公允價(jià)值計(jì)量畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯

1、公允價(jià)值計(jì)量1.公允價(jià)值在國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則中的規(guī)定在 2005 年11月，國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)為注解準(zhǔn)則發(fā)表了一個(gè)討論意見(jiàn),以財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)為基礎(chǔ)的公允價(jià)值的初始確認(rèn)和計(jì)量，由加拿大會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)的全體職員編寫。雖然意見(jiàn)包含了對(duì)于公允價(jià)值的討論，但它的主要目的是討論哪些計(jì)量屬性適合初始確認(rèn)。意見(jiàn)是不斷更新的概念框架項(xiàng)目的一部分。這個(gè)概念框架項(xiàng)目致力于構(gòu)建一個(gè)為財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表服務(wù)的計(jì)量概念。因?yàn)橐庖?jiàn)范圍和意圖的不同，它不在此論文中討論。然而，關(guān)于那篇討論意見(jiàn)的評(píng)論將會(huì)在國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則的公允價(jià)值計(jì)量披露草案和美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則概念框架計(jì)劃的第1號(hào)第157條以及現(xiàn)行公允價(jià)值計(jì)量指南。這篇討論意見(jiàn)是關(guān)于公允價(jià)值

2、計(jì)量的。國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則要求某些資產(chǎn)、負(fù)債和權(quán)益性工具應(yīng)該在某些情況下用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量。然而，指南在公允價(jià)值方面的要求通常被準(zhǔn)則稀釋了，并且準(zhǔn)則在這方面的說(shuō)明也并不是前后一致的。國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)認(rèn)為單一來(lái)源的那些準(zhǔn)則中有關(guān)于公允價(jià)值方面的指南將會(huì)簡(jiǎn)化國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則并且改善財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表中公允價(jià)值的信息質(zhì)量。一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)明的公允價(jià)值的定義和一個(gè)適用于所有公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的前后一致的指南將會(huì)更清晰地表達(dá)公允價(jià)值的對(duì)象并且消除公眾對(duì)于通過(guò)國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則傳播的指南方面的顧慮。國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)強(qiáng)調(diào)公允價(jià)值計(jì)量項(xiàng)目并不是一種用來(lái)延伸公允價(jià)值在財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表中應(yīng)用的手段。此外，項(xiàng)目的目標(biāo)在于重新編寫、明晰、簡(jiǎn)化在國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)

3、告準(zhǔn)則中廣泛應(yīng)用的現(xiàn)有指南。然而，為了構(gòu)建一個(gè)按準(zhǔn)則要求對(duì)于所有公允價(jià)值的計(jì)量都能統(tǒng)一指南的單一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，必須對(duì)現(xiàn)有的指南做出修改。這些修改意見(jiàn)在第2號(hào)準(zhǔn)則中做了進(jìn)一步的討論，這可能會(huì)使公允價(jià)值在某些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)下的計(jì)量和在準(zhǔn)則要求下進(jìn)行的解釋和應(yīng)用都做出調(diào)整。在某些準(zhǔn)則中，國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)（或其前身）有意識(shí)地納入了一些計(jì)量指南。這些指南會(huì)導(dǎo)致盡管它在公允價(jià)值的計(jì)量客體上并不是前后一致，但在這些客體的計(jì)量上仍被視為公允價(jià)值計(jì)量。例如，關(guān)于第3號(hào)準(zhǔn)則第16段企業(yè)合并的指南中公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的客體就與企業(yè)合并中所涉及的項(xiàng)目如稅項(xiàng)資產(chǎn)、稅項(xiàng)負(fù)債和特定收益計(jì)劃中的員工福利經(jīng)資產(chǎn)或負(fù)債不一致。此外，一些準(zhǔn)則包含了計(jì)量

4、的可靠性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。例如國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第16號(hào)固定資產(chǎn)中只有在公允價(jià)值能可靠確定時(shí)才可以使用公允模式計(jì)量。此項(xiàng)規(guī)定一點(diǎn)也不會(huì)改變指南中的相關(guān)部分。并且指南將會(huì)被逐項(xiàng)地探討。然而，國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)打算用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量項(xiàng)目對(duì)于目前沒(méi)有定義的項(xiàng)目編寫指南。如第17號(hào)準(zhǔn)則租賃協(xié)議，同時(shí)也是把指南中沒(méi)有清晰表述的計(jì)量客體進(jìn)行統(tǒng)一。由于美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)單一來(lái)源的指南和單一的主體，而這個(gè)主體適用于所有公允價(jià)值的計(jì)量，國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)就最初的觀點(diǎn)達(dá)成一致意見(jiàn)，那就是美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)對(duì)國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則中不同指南的進(jìn)行了改進(jìn)。2.美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則和國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則在公允價(jià)值定義方面的不同之處美國(guó)會(huì)

5、計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)第5段把公允價(jià)值定義為“在發(fā)生日一項(xiàng)合理交易中參與者能接受的賣出資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負(fù)債的價(jià)格。”通過(guò)比較，在美國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則中公允價(jià)值的定義通常為：“理性的、有交易意向的參與者在一系列正常交易中愿意交換資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負(fù)債的價(jià)格（與準(zhǔn)則原文在表達(dá)上略有不同）。”美國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)在以下三個(gè)方面與國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則有實(shí)質(zhì)性差異：1）美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)對(duì)于公允價(jià)值明確地說(shuō)它是一個(gè)賣出價(jià)，而國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則既沒(méi)有說(shuō)公允價(jià)值是一個(gè)賣出價(jià)，也沒(méi)有說(shuō)它是買入價(jià)。2）美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)的定義指明了市場(chǎng)參與者，而國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則的定義中說(shuō)的是在一系列正常交易中理性的、有意愿的參與方。3）對(duì)于負(fù)

6、債，美國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)的定義意在指明負(fù)債的轉(zhuǎn)移（負(fù)債對(duì)于交易的另一方仍然存在，并不是負(fù)債有對(duì)方償還），國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則主要指明的是哪些負(fù)債能夠在一系列正常交易中被理性的、有交易意向的參與者償還。2.1賣出價(jià)值的計(jì)量主體從持有資產(chǎn)或負(fù)有負(fù)債的參與者的角度看，在交易日假定一項(xiàng)交易是為了賣出資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負(fù)債。因此公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的主體就是在交易日決定買入資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負(fù)債能被交易對(duì)方接受的價(jià)格，即賣出價(jià)值。美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)認(rèn)為以賣出價(jià)作為計(jì)量主題更適合，因?yàn)樵谑袌?chǎng)參與者的角度來(lái)說(shuō)它使對(duì)于與資產(chǎn)有關(guān)的未來(lái)現(xiàn)金流入和與負(fù)債有關(guān)的現(xiàn)金流出具體化。對(duì)于流入與流出概念的強(qiáng)調(diào)也符合美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則中概念準(zhǔn)則的第

7、6條財(cái)務(wù)要素注解中關(guān)于資產(chǎn)和負(fù)債的定義。概念準(zhǔn)則的第六條第25段中定義了資產(chǎn)的未來(lái)現(xiàn)金流入，第35段中定義了負(fù)債的未來(lái)現(xiàn)金流出。國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則的第49條財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表的編制基礎(chǔ)中類似地定義了經(jīng)濟(jì)利益方面的資產(chǎn)未來(lái)現(xiàn)金流入和負(fù)債現(xiàn)金流出量。大部分國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)的成員認(rèn)為以賣出價(jià)作為公允價(jià)值計(jì)量主體與這些定義是一致的并且是恰當(dāng)?shù)?，因?yàn)樗从沉艘允袌?chǎng)為基礎(chǔ)的對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)利益流入或流出的預(yù)期。其他成員同意這種觀點(diǎn)，但是在他們看來(lái)賣出價(jià)也反映了對(duì)于經(jīng)濟(jì)利益流入或流出企業(yè)的預(yù)期。因此，他們認(rèn)為應(yīng)該把“公允價(jià)值”替換為其他更能反映計(jì)量屬性概念，例如“現(xiàn)行買入價(jià)”或“現(xiàn)有賣出價(jià)”。在美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)中對(duì)于

8、一個(gè)買入價(jià)的計(jì)量主體與賣出價(jià)的計(jì)量主體的規(guī)定有所不同。買入價(jià)定義為交易日在一項(xiàng)合理的交易中市場(chǎng)參與者為購(gòu)入一項(xiàng)資產(chǎn)或承擔(dān)一項(xiàng)負(fù)債所付出的金額。某些成員假設(shè)不考慮交易成本，買入價(jià)和賣出價(jià)在同一市場(chǎng)的價(jià)格相同。然而，企業(yè)可能在一個(gè)市場(chǎng)買入一項(xiàng)資產(chǎn)或承擔(dān)一項(xiàng)負(fù)債而在另一個(gè)市場(chǎng)賣出資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負(fù)債。在這種情況下，美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)中的賣出價(jià)可能與買入價(jià)不同。在國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則中規(guī)定的公允價(jià)值計(jì)量原則可能與賣出價(jià)的計(jì)量主體不一致。特別地，國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)認(rèn)為這可能是公允價(jià)值初始計(jì)量的情形，例如：1)國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則第3號(hào)。2)國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第17號(hào)租賃合同下融資租賃的資產(chǎn)和負(fù)債的初始確認(rèn)。3)國(guó)際

9、會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第39號(hào)金融工具：某些金融資產(chǎn)和金融負(fù)債的初始確認(rèn)和計(jì)量。在披露草案的修訂過(guò)程中，國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)可能會(huì)提出公允價(jià)值修改后的定義。這樣一來(lái)，它將完成對(duì)于公允價(jià)值計(jì)量在國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則中的逐條審核。這樣做的目的在于評(píng)估每條標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī)定的公允價(jià)值計(jì)量主體是否與準(zhǔn)則給出的定義相一致。如果國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)理事會(huì)得出在特定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)下既定的計(jì)量主體與給出公允價(jià)值的定義不相一致，或者披露草案的范圍又或是既定的計(jì)量主體把標(biāo)準(zhǔn)排除在外，則標(biāo)準(zhǔn)將被公允價(jià)值以外的概念重述（例如現(xiàn)行買入價(jià)）。為了協(xié)助審核，國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)理事會(huì)需要理解國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則的公允價(jià)值計(jì)量指南在實(shí)務(wù)當(dāng)中是如何運(yùn)用的。因此它要求被調(diào)查者去識(shí)別國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)

10、則中的這些公允價(jià)值計(jì)量在實(shí)務(wù)中哪些方面與美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)有不同。2.2市場(chǎng)參與者的看法美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)強(qiáng)調(diào)公允價(jià)值計(jì)量是以市場(chǎng)價(jià)為基礎(chǔ)的計(jì)量，并不是針對(duì)某一家企業(yè)進(jìn)行的計(jì)量。因此，公允價(jià)值計(jì)量應(yīng)當(dāng)基于一個(gè)假設(shè)，那就是市場(chǎng)參與者是使用一項(xiàng)資產(chǎn)或負(fù)債的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格。此外，即使沒(méi)有活躍市場(chǎng)或市場(chǎng)活動(dòng)受限，公允價(jià)值的計(jì)量目標(biāo)仍是一致的：去判定交易價(jià)格。這個(gè)交易價(jià)格是在合理交易中被市場(chǎng)參與者接受的賣出資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負(fù)債的價(jià)格,不管企業(yè)是否有賣出資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負(fù)債的能力和意圖。美國(guó)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第157號(hào)第10段定義市場(chǎng)參與者作為資金市場(chǎng)上的買者或賣者是：1)不依賴報(bào)告?zhèn)€體，即他們不是關(guān)聯(lián)方；2)理

11、性的, 有關(guān)于財(cái)產(chǎn)或負(fù)債的合理理解和交易事項(xiàng)基于所有的可得數(shù)據(jù), 包括通過(guò)應(yīng)有的合理方式和習(xí)慣而取得的數(shù)據(jù)。3)能夠?yàn)槌钟胸?cái)產(chǎn)或承擔(dān)負(fù)債辦理。4)愿意持有財(cái)產(chǎn)或承擔(dān)負(fù)債; 即他們是主動(dòng)的而不是強(qiáng)迫這么做。通過(guò)比較，公允價(jià)值在國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則中的定義設(shè)計(jì)是“在一系列正常交易中理性的、有意向的第三方”為國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第40號(hào)第42至44段投資性房地產(chǎn)的定義提供了具體解釋。公允價(jià)值的定義中所指的“理性的、有意向的第三方”，在文中“理性的”意味者投資性房地產(chǎn)的買房和賣方對(duì)于其的屬性和特征的信息是對(duì)稱的，并且在資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表日它的實(shí)際和潛在的使用年限和市場(chǎng)行情雙方都能獲取合理信息。有意向的購(gòu)買者指的是購(gòu)買者是

12、資源的而不是被迫的。潛在的購(gòu)買者不會(huì)出比理智的、有意向的購(gòu)買者更高的價(jià)格。有意向的賣方不是急于賣出資產(chǎn)或受迫的賣方，這樣的賣方打算以隨意的價(jià)格賣出資產(chǎn)，或者不去考慮現(xiàn)有市場(chǎng)的合理價(jià)格。有意向的賣方是以一個(gè)可得到的合理的價(jià)格自愿賣出投資性房地產(chǎn)的賣方。實(shí)際情況中，處理投資性房地產(chǎn)的所有者不必做這些考慮，有意向的賣方只是假定的左右者。（例如有意向的賣方不必考慮為投資性房地產(chǎn)的所有者考慮特定資源稅。）公允價(jià)值的定義設(shè)計(jì)的一系列合理的交易是一方與多方之間不存在特殊的關(guān)聯(lián)方關(guān)系，交易是在不存在任何關(guān)聯(lián)關(guān)系的獨(dú)立各方之間進(jìn)行的。國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)最初的看法是市場(chǎng)參與者的看法通常與在國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告中敘述合理的

13、有意向的相關(guān)方的一系列合理交易的概念是一致的。然而，在國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)看來(lái)，被提議的定義將更清楚地在 國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則中體現(xiàn)。3.公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)的應(yīng)用和實(shí)施的障礙這一直是一個(gè)有爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題。即是否繼續(xù)使用傳統(tǒng)歷史成本會(huì)計(jì)措施還是選擇使用公允價(jià)值作為計(jì)量基礎(chǔ),并且反對(duì)者和支持者就這一問(wèn)題提出了幾點(diǎn)質(zhì)疑。國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)第39號(hào)(第9段)把公允價(jià)值定義為：在一項(xiàng)公平交易中，熟悉情況并且自愿交易的雙方交換一項(xiàng)資產(chǎn)或清償一基本原則債務(wù)所使用的金額。3.1對(duì)于公允價(jià)值的理解雖然在理論上看起來(lái)比較簡(jiǎn)單, 但在實(shí)踐中這個(gè)定義需要進(jìn)一步的理解。學(xué)者Barth 和Landsman認(rèn)為,它可以被應(yīng)用在完全競(jìng)爭(zhēng)市場(chǎng)上,但

14、事實(shí)并非總是如此。公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的應(yīng)用應(yīng)遵循三個(gè)步驟。市場(chǎng)價(jià)格是公允價(jià)值的最佳估計(jì)。第二個(gè)最佳選擇, 在找不到所計(jì)量項(xiàng)目的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格或市場(chǎng)信息質(zhì)量不高的情況下，可以使用所計(jì)量項(xiàng)目類似項(xiàng)目的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格作為其公允價(jià)值。最后，如果以上兩種價(jià)格都得不到的話，應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮采用適當(dāng)?shù)墓纼r(jià)技術(shù)來(lái)確定資產(chǎn)或負(fù)債的公允價(jià)值。因此,確定公允價(jià)值可能是通過(guò)使用幾種不同的方法,包括發(fā)公布的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格,未來(lái)現(xiàn)金流貼現(xiàn)或估值方法。最近發(fā)布的國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則第9號(hào)準(zhǔn)則的提案對(duì)金融工具的公允價(jià)值在交易成本可以被合理估計(jì)的情況下公允價(jià)值的計(jì)量做出指導(dǎo)。（例如在在廣泛意義上存在計(jì)量公允價(jià)值的可能性并且在這個(gè)范圍內(nèi)成本可以提供對(duì)公允價(jià)值的

15、最佳估計(jì)值，但更近一步用來(lái)確定公允價(jià)值的信息是不充分的）。國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表告準(zhǔn)則第9號(hào)準(zhǔn)則還規(guī)定了不能成為最佳估計(jì)數(shù)的成本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)包含了預(yù)期投資者的重大轉(zhuǎn)變，市場(chǎng)上投資產(chǎn)品的重大轉(zhuǎn)變或是投資的經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境的重大變化。很多關(guān)于公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)的爭(zhēng)論在其辯論過(guò)程中已有暗示。會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)文獻(xiàn)中涵蓋了相關(guān)學(xué)者的觀點(diǎn)，即歷史成本法與決策無(wú)關(guān)，因此需要有更好的方法來(lái)取而代之。公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)的應(yīng)用是對(duì)歷史成本會(huì)計(jì)的一種取代，尤其是在金融工具方面。在這個(gè)領(lǐng)域，公允價(jià)值在很多情形下比歷史成本法更具有適應(yīng)性，這種計(jì)量對(duì)于報(bào)表數(shù)據(jù)的可靠性沒(méi)有損害，尤其是在現(xiàn)有市場(chǎng)價(jià)格可靠計(jì)量的情況下。金融工具的公允價(jià)值計(jì)量評(píng)估模式被視為反映了當(dāng)

16、前的市場(chǎng)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況的影響, 而不是它們之前的歷史成本或企業(yè)的持有成本。因此可以說(shuō)公允價(jià)值能夠被視為反映經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)質(zhì)。Barth得出結(jié)論,認(rèn)為對(duì)決策有用的公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則已經(jīng)解決了其是否應(yīng)該用在財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表中以及應(yīng)該如何應(yīng)用在財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表中的爭(zhēng)論。3.2公允價(jià)值應(yīng)用的障礙公允價(jià)值計(jì)量也并非是沒(méi)有受到爭(zhēng)議。諸如此類的批評(píng)觀點(diǎn)包括公允價(jià)值計(jì)量可能扭曲凈收入（主要是未實(shí)現(xiàn)的持有收益和損失方面的確認(rèn)），并不是很準(zhǔn)確，并且易受認(rèn)為操縱和產(chǎn)生高額的成本。Benston 認(rèn)為市場(chǎng)價(jià)值的實(shí)現(xiàn)是有缺陷的。這樣的缺陷除了在持有至到期資產(chǎn)的升值時(shí)，還有在計(jì)量衍生金融工具的公允價(jià)值時(shí)如果財(cái)務(wù)經(jīng)理有回旋余地的情況。因?yàn)楣蕛r(jià)值預(yù)期估

17、值的偽造可能導(dǎo)致實(shí)務(wù)操作時(shí)錯(cuò)報(bào)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。 反對(duì)觀點(diǎn)主要集中于資產(chǎn)價(jià)格和公平的股東價(jià)值的直接關(guān)系的并不總是發(fā)生。Benston批評(píng)把賣出價(jià)作為公允價(jià)值計(jì)量來(lái)計(jì)量某些資產(chǎn),如專用機(jī)床和在制品庫(kù)存，這些資產(chǎn)的賣出價(jià)可能為零或負(fù)數(shù)。最后Ronen就公允價(jià)值的會(huì)計(jì)計(jì)量的相關(guān)性提出了質(zhì)疑，認(rèn)為它們不足以成為估計(jì)現(xiàn)金流量的可靠基礎(chǔ)。他還對(duì)公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的可靠性提出了質(zhì)疑主要是由于評(píng)估存在的主觀性。這種主觀性可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致財(cái)務(wù)經(jīng)理道德風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的提高。由于投資者的非理性和市場(chǎng)的低效導(dǎo)致公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)計(jì)量的扭曲也是其受到質(zhì)疑的方面。 反對(duì)公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的行業(yè)主要是銀行業(yè)，銀行也反對(duì)公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)，并且游說(shuō)來(lái)反對(duì)全面實(shí)行公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)

18、。據(jù)報(bào)告銀行業(yè)反對(duì)公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)會(huì)導(dǎo)致收入的波動(dòng)的增加，而這種波動(dòng)與銀行業(yè)日常經(jīng)營(yíng)業(yè)務(wù)的波動(dòng)無(wú)關(guān)。并且這種波動(dòng)會(huì)導(dǎo)致低效的資本配置，增加銀行的資金成本。歐盟銀行業(yè)也對(duì)國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則（特別是第39號(hào)準(zhǔn)則）公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)提出強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)。3.3 公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)的應(yīng)用實(shí)例涉及公允價(jià)值的價(jià)值相關(guān)性的研究表明對(duì)于投資性房地產(chǎn)估值，公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)比歷史成本會(huì)計(jì)更有說(shuō)服力。研究還表明公允價(jià)值由于對(duì)未實(shí)現(xiàn)的持有收益和損失的確認(rèn)使其在收益方面比歷史成本會(huì)計(jì)存在更大的波動(dòng)性。某些研究還表明公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)的計(jì)量在價(jià)值相關(guān)性在低效的市場(chǎng)環(huán)境下也會(huì)發(fā)生。例如，有學(xué)者認(rèn)為以公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的證券并沒(méi)有消除增量資本的影響。這個(gè)結(jié)果在證券的公允

19、價(jià)值和公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的利得和損失都適用。 然而，其他研究的結(jié)果并沒(méi)有證明公允價(jià)值的積極作用。例如，研究發(fā)現(xiàn)歷史成本法在某些情況下核算的相關(guān)增量?jī)r(jià)值要比公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的要高。并且，研究表明公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的投資性證券相對(duì)于賬面價(jià)值在增量?jī)r(jià)值方面更有說(shuō)服力，這樣的結(jié)論至適用于投資性證券，并不適用于銀行存款、負(fù)債或長(zhǎng)期負(fù)債。最后還有研究表明對(duì)于小型銀行的控股公司和沒(méi)有財(cái)務(wù)分析師的公司，在對(duì)負(fù)債和銀行存款的公允價(jià)值的會(huì)計(jì)計(jì)量方面能獲取的有用信息比歷史成本法要少。 國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表準(zhǔn)則在歐盟國(guó)家的應(yīng)用，這其中包括國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第32號(hào)和第39號(hào)，對(duì)歐洲的資本市場(chǎng)也產(chǎn)生了影響。例如研究表明歐洲資本市場(chǎng)表現(xiàn)出了應(yīng)用準(zhǔn)則的

20、積極性的交易活動(dòng)的增加的跡象，消極影響的交易減少的跡象。這樣的結(jié)果更導(dǎo)致了銀行投資者對(duì)于準(zhǔn)則應(yīng)用的公開反對(duì)。此外學(xué)者發(fā)現(xiàn)在歐洲，實(shí)務(wù)界認(rèn)為國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第32號(hào)和39號(hào)在操作上太過(guò)復(fù)雜，并且會(huì)成為國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則應(yīng)用上的障礙。在西班牙的一項(xiàng)研究表明公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)在金融工具方面的應(yīng)用會(huì)導(dǎo)致財(cái)務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)在短期內(nèi)不具有可比性，并且不能表明財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表與與當(dāng)?shù)毓墒械穆?lián)系。在固定資產(chǎn)的計(jì)量方面并沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)相似的問(wèn)題。公允價(jià)值計(jì)量模式的可選擇性導(dǎo)致很多企業(yè)拒絕其的理由。3.4國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則在新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體中的應(yīng)用對(duì)于國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則在新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體中的運(yùn)用歷來(lái)為一些研究的對(duì)象。學(xué)者Peng 和Bewley公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)在中國(guó)的

21、應(yīng)用情況，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)盡管國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告準(zhǔn)則對(duì)于2007年中國(guó)新企業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則具有適用性，但在中國(guó)的上市公司并沒(méi)有得到廣泛應(yīng)用。盡管中國(guó)在成本計(jì)量中應(yīng)用了公允價(jià)值的計(jì)量方法，并且在企業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則中也設(shè)置了相關(guān)科目，但學(xué)者們斷言盡管中國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則與國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則趨同，但在實(shí)務(wù)操作上由于政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化和歷史的原因還是會(huì)有很大差別。研究表明國(guó)別的差異會(huì)成為國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則施行的一項(xiàng)重大障礙。阿拉伯聯(lián)合酋長(zhǎng)國(guó)不得不開發(fā)一套監(jiān)管系統(tǒng)來(lái)處理準(zhǔn)則實(shí)施過(guò)程當(dāng)中相關(guān)的信息安全和欺詐問(wèn)題。附錄B：外文文獻(xiàn)原文Fair Value Measurements1.Fair Value Required in SFRS and IFRS

22、In November 2005 the IASB published for comment a discussion paper, Measurement Bases for Financial Accounting Measurement on Initial Recognition, written by the staff of the Canadian Accounting Standards Board. Although that paper contained a discussion of fair value, its primary purpose was to dis

23、cuss which measurement attributes were appropriate for initial recognition. That paper is part of the ongoing Conceptual Framework project that seeks to establish, among other things, a framework for measurement in financial reporting. Because of the different scope and intent of that paper, it is n

24、ot discussed in this discussion paper. However, comments on that discussion paper relating to the measurement of fair value will be considered in the development of the exposure draft of an IFRS on fair value measurement as well as in the Conceptual Framework project. Issue1.SFAS 157 and fair value

25、measurement guidance in current IFRS.IFRSs require some assets, liabilities and equity instruments to be measured at fair value in some circumstances. However, guidance on measuring fair value is dispersed throughout IFRSs and is not always consistent. The IASB believes that establishing a single so

26、urce of guidance for all fair value measurements required by IFRSs will both simplify IFRSs and improve the quality of fair value information included in financial reports. A concise definition of fair value combined with consistent guidance that applies to all fair value measurements would more cle

27、arly communicate the objective of fair value measurement and eliminate the need for constituents to consider guidance dispersed throughout IFRSs. The IASB emphasises that the Fair Value Measurements project is not a means of expanding the use of fair value in financial reporting. Rather, the objecti

28、ve of the project is to codify, clarify and simplify existing guidance that is dispersed widely in IFRSs. However, in order to establish a single standard that provides uniform guidance for all fair value measurements required by IFRSs, amendments will need to be made to the existing guidance. As di

29、scussed further in Issue 2, the amendments might change how fair value is measured in some standards and how the requirements are interpreted and applied. In some IFRSs the IASB (or its predecessor body) consciously included measurement guidance that results in a measurement that is treated as if it

30、 were fair value even though the guidance is not consistent with the fair value measurement objective.For example, paragraph B16 of IFRS Business Combinations provides guidance that is inconsistent with the fair value measurement objective for items acquired in a business combination such as tax ass

31、ets, tax liabilities and net employee benefit assets or liabilities for defined benefit plans.Furthermore, some IFRSs contain measurement reliability criteria. For example, IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment permits the revaluation model to be used only if fair value can be measured reliably This

32、project will not change any of that guidance.Rather, that guidance will be considered project by project.However, the IASB plans to use the Fair Value Measurements project to establish guidance where there currently is none, such as in IAS 17 Leases, as well as to eliminate inconsistent guidance tha

33、t does not clearly articulate a single measurement objective.Because SFAS 157 establishes a single source of guidance and a single objective that can be applied to all fair value measurements, the IASB has reached the preliminary view that SFAS 157 is an improvement on the disparate guidance in IFRS

34、s. However, as discussed in more detail below, the IASB has not reached preliminary views on all provisions of SFAS 157.2.Differences of The Definitions of Fair Value In Two StatementsParagraph 5 of SFAS 157 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer

35、a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Bycomparison, fair value is generally defined in IFRSs as the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction (withsom

36、e slight variations in wording in different standards). Thedefinition in SFAS 157 differs from the definition in IFRSs in three important ways:1)The definition in SFAS 157 is explicitly an exit (selling) price. Thedefinition in IFRSs is neither explicitly an exit price nor an entry (buying) price.2)

37、The definition in SFAS 157 explicitly refers to market participants. The definition in IFRSs refers to knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction.3)For liabilities, the definition of fair value in SFAS 157 rests on the notion that the liability is transferred (the liability to the

38、counterparty continues; it is not settled with the counterparty). The definition in IFRSs refers to the amount at which a liability could be settled between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction.These differences are discussed in more detail below.2.1 Exit Price Measurement Ob

39、jectiveThe Basis for Conclusions of SFAS 157 are stated below: The transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability is a hypothetical transaction at the measurement date, considered from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, the objecti

40、ve of a fair value measurement is to determine the price that would be received for the asset or paid to transfer the liability at the measurement date, that is, an exit price. The Board of FASB concluded that an exit price objective is appropriate because it embodies current expectations about the

41、future inflows associated with the asset and the future outflows associated with the liability from the perspective of market participants. The emphasis on inflows and outflows is consistent with the definitions of assets and liabilities in FASB Concepts Statement No.6, Elements of Financial INVITAT

42、ION TO COMMENT Statements. Paragraph 25 of Concepts Statement 6 defines assets in terms of future economic benefits (future inflows). Paragraph 35 of Concepts Statement 6 defines liabilities in terms of future sacrifices of economic benefits (future outflows).Paragraph 49 of the IASBs Framework for

43、the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements similarly defines assets and liabilities in terms of inflows and outflows of economic benefits. The majority of IASB members believe that a fair value measurement with an exit price objective is consistent with these definitions and is appropr

44、iate because it reflects current market-based expectations of flows of economic benefit into or out of the entity. Other IASB members agree with this view, but in their view an entry price also reflects current market-based expectations of flows of economic benefit into or out of the entity. Therefo

45、re, they suggest replacing the term fair value with terms that are more descriptive of the measurement attribute, such as current entry price or current exit price.An entry price measurement objective would differ from the exit price objective in SFAS 157 in that it would be defined as the price tha

46、t would be paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Some members of the IASB are of the view that an entry price and an exit price would be the same amount in the same market, assuming that transaction c

47、osts are excluded.However, an entity might buy an asset or assume a liability in one market and sell that same asset or transfer that same liability (ie without modification or repackaging) in another market.In such circumstances, the exit price in SFAS 157 would be likely to differ from the entry p

48、rice.Some fair value measurements required by IFRSs might not be consistent with an exit price measurement objective. In particular, the IASB observes that this might be the case when fair value is required on initial recognition, such as in:1)IFRS 3.2)IAS 17 for the initial recognition of assets an

49、d liabilities by a lessee under a finance lease.3)IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement for the initial recognition of some financial assets and financial liabilities.In developing an exposure draft, the IASB may propose a revised definition of fair value. If so, it will complete

50、 a standard-by-standard review of fair value measurements required in IFRSs to assess whether each standards intended measurement objective is consistent with the proposed definition. If the IASB concludes that the intended measurement objective in a particular standard is inconsistent with the prop

51、osed definition of fair value, either that standard will be excluded from the scope of the exposure draft or the intended measurement objective will be restated using a term other than fair value (such as current entry value). To assist in its review, the IASB would like to understand how the fair v

52、alue measurement guidance in IFRSs is currently applied in practice. It therefore requests respondents to identify those fair value measurements in IFRSs for which practice differs from the fair value measurement objective in SFAS 157. 2.2 Market Participant ViewSFAS 157 emphasises that a fair value

53、 measurement is a market-basedmeasurement, not an entity-specific measurement. Therefore, a fairvalue measurement should be based on the assumptions that marketparticipants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Furthermore, evenwhen there is limited or no observable market activity, the objec

54、tive ofthe fair value measurement remains the same: to determine the price that would be received to sell an asset or be paid to transfer a liability inan orderly transaction between market participants at the measurementdate, regardless of the entitys intention or ability to sell the asset ortransf

55、er the liability at that date.Paragraph 10 of SFAS 157 defines market participants as buyers and sellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset orliability who are:1)Independent of the reporting entity; that is, they are not related parties.2)Knowledgeable, having a reasonable

56、understanding about the asset or liability and the transaction based on all available information, including information that might be obtained through due diligence efforts that are usual and customary.3)Able to transact for the asset or liability.4)Willing to transact for the asset or liability; t

57、hat is, they are motivated but not forced or otherwise compelled to do so.In comparison, the definition of fair value in IFRSs refers toknowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction.Paragraphs 42-44of IAS 40 Investment Property provide a description of this concept.The definition of f

58、air value refers to knowledgeable, willing parties.In this context, knowledgeable means that both the willing buyer and the willing seller are reasonably informed about the nature and characteristics of the investment property, its actual and potential uses, and market conditions at the balance shee

59、t date. A willing buyer is motivated, but not compelled, to buy. This buyer is neither over-eager nor determined to buy at any price.The assumed buyer would not pay a higher price than a market comprising knowledgeable, willing buyers and sellers would require.A willing seller is neither an over-eager nor a forced seller, prepared to sell at an