement before reliable financial assets, can now be measured reliably, it shall be measured at fair value. If the intention of holding and the ability to change, or the fair value can no longer be reliably measured, then the change in circumstances when the R, the financial assets to determine the fair value of the carrying amount of as its new amortised cost.For the financial liabilities and follow-up measurement, after initial recognition,the enterprise should be generally measured at amortised cost of various financial liabilities. Liabilities held for trading and derivatives that are liabilities in the initial confirmation should be measured at fair value.3.2 of China's accounting standards in the application of fair valueChina has established four accounting standards for financial instruments, namely the" Enterprise Accounting Standards No. twenty-second recognition and measurement of financial instruments"," Enterprise Accounting Standards No. twenty-third to the transfer of a financial asset"," Enterprise Accounting Standards No. twenty-fourth ~ hedging" and" Enterprise Accounting Standards No. thirty-seventh presentation of financial instruments"" enterprise accounting rule twenty-second - recognition and measurement of financial instruments" in measurement of financial instruments that: enterprise initial recognition of the financial assets or financial liabilities, shall, in accordance with the fair value measurement. Financial assets and financial liabilities and follow-up measurement, enterprises should be in accordance with the fair value of the financial asset to the subsequent measurement, and shall not deduct the future disposition of the engaged in financial assets may occur when the transaction cost. However, with the exception of the following circumstances, the held-to-maturity investments, loans and receivables, shall adopt the effective interest rate method, at amortized cost. In the active market does not offer and its fair value cannot be reliably measured, the equity investment instruments, and the rights and interests with hooks and shall be settled by delivering the equity instrument of derivative financial assets, should be in accordance with the cost measurement.The enterprise has the intention of holding or ability to change, so that an investment is no longer suitable to be classified as held-to-maturity investments, it shall be classified as available for sale financial assets at fair value, and a subsequent measurement." Enterprise Accounting Standards No. twenty-third" the transfer of a financial asset measurement of transfer of financial assets third chapter: financial assets transfer meet termination recognition conditions shall include the following two items, theamount of variance in the current profits and losses : the carrying amount of the transferred financial asset: II of consideration received from the transfer, and originally recorded in the the rights and interests of the owners of the accumulative amount of the changes in fair value ( involving the transfer of financial assets available for sale financial assets. ) and. Financial assets transferred to meet termination recognition conditions shall be transferred, the entire book value of the financial asset, the confirmation of the termination portion and an end portion between respective confirmation, in accordance with the relative fair value sharing."Enterprise Accounting Standards No. twenty-fourth" -- hedging hedging confirming and measuring third chapter: a hedged item is an unrecognized firm commitment, the firm commitment resulting from the hedged risk the accumulative amount of the changes in fair value shall be recognized as an asset or liability, the related gain or loss shall be included in the current profits and losses, related the changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument shall also be included in the current profits and losses. In the purchase of assets or liabilities assumed a definite undertaking of a fair value hedging, due to the firm commitment of the fair value hedging risk caused by the accumulative amount of the changes ( has been recognized as an asset or liability), should adjust the performance of the firm commitment income assets or liabilities assumed in the amount of the initial recognition."Enterprise Accounting Standards No. thirty-seventh -- presentation of financial instruments" financial instruments listed in chapter second: enterprise regulations issued non-derivative financial: l: includes liability and equity components. Shall at the time of initial recognition of the liability and equity components are analyzed, respectively, for processing. In the spin-off, should first determine the fair value of the liability component as its initial confirmation amount, according to the financial tool for overall price deduction of the liability component initial confirmation amount after determining the amount of equity component initial confirmation amount. The issue of non derivative financial transactions costs. Be in debt composition and equity components according to their relative between the fair value of share.The above three standards setting body of financial instruments in the application of fair value for comparison: first, in the classification of financial assets. The United States accounting standards will be divided into three categories. China and the international accounting standards will be divided into four categories, namely: the trading of financial assets, held-to-maturity investments, loans and receivables, financial assets available for sale. American accounting standards do not include loans and receivables, China's accounting standards with the exception of the four category also includes designated as at fair value and their changes are recorded in current profit and loss on financial assets. Secondly. For the initial measurement of financial instruments. Three regulatory authorities require the use of fair value measurement, although some differences in expression. Finally, on the subsequent measurement of financial instruments. American accounting standards require that in addition to hold due to the financial assets with amortized cost. Other financial assets are measured at the fair value. International accounting standards in addition to determine the duration of loans and receivables, held to maturity _ R investment and its fair value cannot be reliably measured by fair value of financial assets; accounting standards in China in addition to the international accounting standards, also provides: in the active market does not offer and whose fair value cannot be reliably measured equity investment instruments, and the rights and interests with hooks and shall be settled by delivering the equity instrument to spread dust financial assets, should be in accordance with the cost measurement. Compared with the hinge, China's Yu Rong tool subsequent measurement application of fair value in the narrowest.4 Application of fair value in our country a few proposalThe new enterprise accounting standards' promulgation and the implementation, no doubt in the use of fair value on a big step, the next task is to ensure the fair value in practice to get the correct use, really play its positive role. The fair value of the confirmation and measurement of a historical cost is more complex, the occupation judgment is very high. Whether a company and its accountants, registered accountants and other intermediary agencies, or the relevant regulatory institutions and financial statements users, are required in a limited period of time to adapt to and understand the new accounting standards in the relevant provisions of the fair value, as the correct use of fully prepared. Therefore, in order to ensure the smooth implementation of the new accounting standards system, the author puts forward the following suggestions.4.1 to improve the application of the fair value of market conditionsThe introduction of fair value measurement attribute of the premise, is essential to establish a uniform and fully competitive market. The fair value is not equal to the market price, but the market prices are the highest degree of objective, reliable, fair value is the most simple source. Market growth is good or bad for fair value accounting has great influence. So it should strive to cultivate the market at all levels, especially the means of production market and the secondary market trading, so that the fair value to obtain more objective, direct, the greatest extent to ensure the reliability of fair value. At present the market environment of our country, be badly in need of perfecting the capital market, expand the bond market, paper market, foreign exchange market, gold and other precious metals market, the establishment of full competition production factor market, especially the real estate market and financial market. At the same time, to break industry monopoly, reduce the financial, telecommunications, energy, electric power and other industries access conditions, allowing private, civilian endowment enter the financial, insurance and other fields; break the operation limits, encourage the operation mode, the introduction of full。
公允价值外文文献1
FAIR V ALUE CAPITALIZATION OF MORTGAGE LOAN SERVICING RIGHTSRobert J.Cochran,Edward N.Coffman andDavid W.HarlessABSTRACTThis study examines whether the capitalization of mortgage loan servicing rights(MSRs)is consistent with FASB’s objective of fair value accounting. The FASB issued SFAS No.122,“Accounting for Mortgage Servicing Rights,an amendment of FASB Statement No.65”with the prescription that the MSRs be capitalized at their fair value.Fair value would imply that only servicing relatedfirm characteristics influence the capitalization of MSRs. This studyfinds that several non-servicing relatedfirm characteristics also exert a statistically significant influence on the capitalization of MSRs.As such,the evidence suggests that significant segments of the industry may have acted in a way that was at odds with the FASB’s stated objective of fair value capitalization.INTRODUCTIONThe Financial Accounting Standards Board(FASB)first considered the issue of accounting for the activities of mortgage banking concerns in1982with the issuance of SFAS No.65,“Accounting for Certain Mortgage Banking Activities.”One of the primary issues considered in the statement was the accounting Research in Accounting RegulationResearch in Accounting Regulation,Volume17,153–165Copyright©2004by Elsevier Ltd.All rights of reproduction in any form reservedISSN:1052-0457/doi:10.1016/S1052-0457(04)17007-0153154ROBERT J.COCHRAN ET AL. treatment for the right of the mortgage company to service mortgage loans in the future for a fee,commonly known as mortgage loan servicing rights or MSRs. The statement was issued during a period when managerial excesses in the thrift industry(a major participant in the mortgage bankingfield)were well documented and contributed to the highly public failure of numerous savings and loans.The statement institutionalized a contradictory treatment for the accounting for MSRs based on the method of acquisition.MSRs acquired through an arm’s-length purchase transaction were allowed to be capitalized on the balance sheet at the purchase price,but MSRs acquired through the loan origination process were not allowed to be capitalized on the balance sheet due to the lack of an objective measure of their value.The contradictory treatment did not sit well with either the affectedfirms or the FASB.Prior to1995the statement was amended twice (SFAS Nos.91and115(FASB,1986,1993)).In November1992,at the request of the Mortgage Bankers’Association,the FASB reconsidered the accounting for MSRs and eliminated the contradictory accounting.The approach adopted favored a“fair value”measure for originated MSRs and was prescribed in SFAS No.122,“Accounting for Mortgage Servicing Rights,an amendment of FASB Statement No.65.”Fair value implies that non-servicing related factors should not influence the determination of the value of MSRs.SFAS No.122offers managers a choice with respect to the capitalization of MSRs.This study examines whether the FASB achieved the objective of fair value accounting in the application of SFAS No.122,and SFAS No.125,“Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities”1 by examining non-servicing relatedfirm characteristics to determine their influ-ence on the measurement of fair value.The non-servicing related characteristics that are considered are those suggested by positive accounting theory(Watts& Zimmerman,1978,1986,1990).Managers offirms engaged in the business of servicing mortgage loans must decide on the proper level of capitalization(fair value)for the intangible asset representing the right to service mortgage loans for a fee.MSRs are created constantly as a by-product of the loan origination/sale process,and the amount of capitalization on newly created MSRs can be different from the amount capitalized on previously recognized MSRs.If,through the issuance of SFAS No. 122,the FASB successfully achieved the goal of fair value accounting for MSRs then no non-servicing relatedfirm characteristics should influence the measure-ment of the fair value of MSRs.Wefind that,cross-sectionally,there do exist statistically significant relationships between non-servicing relatedfirm specific characteristics(size,debt-to-equity and the importance of bonus compensation) and the level of capitalization chosen by managers of mortgage bankingfirms.Fair Value Capitalization of Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights155 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ONMORTGAGE SERVICING RIGHTSMortgage loan servicing rights can be a significant asset on the balance sheet of mortgage-banking concerns.In the case of Countrywide Credit Industries Inc.,the largestfirm in the sample,fiscal year-end2000MSRs were$5.3billion,or34% of thefirm’s total assets.The unpaid principal balance of the servicing portfolio supporting Countrywide’s MSRs was$248billion.2To better appreciate the impact of SFAS No.125,some aspects of the operation of a mortgage company are described below.3Firms engaged in mortgage banking produce and sell mortgage loans just as any manufacturer would produce and sell a product.Mortgage loans are their product,and during the time mortgage loans reside on their balance sheet they are inventory.Countrywide Credit Industries Inc.originated$66.7billion in mortgage loans infiscal2000.Of these originations,only$2.7billion remained on Coun-trywide’s balance sheet at year-end2000.When a mortgage loan is originated, two distinct assets are created:(1)the loan instrument;and(2)the mortgage loan servicing right(MSR).Typically,one or both of these assets will be sold after origination.Firms of interest in this study tend to retain the MSR and to sell the loan instrument to an institutional investor or one of two government-sponsored entities(GSEs),the Federal National Mortgage Association(Fannie Mae)and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation(Freddie Mac).4An entity can come to own MSRs by:(1)originating a loan(both assets)and selling only the loan asset(retaining the MSR);(2)buying a loan(both assets) and subsequently selling only the loan asset(again,retaining the MSR);or(3) buying an existing portfolio of servicing rights.The owner of the MSRs,the servicer,has an obligation to perform certain functions including,but not limited to:(1)collecting and accounting for the monthly mortgage payments and remitting on a monthly basis the principal and interest collected to the owner of the loans;(2)collecting taxes and insurance escrow payments and making the associated payments;and(3)providing collection and foreclosure services on delinquent accounts.For these services, the servicer will earn a gross annual fee(service fee)typically ranging from 0.25to0.50%of the servicing portfolio’s unpaid principal balance.5As required by SFAS No.125,MSRs are to be recorded on the balance sheet of the servicer at their fair value.The fair value of the MSRs is the present value of the future net servicing fees(gross fees collected less costs to service the loans)over the expected life of the loans.Many factors used in calculating the fair(or present) value of the future net servicing fees over the expected life of a loan must be156ROBERT J.COCHRAN ET AL. estimated,making the determination of the value of MSRs subjective.Estimates must be made about the servicing fees and servicing costs,the appropriate discount rate to reflect the risk inherent in the servicing asset,the life of the loans, the amount of ancillary income generated by the servicing function,and so on. In order to better appreciate the income decreasing/increasing choice made possible by SFAS No.125,it is helpful to contrast generally accepted accounting for servicing rights before and after the issuance of SFAS No.125.Prior to SFAS No.125,SFAS No.65,“Accounting for Certain Mortgage Banking Activities,”required a mortgage bankingfirm to capitalize the price paid to acquire servicing rights either by:(1)buying a loan and selling the loan asset but retaining the servic-ing rights;or(2)buying an existing portfolio of servicing rights.The price paid for the servicing rights was considered objective and quantifiable,and the capitalized asset was referred to as a“purchased mortgage servicing right”(PMSR).The PMSR asset was amortized annually against the servicing fee collected on the portfolio at a rate that approximated the amortization rate of the loans being serviced(including prepayments and payoffs).An entity with capitalized PMSRs had to test the asset for impairment on an annual basis.The present value of the estimated future net servicing fees over the expected life of the loans in the servicing portfolio was calculated.The calculation required estimates(as described earlier)and the use of a discount rate that reflected the entity’s view of the risk associated with the asset.The resultant present value was compared to the recorded book value of the PMSRs,and if the present value was less than the book value,a write down was required.If there was excess present value,then the book value remained at the original(but amortized)amount.Servicing rights acquired by afirm originating a loan resulted in an“originated mortgage servicing right”(OMSR).Capitalization was not allowed because the price paid to acquire servicing rights in an origination transaction(i.e.a portion of the loan origination cost)was not easily allocable to the servicing rights,and any allocation of the origination cost to the servicing asset was considered subjective. When the loan portion of the originated asset was sold,the entire cost basis (including the portion related to the servicing rights)was included in the gain (loss)calculation.The result was that the current period cash gain(loss)related to the sale of the loan asset was understated,and no capitalized basis remained on the books for the servicing rights retained.A consequence of this method of accounting was that a servicer might have portions of its servicing portfolio acquired through one of the two purchase methods for which there would be amortizable basis.Amortization of the basis results in a reduction of the future net service fees earned with respect to that portion of the portfolio.At the same time,there would be portions of the servicing portfolio obtained as a result of the origination process for which there wouldFair Value Capitalization of Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights157 be no amortizable basis.The result was a significantly higher reported return on the servicing function for the originated portfolio than for the purchased portfolio (i.e.total net service fee for the originated portfolio versus total net service fee less the current period amortization for the purchased portfolio).Two essentially similar assets could exist with different accounting treatments.Unlike SFAS No.65,SFAS No.125presents managers offirms actively participating in the mortgage loan-servicing environment with an accounting choice.SFAS No.125requires that the value of the OMSRs from the sale of an originated loan be capitalized on the balance sheet,6as are the PMSRs from a purchase transaction.PMSRs are the objectively measured result of an arm’s-length transaction;OMSRs are a function of a multi-variable calculation and may not be entirely objective.The choice presented by SFAS No.125relates to the level of OMSR capitalization and how conservative or aggressive afirm chooses to be in the calculation of the MSRs.MSRs7are to be recorded at their“relative fair values”(SFAS No.125,p.21) at the time the loans are sold and the servicing retained.“Relative fair value”is determined by apportioning the total cost basis of the combination loan/MSR asset to each asset based on the individual asset’s fair value8at the time one or both of the assets are sold.It is common practice to account for loan sales on an aggregate cash basis,ig-noring the MSRs(in essence,this was the pre-SFAS No.125required accounting), and to capitalize the MSRs thereafter on an aggregate homogeneous portfolio basis.This second step is the additional accounting required by SFAS No.125.The determination of the fair value of MSRs is sufficiently subjective that the asset can be capitalized within a range of acceptable values.To be able to compare choices offirms with differing sizes of servicing portfolios,we compare standardized MSRs by measuring MSRs as a percentage of the unpaid principal balance of the underlying servicing portfolio((MSR%=capitalized MSRs($)÷servicing port-folio($))×100).For the sample companies reporting MSRs,the MSR%ranges from as low as0.00%to as high as3.80%(380basis points).The implication is that on a loan of$100,000,somefirms in the sample would capitalize no MSR while otherfirms would recognize as much as$3,800.The decision to capitalize3.80% ($3,800)versus0.00%($0)on a$100,000loan is an income increasing choice as the entire capitalized amount increases pre-tax net income dollar for dollar.It is important to note that knowledge of the absolute dollars capitalized, without knowledge of the principal balance to which the MSRs relate provides no information as to whether afirm’s MSR capitalization choice represents an income decreasing/increasing position.Simply knowing that Firm A capitalized$4,000of MSRs while Firm B capitalized$8,000of MSRs during the same period does not allow us to conclude which of thefirms adopted an income decreasing/increasing158ROBERT J.COCHRAN ET AL. capitalization policy relative to the other.However,also knowing that Firm A’s MSRs related to a portfolio of$200,000(MSR%=2.00%)while Firm B’s MSRs related to a portfolio of$800,000(MSR%=1.00%)allows for the conclusion that Firm A made an income increasing accounting choice relative to Firm B.The MSR%(the dollars of MSRs standardized by the outstanding loan portfolio to which they relate)provides the information as to whether thefirm adopts an income decreasing/increasing position relative to the capitalization of MSRs.The0.00%–3.80%range of MSR capitalization implies a very large range of total MSR capitalization across the samplefirms.If this range were applied to the servicing portfolio of Countrywide Credit Industries Inc.,the capitalized MSRs would range from as low as$0to as high as$9.42billion(calculated on the February28,2000year-end servicing portfolio of$248billion).This difference would translate to a dollar for dollar difference in the cumulative pre-tax net income of thefirm for the four-year period since SFAS No.125went into effect. Clearly,where managers choose to be on the spectrum of MSR%capitalization is an accounting choice.Lower levels of capitalization,as measured by the MSR%, represent income decreasing choices among accounting alternatives,while higher levels of capitalization represent income increasing choices.Additionally,over time,afirm can change where it is on the spectrum of MSR%capitalization since the MSR%relative to the loans sold in one year can be,and often is,different than the MSR%in subsequent years.The choice of the MSR%presents a rich environ-ment not only for testing positive accounting theory,but also for testing whether the FASB was successful in its effort to implement“fair value”accounting relative to this asset.HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENTThe primary objective of this study is to determine if SFAS No.125accomplished the stated objective of fair value accounting.We examine the classic positive accounting theoryfirm characteristics,size,debt-to-equity and the importance of bonus compensation,to determine if they influence the level at which managers capitalize MSRs.Since thesefirm characteristics are non-servicing related they should have no influence on the determination of“fair value.”As such,we test the following hypotheses:H1.Managers of companies with greater total assets will choose income decreasing accounting alternatives and will capitalize MSRs at a lower level than will managers of companies with lower total assets.Fair Value Capitalization of Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights159 H2.Managers of companies with higher debt-to-equity ratios will choose income increasing accounting alternatives and will capitalize MSRs at a higher level than will managers of companies with lower debt-to-equity ratios.H3.Managers who operate under compensation plans with a higher bonus compensation percentage will choose income increasing accounting alterna-tives and will capitalize MSRs at a higher level than managers with lower bonus compensation percentage.SAMPLE DATA AND SOURCESSelection offirms for the sample was confined to companies with the four-digit Standard Industrial Classification(SIC)codes representingfirms in thefinancial services sector most likely to engage in the business of mortgage loan servicing as a material core business.The sample is restricted to publicly tradedfirms in the four years subsequent to the mandatory implementation date of SFAS No.122with data available on COMPUSTAT and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s EDGAR database.9The capitalized value of the MSRs and the dollar value of the underlying servicing portfolios were obtained from each company’s Annual Report asfiled on Form10-K(or Form10-KSB for“small business issuers”)on the EDGAR pensation data was obtained from each company’s Annual Proxy Statement asfiled on Form DEF-14A provided on the EDGAR database. The resultant sample consisted of577firm/years.MODEL SPECIFICATIONThis study captures the accounting choice through a continuous dependent variable, MSR%,the book value of MSRs divided by the principal balance of the servicing portfolio.Our model is as follows:MSR BP it=␣0+00Y=97␣y YR it+␣1ln SERVPORT it+␣2(ln SERVPORT it)2+␣3ln TOTASSETS it+␣4DE it+␣5BONUS%it+itThe yearly dummy variables are included because the value of MSRs is sensitive to economic conditions.For example,the value of the MSRs is sensitive to the difference between the weighted average interest rate of the mortgages underlying the MSRs and the current market rate.Additionally,the variable ln SERVPORT160ROBERT J.COCHRAN ET AL. and(ln SERVPORT)2are included in the model to capture the effects of economies of scale in loan servicing.The servicing portfolio(the actual loans supporting the servicing rights)is not owned by the servicing entity and accordingly not included on the balance sheet of the servicing entity.Firms servicing larger portfolios can justifiably capitalize higher levels of MSRs due to their ability to generate a higher net servicing fee(resulting from a lower cost per loan serviced)due to economies of scale.Failure to include a proxy variable for economies of scale would bias the coef-ficient for the ln TOTASSETS variable(since ln TOTASSETS and ln SERVPORT are correlated)potentially canceling or obscuring the two distinct effects.RESULTSTable1reports descriptive statistics for the variables used in the models as well as other variables of interest.The mean of the MSRs as a percentage of the book value of stockholders’equity is11.44%.Recognizing that stockholders’equity consists of contributed capital and retained earnings,it is apparent that the book value of the MSRs accounts for more than11.44%of the total net income earned and subsequently retained by the samplefirms.Table1.Descriptive Statistics.Variable Mean Std.Dev.Minimum Maximum Model variablesMSR BP78.9550.940.00379.91 ln SERVPORT 6.33 2.20−0.6912.42 ln TOTASSETS7.37 1.630.6312.14 DE11.47 5.110.1244.95 BONUS%26.6919.430.0094.06 Other variablesTotal Assets(millions)6,38116,498 1.9186,514 MSRs(millions)914540.05,343 Servicing portfolio(millions)5,80622,2540.5247,680 Stockholders’equity(millions)4851,1240.49,597 Ratio of MSR to stockholders’equity11.440.300.00350.63 Notes:Means and deviations are calculated for the577cross-sectional pooled observations used in the model.MSR BP=Ratio of capitalized MSRs to the principal balance of the servicing portfolio (in basis points).ln SERVPORT=Natural log of the principal balance of the servicing portfolio.ln TOTASSETS=Natural log of the book value of total assets.DE=Ratio of the book value of total debt to the book value of total equity.BONUS%=(cash bonus÷(total cash bonus+ total cash salary))×100.Fair Value Capitalization of Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights161Table2.Regression Results.Regressors Expected Sign a i Intercept120.83(4.69)*** 1997 6.31(1.27) 199817.14(3.36)*** 199923.91(4.31)*** 200041.15(2.66)***ln SERVPORT+−23.37(−4.36)***ln SERVPORT2+ 2.66(6.22)***ln TOTASSETS−−7.34(−2.54)**DE+ 1.46(1.86)* BONUS%+39.81(1.98)** Sample size577Test of model significance F(9,567)=29.56 p Value p=2.7E−42 Notes:The regression estimated is:MSR BP it=␣0+00y=97␣Y YR it+␣1ln SERVPORT it+␣2(ln SERVPORT it)2+␣3ln TOTASSETS it+␣4DE it+␣5BONUS%it+it Variables are defined as follows:MSR BP it=MSRs divided by the principal balance of loans serviced(measured in basis points);ln SERVPORT=the natural log of the servicing portfolio;ln TOTASSETS=the natural log of the book value of total assets;DE=the book value of total debt as a percentage of the book value of total equity;BONUS%=cash bonus as a percentage of the sum of cash bonus and cash salary.∗Significant at the10%level.∗∗Significant at the5%level.∗∗∗Significant at the1%level.Table2presents model estimation results.The parameter estimates from the model are consistent with the predictions of positive accounting theory.The results for Hypothesis1suggest that managers of largerfirms will be inclined to choose income decreasing accounting alternatives as compared to managers of smaller firms.The coefficient for ln TOTASSETS,−7.34(p=0.011)suggests that,other things equal,afirm with1%more total assets than anotherfirm will capitalize7.34 fewer basis points of MSRs.Hence,the results suggest that,acrossfirms,managers of largerfirms will select income decreasing accounting alternatives,choosing to capitalize lower levels of MSRs than will managers of smallerfirms. Hypothesis2suggests that managers offirms with higher debt-to-equity ratios will choose income increasing accounting alternatives.The model reports a positive and significant coefficient for DE.Acrossfirms,managers offirms with162ROBERT J.COCHRAN ET AL. higher debt-to-equity ratios(DE)will choose to capitalize MSRs at higher levels than will managers offirms with lower debt-to-equity ratios.Hypothesis3suggests that managers who operate under a bonus compensation plan where bonus compensation is a greater portion of total compensation will choose income increasing accounting alternatives as compared to managers who operate under a bonus plan where bonus compensation is a smaller portion of total compensation.The model generates a coefficient for BONUS%that is in the predicted direction,and is significant(p=0.048).This provides at least some evidence that managers offirms where bonus compensation is a higher proportion of total compensation will elect income increasing accounting alternatives and increase the level at which they capitalize MSRs as compared to managers of firms where bonus compensation is a lower proportion of total compensation. The size of the servicing portfolio is an important control variable.While the coefficients for both ln SERVPORT and(ln SERVPORT)2are highly significant, the coefficient for ln SERVPORT is negative.The coefficient for(ln SERVPORT)2 is positive and overcomes the effect of the coefficient for ln SERVPORT at a low servicing portfolio size.The model suggests that,at low servicing portfolio levels, the marginal effect of increasing the servicing portfolio is negative.When the servicing portfolio exceeds$81.04million the marginal effect becomes positive. Hypothesis1is supported only when we control for differences in MSRs due to economies of scale through the natural log of the size of the servicing portfolio (and its square).Without the servicing portfolio variables,the coefficient for ln TOTASSETS would be insignificant(p=0.739).Researchers should be cognizant of this possible source of omitted variable bias when there exist effects of size related to economies of scale that are distinct from(and in our case negatively correlated to)the effects of size related to political costs.CONCLUSIONSOur results support all three hypotheses of positive accounting theory.The FASB issued SFAS No.125with the prescription that the MSRs be capitalized at their fair value.If the recorded values were fair value,the recorded values would not be influenced by non-servicing relatedfirm characteristics(size,debt-to-equity and the importance of bonus compensation).Wefind that recorded values are influenced by non-servicing relatedfirm characteristics.Thisfinding suggests that the MSRs are capitalized at something other than their fair value and that SFAS No.125has not accomplished the FASB’s stated objective.In light of the recent study published by the SEC(2003),“Study Pursuant to Section 108(d)of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002on the Adoption by the United StatesFair Value Capitalization of Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights163 Financial Reporting System of a Principles-Based Accounting System”in which the SEC advocates the development of standards on a“principles-based or objectives-oriented basis”the SEC should consider the results of this study.SFAS No.125,although published prior to the SEC’s advocacy of an objectives-oriented standards setting methodology,contained a clearly stated objective.The results of this study suggest that significant segments of the industry may have acted in a way that was at odds with the FASB’s stated objective of fair value capitalization.NOTES1.SFAS No.122was issued in1995and is the most comprehensive and explanative document issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board covering the accounting treatment of mortgage loan servicing rights(MSRs).It has been superseded.In1996,SFAS No.125,“Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities,”was issued and covers a broad spectrum offinancial assets and liabilities. SFAS No.125supersedes SFAS No.122in its entirety,but makes no material change to the required accounting for MSRs.In September2000,SFAS No.140,“Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities,a replacement of FASB Statement No.125,”was issued.SFAS No.140is effective for transfers occurring after March31,2001.Early or retroactive application is not permitted. Thefirms examined in this study are subject only to the provisions of either SFAS No.122 or SFAS No.125.The results of this study are still relevant subsequent to the effective date of SFAS No.140since the provisions of SFAS No.125regarding MSRs remain substantially in force and the accounting treatment for MSRs remains unchanged from the accounting treatment as required by SFAS No.122and SFAS No.125.All subsequent references to SFAS No.125refer to both SFAS No.122and SFAS No.125.2.The servicing portfolio refers to the unpaid principal balance of the loans that are being serviced.The servicing portfolio itself is neither owned by Countrywide nor recorded on Countrywide’s balance sheet.Investors such as the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation own the serviced loans. Servicers only own and record the right to service the loans(the MSRs).3.For a detailed description of the operation of a mortgage banking concern see McConnell(1976)and Hendershott and Villani(1994).4.According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development,GSEs purchased $728billion of the$1,284billion(57%)of mortgage loans originated in1999.5.Services fees are not explicitly negotiated.The originator/servicer of a loan negotiates the sale of the loan at a specified time and yield to an investor.The yield is determined by the interest rate market at the time the sale is negotiated and has little to do with the stated rate on the loan itself.The majority of loans are sold in the form of Mortgage Backed Securities(MBSs)in a highly liquid market.The required yield on MBSs at any given time is generally lower than the rates quoted for mortgages.As such,if an originator/servicer is negotiating loan sales contemporaneously with the commitment to originate loans,there will arise a positive differential between the interest the originator/servicer receives from the borrower and the yield required to be remitted to the investor.This is the service fee.。
外文翻译--公允价值会计,金融经济和可靠性重塑
本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译外文出处Accoiinling and Business Research，InternationalAccounting Policy Forum外文作者Michael Power原文：Fair value accounting, financial economics and the transformationof reliabilityFair value and the reshaping of reliabilityThe concept of fair value measurement emerged in financial accounting and was accepted in the abstract long before it was a subject of analysis and dispute (Bromwich, 2007). Further more, fair value is not itself a single measurement methodology but encompasses a variety of approaches for the estimation of an exit value. So it is hardly surprising that many of the arguments which have been developed for and against the use of fair values in accounting are not well-supported by evidence; disputants often talk past each other. However, the relative absence of justifications by standard-setters is also responsible for the power of fair value accounting as a reference point in debate. As with operational risk, policy concepts can be articulated in the abstract by regulators and accepted by industry before complex and messy issues of implementation come into play(Power, 2005).Definitions of fair value vary in subtle ways that may end up mattering in law but from afar, and to the untutored eye, they look similar. FAS 157(FASB, 2006) defines fair value as: 'the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfera liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date'. LASB (2009)reproduces this as a core principle.This definition, which has existed in various slightly modified forms for many years, might appear uncontentious. Yet, it is a complex hybrid of ideas and assumptionswhich point to the estimated prices that might be received in a market, one which turns out to have specific and assumed characteristics. This causes several commentators to remark on the 'fictional' and 'imaginary' nature of fair values (e.g. Casson and Napier, 1997) and to bemoan their 'subjectivity' and potential for manipulation and bias. Indeed, Bromwich (2007)outlines how many assumptions underlie the production of fair values and draws the conclusion that the understanding of fair value may vary considerably.Regardless of whether these criticisms have substance, it is also the case that if enough people believe in fictions, then they can play a role in constituting markets. Mackenzie and Millo (2003)argue in the context of the development and institutionalisation of option pricing models that simplifying assumptions began life as being no descriptive of pricing processes, then came to be the preferred and dominant methodology. Once accepted, the Black-Scholes model contributed to the development of the depth and liquidity of the market, although Mackenzie and Millo note how this relationship was looser again after the 1987crash. The general message is that if key communities accept the usefulness of fictions, they have real consequences and can become regarded as real.Proponents of fair values in accounting often appeal to notions of telling things as they are and of improving transparency. They point to areas such as pension accounting or the savings and loans industry in North America where fair values would have made problems (deficits, poor performing loans) visible much earlier, thereby enabling corrective action. An often heard trope is that one should not shoot the messenger of poor asset quality. Yet sceptics argue that fair value accounting has created a false short-term visibility in the case of pension funding and hastened the demise of defined benefit schemes (Kiosse and Peasnell, 2009). More generally, critics argue that the financial crisis demonstrates the pro-cyclicality of fair values when accounting is tightly coupled to prudential regulatory systems, and the unreliability of marking to model in less than liquid asset markets, especially for assets which are being held for the long term.According to Laux and Leuz (2009) the fair value debate should not be polarised. The use of fair values is neither responsible for the financial crisis nor entirely innocent.Furthermore, arguments against fair value do not automatically translate into arguments for historical cost rmation about current values, or best estimates of those current values, is likely to be useful for management and market analysts in conjunction with lots of other bits of information. Contracts and covenants may be highly sensitive to mark to market strategies in a crisis, where breathing space may be valued over short-term volatility in contractual and regulatory compliance. This is echoed by the analysis in Plantin et al. (2004) of the different winners and losers from the shift to mark to-market for financial instruments in general, and helps to explain the intensity of the politics of fair value accounting, even prior to the financial crisis.While much of the heat generated by fair value concerns the politics of reporting discretion for banking institutions, Laux and Leuz (2009) suggest that the polarisation in the debate is founded primarily on different views about the goals of accounting. In parallel but somewhat differently, it can be argued that the debate is also driven by different, almost unconscious, views about what it is for an estimated accounting value to be reliable.One ofthe explicit motivations for the expanded significance ofthe use of fair values is its perceived potential to minimise the freedom to manipulate accounting numbers (CFA, 2007). Market-based values are, almost by definition, a non-management based referent and this is consistent with early standards on audit evidence quality hierarchies which prioritise sources of evidence which are independent of both auditee and auditor. So an important aspect of the 'fair value' concept is to establish distance from entity views of value and to locate reliability as far as possible in the collective judgment of the market.Reliability is one of the fundamental qualitative characteristics of accounting information as articulated in early conceptual fi-ameworks (FASB, 1980). Yet the reliability of accounting numbers is not a given: it is always founded on a consensus whose strength is an empirical and not a conceptual fact. The consensus is often implicit and taken for granted, but becomes more problematic at times of conflict and competition when questions of power and authority become visible. Ideas ofaccounting reliability may change over time, may have relative rather than absolute significance, and may only be grounded in the fiction of an ideal consensus among a community of reasonable measurers.Barth challenges the transactionally based view of reliability by arguing that it is no longer to be identified with verifiability but has to do essentially with faithful representation: just because an amount can be calculated precisely, it is not necessarily a faithful representation of the real-world economic phenomena it purports to represent. This statement, and others like it, constitute a reframing of the concept of reliability, essentially collapsing reliability into relevance. Against a transactionally grounded conception of reliability involving audit trails linking accounting events to reporting, Barth's conception shifts the centre of gravity for thinking about reliability to markets and the values they produce.This new conception of accounting reliability takes as its benchmark the most liquid, orderly markets, those typically associated with financial assets and liabilities. This benchmark, and the idea of reliability it embodies, is extended to analogies and models which simulate market prices using accepted economic methodologies' - the so-called levels 2 and 3 in the fair value hierarchy of valuation methods. It is not unusual for policy solutions in one setting to migrate fi-om their original context and expand their application in this way.It should be remembered that accounting policy discussions have visited the issue of measurement reliability many times before. For example, in the late 1980s, brand valuers using a mix of analogical and model-based reasoning challenged the prevailing prohibition against valuing internally generated brands. The debate, while conducted in technical terms, was highly sensitive to the credibility of valuation expertise proposed by non-accountant valuers (e.g. Interbrand). The UK Accounting Standards Committee sought to undermine the analogy between accepted practice of reliance on chartered surveyors and brand valuers, but they were on increasingly weak ground, especially when accounting firms developed their own brand valuation capacity (Power, 1992a).The brand accounting debate reminds us that conceptions of reliability in financial reporting can change as bodies of valuation knowledge become accepted as a basis fortransactions. In turn, market liquidity may be increased by the credibility of such methodologies which further increases their credibility in a virtuous performative circle (Napier and Power, 1992). Just as with the brand debate of the late 1980s, level 2 and 3 fair values pose resource and expertise challenges both for audit firms who must draw on valuation specialists trained in financial economics, and for global regulatory bodies in addressing the need for guidance on how to find evidence for estimates (IAASB, 2008).^ The model dependency of level 3 fair values poses knowledge problems for auditors who must gain confidence about the input, assumptions, and parameters of valuation modelsOne common mechanism for the creation of auditor confidence is the outsourcing of opinion or reliance on other experts (Power, 1996). In this respect the re-emergence of the International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC) in 2009 is significant.^ Created originally to provide guidance on property valuation, the IVSC has developed closer relations with IASB with a view to providing guidance on the valuation of financial instruments. Significantly, IVSC criticised the IASB exposure draft on fair value measurement for being too narrowly prescriptive about the range of possible valuation methods. It argued that accounting standard- setters should prescribe at the level of principle and leave space for the development of detailed valuation methods (IVSC, 2009).The implication is that fair valuation might move offshore in relation to accounting standard-setters leaving accountants as compilers rather than valuers. From this point of view, fair value can be understood as a potentially radical change programme for the expertise base of accounting. Far from being traded off against one another, reliability is progressively collapsed into relevance (Whittington, 2008) with clear implications for the need for external valuation expertise.This change programme has been contested by proponents of other current value measurement bases, such as replacement cost within a deprival value decision logic. These critics of fair value argue that they are subject to the very forms of management manipulation which they are intended to correct: 'discounting cash flows to derive a fair value invites deception' (Ronen, 2008). Fair values are never real market values butonly estimates of market prices which would or could be obtained. They are necessarily 'as if or fictional constructs which depend on critical assumptions about orderly markets (Bromwich, 2007).Nevertheless, many critics of the subjectivity of fair values miss the real point of Barth's challenge; the very idea of reliability is being reconstructed in front of their eyes by shifting the focus from transactions to economic valuation methods, and by giving these methods a firmer institutional footing. Deep down the fair value debate seems to hinge on fiindamantally different conceptions of the basis for reliability in accounting, making it less of a technical dispute and more one of the politics of acceptability. Indeed, the apparent threelevel hierarchy of reliability is much 'flatter' than might be immediately apparent. Under level 1, accounting systems are, in theory, passive observers of prices. Under level 3, accounting is a market value discovery system with the help of methodologies from financial economics. Yet once it is admitted that market prices may not reveal fiandamental value, due to liquidity issues or other reasons, then it can be argued that the real foundation of fair value lies in economic valuation methodologies; level 3 methods are in fact the engine of markets themselves, capable of discovering values for accounting objects which can only be sold in 'imaginary markets'. It follows that the hierarchy is more of a liquidity hierarchy than one of method, but overall it expresses the imperative of market alignment which informs fair value enthusiasts.The sociology of reliability to emerge from these arguments suggests that subjectivity and uncertainty can be transformed into acceptable fact via strategies which appeal to broader values in the institutional environment which even opponents must accept. Accounting 'estimates' can acquire authority when they come to be embedded in taken for granted routines - hence the significance of the IVSC and similar bodies. So long as a suflicient consensus holds, and asset markets are orderly and generally liquid, then the circle which links models and markets is virtuous and broadly performative. In this way fair values, for all their fictionality and apparent intellectual incoherence (Ravenscroft and Williams, 2009), could define what it is to be reliable at a point in time. Market liquidity would be the effect of consensus - the flipside of reliability. However, even before the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the consensus supporting the use of fair value measurement beyond highly liquid financial asset markets was problematic, thus making its social and institutional foundations more visible than they might ordinarily be.In summary, it has been argued that different conceptions of what it is for an accounting estimate to be reliable underlie the fair value debate as it has taken shape in the last decade. The language of subjectivity and objectivity is unhelpful in characterising what is at stake; it is more usefial to focus on. the question of how certain valuation technologies do or don't become institutionally accepted as producing facts (Napier and Power, 1992). This is a sociological question which will be further explored below. The analysis which follows is less concerned to adjudicate on the rights and wrongs of fair value and more focused on understanding the deep conditions of possibility for fair values to be widely promoted. From this point of view, the use of fair values in accounting represents a new basis for accounting fact production which, as we shall see, is grounded in the cultural authority of financial economics.Source:Michael Power．Fair value accounting, financial economics and the transformation of reliability[J]．Accounting and Business Research，International Accounting Policy Forum，2010，40(3)：197-210．译文：公允价值会计，金融经济和可靠性重塑公允价值与可靠性重塑公允价值的计量概念出现在财务会计，它在成为分析和争端的焦点之前，长期以抽象概念存在。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
财务会计公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)译文：公允价值计量1.公允价值在国际财务报告准则中的规定在2005 年11月，国际财务会计准则理事会为注解准则发表了一个讨论意见,以财务会计为基础的公允价值的初始确认和计量，由加拿大会计准则委员会的全体职员编写。
虽然意见包含了对于公允价值的讨论，但它的主要目的是讨论哪些计量属性适合初始确认。
意见是不断更新的概念框架项目的一部分。
这个概念框架项目致力于构建一个为财务报表服务的计量概念。
因为意见范围和意图的不同，它不在此论文中讨论。
然而，关于那篇讨论意见的评论将会在国际财务报告准则的公允价值计量披露草案和美国财务会计准则概念框架计划的第1号第157条以及现行公允价值计量指南。
这篇讨论意见是关于公允价值计量的。
国际财务报告准则要求某些资产、负债和权益性工具应该在某些情况下用公允价值计量。
然而，指南在公允价值方面的要求通常被准则稀释了，并且准则在这方面的说明也并不是前后一致的。
国际会计准则理事会认为单一来源的那些准则中有关于公允价值方面的指南将会简化国际财务报告准则并且改善财务报表中公允价值的信息质量。
一个简明的公允价值的定义和一个适用于所有公允价值计量的前后一致的指南将会更清晰地表达公允价值的对象并且消除公众对于通过国际财务报告准则传播的指南方面的顾虑。
国际会计准则理事会强调公允价值计量项目并不是一种用来延伸公允价值在财务报表中应用的手段。
此外，项目的目标在于重新编写、明晰、简化在国际财务报告准则中广泛应用的现有指南。
然而，为了构建一个按准则要求对于所有公允价值的计量都能统一指南的单一标准，必须对现有的指南做出修改。
这些修改意见在第2号准则中做了进一步的讨论，这可能会使公允价值在某些标准下的计量和在准则要求下进行的解释和应用都做出调整。
在某些准则中，国际会计准则理事会（或其前身）有意识地纳入了一些计量指南。
这些指南会导致尽管它在公允价值的计量客体上并不是前后一致，但在这些客体的计量上仍被视为公允价值计量。
例如，关于第3号准则第16段企业合并的指南中公允价值计量的客体就与企业合并中所涉及的项目如税项资产、税项负债和特定收益计划中的员工福利经资产或负债不一致。
此外，一些准则包含了计量的可靠性的标准。
例如国际会计准则第16号固定资产中只有在公允价值能可靠确定时才可以使用公允模式计量。
此项规定一点也不会改变指南中的相关部分。
并且指南将会被逐项地探讨。
然而，国际会计准则理事会打算用公允价值计量项目对于目前没有定义的项目编写指南。
如第17号准则租赁协议，同时也是把指南中没有清晰表述的计量客体进行统一。
由于美国财务会计准则第157号单一来源的指南和单一的主体，而这个主体适用于所有公允价值的计量，国际会计准则理事会就最初的观点达成一致意见，那就是美国财务会计准则第157号对国际财务报告准则中不同指南的进行了改进。
2.美国财务会计准则和国际财务报告准则在公允价值定义方面的不同之处美国会计准则第157号第5段把公允价值定义为“在发生日一项合理交易中参与者能接受的卖出资产或转移负债的价格。
”通过比较，在美国会计准则中公允价值的定义通常为：“理性的、有交易意向的参与者在一系列正常交易中愿意交换资产或转移负债的价格（与准则原文在表达上略有不同）。
”美国会计准则第157号在以下三个方面与国际财务报告准则有实质性差异：1）美国财务会计准则第157号对于公允价值明确地说它是一个卖出价，而国际财务报告准则既没有说公允价值是一个卖出价，也没有说它是买入价。
2）美国财务会计准则第157号的定义指明了市场参与者，而国际财务报告准则的定义中说的是在一系列正常交易中理性的、有意愿的参与方。
3）对于负债，美国会计准则第157号的定义意在指明负债的转移（负债对于交易的另一方仍然存在，并不是负债有对方偿还），国际财务报告准则主要指明的是哪些负债能够在一系列正常交易中被理性的、有交易意向的参与者偿还。
2.1卖出价值的计量主体从持有资产或负有负债的参与者的角度看，在交易日假定一项交易是为了卖出资产或转移负债。
因此公允价值计量的主体就是在交易日决定买入资产或转移负债能被交易对方接受的价格，即卖出价值。
美国财务会计准则委员会认为以卖出价作为计量主题更适合，因为在市场参与者的角度来说它使对于与资产有关的未来现金流入和与负债有关的现金流出具体化。
对于流入与流出概念的强调也符合美国财务会计准则中概念准则的第6条财务要素注解中关于资产和负债的定义。
概念准则的第六条第25段中定义了资产的未来现金流入，第35段中定义了负债的未来现金流出。
国际财务报告准则的第49条财务报表的编制基础中类似地定义了经济利益方面的资产未来现金流入和负债现金流出量。
大部分国际会计准则理事会的成员认为以卖出价作为公允价值计量主体与这些定义是一致的并且是恰当的，因为它反映了以市场为基础的对经济利益流入或流出的预期。
其他成员同意这种观点，但是在他们看来卖出价也反映了对于经济利益流入或流出企业的预期。
因此，他们认为应该把“公允价值”替换为其他更能反映计量属性概念，例如“现行买入价”或“现有卖出价”。
在美国财务会计准则第157号中对于一个买入价的计量主体与卖出价的计量主体的规定有所不同。
买入价定义为交易日在一项合理的交易中市场参与者为购入一项资产或承担一项负债所付出的金额。
某些成员假设不考虑交易成本，买入价和卖出价在同一市场的价格相同。
然而，企业可能在一个市场买入一项资产或承担一项负债而在另一个市场卖出资产或转移负债。
在这种情况下，美国财务会计准则第157号中的卖出价可能与买入价不同。
在国际财务报告准则中规定的公允价值计量原则可能与卖出价的计量主体不一致。
特别地，国际会计准则委员会认为这可能是公允价值初始计量的情形，例如：1)国际财务报告准则第3号。
2)国际会计准则第17号租赁合同下融资租赁的资产和负债的初始确认。
3)国际会计准则第39号金融工具：某些金融资产和金融负债的初始确认和计量。
在披露草案的修订过程中，国际会计准则理事会可能会提出公允价值修改后的定义。
这样一来，它将完成对于公允价值计量在国际财务报告准则中的逐条审核。
这样做的目的在于评估每条标准规定的公允价值计量主体是否与准则给出的定义相一致。
如果国际会计理事会得出在特定标准下既定的计量主体与给出公允价值的定义不相一致，或者披露草案的范围又或是既定的计量主体把标准排除在外，则标准将被公允价值以外的概念重述（例如现行买入价）。
为了协助审核，国际会计理事会需要理解国际财务报告准则的公允价值计量指南在实务当中是如何运用的。
因此它要求被调查者去识别国际财务报告准则中的这些公允价值计量在实务中哪些方面与美国财务会计准则第157号有不同。
2.2市场参与者的看法美国财务会计准则第157号强调公允价值计量是以市场价为基础的计量，并不是针对某一家企业进行的计量。
因此，公允价值计量应当基于一个假设，那就是市场参与者是使用一项资产或负债的市场价格。
此外，即使没有活跃市场或市场活动受限，公允价值的计量目标仍是一致的：去判定交易价格。
这个交易价格是在合理交易中被市场参与者接受的卖出资产或转移负债的价格,不管企业是否有卖出资产或转移负债的能力和意图。
美国财务会计准则第157号第10段定义市场参与者作为资金市场上的买者或卖者是：1)不依赖报告个体，即他们不是关联方；2)理性的, 有关于财产或负债的合理理解和交易事项基于所有的可得数据, 包括通过应有的合理方式和习惯而取得的数据。
3)能够为持有财产或承担负债办理。
4)愿意持有财产或承担负债; 即他们是主动的而不是强迫这么做。
通过比较，公允价值在国际财务报告准则中的定义设计是“在一系列正常交易中理性的、有意向的第三方”为国际会计准则第40号第42至44段投资性房地产的定义提供了具体解释。
公允价值的定义中所指的“理性的、有意向的第三方”，在文中“理性的”意味者投资性房地产的买房和卖方对于其的属性和特征的信息是对称的，并且在资产负债表日它的实际和潜在的使用年限和市场行情双方都能获取合理信息。
有意向的购买者指的是购买者是资源的而不是被迫的。
潜在的购买者不会出比理智的、有意向的购买者更高的价格。
有意向的卖方不是急于卖出资产或受迫的卖方，这样的卖方打算以随意的价格卖出资产，或者不去考虑现有市场的合理价格。
有意向的卖方是以一个可得到的合理的价格自愿卖出投资性房地产的卖方。
实际情况中，处理投资性房地产的所有者不必做这些考虑，有意向的卖方只是假定的左右者。
（例如有意向的卖方不必考虑为投资性房地产的所有者考虑特定资源税。
）公允价值的定义设计的一系列合理的交易是一方与多方之间不存在特殊的关联方关系，交易是在不存在任何关联关系的独立各方之间进行的。
国际会计准则理事会最初的看法是市场参与者的看法通常与在国际财务报告中叙述合理的有意向的相关方的一系列合理交易的概念是一致的。
然而，在国际会计准则理事会看来，被提议的定义将更清楚地在国际财务报告准则中体现。
3.公允价值会计的应用和实施的障碍这一直是一个有争议的问题。
即是否继续使用传统历史成本会计措施还是选择使用公允价值作为计量基础,并且反对者和支持者就这一问题提出了几点质疑。
国际会计标准第39号(第9段)把公允价值定义为：在一项公平交易中，熟悉情况并且自愿交易的双方交换一项资产或清偿一基本原则债务所使用的金额。
3.1对于公允价值的理解虽然在理论上看起来比较简单, 但在实践中这个定义需要进一步的理解。
学者Barth 和Landsman认为,它可以被应用在完全竞争市场上,但事实并非总是如此。
公允价值会计准则的应用应遵循三个步骤。
市场价格是公允价值的最佳估计。
第二个最佳选择,在找不到所计量项目的市场价格或市场信息质量不高的情况下，可以使用所计量项目类似项目的市场价格作为其公允价值。
最后，如果以上两种价格都得不到的话，应当考虑采用适当的估价技术来确定资产或负债的公允价值。
因此,确定公允价值可能是通过使用几种不同的方法,包括发公布的市场价格,未来现金流贴现或估值方法。
最近发布的国际财务报告准则第9号准则的提案对金融工具的公允价值在交易成本可以被合理估计的情况下公允价值的计量做出指导。
（例如在在广泛意义上存在计量公允价值的可能性并且在这个范围内成本可以提供对公允价值的最佳估计值，但更近一步用来确定公允价值的信息是不充分的）。
国际财务报表告准则第9号准则还规定了不能成为最佳估计数的成本标准。
这些标准包含了预期投资者的重大转变，市场上投资产品的重大转变或是投资的经济环境的重大变化。
很多关于公允价值会计的争论在其辩论过程中已有暗示。
会计学文献中涵盖了相关学者的观点，即历史成本法与决策无关，因此需要有更好的方法来取而代之。