未來公允價值的變化外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　外文文獻翻譯</b></p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Fair Value Changes Ahead</p><p>　　The use of fair value in financial reporting is not new; it is requir

2、ed or permitted under many standards, some of which have been in place for decades. Yet, given its role in the asset write-downs and market volatility precipitated by the financial crisis， there has been considerable dis

3、cussion and debate about the use of fair value in financial reporting. As the financial crisis has broadened, the debate has evolved into a global one involving not only FASB and its international counterpart, t</p>

4、;<p>　　The Fair Value Debate</p><p>　　At the center of the fair value debate is SFAS 157, Fair Value Measurements, which went into effect for financial assets and liabilities in 2008. SFAS 157 clarifi

5、es that when fair value is used in financial reporting, the measurement should represent a current market price. SFAS 157 establishes a framework for determining fair value, but it does not specify when to use fair value

6、. SFAS 157 and its current market price objective only apply when other standards require or permit the use of fair va</p><p>　　The reporting model in the United States (and abroad) is a mixed-attribute mode

7、l that uses a combination of measurements, including historical cost, fair value, and other bases, such as lower of cost or fair value. The use of fair value has expanded in recent years. For example, more fair values ar

8、e now required when accounting for a business combination under SFAS 141 (R), Business Combinations. In addition， companies have the option to voluntarily use fair value for certain financial items for</p><p&g

9、t;　　used on an ongoing basis (mark-to-market); it often is used only when a financial asset is impaired. In today's distressed markets, many of the financial assets that trade in those markets (e.g., mortgage-related

10、 securities) are impaired.</p><p>　　The requirement to record impairment losses based on fair values that represent current market prices has raised concerns about when to use fair value in financial reporti

11、ng. The concerns tocus mainly on long-standing issues of relevance and reliability，as well as the volatility caused by reporting changes in fair value in net income, especially in the absence of observable market data to

12、 support the fair values.</p><p>　　Some, including banking institutions subject to regulatory capital requirements, claim that fair value accounting has led to pro-cyclical behavior by forcing impairment wri

13、te-downs to amounts that do not reflect the true economic values of ihe assets. They say that the write-downs have caused a downward spiral that has exacerbated the financial crisis and that fair value accounting should

14、be suspended or modified. For example, in a public SEC roundtable on mark-to-market accounting on October 29</p><p>　　Others, however, including many investors, say that the information conveyed through fair

15、 value accounting is useful for decision making and enhances the</p><p>　　transparency of financial information, which is critical in times of stress. They say that fair value accounting has exposed the dete

16、riorating financial condition of many financial institutions and that suspending fair value accounting would weaken investor confidence and add to instability in the capital markets. For example, in a joint statement opp

17、osing the suspension of mark-to-market accounting issued on October 1, 2008, the Center for Audit Quality, the Council of Institutional Investors, </p><p>　　The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (

18、EESA) required the SEC to conduct a study on the use of mark-to-market (fair value) accounting by financial institutions (section 133). In December 2008, the SEC issued Report and Recommendations Pursuant to Section 133

19、of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: Study on Mark-to-Market Accounting. Based on its study, the SEC concluded that fair value accounting provides decision-useful information to investors and did not play

20、 a meaning</p><p>　　Fair Value Changes for 2009 Reporting</p><p>　　At this point, the key principles outlined in SFAS 157 are in effect for 2009 reporting. Recently issued fair value guidance cl

21、aritles-but does not change-those principles. These recent clarifications emphasize the need for judgments that could change how some are applying those principles in the current environment, and requires more fair value

22、 disclosures.</p><p>　　Exit price. SFAS 157 emphasizes that fair value should represent the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction for the ass

23、et or liability at the measurement date (i.e.，the exit price).</p><p>　　The clarifying guidance affirms the fair value objective in SFAS 157. This means that fair value is a current market price (the price t

24、hat would be received or paid today under current market conditions), not a future market price (what might be received or paid at some future date under different market conditions). Because fair value is a market-based

25、 measurement, the current market price is determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use when determining fair value.</p><p>　　Input hierarchy. The fair value hierarchy in SFAS 157 pr

26、ioritizes the use of observable market prices, while allowing for the use of other inputs that would be considered by market participants when making decisions.</p><p>　　The clarifying guidance affirms the f

27、air value hierarchy approach in SFAS 157 but emphasizes that market prices should not be the sole basis for a fair value measurement unless they can be observed in an active market for identical items and result from ord

28、erly transactions in that market (Level I inputs). In all other cases, the valuations will involve more work and analysis requiring informed judgments, but the fair value objective in SFAS 157 remains the same.</p>

29、<p>　　Active market. SFAS 157 refers to an active market as one in which transactions occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide ongoing and current pricing information. The clarifying guidance emphasiz

30、es that determining whether the market for an item is (or continues to be) active requires judgment, considering the volume and level of activity for the item in comparison to normal levels.</p><p>　　Orderly

31、 transaction. SFAS 157 refers to an orderly transaction as one that involves a willing buyer and a willing seller and allows for sufficient exposure to the market; that is, the seller has had sufficient time to market th

32、e asset and undertake marketing activities that are usual and customary for transactions involving similar items.</p><p>　　The clarifying guidance emphasizes that determining whether a transaction is orderly

33、 or disorderly (i.e., a distressed sale or forced transaction where the seller is compelled to transact) requires judgment and the consideration of factors specific to</p><p>　　the transaction, not the marke

34、t. For example, a disorderly transaction might be indicated if the seller is in or near bankruptcy or receivership, if the seller was forced</p><p>　　to sell to meet regulatory requirements, or if the seller

35、 was forced to sell within a period that did not allow for usual and customary marketing activities under current market conditions. The transaction focus applies even when markets are dislocated. It is not appropriate t

36、o automatically conclude that all market activity represents disorderly transactions. Conversely, it is not appropriate to automatically conclude that all market activity represents orderly transactions representative of

37、 fa</p><p>　　Adjustments. SFAS 157 indicates that market prices that are not Level 1 inputs must be evaluated for adjustment. The clarifying guidance emphasizes that market prices that are not Level I inputs

38、 are not determinative, especially when there has been a significant decrease in the volume and level of activity for an item. Those market prices include market prices that can be observed in active markets for similar

39、items, that can be observed in markets that are not active for identical or similar it</p><p>　　When there are different indications of fair value, determining the point within the range that is most represe

40、ntative of fair value-the price at which market participants would transact under current market conditions-requires judgment, especially a consideration of the extent to which the inputs used in the valuation techniques

41、 are relevant in the circumstances.</p><p>　　Most Progress Needed</p><p>　　The Obama administration has proposed financial regulatory reforms that call on standards setters to make substantial p

42、rogress on improvements to financial reporting in key areas highlighted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation，” calls for improvements in the areas of fair value accountin

43、g, accounting for financial instruments, and loan loss provisioning (see also “Report of the Financial Stability Forum on Addressing Pro-cyclicality in the</p><p>　　Financial System，’，April 2009). It also ca

44、lls for progress on the development of a</p><p>　　single set of high-quality global standards.</p><p>　　The Financial Crisis Advisory Group (FCAG), a group formed by FASB and the IASB to advise

45、on the standards-setting implications of the financial crisis and potential changes to the global regulatory environment, highlighted the need for similar improvements in its July 28, 2009, report to FASB and the IASB.&l

46、t;/p><p>　　Fair Value Challenges</p><p>　　Notwithstanding the many clarifications provided by standards setters, determining fair value in the current environment will continue to be challenging. T

47、he markets for many financial assets that previously were active are no longer and lack the infrastructure needed to facilitate market pricing. This means that the valuations (under U.S. GAAP and IFRS) will involve more

48、work and analysis requiring informed judgments.</p><p>　　Given calls from the public and investors to increase transparency, there have also been many fair value (and other) “disclosure solutions,” and more

49、are yet to come.</p><p>　　At the same time, U.S. issuers face the prospect of a move to IFRS. In the meantime, changes to reduce or eliminate differences between SFAS 157 and the proposed IFRS guidance on fa

50、ir value measurement are likely, as FASB and the IASB move forward on convergence initiatives. It is too soon to tell whether changes will be made to SFAS 157, the proposed IFRS, or both. But given the role of fair value

51、 in U.S. GAAP and IFRS today, and the need for improvements going forward, a converged solution tha</p><p>　　Source: MacDonald, Linda A. Fair Value Changes Ahead. CPA Journal. Vo 180 Issue I.</p><

52、p>　　Jan 2010： 24-27</p><p><b>　　譯文:</b></p><p><b>　　未來公允價值的變化</b></p><p>　　公允價值在財務報告中的使用并不是新想法，它在許多標準中是要求或存許 可被使用的，其中-作已經(jīng)實施了長達數(shù)十年之久。然而，由于金融危機使它的 角色陷入資產(chǎn)減值和

53、市場波動中，目前已經(jīng)育相當多的關(guān)于公允價值在財務報ft 中使用的討論和爭論。隨著金融危機的擴人，對公允價值的爭論Q經(jīng)發(fā)展成為? ? 個全球性的問題，其中不僅涉及FASB (美W財務會計準則委員會）以及W際同 行W際會計準則委員會（IASB)，而且也包括仝球資本市場中的證券參與片。對 金融危機的反應主要集中在公允價值會計上，并旦導致了影響財務報告向前發(fā)展 的標準的變化。</p><p><b>　　對公允

54、價值的爭論</b></p><p>　　公允價值爭論的核心是2008年為影響金融資產(chǎn)和負債而生效的SFAS(財務 會計準則公冉）第157 公允價值計量。SFAS第157兮明確表示，當公允價 值用于財務報告時，其計量應該代表現(xiàn)行的市場價格。它建立了確定公允價值的 框架，但是它沒有指出何時使用公允價值。SFAS第157兮和現(xiàn)行市場價格的目 標只適用于其他標準需要或允許使用公允價值的情況。</p>

55、;<p>　　在美國（和國外）的報告模型是一種混合屬性模型，其中包括歷史成本、 公允價值和其他計價*礎，如低成木或公允價值。近兒年來公允價值的應用已經(jīng) 在不斷擴人。例如，現(xiàn)在更多的公允價值會計要求為SFAS 141 (R)企業(yè)合并項 目下的企業(yè)合并作解釋。此外，公司有選擇權(quán)自愿使用公允價值作為特定的金融 項目，訴則公允價值就會被SFAS第159兮中特定的情況所要求，作為金融資產(chǎn) 和金融負債的公允價值選杼《雖然如此，公允價值

56、還是在財務報告中使用的域頻 繁的。但是，公允價值并非總是以持續(xù)的方式被使用（以市值計價）；只有當一 個金融資產(chǎn)被削弱時，它才吋常被使用。在現(xiàn)在的低價市場，許多金融資產(chǎn)在這 呰市場貿(mào)秘（如與抵押貸款相關(guān)的證券）中被削弱了。</p><p>　　記錄于公允價值扣除減值損失的要求，表現(xiàn)出當前市場上的價格己經(jīng)開 始關(guān)注何時該在財務報告中使用公允價值。關(guān)ft的焦點主要集中在相叉性和可靠 性的長久問題上，連Inf不穩(wěn)定性造成

57、的在汴收益中報告公允價值方面的改變，尤</p><p>　　其是缺乏觀察得出的市場數(shù)據(jù)所支持的公允價值丨二。</p><p>　　?些金融機構(gòu)，包括受監(jiān)管的資金需求*，宣稱公允價值會計已經(jīng)導致迫使 減值金額不反映真實經(jīng)濟價值資產(chǎn)的循環(huán)行為。他們說減值己經(jīng)引起-?個己經(jīng)惡 化的金融危機的惡性循環(huán)，而II.公允價值會計應該被中止或修正。例如2008年 10月29 FI，在以市值計價的美W證券交

58、鉍委w會的公眾圓桌會議上，William M. Isaac, LECG安全組主席和前FDIC (聯(lián)邦存款保險公司）上席陳述到：當存 在由于經(jīng)濟和市場混亂導致的資產(chǎn)價值暫時的資本損失時，調(diào)整各必須給機構(gòu)遭 受暫時的資木減損幸存的機會=我們庖該認識到永久性損密，但是資產(chǎn)不應該 被設置為不切實際的物品拍賣價格。調(diào)整芥必須根據(jù)他們的真實經(jīng)濟價值在適當 的時間段評估資產(chǎn)…當市場沒有適當?shù)倪\作吋，就會產(chǎn)生嚴誤導會計和披露R 遠低于他們的真實經(jīng)濟價值

59、的資產(chǎn)價值，這就是MTM(動量指標）會計的使用… 我相信極為重要的是，銀行管理控制是反循環(huán)的，而不是助長周期性循環(huán)的…在 他們能更好地承擔盈余負擔時，這聽起米Jf?不像是由于穩(wěn)同的公共政策導致銀行 在創(chuàng)造準備金好時期的停滯。</p><p>　　然而，包括其他許多的投資者說，在緊張時刻最關(guān)鍵的是透過公允價值會計 被傳達的數(shù)據(jù)有利T?決策和增加財務信總透明度。他們說公允價值會計暴露出許 多金融機構(gòu)惡化的財務狀況，而

60、n.暫停公允價值會計會使資本市場中的投資存信 心變?nèi)跬瑫r增加不安定的因素。例如，在2008年10月1 II ?份反對暫停按市值 計價的會計聯(lián)合聲明中，審計質(zhì)量中心、法人投資各委員會中心和CFA (注冊 金融分析師）機構(gòu)陳述到：當它人部分是不可或缺的時候，在這動蕩的經(jīng)濟時 代暫停公允價值會計將會剝奪投資茗的要財務信息?公允價值會計與穩(wěn)健披露 會提供相比于在其他荇代選擇方法之下的報告數(shù)量更正確、及時和相關(guān)的數(shù)據(jù)給 投資者。投資苒有權(quán)知道投資

61、的現(xiàn)值，即使投資達不到過去或未來的期望。</p><p>　　年EESA的緊急經(jīng)濟穩(wěn)定條例要求美國證券交舄委員會開展?項金融 機構(gòu)（第133節(jié))使用以市值計價（公允價值）會計的研究。在2008年12月， 根據(jù)2008緊急經(jīng)濟穩(wěn)定條例的第133甘SEC發(fā)布報告和建議:按市值計價的會 計研究。苺于它的研究，美W證券交易委w會總結(jié)到公允價值會計提供決策有用 的數(shù)據(jù)給投資名而J1沒行在近的銀行倒閉中擔任?個重要的角色。美

62、W證券交 易委員會建議公允價值會計應該被改良«不中止。在這個報告中，美_丨證券交易 委負會強調(diào)地方有標準相適矽的投資者是至關(guān):ip:要的，指出為了要促進宵遠見的 投資決策，財務報告的目的將是提供相關(guān)、透明和沒有偏見的財務信息給投資者 和資本市場。</p><p>　　年公允價值變化的報告</p><p>　　此時，SFAS第157兮中略述的烺:丨:要的原則實呩上是在為在2009年

63、作報告。 域近發(fā)布了沒有改變那作原則的對公允價值導向的闡明。這作闡明強調(diào)對可能改 變這些原則在現(xiàn)右環(huán)境卜'的成用和需要更多公允價值揭示的披露判斷。</p><p>　　出口價格。SFAS第157兮強調(diào)公允價值應該表現(xiàn)在計量門期中將會出售資產(chǎn) 的價格或*支付轉(zhuǎn)移責任中舍序的交易事項屮的資產(chǎn)或負債（即出口價格)。</p><p>　　明確的指導背定了公允價值在SFAS第157兮的目的。

64、這意味著公允價值是 -個現(xiàn)行市價（在目前的市場情況下當天將會收到或者支付的價格）而不是未來 市場價格（在不m的市場情況下未來某個n期可能會收到或支付的價格W為 公允價值是‘個以市場為難礎的計量，目前的市場價格被決定基于如下假定，即 市場參與者會在確定公允價值的情況下使用。</p><p>　　輸入等級。當市場參與者作出決定時，SFAS第157 ?中的公允價值等級優(yōu) 先考慮使用可見的市場價格，M吋允許使用其他輸入d

65、</p><p>　　明確的指導背定了公允價值在SFAS第157號中的層次方法，但是強調(diào)市價 不應該是公允價值計量的唯?恭礎，除非他們可觀察到?個活躍的市場中相M的 項目和源于那個市場的有序交易事項的結(jié)糶(?級輸入在所有與他情形中， 估價將會包括更多需要判斷的下作和分析，但是在SFAS第157兮中公允價值的 目的保持不變。</p><p>　　活躍的市場。SFAS第157 1 小涉及在活躍

66、市場下的交鉍伴隨卷充分的頻率和 成交量提供繼續(xù)、1期的價格信息。明確的指導強調(diào)相比較于正常水平，決定是 否給-?個項目的市場是（或者繼續(xù)是）需要積極的判斷、考慮數(shù)量和程度的活 動項目的。</p><p>　　有序的交易事項。SFAS第157號涉及?個有序的交易事項，包括?個自愿 的買主和?個自愿的賣主，而凡允許對市場充分的披露;即賣方已經(jīng)有足夠的時 間出隹資產(chǎn)和進行背銷活動，?按照慣例從事相似的物品交易。<

67、/p><p>　　明確的指導強調(diào)決定-?個交易事項是竹有序或芥無序（即賣主被迫交易的? 項無奈的銷仿或被迫的交易事項）需要判斷和考慮的W素，而不是特定的交易市 場。例如，?個無序的交笏事項可能表明如果賣方接近破產(chǎn)或者破產(chǎn)還債，或者? 如來次方被迫出隹以滿足法規(guī)的要求，或如來賣方在半前的市場背銷活動的條件 下被迫以低價出售這一時期內(nèi)慣常的和不被允許的慣例。交笏的焦點M樣適用于 市場錯位的情況，它并不適合自動地得出所有市

68、場活動表現(xiàn)出無序交易事項的結(jié) 論。相反地，它足不適當?shù)淖詣拥贸鏊惺袌龌顒哟砉蕛r值的有序交易事項 的結(jié)論。</p><p>　　調(diào)整事項。SFAS第丨57 y?指出市場價格不是必須評估調(diào)整事項的?級輸入。 明確的指導強調(diào)市場價格不是-?級輸入，丼不是決定性的，尤其當?個己經(jīng)有活 動的成交量和水平方面項目的迸要性在急劇下降的時候。那些市場價格包括相似 項目能在活躍的市場中被觀察的市價以及由于無序交笏事項（二級輸

69、入）而在市 場中被觀察的不活躍的相NI或相似的項目。當那作被用來決定公允價值，他們必 須評估調(diào)整事項并使用其他可利用的投入與估價技術(shù)的結(jié)采?起考慮。</p><p>　　當公允價值有不M預示時，確定范圍內(nèi)垴具代表性的公允價值是市場參與 者根據(jù)目前的市場條件所需要作出的判斷，尤其是在這種情況下被用于估價技術(shù) 的投入程度的考慮。</p><p><b>　　需要很大的進展</b

70、></p><p>　　奧巴馬政府提出了金融監(jiān)管的改革，呼吁美W財政部強調(diào)標準制定科在關(guān)鍵 地K高度改善財務報告的可觀進度,“金融監(jiān)管的改革：?個新基金會，”要求公 允價值會計領域的改良，解釋金融:r:具和貸款的損失供成（見2009年4月“金 融穩(wěn)定論壇關(guān)于解決周期性波動在金融體系中的報告”)。同時它也要求夼is 吶?的高質(zhì)量的全球標準發(fā)展的進步。</p><p>　　金融危機咨詢組

71、（FCAG), ?-個由FASB和IASB組成的提供金融危機標 準制定的含義和潛在的改變?nèi)蚍ㄒ?guī)環(huán)境的團體，在2009年7月28 11特別強調(diào) 丫對FASB和IASB的報告作類似改善的需要。</p><p><b>　　公允價值的挑戰(zhàn)</b></p><p>　　盡管準則制定者有作出許多說明，公允價值的確定在當前環(huán)境下將繼續(xù)面臨 挑戰(zhàn)。許多捋經(jīng)活躍的金融資產(chǎn)市場不再活

72、躍并且缺乏促進市場定價所需要的蓀 礎設施。這意味著估價（在美W GAAP和IFRS下）將會包括需要充分判斷的 更多的工作和分析。</p><p>　　鑒于公眾和投資者對提高透明度的呼吁，G經(jīng)有許多公允價值（或與他）“披 露的解決方案”，而且更多是將要出臺的。</p><p>　　同時，美W發(fā)行者面臨著向IFRS (W際財務報告準則）轉(zhuǎn)變的前景。與此 同時，作為FASB和IASB進?步融合的

73、措施，改變以減少或消除SFAS第157 號和IFRS指導建議的公允價值計量差異是有可能的。是否會作出SFAS第157 兮的變動、IFRS的建議或兩*兼而有之，現(xiàn)在卜結(jié)論還為時尚¥。但是考慮到 當前公允價值在美WGAAP和IFRS的州色和對今后的改良的需耍，?個產(chǎn)生出 相同的美W GAAP和IFRS公允價值標準的融合解決方案應該是兩個類似但不 同的公允價值的標準。</p><p>　　出處:MacDona