公允价值英文文献

合集下载

关于会计公允价值量的英语作文

关于会计公允价值量的英语作文The IAS emphasizes that fair value measurement items are not a means to extend the application of fair value in financial statements.In addition, the project aims to rewrite, clarify, and simplify existing guidelines widely used in IFRS.However, in order to construct a single standard that unifies the guidelines for all measures of fair values as required by the guidelines, modifications to the existing guidelines must be made.These amendments are further discussed in Rule 2, which may make adjustments to both the measurement of fair value under certain standards and to the interpretation and application made under the guidelines requirements.In some guidelines, the IAL Accounting Standards Board (or its predecessor) has consciously incorporated some measurement guidelines.These guidelines can lead to having it measured as fair value, although it is not consistent in the measurement of fair value.For example, the object of fair value measurement in the guide to paragraph 16 of Standard 3 is inconsistent with assets or liabilities for items involved in the merger, such as tax assets, tax liabilities, and employee benefits in a specific earnings plan.Furthermore, someguidelines contain criteria for the reliability of the measurement.For example, fixed assets at IA16 can be measured in fair mode only when the fair value can be reliably determined.。

公允价值计量在我国会计核算中的应用研究(外文翻译参考)

公允价值计量在我国会计核算中的应用研究(外文翻译参考)毕业设计（论文）外文参考资料及译文译文题目：公允价值会计的危机:正确理解最近的辩论学生姓名：葛慧敏学号： 0901208036 专业：会计学所在学院：商学院指导教师：王思武职称：讲师2013年3月10日The Crisis of Fair Value Accounting: Making Sense ofthe Recent Debate*Christian LauxGoethe-University FrankfurtandChristian LeuzThe University of Chicago Booth School ofBusiness & NBERApril 2009(Forthcoming in Accounting, Organizations andSociety)AbstractThe recent financial crisis has led to a vigorous debate about the pros and cons of fair-value accounting (FV A). This debate presents a major challenge for FV A g oing forward and standard setters’ push to extend FV A into other areas. In this article, we highlight four important issues as an attempt to make sense of the debate. First, much of the controversy results from confusion about what is new and different about FV A. Second, while there are legitimate concerns about marking to market (or pure FV A) in times of financial crisis, it is less clear that these problems apply to FV A as stipulated by the accounting standards, be it IFRS or U.S. GAAP. Third, historical cost accounting (HCA) is unlikely to be the remedy. There are a number of concerns about HCA as well and these problemscould be larger than those with FV A. Fourth, although it is difficult to fault the FV A standards per se, implementation issues are a potential concern, especially with respect to litigation. Finally, we identify several avenues for future research.Key Words: Mark-to-market；Fair value accounting；Financial institutions；Liquidity；Financial crisis；Banks；Procyclicality1. IntroductionThe recent financial crisis has turned the spotlight on fair-value accounting (FV A) and led to a major policy debate involving among others the U.S. Congress, the European Commission as well banking and accounting regulators around the world. Critics argue that FV A, often also called mark-to-market accounting (MTM),1has significantly contributed to the financial crisis and exacerbated its severity for financial institutions in the U.S. and around the world.2On the other extreme, proponents of FV A argue that it merely played the role of the proverbial messenger that is now being shot (e.g., Turner, 2008; Veron, 2008).3In our view, there are problems with both positions. FV A is neither responsible for the crisis nor is it merely a measurement system that reports asset values without having economic effects of its own.In this article, we attempt to make sense of the current fair-value debate and discuss whether many of the arguments in this debate hold up to further scrutiny. We come to the following four conclusions. First, much of the controversy about FV A results from confusion about what is new and different about FV A as well as different views about the purpose of FV A. In our view, the debate about FV A takes us back to several old accounting issues, like the tradeoff between relevance and reliability, which have been debated for decades. Except in rare circumstances, standard setters will always face these issues and tradeoffs; FV A is just another example. This insight is helpful to better understand some of the arguments brought forward in the debate.Second, there are legitimate concerns about marking asset values to market prices in times of financial crisis once we recognize that there are ties to contractsand regulation or that managers and investors may care about market reactions over the short term. However, it is not obvious that these problems are best addressed with changes to the accounting system. These problems could also (and perhaps more appropriately) be addressed by adjusting contracts and regulation. Moreover, the concern about the downward spiral is most pronounced for FV A in its pure form but it does not apply in the same way to FV A as stipulated by U.S. GAAP or IFRS. Both standards allow for deviations from market prices under certain circumstances (e.g., prices from fire sales). Thus, it is not clear that the standards themselves are the source of the problem. However, as our third conclusion highlights, there could be implementation problems in practice. It is important to recognize that accounting rules interact with other elements of the institutional framework, which could give rise to unintended consequences. For instance, we point out that managers’ concerns about litigation could make a deviation from market prices less likely even when it would be appropriate. Concerns about SEC enforcement could have similar effects. At the same time, it is important to recognize that giving management more flexibility to deal with potential problems of FV A (e.g., in times of crisis) also opens the door for manipulation. For instance, managers could use deviations from allegedly depressed market values to avoid losses and impairments. Judging from evidence in other areas in accounting (e.g., loans and goodwill) as well as the U.S. savings and loans (S&L) crisis, this concern should not be underestimated. Thus, standard setters and enforcement agencies face a delicate tradeoff (e.g., between contagion effects and timely impairment).Fourth, we emphasize that a return to historical cost accounting (HCA) is unlikely to be a remedy to the problems with FV A. HCA has a set of problems as well and it is possible that for 3certain assets they are as severe, or even worse than the problems with FV A. For instance, HCA likely provides incentives engage in so called “gains trading” or to securitize and sell assets. Moreover, lack of transparency under HCA could make matters worse during crises.We conclude our article with several suggestions for future research. Basedon extant empirical evidence, it is difficult to evaluate the role of FV A in the current crisis. In particular, we need more work on the question of whether market prices significantly deviated from fundamental values during this crisis and more evidence that FV A did have an effect above and beyond the procyclicality of asset values and bank lending.In Section 2, we provide a quick overview over FV A and some of the key arguments for and against FV A. In Section 3, we discuss the concern that FV A contributes to contagion and procyclicality as well as ways to address this concern, including how current accounting practices help to alleviate problems of contagion. We consider potential implementation problems in Section 4 and conclude with suggestions for future research in Section 5.2. Fair-value accounting: What is it and what are the key arguments?FV A is a way to measure assets and liabilities that appear on a company’s balance sheet. FAS 157 defines fair value as “the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.” When quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities are available, they have to be used as the measurement for fair value (Level 1 inputs). If not, Level 2 or Level 3 inputs should be used. Level 2 applies to cases for which there are observable inputs, which includes quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices from identical or similar assets in 4inactive markets, and other relevant market data. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs (e.g.,model assumptions). They should be used to derive a fair value if observable inputs are not available, which is commonly referred to as a mark-to-model approach.Fair value is defined similarly under IFRS as the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties, in an arm’s length transaction. In determining fair value, IFRS make similardistinctions among inputs as FAS 157: Quoted prices in active markets must be used as fair value when available. In the absence of such prices, an entity should use valuation techniques and all relevant market information that is available so that valuation techniques maximize the use of observable inputs (IAS 39). It is recognized that an entity might have to make significant adjustments to an observed price in order to arrive at the price at which an orderly transaction would have taken place (e.g., IASB Expert Advisory Panel, 2008).3. Fair-value accounting, illiquidity, and financial crisesFV A and its application through the business cycle have been subject to considerable debate (e.g., ECB, 2004; Banque de France, 2008; IMF, 2008). The chief concern is that FV A is procyclical, i.e., it exacerbates swings in the financial system, and that it may even cause a downward spiral in financial markets. U.S. GAAP and, more recently, also IFRS allow for a re-classification of fair-value assets into a category to which HCA and less stringent impairment tests apply. U.S. GAAP and IFRS have mechanisms to avoid negative spillovers in distressed markets and a downward spiral.To address contagion and procyclicality is not to have direct (mechanical) regulatory or contractual ties to FV A. For instance, it would be possible to adjust the accounting numbers for the purpose of determining regulatory capital. Such adjustments already exist. For example, for the purpose of calculating regulatory capital, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve adjust bank’s equity as reported under U.S. GAAP for unrealized losses and gains for available-for-sale (AFS) debt securities to obtain Tier 1 capital (e.g., Schedule HC-R in FR Y-9C). Thus, regulatory capital as calculated by U.S. banking regulators is not affected by changes in the fair value of AFS debt securities, unless they are sold or the impairments are other-than-temporary.13Similarly, Li (2008) documents that debt contracts often exclude fair-value changes in accounting-based debt covenants. These examples demonstrate that it is not clear that contagion and procyclicality are bestaddressed directly in the accounting system. Perhaps these issues are better left to the prudential regulators and contracting parties, who in turn can make adjustments to the numbers reported in the financial statements as they see fit. In our view, this is an interesting issue for future research. In summary, Allen and Carletti (2008) and Plantin et al. (2008a)provide important contributions to the FV A debate by illustrating potential contagion effects. However, they do not show that HCA would bepreferable. In fact, Plantin et al. (2008a) are quite explicit about the problems of HCA. Furthermore, they do not speak directly to the role of FV A in the current crisis because they do not model FV A as implemented in practice. As noted above, FV A as required by U.S. GAAP or IFRS as well as U.S. regulatory capital requirements for banks have mechanisms in place that should alleviate potential contagion effects. Whether these mechanisms work properly in practice is our next question.4. Are there implementation problems with fair-value accounting standards?Given the discussion in the preceding section, it is not obvious that extant accounting standards can be blamed for causing contagion effects. But it is possible that, in practice or in crises, the standards do not work as intended. Ultimately, this is an empirical question and answering it is beyond the scope of this article. But we can at least raise and discuss two important implementation issues.Many have argued that both the emphasis of FAS 157 on observable inputs (i.e., Level 1 and Level 2) and extant SEC guidance make it very difficult for firms to deviate from market prices, even if these prices are below fundamentals or give rise to contagion effects (e.g., Wallison, 2008a, Bigman and Desmond, 2009). Consistent with these claims, the relevant standards in U.S. GAAP and IFRSas well as guidance for these standards are quite restrictive as to when it is appropriate for managers to deviate from observable market prices.However,such restrictions should not be surprising. By allowing deviations from market price in some instances, standard setters face the problem of distinguishing between a situation in which a market price is indeed misleading and a situation in which a manager merely claims that this is soin order to avoid a write-down. Without restrictive guidance, the standards could be easily gamed. There is evidence that managers can be reluctant to take write-downs even when assets are substantially impaired.15Consistent with this concern, current estimates of banks’ loan losses far exceed the write-downs that banks have taken so far and they also exceed the difference between the loans’ carrying valu es and banks’ fair value disclosures for these loans according to FAS 107 (e.g., Citigroup, 2009; Goldman Sachs, 2009; IMF, 2009).16 While this expected feature of second-best standards is one explanation for the criticism of FV A during the crisis, it is clearly also possible that extant rules and guidance are too restrictive (even from a second-best perspective) and that we would have been better off giving managers more flexibility in the crisis.17This is in essence the view that the House Financial Services Committee adopted in a hearing on MTM accounting rules on March 12, 2009. As a result of this political pressure, the FASB relaxed the conditions for moving assets into Level 3 in April 2009. Moreover, the financial statements of U.S. banks for fiscal 2008 show that banks have been able to move assets into the Level 3 Category as the financial crisis unfolded, so it was clearly not impossible to move to models (see also IMF, 2008). But it is of course possible that banks did not move enough assets into the Level 3 category to prevent contagion effects. In the end, we need more research on this issue.18A second implementation problem may arise from litigation risk. Deviations from market prices under existing FV A standards require substantial judgement by the preparers and the auditors. However, managers, directors and auditors face severe litigation risks as well as substantial legal penalties, including prison terms, which recently have been increased by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. In this environment, managers, directors, and auditors are likely to weigh thepersonal costs and risks associated with deviations from market prices differently than investors. For example, it is conceivable that a manager is reluctant to use an appropriate model-based fair value that is higher than an observable price from a very illiquid market, especially when there is substantial down-side risk for the economy or the firm, as there typically is in financial crises.From a litigation risk perspective, guidance as to when deviations are appropriate is likely to play an important role, especially in litigious environments and when enforcement is strong. Thus, it is possible that, once we recognize the litigation aspect, improvements in the standards’ implementation were (and perhaps are still) needed. However, as litigation serves as an important enforcement mechanism, there are tradeoffs as we highlighted earlier in this section for SEC enforcement. This second implementation problem also highlights that it is important to evaluate accounting standards within the context of the institutional environment in which they operate.195、Conclusion and suggestions for future researchThe preceding sections illustrate that the debate about FV A is full of arguments that do not hold up to further scrutiny and need more economic analysis. Moreover, it is important to recognize that standard setters face tradeoffs, and in this regard FV A is no exception. One example is the tradeoff between relevance and reliability, which is at the heart of the debate of when to deviate from market prices in determining fair values. Another example is that FV A recognizes losses early thereby forcing banks to take appropriate measures early and making it more difficult to hide potential problems that only grow larger and would make crises more severe. But this benefit gives rise to another set of tradeoffs. First, FV A introduces volatility in the financial statement in “normal times” (when prompt action is not needed). Second, full FV A can give rise to contagion effects in times of crisis, which need to be addressed – be it in the accounting system or with prudential regulation. In our view, it may bebetter to design prudential regulation that accepts FV A as a starting point but sets explicit counter-cyclical capital requirements than to implicitly address the issue of financial stability in the accounting system by using historical costs. It is an illusion to believe that ignoring market prices or current information provides a foundation for a more solid banking system. But we admit that the tradeoff between transparency and financial stability as well as the interactions between accounting and prudential regulation needs further analysis (see also Landsman, 2006).A related issue is the question of how investors respond to additional disclosures that firms provide in times of crisis. There are a few studies that examine firms’ responses to transparency crises and their economic consequences (e.g., Leuz and Schrand, 2008). The current crisis provides an interesting setting to further explore these issues further. An analysis of European banks’ annual reports by KPMG (2008) suggests that, in 2007, banks increased their disclosures related to financial instruments, in part due to the beginning of the crisis. It would be interesting to study what determines disclosure (or non-disclosure), how investors reacted to these disclosures and whether there are signs that investors overreact to such disclosures.Finally, it is important to recognize that accounting rules and changes in them are shaped by political processes (like any other regulation). The role of the political forces further complicates the analysis. For instance, it is possible that changing the accounting rules in a crisis as a result of political pressures leads to worse outcomes than sticking to a particular regime (e.g., Brunnermeier etal., 2009). In this regard, the intense lobbying and political interference with the standard setting process during the current crisis provide a fertile ground for further study.In sum, the fair-value debate is far from over and much remains to be done. ReferencesAdrian, T., & Shin, H.S. (2008). Liquidity and leverage. Federal Reserve Bank ofNew York Staff Reports, No. 328.Allen, F., & Carletti, E. (2008). Mark-to-market accounting and liquidity pricing. Journal of Accounting and Economics45, 358-378.American Bankers Association (2008). Letter to SEC. September 23, 2008.Ball, R. (2008). Don’t shoot the messenger … or ignore the message, Note.Bank of America (2004). Letter to FASB. September 17. 2004.Banque de France (2008). Financial stability review. Special issue on valuation, No 12, October.Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. In G.M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. M. Stulz, Handbook of the Economics of Finance, vol. 1, chapter 18, pages 1053-1128. North Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Barth, M. (2004). Fair Values and Financial Statement Volatility. In: The Market Discipline Across Countries and Industries, Claudio Borio, William Curt Hunter, George G Kaufman, and Kostas Tsatsaronis (eds). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Barth, M.E., Beaver, W.H., & Landsman, W.R. (2001). The relevance of the value-relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting: another view. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31, 77-104.Beatty, A., Chamberlain, S. & Magliolo, J. (1995). Managing financial reports of commercial banks: The influence of taxes, regulatory capital and earnings. Journal of Accounting Research33, 231-261.Beaver, W.H. (1981). Financial reporting: An accounting revolution. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Benston, G. J. (2008). The shortcomings of fair-value accounting described in SFAS 157. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 27, 101-114.Berger, A.N., Herring, R.J., & Szegö, G.P. (1995). The role of capital in financial institutions. Journal of Banking and Finance19, 393-340.Bernard, V.L., Merton, R.C., & Palepu, K.G. (1995). Mark-to-market accountingfor banks and thrifts: Lessons from the Danish experience. Journal of Accounting Research 33, 1-32.Bigman, D., & Desmond, M. (2009). Mark-to-messy accounting change. , April 02, 2009.Brunnermeier, M.K., & Pedersen, L.H. (forthcoming). Market liquidity and funding liquidity. Review of Financial Studies.Brunnermeier, M.K., Crocket, A., Goodhart, C., Persaud, A. & Shin, H. (2009). The fundamental principles of financial regulation. Geneva Reports on the World Economy 11. International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies. Geneva, Switzerland.Citigroup (2009). Industry focus: U.S. Banks, Research report by Citigroup Global Markets, March 2, 2009.Credit Suisse (2008). Letter to the SEC, File Number 4-573, November 13, 2008. Coval, J.D., Jurek, J.W., & Stafford, E. (2009). The pricing of investment grade credit risk during the financial crisis. Working Paper.DeBondt, W.F.M., & Thaler, R. (1985). Does the stock market overreact? The Journal of Finance40, 793-805.Disclosure Insight (2009). Comment letter on proposed staff position under FASB Statement No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, March 25, 2009.ECB (2004). Fair value accounting and financial stability. By ECB staff team led by A. Enria. Occasional Paper Series, No. 13, April 2004.公允价值会计的危机:正确理解最近的辩论作者：Christian Laux and Christian Leuz出处：Forthcoming in Accounting,Organizations and Society摘要最近的金融危机已经导致了一个关于公允价值会计的优缺点(FVA)的激烈争论。

公允价值投资性房地产英文论文

Investment PropertiesSummary of Decisions Reached to DateAs of August 24, 2011The Summary of Decisions Reached to Date is provided for the information and convenience of constituents who want to follow the Board’s deliberations. All of the conclusions reported are tentative and may be changed at future Board meetings. Decisions become final only after a formal written ballot to issue a final FASB Accounting Standards Update.ScopeThe Board decided that an entity that meets all of the following criteria would qualify as an investment property entity:1. Nature of the Business Activities. The entity’s primary business activities are investing in realestate properties.2. Express Business Purpose. The express business purpose of the entity is to invest in real estateproperties for total return including an objective to realize capital appreciation, for example, through disposal of its real estate properties. The entity does not primarily hold real estate properties for any of the following purposes:a. Their own use in the production or supply of goods or services or for administrativepurposesb. Sale in the ordinary course of business.3. Unit Ownership. Ownership in the entity is represented by units of investments, such as shares orpartnership interests, to which proportionate shares of net assets can be attributed.4. Pooling of Funds. The funds of the entity's investors are pooled to avail the investors ofprofessional investment management. The entity has investors who are unrelated to the parent (if there is a parent), and in aggregate hold a significant ownership interest in the entity.5. Reporting Entity. The entity provides financial information about its investment activities to itsinvestors. The entity can be, but does not need to be, a legal entity.Notwithstanding the conditions noted above, a subsidiary whose parent accounts for its investments at fair value pursuant to a requirement or an option under U.S. GAAP is exempt from the unit ownership and pooling of funds criteria above.The Board decided that the proposed Update should include an example illustrating that an entity investing in real estate properties to collect rental income long term, but does not have an exit strategy for its investments, would not qualify as an investment property entity.MeasurementInitial MeasurementThe Board decided that an investment property entity would initially measure its investment properties at transaction price, including transaction costs.Subsequent MeasurementThe Board reached the following decisions:1. An investment property entity would subsequently measure its investment properties at fair valuewith all changes in fair value recognized in net income.2. A practicability exception to fair value measurement would not be provided for investmentproperty, including investment property under construction.3. An entity that sells properties in the ordinary course of business would be required to continue tomeasure a previously recognized investment property at fair value when that entity commences development of the property with a review to sale.4. In accounting for a lease for which the investment property entity is the lessee, the investmentproperty entity would measure right-of-use assets relating to investment properties at fair valuewith all changes in fair value recognized in net income.5. Right-of-use assets relating to noninvestment property assets would be measured at amortizedcost, consistent with the Leases Exposure Draft.6. Other noninvestment property assets held by an investment property entity would be accountedfor under other applicable U.S. GAAP.7. Investment property acquired in a business combination would be excluded from paragraph 805-20-30-5 relating to the acquirer’s acquisition-date valuation of an acquired asset that is subject to an operating lease. The investment property would be measured at fair value with all changes in fair value recognized in net income.Interests in Other EntitiesThe Board decided that an investment property entity would account for a controlling financial interest in another investment property entity or an investment company under Topic 810, Consolidation. The Board decided that an investment property entity would be prohibited from consolidating controlling financial interests in noninvestment property entities unless the controlling financial interest is in an operating entity that provides services to the investment property entity.The Board decided that an investment property entity’s investment in either another investment property entity or an investment company, where the investment property entity can exercise significant influence over the investee, would be measured at fair value with all changes in fair value recognized in net income rather than applying the equity method of accounting.Revenue RecognitionThe Board decided that rental revenue from investment properties would be recognized on a contractual basis.PresentationThe Board decided that an investment property entity would present the following items separately on the face of the financial statements related to investment property investments:a. Rental incomeb. Rental expensesc. Fair value of investment propertiesd. Debt.DisclosuresThe Board decided that an entity with investment property should disclose the following:1. The amounts recognized in earnings for direct operating expenses, disclosed separately forinvestment property that generated rental income during the year and investment property thatdid not generate rental income during the year2. Any restrictions on the ability to increase rent, collect rental income, or collect proceeds on thesale of investment property3. Any contractual obligations related to investment property.In addition, the Board decided that the fair value disclosures required under Topic 820, Fair Value Measurement, would apply to investment property.Use of the Net Asset Value (NAV) Practical ExpedientThe Board decided that an investor in an investment property entity would be permitted to use the net asset value practical expedient in Topic 820 on fair value measurements to estimate the fair value of its investment if investors in the investment property entity would transact at net asset value per share.TransitionThe Board decided an entity would recognize the effect of adoption as an adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings in the period of adoption. Early adoption would be prohibited.Comment PeriodThe Board decided that the comment period for the proposed Update would coincide with the end date of the comment period for the proposed Update on investment companies.。

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。

公允价值英文文献

Relative value relevance of historicalcost vs.fair value:Evidence frombank holding companiesInder K.Khurana *,Myung-Sun Kim 1School of Accountancy,College of Business,University of Missouri––Columbia,317Middlebush,Columbia,MO 65211,USAAbstractThis study complements the growing literature on the value relevance of fair value by examining the validity of the hypothesis that fair value is more informative than his-torical cost as a ﬁnancial reporting standard for ﬁnancial ing the fair value disclosures made under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS)No.107and SFAS No.115by bank holding companies (BHCs)over the 1995–98period,we compare the relative explanatory power of fair value and historical cost in explaining equity values.For our entire sample,we are unable to detect a discernible diﬀerence in the informativeness of fair value measures collectively relative to historical cost mea-sures.However,for small BHCs and those with no analysts following,we ﬁnd that his-torical cost measures of loans and deposits are more informative than fair values.Anecdotal evidence indicates that loans and deposits are not actively traded and often involve more subjectivity with respect to the methods and assumptions used in esti-mating their fair values.In contrast,fair value of available-for-sale securities,which are more actively traded in well-established markets,explains equity values more than historical cost.Taken together,our results are consistent with the notion that fair value is more (less)value relevant when objective market-determined fair value measures are (not)available.More importantly,our results suggest that simply requiring fair value as the reported measure for ﬁnancial instruments may not improve the quality of *Corresponding author.Tel.:+1-573-882-3474;fax:+1-573-882-2437.E-mail addresses:khuranai@ (I.K.Khurana),sunkim@ (M.Kim).1Tel.:+1-573-882-1071.0278-4254/03/$-see front matter Ó2003Elsevier Science Inc.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0278-4254(02)00084-4Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 22(2003)19–4220I.K.Khurana,M.Kim/Journal of Accounting and Public Policy22(2003)19–42 information for all BHCs unless appropriate estimation methods or guidance for ﬁnancial instruments that are not traded in active markets can be established.Ó2003Elsevier Science Inc.All rights reserved.1.IntroductionRecently the Financial Accounting Standards Board(FASB)made a fun-damental decision that fair value is the most relevant attribute forﬁnancial instruments(FASB,2000,p.8).Although the quoted market value is the prescribed measure of fair value,the FASB adopted the term‘‘fair value’’instead of market value to encompass estimated values forﬁnancial instru-ments that are not traded in active markets.The decision to mandate fair value disclosures was made amidst a long-standing debate between the advocates of fair value accounting and advocates of historical cost accounting.The basic premise underlying the FASBÕs decision is that fair value ofﬁnancial assets and liabilities better enables investors,creditors and other users ofﬁnancial state-ments to assess the consequences of an entityÕs investment andﬁnancing strategies.2Advocates of historical cost,on the other hand,point to the re-duced reliability of fair value estimates relative to historical cost.Their argu-ments suggest that investors would be reluctant to base valuation decisions on the more subjective fair value estimates(Barth,1994,p.3).Given the FASBÕs stated long-term goal of having allﬁnancial assets and liabilities recognized in statements ofﬁnancial position at fair value rather than at amounts based on historical cost,the purpose of this study is to test claims that fair value is more informative relative to historical cost.Speciﬁcally,we examine whether fair value ofﬁnancial instruments is more informative than historical cost in explaining equity market values of bank holding companies (BHCs).The goal is to determine whether fair value has a higher association with equity market values of BHCs than historical cost.We focus on BHCs for several reasons.First,ﬁnancial statements of BHCs are dominated by theﬁnancial instruments covered under the FASBÕs pro-nouncements on fair value disclosures.For our sample of BHCs,assets and liabilities subjected to fair value disclosures constitute,on average,87%and 88%of total book value of assets,respectively.Second,fair value disclosures are more comprehensive and standardized for BHCs than forﬁrms in other industries.Finally,BHCs enable us to evaluate whichﬁnancial instruments,if any,contribute to the higher association between fair value and equity values.2The FASBÕs Statement of Financial Accounting Standards(SFAS)No.133,Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities,explicitly states that fair values forﬁnancial assets and liabilities provide more relevant and understandable information than cost based measures (FASB,1998,–222).I.K.Khurana,M.Kim/Journal of Accounting and Public Policy22(2003)19–4221We use the fair value disclosures made under SFAS No.107,Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments,and SFAS No.115,Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities,by302BHCs over the1995–98period.For our entire sample of BHCs,we are unable to detect a statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerence between the explanatory power of historical cost and fair value measures ofﬁnancial instruments collectively in explaining equity values.We also provide evidence on whether the explanatory power of fair value relative to historical cost depends on additionalﬁrm characteristics.Fair value disclosures are likely to be more informative than historical cost for large BHCs,if they are more capable(than small BHCs)of precisely estimating fair value,and for BHCs operating in more transparent information environment, if this implies that information disclosed by theseﬁrms is more reliable.Our results indicate that historical cost is more informative than fair value for a subset of BHCs that are classiﬁed as small(based on market value of equity)and for a subset of BHCs with no analysts following.Additional analysis undertaken to identify the source of these results indicates that loans and deposits drive the higher informativeness of historical cost over fair value of the two subsets of BHCs.Anecdotal evidence indicates that loans and de-posits are not actively traded and often involve more subjectivity with respect to the methods and assumptions used in estimating fair value.In contrast, fair value of available-for-sale securities,which are more actively traded in well-established markets,explains equity values more than historical cost. Taken together,our results are consistent with the notion that fair value is more value relevant when objective market-determined fair value measures are available.For the remainingﬁnancial instruments(i.e.,held-to-maturity debt secu-rities andﬁnancial liabilities other than deposits),weﬁnd neither fair value nor historical cost to provide greater information.Our inability to detect the dominance of one measure over the other may be due to a small diﬀerence between historical cost and fair value in our sample period(1995–98).33For example,if the diﬀerence between fair value and historical cost were recognized in the income statement,the average eﬀect on earnings would be6%of income before extraordinary items for our sample,whereas the average eﬀect(recalculated after adjusting for the diﬀerences in denominators)would be)11%and)26%for samples in Nelson(1996,p.168)and Park et al. (1999,p.357),respectively.To the extent that the diﬀerences between historical cost and fair value is due to changes in interest rates,the small diﬀerences(in absolute terms)between historical cost and fair value for our sample compared to those in prior studies can be due to the magnitude of changes in interest rates in our sample period.During the1995–98sample period covered by our study,the average annual unexpected interest rate changes in absolute terms(computed as the absolute value of the diﬀerence between actual annual three month Treasury bill rate less the prior year monthly average interest rate deﬂated by the prior interest rate)is11%.The corresponding numbers during1992–93(sample period covered by Nelson,1996,p.167)and1993–95(sample period covered by Park et al.,1999,p.353)are24%and28%,respectively.22I.K.Khurana,M.Kim/Journal of Accounting and Public Policy22(2003)19–42In light of the fact that our sample of BHCs exhibit small diﬀerences be-tween historical cost and fair value ofﬁnancial instruments,it is conceiv-able that fair value disclosures in an environment where fair value deviates dramatically from historical cost may have diﬀerent implications for BHCsÕequity values than in the environment covered by this study.Our study diﬀers from prior research on fair value disclosures in that we test for the relative information content of fair value and historical cost as opposed to incremental information content of fair value over and above historical cost.Incremental information content tests conducted in prior re-search assess whether fair value provides information content beyond his-torical costs(Biddle et al.,1995,p.3).Such incremental information tests ask whether the two measures(fair value and historical cost)together are more informative than one measure alone.On the other hand,relative information test conducted here ask whether fair value alone is more informative than historical cost alone and vice versa.Prior research on fair value disclosures has focused on incremental information content tests without explicitly test-ing whether fair value alone is more,equally,or less informative than his-torical cost.While results of incremental tests have been informative in the FASBÕs deliberations on fair value disclosure requirements(Barth et al.,2001,p.79), Ryan(1999,p.374)notes that the FASB has moved on to the next logical step of asking whether fair value as a basis is preferable to historical cost for balance sheet recognition.Our study is theﬁrst to conduct relative infor-mation content tests to assess whether fair value is more informative than historical cost and vice versa.In doing so,it complements the growing lit-erature on the value relevance of fair value.Empirical evidence(provided in our study)on the informativeness of fair value measures relative to historical cost measures should be useful to the FASB,which is interested in fair value as a replacement(or complement) to historical cost as a key measure forﬁnancial instruments.This knowl-edge can impart input into policy deliberations by allowing informed tradeoﬀs between beneﬁts and costs of providing information about fair value.The remainder of this paper is organized as follows:Section2provides background information on fair value and discusses theﬁndings of prior re-search on fair value disclosures.Section3describes the motivation behind the empirical tests conducted in this study.Section4describes the methodology used to test the informativeness of fair value relative to historical cost using market value of equity.In Section5,we describe our data and sample selection procedure.Section6presents our empiricalﬁndings,and Section7concludes the paper.I.K.Khurana,M.Kim/Journal of Accounting and Public Policy22(2003)19–42232.Background and prior researchThe FASB(2000,p.8)has stated that its long-term goal is to have allﬁ-nancial assets and liabilities recognized in statements ofﬁnancial position at fair value rather than at amounts based on historical cost.It has also issued several signiﬁcant pronouncements on fair value disclosures,SFAS No.107, Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments(FASB,1991),SFAS No.115,Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities (FASB,1993),and SFAS No.133,Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities(FASB,1998).Underlying the issuance of these pro-nouncements is the belief that fair value provides information aboutﬁnancial assets and liabilities that is more relevant than amounts based on historical cost.The FASBÕs(2001,p.9)intermediate objective is to issue a statement that would describe more speciﬁcally how to determine fair value forﬁnancial in-struments and improve the form and content of the disclosures required by SFAS No.107.Fair value of aﬁnancial instrument represents the amount at which aﬁ-nancial instrument could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties,other than in a forced or liquidation sale(FASB,1991,–5).Although the market prices quoted in an active market provide the most reliable measure of fair value,market prices are often not available for manyﬁnancial instru-ments appearing on the balance sheets of BHCs.In such situations,BHCs must provide the best available estimate of a current market price by exercising judgments about the methods and assumptions to be used(FASB,1991,–22). As a result,fair value measures reported in theﬁnancial statements depict the managementÕs estimate of the present value of the net future cashﬂows em-bodied in an asset or liability,discounted to reﬂect both the current interest rate and the managementÕs assessment of the risk associated with those cash ﬂows.Willis(1998,p.5)notes that fair values provide information about beneﬁts expected from assets and burdens imposed by liabilities based on current economic conditions and expectations.The FASB(1991,–40)contends that periodic information about the fair value of an entityÕsﬁnancial instruments under current conditions and expectations should help users both in making their own predictions and in conﬁrming or correcting their earlier expectations. Furthermore,the FASB maintains that fair values forﬁnancial assets and li-abilities provide more relevant and understandable information than historical cost measures:...fair value is more relevant toﬁnancial statement users than costfor assessing the liquidity or solvency of an entity because fair value24I.K.Khurana,M.Kim/Journal of Accounting and Public Policy22(2003)19–42 reﬂects the current cash equivalent of the entityÕsﬁnancial instru-ments rather than the price of a past transaction.With the passageof time,historical prices become irrelevant in assessing present li-quidity or solvency(FASB,1998,–222).Critics of fair value accounting point to the reduced reliability of fair value estimates relative to historical cost(Barth,1994,p.3).Historical cost infor-mation can be based on internally available information about prices in past transactions,without reference to outside market data.Fair value,in contrast, is based on current prices,which may require estimation and can lead to re-liability problems.Since fair values must be estimated for severalﬁnancial instruments that are not actively traded,estimation error could impair their value-relevance.2.1.Prior researchPrior research on value relevance(deﬁned as the association between ac-counting numbers and security market values)has focused on whether fair value disclosures in the banking industry have incremental information content over and above historical cost.4Tests for incremental information content assess whether one measure provides information content in addition to that of another measure and are often used when one or more measures are given or required and another is supplemental(Biddle et al.,1995p.3;Jennings,1990 p.925).Biddle et al.(1995,p.3)point out that in the absence of an explicit test to examine whether one measure(e.g.,fair value)alone is equally,less,or more informative than another measure(e.g.,historical cost),incremental informa-tion content tests of fair value over historical cost measures can imply several diﬀerent outcomes.Finding that fair value is incrementally informative can imply that fair value is as,more,or less informative than historical cost.Al-ternatively,ﬁnding that fair value is not incrementally informative can imply fair value is either equally or less informative than historical cost.Therefore, the mapping between an incremental and a relative information content test is not one-to-one.While incremental comparisons assess the incremental con-4Two notable exceptions of studies examining information content of fair value disclosures outside the banking industry are Simko(1999,p.247),who focuses on non-ﬁnancialﬁrms,and Petroni and Wahlen(1995,p.719),who focus on property-liability insurance companies.Simko (1999,p.270)ﬁnds thatﬁnancial instrument liability fair value disclosures are generally value-relevant for non-ﬁnancialﬁrms,while Petroni and Wahlen(1995,p.735)ﬁnd that the fair values of only certain categories of investments(equity investments and USTreasury investments)are reﬂected in share prices and returns of property-liability insurers.For a review of the literature and the methodological issues(see Barth et al.,2001;Barth,2000;Holthausen and Watts,2001).I.K.Khurana,M.Kim/Journal of Accounting and Public Policy22(2003)19–4225 tribution of one measure over the other,relative comparisons reﬂect diﬀerences in incremental information content of the two measures.Prior studies examining incremental information content of fair value dis-closures by BHCs report mixedﬁndings regarding their ability to explain market value of equity or returns.Barth(1994,p.2),using the sample of BHCs over20years between1971and1990,ﬁnds that fair value of investment se-curities,which were disclosed even prior to SFAS107(FASB,1991),is sig-niﬁcantly associated with market value of equity;and that historical cost provides no explanatory power incremental to fair value.Based on these two ﬁndings,Barth concludes that investment securitiesÕfair value(level variable) has more explanatory power than historical cost.5However,sheﬁnds that unrealized gains and losses on investment securities as a group(change vari-able)do not possess explanatory power incremental to earnings in explaining returns.She attributed the observed lack of incremental information to pos-sible measurement error in the unrealized gains and losses on investment se-curities.During the time period covered by her study,the average annual unexpected interest rate change in absolute terms was21%.6 Three other studies examine the relation between BHC share prices and fair value disclosures forﬁnancial instruments provided under SFAS107for1992 and1993,and one other study focuses on the1993–95time period.7Using a market-to-book speciﬁcation,Nelson(1996,p.173)ﬁnds that SFAS No.107 fair value disclosures have no incremental power to explain market values of equity relative to book values,with the exception of investment securities in 1992.Sheﬁnds that none of the fair value measures are associated with stock returns.Eccher et al.(1996,p.114)ﬁnd that fair value of investment securities has signiﬁcant incremental explanatory power in explaining market value of equity,but that evidence on the other asset and liability variables examined is mixed and weak.In contrast,Barth et al.(1996,p.535)document that fair value estimates of loans during1992–93provide signiﬁcant incremental ex-planatory power for BHCsÕmarket value of equity beyond that provided by related book values when additional variables(e.g.,non-performing loans and interest-sensitive assets and liabilities)are controlled for.Similarly,Park et al. (1999,p.368)ﬁnd that for a pooled sample of BHCs during1993–95,unre-alized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities,held-to-maturity debt 5Her results apply only to investment securities and disclosures made before SFAS107and SFAS115.6We used the prior year monthly average interest rate of three month Treasury bills as a proxy for expected interest rate and deﬂated the unexpected interest rate change by the prior year interest rate.7The average annual unexpected interest rate changes(in absolute terms)during the sample periods covered in these studies were24%(1992–93)and28%(1993–95),respectively,whereas the corresponding interest rate change during our sample period is11%.26I.K.Khurana,M.Kim/Journal of Accounting and Public Policy22(2003)19–42 securities,and loans are incrementally value relevant in explaining annual re-turns when these variables are entered simultaneously into a regression model. Overall,the results of prior studies documenting the incremental informa-tiveness of fair value imply that fair value is either equally,less,or more in-formative than historical cost depending on the amount of unique information contained in fair value.3.Empirical testsOurﬁrst set of tests of relative information content is motivated by the mixedﬁndings on the incremental information content of fair value disclosures as well as the fact that there has been little empirical research testing the relative information content of fair value disclosures.Tests for relative information content assess whether one measure has greater information content than another and are often used when assessing mutually exclusive choices(e.g., Biddle et al.,1995,p.3).The FASB views fair value to be the most relevant attribute forﬁnancial instruments.If disclosed fair value estimates measure underlying fair values ofﬁnancial assets and liabilities reliably,then fair value measures are more likely to be related to market value of equity than historical cost measures.Therefore,relative information content comparisons between fair value and historical cost measures can provide useful input into the FASBÕs policy deliberations.Our second set of tests examines whether diﬀerentialﬁrm characteristics are related to diﬀerential reliability of fair value information and therefore,dif-ferential information content of fair value measures.Manyﬁnancial instru-ments appearing on the balance sheets of BHCs are not traded in established markets.As a result,obtaining a reliable fair value estimate could be prob-lematic.We consider twoﬁrm characteristics that may aﬀect the reliability of fair value measures,namely,size and information environment.Many contend that fair value of loans cannot be estimated reliably,espe-cially those subject to non-trivial default risk(Barth et al.,1996,p.514).If large banks have more resources(e.g.,more sophisticated investment depart-ments)available for estimation of fair value than small banks,then large banks are more likely to provide fair value estimates with less measurement error.8 We provide evidence on this issue by conducting relative information content tests for subsets of sample BHCs classiﬁed by size.Moreover,Ryan(1999,p.375)suggests that the richer the bankÕs infor-mation environment,the smaller the likelihood of reliability problems associ-8It is also possible that large banks could have lower risk because of greater opportunities for diversiﬁcation.I.K.Khurana,M.Kim/Journal of Accounting and Public Policy22(2003)19–4227 ated with fair value estimates.There is considerable empirical evidence that suggests forecast dispersion is related to the quality ofﬁnancial disclosures. Swaminathan(1991,p.36)ﬁnds that forecast dispersion decreased following the release of newly mandated segment disclosures by the SEC.Dechow et al. (1996,p.26)ﬁnd that forecast dispersion increased following alleged violations of generally accepted accounting principles.High forecast dispersion is also associated withﬁnancial disclosures that are given a low rating byﬁnancial analysts(Lang and Lundholm,1996,p.486).The implication is that the more reliable theﬁrmÕs overallﬁnancial reporting system,the less diverse should be the analystsÕopinion on theﬁrmÕs future prospects.We test whether fair value disclosures are more informative for BHCs operating in more transparent in-formation environment by usingﬁnancial analystsÕforecast dispersion to classify BHCs.9Our third set of tests examines the information content of an individual ﬁnancial instrument.Certainﬁnancial instruments held by BHCs are likely to be actively traded in securities markets(e.g.,marketable securities).Fair value disclosures of suchﬁnancial instruments are based on readily observable market prices(Petroni and Wahlen,1995,p.725).However,loans are not actively traded and therefore involve more subjectivity with respect to the methods and assumptions used in estimating their fair values(Barth et al., 1996,p.530).Thus,fair value disclosures for certainﬁnancial instruments require more estimation than those for otherﬁnancial instruments.We provide evidence on the relative informativeness of historical cost and fair value measures of individualﬁnancial instruments.4.ModelWe utilize a cross-sectional valuation model based on the balance sheet identity that has been used extensively in the prior literature(Beaver et al., 1989,p.165;Barth,1991,p.438;and Barth et al.,1996,p.519).This model relates the market value of common equity to the historical cost and fair value measures of broad asset and liability categories ofﬁnancial institutions.The FASB(1993,–12)requires recognition of fair value for available-for-sale 9It is important to note thatﬁnancial analystsÕforecast dispersion measure should not be interpreted as implying that estimation quality of fair value per se is reﬂected in the analystsÕforecasts.Since earnings do not include unrealized gains or losses on securities other than trading securities,analystsÕforecast dispersion is not a direct indicator of the reliability of fair value estimates.Our empirical tests are based on the assumption that the measurement quality of earnings will be positively related to that of non-earnings information such as fair value measures. To the extent that this relation is weak,our empirical tests may be unable to detect the hypothesized eﬀect.We thank an anonymous reviewer for this comment.28I.K.Khurana,M.Kim/Journal of Accounting and Public Policy22(2003)19–42 securities and does not alter the rules for marking trading securities to mar-ket.10Forﬁnancial instruments other than available-for-sale securities and trading securities,historical cost(fair value)is the amount recognized(dis-closed)in the balance sheet(footnotes).We estimate the following model with either historical cost or fair value:MV itþ3¼b0þb1AFS itþb2HTM itþb3LOAN itþb4DEPO itþb5OFINL itþb6OASSET itþb7OLIAB itþu itð1Þwhere i,t denoteﬁrms andﬁscal year-end,and MV is the market value of equity three months after theﬁscal year-end,AFSis the available-for-sale se-curities atﬁscal year-end,HTM is the held-to-maturity debt securities atﬁscal year-end,LOAN is the loans atﬁscal year-end,DEPO is the deposits atﬁscal year-end,OFINL is theﬁnancial liabilities other than deposits atﬁscal year-end,OASSET is the assets other than AFS,HTM,and LOAN atﬁscal year-end,11OLIAB is the liabilities other than DEPO and OFINL atﬁscal year-end.To mitigate the size or scale eﬀect,we deﬂate all the variables with the market value of equity at the close of year tÀ1(see Brown et al.,1999,p.104).Consistent with prior research(Barth et al.,1996,p.519),non-ﬁnancial assets(liabilities)are measured as the book value diﬀerence between total assets (liabilities)andﬁnancial assets(liabilities).12We test the relative informa-tiveness of fair value and historical cost measures by comparing the R2from each model using the Vuong(1989,p.307)test,a likelihood ratio test of model selection.The test compares the R2s of two non-nested regression models and selects the model with the higher explanatory power,consistent with assessing the relative informativeness of two mutually exclusive measures.A negative and signiﬁcant Z-statistic would indicate that the residuals produced by the historical cost model are larger in magnitude than those produced by the fair 10Trading securities are marked to market both before and after SFAS No.115(FASB,1993,–12).11Because trading securities are recognized at fair value,BHCs do not provide historical cost information for trading securities.As a result,we do not examine trading securities separately. Instead,we include them as part of OASSET(deﬁned as assets other than available-for-sale securities,held-to-maturity securities,and loans).12We exclude oﬀ-balance sheet items from our models because of limitations in interpreting many of the oﬀ-balance sheet fair value disclosures required under SFAS No.107.Consistent with the limitations outlined by Barth et al.(1996,p.523),weﬁnd that a majority of our sample BHCs (1)fail to indicate clearly whether the net position with respect to oﬀ-balance sheet items is an asset or a liability;(2)net several oﬀ-balance sheet amounts,making it diﬃcult to determine the asset and liability positions for the individual items;and(3)have inadequate disclosures making it impossible to compute an estimate of fair value for oﬀ-balance sheet items.。

公允价值论文参考文献

公允价值论文参考文献公允价值论文参考文献文章类型：参考文献论文参考文献本文是一篇参考文献，参考文献类型：专著[M]，论文集[C]，报纸文章[N]，期刊文章[J]，学位论文[D]，报告[R]，标准[S]，专利[P]，论文集中的析出文献[A]。

（以上内容来自百度百科）今天为大家推荐一篇参考文献，供大家参考。

公允价值论文参考文献（1）：[1]IJIRIY.Theoryofaccountingmeasurement[M].Sarasota，FL：AmericanAccountingAssociation，1975.[2]葛家澍、窦家春、陈朝琳.财务会计计量模式的.必然选择：双重计量[J].北京：会计研究，2010（2）：7-12.[3]任世驰、陈炳辉.公允价值会计研究[J].长沙：财经理论与实践，2005（1）：72-76.[4]张白玲、杜孝森.公允价值会计基本概念辨析[J].武汉：财会月刊（会计版），2009（11）：63-64.[5]北京：于永生.美国公允价值计量准则评介[J].北京：会计研究，2007（10）：11-15.[6]任世驰.公允价值及其相关概念辨析[J].成都：财经科学，2010（5）：118-124.[7]支晓强、童盼.公允价值计量的逻辑基础和价值基础[J].北京：会计研究，2010（1）：21-27.[8]杜孝森、张白玲.论公允价值会计与权责发生制[J].武汉：财会月刊（会计版），2009（12）：5-6.[9]高建忠.公允价值计量历史演进研究[D].南京财经大学硕士论文，2007-12-01.[10]支晓强，童盼.公允价值计量的逻辑基础和价值基础[J].北京：会计研究，2010（1）.[11]葛家澍.公允价值的定义问题——基于美国财务会计准则157号《公允价值计量》[J].北京：财会学习，2009（1）.[12]罗绍德，任世驰.对公允价值相关概念的一个澄清[G]//北京：中国会计学会会计基础理论专业委员会2010年专题学术研讨会论文集，2010.公允价值论文参考文献（2）：[1]熊敏.浅议公允价值计量下的利润操纵及其防范.理论探讨，2005（2）.[2]李坤.公允价值的应用与盈余管理.财务与会计，2008（5）.[3]康霞，邸丛枝.公允价值应用下的盈余管理.财会月刊，2007.[4]高微.公允价值计量模式下的盈余管理.甘肃科技，2010（13）.[5]林诗梅.公允价值在会计业务运用中的盈余管理问题研究.财会研究，2009（17）.[6]沈田华，彭珏.共同知识视角下公允价值应用范围扩展.财会通讯，2009（1）.公允价值论文参考文献（3）：[1]财政部，企业会计准则2006.经济科学出版社，北京，2006[2]中国资产评估协会，中国资产评估准则，北京经济科学出版社，北京，2005[3]白冰，关于资产评估公允价值与会计公允价值的对比研究，会计论坛2007[4]陈美华，公允价值计量基础研究，中国财政经济出版社，北京，2006[5]贾俊萍，郭拥莉.我国公允价值会计应用的現状及对策分析[J].晋中学院学报，2012。

公允价值外国文献

ANALELE S TIIN T IFICE ALE UNIVERSIT AT II …ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA” DIN IA S INum a r special S tiin t e Economice 2010DYNAMICS OF THE FAIR VALUE IN ACCOUNTING Mihai RISTEABucharest Academy of Economic StudiesBucharest, RomaniaIonel JIANUBucharest Academy of Economic StudiesBucharest, Romaniajianu.ionel@AbstractUntil now, the historical cost principle has dominated accountancy. At this time, another principleseems to operate: the fair value principle. The discussion will gravitate around the questions:What is fair value? How has concept of fair value evolved? How much is the fair value used as the basisfor measurement in IFRS? Are we moving towards a full fair value? In conditions of economiccrisis, the measurement at fair value offers pertinent information? To answer at these questions, wehave realized by one hand, a description of the manner which the notion of fair value evolved and inthe other hand, a deep IFRS analysis which use fair value in assets and liabilities evaluation. As a resultof this study, it seems that the most of the assets and liabilities need to be measured at fair valueor they may be measured at fair value, if the entity chooses this accounting treatment.Keywords: fair value, IFRS, measurement.JEL classification: D46, M41, O471. INTRODUCTIONThe evaluation is the process through which it is determined the value of the structuresin the financial statements which will be recognized in the balance sheet and the profit andloss account. Making an evaluation means a great deal of judgment. Framing this process inaccountancy is very complex, causing problems. The choice of the evaluation bases and theconcept of maintaining the capital determine the accountancy model used to elaborate financialstatements. Various accountancy models have different degreescredibility. The evaluation in fair value seems to become the accountancy model promotedwithin IFRS, but this evaluation basis rises many problems owing to the complexity of theeconomic reality.70 Mihai RISTEA, Ionel JIANUThe concept of fair value is very subjective because its definition in itself is differentaccording to the accountancy reference it defines. At present, two accountancy models dominateworldwide: IFRS and US GAAP. IFRS norms are based on principles and let acertain manoeuvre to the entities and auditors. US GAAP norms are based on very detailedrules. The bankruptcy of the great American entities (Enron, WorldCom) has brought to discussionthe reliability myth and the pertinence of the information presented according to USGAAP, which outlines the quality of certain norms based on principles such as IFRS.On second October 2002, IASB and FASB signed an agreementnamed Norwalk Agreement, through which both bodies work together to harmonize the twoaccountancy models, in fact both have anglo-saxon origin, that have the goal to producehigh quality standards. In 2002, Crouzet P. and Veron N. said “the relation between IASBand FASB represents an association of mimetic andcompetit ion”. Today, this assertion canbe combated taking into account that, on seventeenth November 2007, SEC made publicthat it admits, starting with the financial exercise 2007, the financial statements of the foreignentities according to IFRS standards, without a previous reconciliation with US GAAP[20]. Following this American approval, UE engaged to accept, starting with the financialexercise 2008, the financial statements established according to US GAAP standards. Thus,at present, two accountancy models prevail worldwide: IFRS and US GAAP.At international level fair value is one of the most mediapresented concept. This studyis trying to answer to the following questions: What is fair value? How has concept of fairvalue evolved? How much is the fair value used as the basis for measurement in IFRS? Arewe moving towards a full fair value? In conditions of economic crisis, the measurement atfair value offers pertinent information? In order to achieve this study we preceded with anormative research wh ich has the goal to present it “as it has to be” used the fair value in theevaluation and the recognition of the economic-financial transactions having the purpose toreflect the trusty image in accountancy.2. CONCEPTUAL DELIMITATIONS REGARDING THE FAIR VALUEThe fair value is the translation of the English term “fair value”. However, this term istranslated differently in various languages: just (juste) in French, real (reeele) in Dutch, reasonable(razonable) in Spanish, actual value attributed ( beizulegender zeiwert) in German,fair value without translation in Italian. In Romanian, the translation of the term “fair view”followed the French way, being used the term of “fair value”. 2.1. THE BRITANNIC CONCEPTION REGARDING THE FAIR VALUEFair value is a consequence of the principle true and fair view. This principle was definedfor the first time in 1947 in the Companies Act from The United Kingdom [18].Theprinciple true and fair view (true and honest image) replaced the syntax true and correctview, which was introduced for the first time in the Companies Act in 1900, as an obligationto draft a balance sheet that has to offer a “true and correct” image of an entity‟s financialsituation. In the United Kingdom the obligation of the financial statements to present …‟a trueand fair view‟‟ prevails upon respecting any other regulation. Thus, it is permitted the derogationfrom a certain rule or accountancy standard if this thing is necessary for the financialstatements to meet the requirement “true and fair view”.Dynamics of the Fair Value in Accounting 71According to the conceptual framework from Great Britain, the used evaluation basesare the historical cost and the actual value. The actual value can be determined in the followingway: actual value = min (current cost; recoverable value), where the recoverable value =max (net achieving value; value of utility). By the way of determining the actual value wemean the actual value presents, mainly, a value of cancelling the asset [9]. As it is noticed,the fair value is not defined as an evaluation basis in the conceptual framework in GreatBritain, but respecting the principle “true and fair view” shows the fact that, both the historicalcost and the actual values used in evaluation, lead to the presentation of a correct andtrusty image in accounts.2.2. THE AMERICAN CONCEPTION REGARDING THE FAIR VALUEUnited States of America have been for many years champions, leaders in using accountingin historical costs [21]. The conceptual framework mentions 5 bases of evaluation:historical cost, current cost, liquidity value, net achieving value and the updated value. Byall means, FASB has defined for the first time the notion of fair value, since 1976, in FAS13‟‟the price at which the propriety can be sold in a transaction between parties betweenwhich there is no relation‟‟. It should be mentioned the fact that fair value was used initiallyto evaluate the non financial assets. In 1980, FAS 35 regulates the use of the fair value forevaluating the shares from the retirement pensions and recommends that the evaluation ofthe fair value be made by independent experts that should have certification in establishingfair value. Ten years later, FAS 107 allowed the use of the fair value for all the financial instruments.From 1990 till 2006 a great number of standards used the fair value in evaluatingthe elements of the balance sheet: FAS 107, FAS 114, FAS 115, FAS 116, FAS 119, FAS121, FAS 123, FAS 125, FAS 13 [1].Still, in September 2006, FASB published SFAS 157 “The evaluation of the fair value”which defines the fair value, establishes a conceptual framework for the evaluation of thefair value and mentions the information that has to be presented about fair value. This regulationallows and stimulates entities to evaluate assets and liabilities at the fair value. Whichwas the reason of this radical change? FASB considered this change : “…..as the timepasses, the historical cost becomes irrelevant by presenting the current financial position ofan entity….the f inancial statements have to offer the users pertinent information for takinginvestment, credit decisions and other types of decisions‟‟. According to SFAS 157, the fair value is defined as: “the price that would be got afterselling an asset or paid for the transfer of a liability in an ordinary transaction between themarket participants on the date of evaluation”. This definition has two characteristics: thefirst- the fair value reflects a hypothetic transaction, the word …‟would‟‟ in English, bearingthis consideration; the second-the fair value is an exit value, being explicitly forbidden theuse of the entry values (current cost) or the value of use. Still, making a comparison with thelatest statement, according to which the fair value can only be an exit value, SFAS 157presents examples, according to which the fair value can be determined on account of theentry values or the utility values, but analyzed from the other entity‟s point of view withwhom the transaction is made. This aspect occurs, because lacking a sale price for the assetwhich is wanted to be sold, its fair value should be zero or even negative, whereas foranother entity, the concerned asset could have a value of utility. SFAS 157 represents todaythe starting point for a project of IASB which aims at issuing a standard that should contain72 Mihai RISTEA, Ionel JIANUclear principles of applying the fair value. The appearance ofthis standard is predicted forthe year 2010.2.3. INTERNATIONAL CONCEPTION REGARDING THE FAIR VALUEIASB used the fair value as an evaluation basis, for the first time in 1998, once withthe appearance of the IAS 32 standards Financial Instruments: Presentation and descriptionand IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Approval and evaluation. By all means, the complexityof evaluation in fair value of the financial instruments had as consequence, at least at Europeanlevel, the non application of these standards( IAS 32 and IAS 39) by the Europeancompanies which apply IFRS ( Regulation 1606/ 2002/CE). The following standards usethe fair value in evaluation: IAS 16 tangible assets( by replacing the market value used toestablish the value of an asset following the revaluation with the syntax of the fair value),IAS 40 Investment property and IAS 41 Agriculture in 2000, IFRS5 Non-current AssetsHeld for Sale and Discontinued operations in 2004 and IFRS 6 Exploration for and Evaluationof Mineral Resources in 2005. The fair value is considered the basis within thestandards issued by IASB(Capron M., 2005). It comes with the will of the regulator to offerto the elements in the balance sheet the capacity to present their economic value. In 2007,Thovenin D. numbered 3 996 usages of the term “fair value” within IFRS.The conceptual framework IASB recommends 4 bases of evaluation of elements in thefinancial statements: historical cost, current cost, the achieving value and the updated value.Fair value is not defined by the conceptual frame , its definition being found in the standardsissued by IASB, as: “the amount at whi ch an asset could be marketed or discounted a liability,by free will, between the parties involved, in a transaction in which the price isdetermined objectively‟‟. So, it is about an estimation and not an observation, as the case ofthe market value. Thus, the fair value is a transaction which could take place, but which, infact, did not take place [17]. Because the evaluation is not an exact science, most of theevaluation processes express opinions, but not a certainty [16].The expression of an opinionupon the market value of an activity or a group of assets is subject to the subjective thoughtand that is why the establishing of the fair value generates great divergences among specialists.We ask ourselves: why is not the fair value defined by the mentioned conceptual accountancyframeworks, although this evaluation basis is used both in the American, Britishaccountancy and also in the one according to IFRS. We consider that the answer consists ofthe lacking a detailed presentation of the fair value with the other evaluation bases from theconceptual accountancy framework: the fair value can be historical cost, current cost andachieving value and updated value, too. Benston G.J. (2008) mentions, in this respect that,the fair value presents in most of the cases exit values( for the production in execution orsome specialized machines, the fair value can be zero or even negative), but there are statementswhen the fair value can be assimilated to some entry values or utility values, too.3. ESTABLISHING THE FAIR VALUE – PRESENT AND FUTURE3.1. AT PRESENT …SFAS 157 identifies three levels for the calculation of the fair value:Level 1: When assets or identical liabilities can be changed on an active and organizedmarket, the fair value is the market price on the date of evaluation ;Level 2: When there are assets or similar liabilities that can be changed on an activemarket or inactive market, the fair value being established according to the price ofassets and similar liabilities on the date of evaluation;Level 3: When there is no market on which the assets or liabilities could be quotedor there are not any similar elements on the market, in case they existed, the fairvalue would be determined using an evaluation technique, often based on updatingthe future cash flows;The f irst model is known as “market to market” and the other two as “market tomodel”. Level 1 deals with the existence of a sufficiently liquid market. Placing the value inthe core of discussion, the accountancy regulator accepts the existence of an informationalefficiency of the Stock exchange, the Stock Exchange being an example in this respect. Butin statements of economic crisis, like at present, this efficiency is debatable. So, it is askedthe question if indeed the Stock Market exchange of a quoted share mirrors its fair value,given the fact that, for many times, the stock exchange is influenced by the behaviour of theother investors, and not necessarily by the future cash flows forecasted to generate them. Itis a complex question which surpasses the field of accountancywhich probably finds its answerin the finance theory. When financial markets are not organized it is demanded tomake a subtle analysis of hypotheses according to which it can be established the fair value.So, the evaluator is often put in the situation to use the approach …‟market to model‟‟. Stillthe sensitivity of the results at the market parameters makes the manipulation be alwayspossible, which affects the reliability of the evaluation at fair value.The issues imposed of evaluation, mainly the ones belonging to the determination ofthe fair value had as a consequence the founding of the International Valuation Board(IVSB). This committee has the role to be an interlocutor in all the international discussionsreferring to evaluation, participating actively in the review of future norms, thus contributingto the establishing of certain more realistic principles regarding the fair value.For the non financial assets, the IFRS approach regarding theestablishing of the fairvalue is different from the American one, in this respect, IAS 36 Impairment of Assets distinguishesthree levels:the price which appears in an irrevocable sale agreement;unless it exists an irrevocable agreement, the decreased market price associatedwith the costs for the sale;unless it exists any irrevocable agreement, nor active market, it will be kept “ thebest available information to present the net amount that a company could get, onthe balance sheet date, according to the sale of the asset, following a transactionmade in conditions of normal competition, betweenwell-informed parties whichare acknowledged of it”.However, practitioners consider that, when the fair value cannot be established reliably,the recoverable value should correspond to the utility value. In this respect, IASBpublished in May 2008 a proposal for the modification of IAS36, with the purpose to use amethod to update the future treasury flows in order to establish the fair value, when this onecannot be established according to the information on the market.For the financial assets, IAS 39 identifies 2 levels for the calculation of the fair value:There is an active market: in this situation the fair value is the price at whichthe transaction would be made on the date of the balance sheet for that in74Mihai RISTEA, Ionel JIANUstrument( without the modification of the instrument or its form) on the mostadvantageous active market at which the entity has access immediately;There is not an active market: in this situation an entity establishes the fairvalue using an evaluation technique. The evaluation techniques include the useof the latest transactions, in objective conditions, from the market, betweenavailable parties, making reference to:o the actual fair value of another instrument which is almost identical;o the analysis of the updated treasury flows;o the methods of analyzing the options;In this respect, the fair value is estimated by using the information from the market,counting on the information specific to the entity. The following factors must be taken inconsideration to establish the fair value through an evaluation technique: value-time of currencies(meaning the interest at the basic rate or with zero risk), credit risk, foreigncurrencies exchange, the price of goods, the Stock Market exchanges of the instruments withown capital, market volatility, risk of advance payment, costs of administrating a financialasset or a financial liability.3.2. IN THE FUTURE …By having the goal to make a common conceptual framework, IASB and FASB analyzethe evaluation methods used at present in both accountancymodels. There were foundalmost 100 different methods of calculation for the evaluation of assets and liabilities. Followingthe study, the two bodies considered that they could reduce this multitude ofcalculation methods to 9 large categories, as it results from the table below [12].Table no. 1 Actual, Estimated, and Forecast Prices andNon-price AmountsPossible prices Possible adjustmentsActual or estimated past entry price (includingaccumulation of prices and costs ofconstructed assets)a. Actual transaction costsb. Systematic increase or decrease to a terminalvaluec. Valuation allowances for impairmentEstimated past exit price a. Actual transaction costsb. Systematic increase or decrease to a terminalvaluec. Valuation allowances for impairmentActual or estimated current market entrypriceActual or estimated transaction costsEstimated current market exit price a. Estimated transaction costsb. Prepayment penaltyc. Early withdrawal penaltyd. …Fire sale‟ discounte. Costs to complete or otherwise prepare for saleForecast future entry price Estimated transaction costs Forecast future exit price a. Estimated transaction costsb. Prepayment penaltyc. Early withdrawal penaltyd. …Fire sale‟ discounte. Costs to complete or otherwise prepare for sale Dynamics of the Fair Value in Accounting 75Possible nonprice amounts DescriptionValue in use Probability weighted future cash flows to be generatedby using (not selling) an asset discounted tocurrent datePrescribed present value computation Probability weighted or most likely future cashflows discounted at a specified rateFair-value-based amounts A form of prescribed present value. It starts with afair value computation similar to that of ConceptsStatement 7, but omits one or more factors thatmarket participants would consider.The table is not exhaustive, it represents only a synthesis. There is a series of complexevaluation methods, such as the corridor method from IAS 19, which presents a mix betweena past exit price and a future entry price. This method does not have a conceptualbasis that is why, probably, it will not be maintained in the future. The discussions are takenby the two bodies regarding the evaluation only, and not the recognition. But, it is knownthat according IFRS, an element is approved only if it is evaluated credibly. For example,the goodwill is accepted only at the purchase of a subsidiary. It is evaluated then accordingto the past exit price (in fact, all the purchased assets are evaluated at a past entry price, butlater on , according to a certain accountancy method, this evaluation basis could be modified).Furthermore, most of the non corporal assets generated internally are not acceptedbecause they cannot be evaluated credibly, thus they are evaluated at a zero value. It wouldbe better, probably, to add in the table another evaluation method: the evaluation at zerovalue.Fair value is associated frequently with a current exit price (net achieving value), but itcannot be extended to the evaluation of all the assets and liabilities. This is the reason forwhich in the taken discussions, the two bodies did not choose a single evaluation basis, stillthey are trying to reduce the number of the 9 methods, keeping at present for the study, onlythree of them: actual or estimated past entry price, actual or estimated current market entryprice, estimated current market exit price. Furthermore, the present discussions regardingthe way in which it is wanted the evaluation in fair value in thefuture comprise three levelsto establish this value [13]:Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active marketsi for identical assetsor liabilities that the entity can access at the measurement date. Although an entitymust have access to the market at the measurement date, it does not need to be ableto sell the particular asset or transfer the particular liability on that date, e.g. if thereis a restriction on the sale of the asset. However, the entity must be able to accessthe market when the restriction ceases to exist.Level 2 inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1that areobservable for the asset or liability, either directly (i.e. as prices) or indirectly (i.e.derived from prices). Level 2 inputs include the following:o quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets; o quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that arenot active (paragraph B5 provides examples of factors that mayindicatethat a market is not active);o inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability(e.g. interest rates and yield curves observable at commonly quoted inter76Mihai RISTEA, Ionel JIANUvals, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks and defaultrates)o inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observablemarket data by correlation or other meanso (market-corroborated inputs).Level 3 inputs are inputs for the asset or liability that are not based on observablemarket data (unobservable inputs). Unobservable inputs shall be developed usingthe best information available in the circumstances, which might include an entity‟sown data.4. THE ACTUAL TREND REGARDING THEEVALUATION IN FAIRVALUEThrough the requirement from IAS 1 The presentation of the financial statements accordingto which the entities have to make the situation of the global result- as majorsituation in reflecting the performance of the entity and unique, if the company chooses thispresentation method, on the one hand, also using the fair value to evaluate most of the elementsof the asset, on the other hand, it is noticed the tendency of the certification bodyIASB towards an accountancy in fair values. But, probably, time will pass till they acceptthe evaluation in fair values, for all the elements of the balance sheet, because of the disadvantagessuch a model could impose. The determination of the fair value of an asset orliability leads to the discovery of a value variation recognized differently, according to thenature of the evaluated element. The following table presents synthetically the elements thathave to be evaluated or can be evaluated in fair value [14]. Table no. 2 Fair value measurement in IFRSASSETUlterior evaluation basesRecognitionFinancial assets- Assets available to sale- Financial assets evaluated in fairvalue through the profit and lossaccountFair value- accountancy ruleFair value- accountancy ruleOwn capitalsResultTangible and intangible assetsFair value – accountancy option (alternative approach)Own capitalsReal estate investments Fair value – accountancy option ( basic approach)ResultFixed assets owned for saleThe minimum between cost and fairvalue minus the sale costs- accountancyruleResultBiological assetsFair value minus the costs estimatedat the selling points(centres)- accountancyruleResultExploration and evaluation assetsFair value – accountancy option (alternativeapproach)Own capitalsAgricultural production Fair value minus the costs estimated at the selling points(centres)- accountancyruleResultAssets regarding the retirement pensionregimeFair value minus the costs estimatedat the selling points(centres)- ac-ResultDynamics of the Fair Value in Accounting 77countancy ruleContracts paid in stock options Fair value- accountancy rule ResultLiabilities evaluated in fair valuethrough the profit and loss accountFair value- accountancy rule ResultCommitments regarding the retirementpensions and other similar elementsFair value- accountancy ruleResultAs it is seen in the table, it is noticed that, at least in the case of assets, most of theelements must be evaluated in fair value (the financial assets available to sale and the assetsowned for transactions which are evaluated in fair value; the fixed assets owned for sale, biologicalassets and agricultural production are evaluated in fair value minus the transactioncosts) or could be evaluated in fair value, if the entity chooses this accountancy approach(considered basic approach in case of real estate investments,alternative approach in thecase of the exploration and evaluation assets, alternative approach in the case of tangible andintangible assets). But, there is a long way till one could get a complete evaluation in fairvalues. This fact occurs because, if it is wanted the settlement of an accountancy model,having as a basis the evaluation in fair value of all the elements in the balance sheet, onemust give up to the achievement criterion, which involves the abandon of the historical costprinciple and, equally, the prudence principle to the extent at which the latent profits arefound and taken automatically into consideration.The evaluation in fair value of all the elements of the balance sheet relies on the conceptaccording to which an asset is left and a liability is paid permanently. It is about theobservation of a virtual result [15]. Because there is no real transaction, accountancy wouldprovide a piece of information upon what could happen. In an accountancy model in fair。

财务会计公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献

财务会计公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)译文：公允价值计量1.公允价值在国际财务报告准则中的规定在2005 年11月，国际财务会计准则理事会为注解准则发表了一个讨论意见,以财务会计为基础的公允价值的初始确认和计量，由加拿大会计准则委员会的全体职员编写。

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

意见是不断更新的概念框架项目的一部分。

这个概念框架项目致力于构建一个为财务报表服务的计量概念。

因为意见范围和意图的不同，它不在此论文中讨论。

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

这篇讨论意见是关于公允价值计量的。

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

在某些准则中，国际会计准则理事会（或其前身）有意识地纳入了一些计量指南。

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

公允价值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。

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)。

FAIR V ALUE ACCOUNTING IN THE BANKING SECTORMary PacaperscuThe Financial Instruments Joint Working Group (JWG) of Standard Setters issued in December 2000 the consultative document entitled “Draft Standard and Basis for Conclusions –Financial Instruments and Similar Items”. The Draft Standard reviews and assesses an extensive use of fair value accounting (FV A) as the basis for the valuation of all financial instruments in a bank’s balance sheet. The work of the JWG is linked to the long-term strategy of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) –recently replaced by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) – to introduce a comprehensive FVA framework for the recognition and measurement of financial instruments. The JWG invited comments on the Draft Standard from all interested parties by 30 September 2001. The IASB will evaluate the long-term prospects of FVA in the light of the comments received.This note conveys the comments of the European Central Bank (ECB) on an important dimension of the proposal put forward by the JWG, notably the application of FVA to the banking sector. After reviewing the main innovations of the Draft Standard, the note focuses on the critical aspects associated with the application of a full FV A regime to the banking sector and presents a possible way forward.I. The main innovations of the Draft Standard for the banking sectorThe present accounting rules for banks in the European Union distinguish between financial instruments held for trading purposes (in the trading book) and those intended to be held to maturity (in the banking book). Instruments held in the trading book are valued at market prices. A profit and/or loss arising from the revaluation of trading book instruments is recognised in the profit and loss account. The accounting rules for the trading book thereby take all market risks (i.e. price risk, interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk and liquidity risk) into account. Banking book instruments, by contrast, are carried in the balance sheet at the lower of historical cost and market value. Whereas a loss on a banking book instrument is transferred to the profit and loss account, unrealised gains are not recognised and can therefore become hidden reserves in the balance sheet. Therefore, the accounting rules for the banking book do not take market risks into account (except for the foreign exchange risk, where the end-period value is usually applied to almost all balance sheet items).The Draft Standard proposes a uniform rule for all financial instruments. The assets and liabilities are carried in the balance sheet at market values, if they are available, or at fair values calculated as an approximation of the market value by using a present value model for discounting the expected future cash flow. For banks, this would imply that the trading and banking books would receive equal accounting treatment, whereby all changes in value would be recognised in the balance sheet and transferred to the profit and loss account. The foreseen revaluation applies irrespective of whether a profit or loss has been realised or remains unrealised because all instruments are either marked to market or the fair value is estimated. The hidden reserves that may arise under the existing accounting rules thus disappear. Market risks would be taken into account when calculating the value of financial instruments in both the trading and the banking book.II. Critical aspectsAccording to its proponents, an FV A regime may constitute, from a conceptual point of view, an alternative approach to reporting financial performance in order to avoid some of the problems associated with the current historical cost accounting. One of its main advantages would be to enhance the degree of transparency of financial statements. However, this point of view remains theoretical due to the absence of homogeneity and therefore comparability in FV A methodologies. Furthermore, the possible concrete application of a full FV A regime (applying to all assets and liabilities) to the banking sector gives rise to some serious problems and concerns.The application of FV A may be suitable for the trading book of banks, which refers to transactions (buying and selling) of marketable securities and related instruments with the objective of making a profit from short-term price variations. The use of fair value for these transactions is consistent with the availability of market prices and the short-term horizon. However, the application of FV A to the banking book of banks, i.e. to non-negotiable instruments such as loans, appears to be inappropriate for at least three main reasons.First, the issue of relevance. FV A principles do not reflect properly the way in which banks manage their core business, namely the granting of loans. The essence of bank management in this area lies in taking long-term decisions about credit quality and concentration and fostering customer relationships over the life of the contracts. It is less concerned about short-term variations that represent the basis for the use of FV A principles. Therefore, there is the possibility that the introduction of FVA for the banking book might in principle create incentives for banks to alter their core business. This would be the case if banks decided to reduce their exposure to increased volatility of income (stemming from the accounting recognition of interest rate risk in the banking book) by shortening the average maturity of loans. Other ways to achieve the same goal would be the recourse to hedging techniques and the increased use of variable interest rates. The decision to reduce the average maturity of loans would depend also on other factors, including the nature of customer demand and the specific cost structure of individual banks.Second, the issue of feasibility. There are serious doubts that an adequate fair value can be determined for bank loans, which are non-negotiable instruments precisely because they embody elements that cannot be easily quantified in a standardised manner. First, there are, by definition, no secondary markets for these instruments. This is particularly true where credit risk markets do not appear to be sufficiently deep and liquid for the purpose concerned. Second, some relevant information for the determination of the fair value of loans (i.e. that stemming from the bilateral relationship between the borrower and the lender) would never be priced in a market. Third, the estimation techniques currently available (including the one proposed in the Draft Standard) suffer from methodological problems (e.g. modelling of non-interest income, appropriate discount rate, etc.), which increase the risks of error. Accordingly, they do not represent an effective benchmark for obtaining reliable fair values for loans. Therefore, the application of FV A to bank loans would give rise to many uncertainties hindering and working against the transparency and comparability of financial statements. It is acknowledged, however, that the current and future developments in banks’ credit risk management systems –recognised also in the new capital adequacy regime proposed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision –may provide accounting standard-setters with useful elements to refine their methodologies, in particular regarding the measurement of credit risk.Doubts are also raised with regard to the application of FV A to the liability side of banks. Forinstance, the suggested methodology (the so-called “own credit risk”) to determine the fair value of debt instruments issued by banks entails that, if the rating of a bank deteriorates, the value of its equity will ultimately increase (since the difference in revaluation of debt instruments is accounted in the profit and loss account). This outcome is counter-intuitive and can be misleading for shareholders and creditors.Third, the issue of prudence. The use of FV A in the banking book would entail that potential profits and losses would be treated in the same way, by being recognised as soon as they emerge. This goes against the principle of prudence according to which losses stemming from the banking book should be recognised as soon as they are known, even if only potential, whereas profits should be recognised only if they are actually realised. Potential profits should be recognised only for marketable instruments. Therefore, there is the possibility that the application of FVA to the banking book might induce banks to adopt an imprudent behaviour. This is a crucial aspect also from the viewpoint of the banking supervisory function.III. Possible way forwardIn light of the critical aspects mentioned above, the ECB has a negative stance towards the possibility of applying an FV A regime to the banking book of banks. Against this background, the following developments could be considered in order to make a constructive use of the valid arguments that lie behind FV A.A first development would entail that, whereas FVA would not be recognised as an accounting standard for the banking book of banks, supervisory authorities might use it as a supplementary instrument to complement their assessment of the situation of individual credit institutions.A second development involves the adoption by banks of the so-called “dynamic provisioning”. This entails recognising that a proportion of the loan portfolio can deteriorate in the future and that this proportion can be measured ex ante on the basis of a specific statistical analysis. It would also involve the disclosure by banks of the results of stress-test analyses conducted on the interest rate sensitivity of the banking book. This approach would allow two criticisms associated with the current accounting standards to be overcome, notably that potential credit losses remain hidden until signs of deterioration are evident and that market participants have insufficient information about the interest rate risk profile of banks.。

公允价值英文文献

关于会计公允价值量的英语作文

公允价值计量在我国会计核算中的应用研究(外文翻译参考)

公允价值 投资性房地产 英文论文

公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献

公允价值英文文献

公允价值论文参考文献

公允价值外国文献

财务会计公允价值中英文对照外文翻译文献

公允价值会计外文文献翻译财务2014年译文3200字

论公允价值在我国的运用的外文资料与中文翻译

公允价值投资性房地产英文论文