外文翻譯--完全公允價值會計時代的到來 （節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　2200單詞，12500英文字符，3900漢字</p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p>　　外文出處 Bank Asset/Liability Management,2009(10):7-8 </p><p>　　外文作者 O

2、rlando Hanselman </p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Full Fair Value Accounting: Its Time Has Come</p><p>　　Executive Summary: It is time to evaluate fair value

3、accounting objectively by returning to the conceptual roots of our modern accounting framework and debunking certain false doctrines. Analyzing the conceptual integrity of fair value compared to historic cost accounting

4、demonstrates the clear superiority of fair value measurement and reporting. True capital adequacy can only be ascertained on a risk-adjusted basis. The starting point for such needed and sound risk-adjustment is reflecti

5、ng chan</p><p>　　Fair value accounting, once a subject relegated for discussion by the green eyeshade and the pocket protector crowd, has moved from accounting cubicles to Main Street and the political power

6、 corridors of America. Much has recently been written about it. Much conversation has been held. The issue has taken on partisan tones with both staunch proponents and determined, well funded opponents raising up their v

7、oices. To sort through this rhetoric it is time to look at fair value accounting objective</p><p>　　Fair value accounting is not a new concept or recent phenomena:</p><p>　　“Asset valuations (fo

8、r financial institutions) were at fair market value. It was not until 1938 that the Federal Reserve forced the other regulators to accede to historic cost accounting for banks’ assets. The 1938…accounting change was made

9、 to encourage new lending and to enable private investors to acquire failed banks’ assets from the federal authorities without immediate write downs of their value.” (Source: “Stress Testing the Banks” by Walker F. Todd,

10、 The Institutional Risk Analyst, Februa</p><p>　　Earnest exploration of fair value accounting began in the early 1980’s, long before it became a force recognized by Main Street and Washington. Elements of fa

11、ir value accounting slowly entered into generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) as promulgated by the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”). Lower-of-cost or market accounting became an accepted pr

12、actice. Write down to market of permanently impaired assets emerged. Investment accounting based upon management’s intent </p><p>　　During the early days of closed back room discussion, fair value accounting

13、 proponents suggested that movement from an historical cost standard to a market based approach would achieve at least five key financial reporting advantages:</p><p>　　Enhance relevance and transparency; &l

14、t;/p><p>　　Reduce rule complexity; </p><p>　　Lower earnings volatility; </p><p>　　Enhance consistency and comparability;</p><p>　　Converge U.S. accounting standards with

15、 emerging international accounting standards.</p><p>　　As U.S. companies compete in an interdependent global economy and battle to costeffectively obtain equity and debt funding, these purported advantages a

16、ssume a greatersense of urgency and magnitude.</p><p>　　Historical cost accounting, where an asset is valued at the time of acquisition basedupon consideration tendered, is thought to have begun in the days

17、of the ancientRomans. Increasingly this longstanding accounting method is viewed as irrelevant andmisleading. Depreciation rules, used to subsequently reduce asset values by one of many standardized and capricious method

18、s to approximate the expiration of usefulness,are understood to be crude estimations which provide only minor conceptual insightr</p><p>　　The complexity of rules eases with elimination of the current patch-

19、work quilt approach. Consistency, comparability and transparency increases with standardization of rules, elimination of management’s intent and adoption of more detailed disclosures including quantitative and qualitativ

20、e insights regarding valuation assumptions and methods. Global convergence would be achieved as international accounting standards have already greatly embraced fair value accounting. The U.S. would simply be ali</p&g

21、t;<p>　　Thus, fair value proponents appear to be correct in their early assessment related to four of the five key reporting advantages to be gleaned. As to the earnings volatility advantage, we simply prefer obje

22、ctive “as is” measurement and reporting of economic reality which is always enhanced by fair value methods. To further build a comprehensive case to support that the time for full fair value accounting has arrived.</p

23、><p>　　Let us first agree on the definition of fair value. It is the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability in a principal or most advantageous market in an orderly t

24、ransaction between market participants on a set measurement date. This fair value at origination is intended to convey the value derived from an open market and it is not intended to represent a fire sale or forced liqui

25、dation price. Such an exchange price economically considers future expected c</p><p>　　Level One: quoted market prices for specific assets or liabilities.</p><p>　　Level Two: use of valuation t

26、echniques and models or quoted market prices for comparable assets or liabilities.</p><p>　　Level Three:unobservable inputs into the reporting entity’s own analysis of underlying economic data to determine p

27、rice in the absence of well established markets or available traded prices for comparable instruments. This level requires significant judgment and greatly expanded disclosures. Longstanding and widely accepted present

28、value and discounting techniques allow for appropriate fair value estimation for financial instruments which lack an advantageous market or suffer from either perman</p><p>　　The definition and methods to de

29、termine fair value are well articulated in SFAS #159.</p><p>　　The foundation to support this accepted fair value definition and determination model must begin with an understanding of fundamental financial

30、reporting objectives. The key to financial reporting is that the presented information is useful in making informed business decisions. Presented information must convey the economic substance and allow for assessment of

31、 the risk-adjusted cash flow prospects related to all transactions. This information must illuminate the reporting entity’s resources, c</p><p>　　To ascertain the decision making utility of fair value compar

32、ed to historical cost accounting we can either simply rely upon the logic of my audit client or we can alternatively choose to analyze the conceptual integrity of the two methods based upon a well defined and longstandin

33、g conceptual accounting framework. This framework,consisting of ten core characteristics, along with my subjective assessment is shown inTable A.</p><p>　　These ten characteristics define the optimal quality

34、 of reported financial information. A “HIGH”assessment indicates that the accounting method strongly achieves this desired characteristic. A “MODERATE”rating conveys a mixed view of success in capturing the essence of th

35、e trait. And finally, a “LOW”evaluation connotes poor reflection of the desired attribute.</p><p>　　Fair value accounting is preferred to historic cost in decision usefulness, relevance,predictive value, fee

36、dback value, timeliness, reliability and representational faithfulness.When confronting a decision to hold or divest of an asset, historical cost plays an inconsequential role. Greater questions assume decision making pr

37、ominence and relevance:</p><p>　　Does the asset have remaining utility?</p><p>　　Can the asset be sold today at a gain or loss?</p><p>　　Will the risk-adjusted cash flow generated b

38、y the asset exceed the costs to maintain and hold the asset?</p><p>　　Am I incurring economic loss or opportunity cost by continuing to hold this asset?</p><p>　　Fair value answers these questio

39、ns. Historic cost accounting does not.</p><p>　　We are also able to form reasonable expectations about the future from fair value. Aloan underwritten in the past with a 5% interest rate while the market rate

40、 for a similar loan with comparable risk and remaining duration is now 7% indicates an expectede conomic loss, an opportunity cost, to continuing to hold the 5% loan. It also communicates that this loan’s market value is

41、 less than the book carrying value on anhistoric cost basis. Future cash flow insights are gleaned from this fair value i</p><p>　　Historic cost accounting modestly outperforms fair value in just two of the

42、ten core characteristics: understandability and verifiability. The understandability advantage is obtained simply by the longstanding common practice and use of historic cost accounting. Historic cost accounting has beco

43、me for many financial statement preparers the comfortable, old pair of shoes. The verifiability advantage is earned by historic cost accounting since the information is certain to be confirmed by several </p><

44、p>　　All this is not, however, to say that fair value accounting lacks understandability or verifiability. The advantage of historic cost in these attributes is nominal. A reportin gentity can elevate fair value’s rati

45、ng in these two traits by careful and thorough transparent disclosure of methods, significant assumptions and judgments used indetermining fair value. With full disclosure, an independent evaluator can focus on the valid

46、ity of the assumptions and judgments underlying the fair value. Ind</p><p>　　Analyzing the conceptual integrity of fair value accounting compared to historic cost demonstrates the fundamental superiority of

47、fair value accounting. This superiority is supported by the sheer numeric advantage of seven of the ten characteristics favoring fair value. It is further defended by my audit client’s confounding situation. It is also b

48、acked by my assessments of the attributes. Fair value accounting is not “LOW”on any characteristic, while historic cost is rated “LOW”in six dimension</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　完全

49、公允價值會計時代的到來</p><p>　　摘要：通過回顧我們現(xiàn)代會計框架的概念根源，客觀地計量公允價值會計的時代到來了。通過分析比較公允價值概念的完整性與歷史成本會計的區(qū)別來證實公允價值測量與報告的明顯的優(yōu)越性。真正的資本充足率只有在風(fēng)險調(diào)節(jié)的基礎(chǔ)上才能被確定。這些需要合理的風(fēng)險調(diào)節(jié)，出發(fā)點就是能夠反映所有資產(chǎn)和負(fù)債，確定資本經(jīng)濟(jì)價值在市場價值的變化。完全公允價值會計和披露對于現(xiàn)在所有的報告實體和資產(chǎn)負(fù)債都是必

50、需的。這種必需性也會使完全公允價值基礎(chǔ)成為實體規(guī)定。歷史成本應(yīng)該適當(dāng)降低不得高于附注中披露的數(shù)值。完全公允價值使投資者和管理者更加看重長期的風(fēng)險調(diào)節(jié)組織的表現(xiàn)和企業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)價值的最優(yōu)化。這些都宣布著完全公允價值的時代到來了！</p><p>　　完全公允價值曾經(jīng)一度是工薪階層討論的話題，現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)由會計領(lǐng)域轉(zhuǎn)移到美國的大街小巷和政界。最近，很多相關(guān)的文章都在發(fā)表。很多相關(guān)的論壇也在舉行。這個問題已經(jīng)使理事單位和那些堅定

51、的支持者和手頭有資金的投資者達(dá)成一致并說出他們的觀點。為了整理這些華麗的詞藻，現(xiàn)在是時候通過回歸現(xiàn)代會計框架的概念根源和揭穿某些被公允價值會計的評論家支持的假信條來客觀地評價完全公允價值了。如果這些分析將被證實了，那么現(xiàn)在就是完全公允價值的時代了。</p><p>　　公允價值會計，它并不是一個全新的概念或者最近提出的觀點。</p><p>　　“資產(chǎn)估價（針對金融機(jī)構(gòu)）都是在公允的市場價

52、值上進(jìn)行的。直到1938年，美聯(lián)儲才強(qiáng)迫其他的調(diào)整者去贊同銀行資產(chǎn)的歷史成本會計。在1938年，沒有及時記錄下資產(chǎn)歷史價值的情況下，賬戶變更被用來鼓勵新的貸款和使私人投資者能從聯(lián)邦當(dāng)局獲得破產(chǎn)銀行的資產(chǎn)?！保▉碓矗骸般y行的壓力測試”，沃克 托德，機(jī)構(gòu)風(fēng)險分析，2009，2，24）。</p><p>　　早期公允價值的探究發(fā)生在二十世紀(jì)八十年代初期，不久后，它被大家和華盛頓（政府）所承認(rèn)。由美國財務(wù)會計準(zhǔn)則委員會（

53、FASB）發(fā)布的公允價值會計理論被慢慢地認(rèn)定為一般公認(rèn)會計原則（GAAP）。成本與市價孰低會計成為公認(rèn)的慣例。資產(chǎn)減值市場的出現(xiàn)。投資會計以管理者的意圖為基礎(chǔ)被設(shè)置成三種獨立的投資組合和對待方法，它們是持有至到期、可供出售資產(chǎn)、交換資產(chǎn)。美國財務(wù)會計準(zhǔn)則(公告)(SFAS)中的159號：在其的報告?zhèn)€體中規(guī)定，可以選擇使用公允價值會計來計量特定的金融資產(chǎn)或金融負(fù)債。實行這些方法的結(jié)果是使得財務(wù)報告的使用者混淆財務(wù)報告的概念也與管理者的意圖

54、不一致。</p><p>　　在早期的封閉式討論期間，公允價值會計建議者，建議從一項歷史成本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)去設(shè)立一個市場基礎(chǔ)方法。此方法至少有五項財務(wù)報告發(fā)面的優(yōu)勢：</p><p><b>　　提高相關(guān)性和透明度</b></p><p><b>　　降低復(fù)雜程度</b></p><p><b>　

55、　降低收入波動的影響</b></p><p><b>　　提高一致和可比較性</b></p><p>　　符合新國際會計準(zhǔn)則的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)</p><p>　　由于美國公司是在一種互助的全球經(jīng)濟(jì)中競爭的，并且在競爭中獲得真正的公允和債務(wù)融資，這些競爭優(yōu)勢呈現(xiàn)出一種更強(qiáng)的緊迫感和重要性。</p><p>　　歷史性成本

56、會計，資產(chǎn)以取得時的價值為入賬價值，這種做法早在古代的古羅馬人就開始了。這種長期存在的會計方法現(xiàn)在看來是不相關(guān)而且起到誤導(dǎo)作用。會計折舊準(zhǔn)則規(guī)定資產(chǎn)價值的減少應(yīng)當(dāng)使用很多標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的和多變的折舊方法直到資產(chǎn)被耗用完畢?；蛘呖梢岳斫獬墒翘峁┑母艑Χ虝旱臅r間的一項資產(chǎn)的潛在和改變價值的估計。 1983 年一位審計客戶用自己的評估方法（非GAAP）評估自己的固定資產(chǎn)價值，并且指出這種理論是不符合邏輯的。首先這位審計客戶嚴(yán)格的記錄了取得固定資產(chǎn)的時

57、候價值，然后他使用一系列適當(dāng)?shù)姆椒p少固定資產(chǎn)的價值，直到完全折舊或者凈資產(chǎn)為零的這么一個狀態(tài)。在他的觀點中，他個人評估了資產(chǎn)剩余的效用，這種方法確實是非常有用的。他為資產(chǎn)的現(xiàn)時價值評估提供了一個堅實的后盾。后來美國一般會計公認(rèn)原則（GAAP）將他的觀點寫入資產(chǎn)的折舊過程即資產(chǎn)周期性的損耗直到資產(chǎn)報廢。當(dāng)我們審計程序發(fā)現(xiàn)這種非傳統(tǒng)方法時，我會見了這位審計客戶并討論他的錯誤所在。盡管我解釋得確切，但是我的客戶并沒有改變他自己的一整套完整邏

58、輯，他不情愿的接受我的觀點。</p><p>　　最終結(jié)果提出：當(dāng)資產(chǎn)的賬面價值為零時，資產(chǎn)還是有使用價值。我的客戶明智的提出了他的觀點，我的客戶也強(qiáng)調(diào)了財務(wù)報告能增加相關(guān)性和透明度優(yōu)點：即資產(chǎn)的賬面價值余額應(yīng)當(dāng)最準(zhǔn)確的表現(xiàn)資產(chǎn)的內(nèi)在價值和內(nèi)在效用</p><p>　　這種綜合的方法消除實時更新的復(fù)雜性。同時，這種方法也增加了準(zhǔn)則的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化和相關(guān)信息的透明度：對于管理者的意圖以及評估方法在內(nèi)

59、的定性和定量見解應(yīng)當(dāng)通過財務(wù)報告披露更詳細(xì)的披露。全球關(guān)注點在于國際會計標(biāo)準(zhǔn)將完全提出公允價值會計。美國與世界其他各國觀點排成一致。從公允價值的角度計算降低收入的變動所帶來的預(yù)期收益的觀點是一種容易誤導(dǎo)別人的觀點。經(jīng)過認(rèn)真實考這種觀點被否定。健全的會計制度和會計標(biāo)準(zhǔn)能夠合理的解釋所有經(jīng)濟(jì)業(yè)務(wù)的基礎(chǔ)經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)象。客觀的計量和報告要求資產(chǎn)計量達(dá)到“確實是”而不是“需要是”。事實上，對于最近提出的公允價值能夠增加準(zhǔn)則標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化和相關(guān)信息的透明度的優(yōu)點

60、已經(jīng)成為歷史，因為專業(yè)人士和美國證券交易委員會都不同意這個人觀點。因此對于經(jīng)濟(jì)波動和盈余波動的披露只能作為決策的材料。</p><p>　　因此，在公允價值建議者看來，原提出的五個主要財務(wù)報告優(yōu)勢中的四個優(yōu)勢是正確的。對于公允價值能夠降低收入波動的影響的優(yōu)勢，我們僅“按原樣”選擇目標(biāo)測量和始終被公允價值方法的經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)實的報告。進(jìn)一步建立一個全面的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)從而支持完全公允價值計算的時間已經(jīng)到到了</p>&

61、lt;p>　　首先讓我們贊同對公允價值的定義。公允價值的定義指的是一項資產(chǎn)未來可收回的價值或者未來償還一項負(fù)債的價值。公允價值從根源上旨在表達(dá)資產(chǎn)從一個公開市場上取得時候的價值。公允價值并不代表一個商品甩賣或強(qiáng)迫清算時候的價格。這樣的一個市場交易價格，它經(jīng)濟(jì)地考慮了未來預(yù)期的現(xiàn)金流量和所有不確定性冒險帶來的現(xiàn)金流量，以及風(fēng)險溢價，廉價因素和市場流動性。對于金融資產(chǎn)和金融負(fù)債的公允價值計量存在三種計量模式：</p>&

62、lt;p>　　第一種：特定的資產(chǎn)或債務(wù)的市價</p><p>　　第二種：評估技術(shù)或用類似的資產(chǎn)或債務(wù)的市價代替</p><p>　　第三種：在完善的市場或提供交易工具的價格可比的情況下，分析報告主題的基本經(jīng)濟(jì)數(shù)據(jù)，確定一個投入時候的價值。這種模式首先需要眾多判決和非常充分的揭發(fā)。由于市場不活躍或者市場混亂，不管是從當(dāng)前或者長期的角度考慮，公允價值模式都會允許使用相關(guān)的金融工具來做一

63、個適當(dāng)估價。</p><p>　　這種公允價值的定義或者方法在 SFAS #159 中被清楚地闡明。</p><p>　　支持這種公認(rèn)的公允價值定義和決策模型的基礎(chǔ)，首先必須從對財務(wù)報告的理解開始。財務(wù)報告的目標(biāo)在于財務(wù)報告所提供的信息是否有助于決策。財務(wù)報告提供的信息必須表達(dá)經(jīng)濟(jì)物質(zhì)而且還要考慮到與所有交易相關(guān)的風(fēng)險調(diào)整的現(xiàn)金流量的評估。這條信息必須闡明報告主體的擁有的資源，以及資源的變

64、化。這條極為重要的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)決定了報告提供信息的有用性。</p><p>　　為了確定公允價值的決策效用，拿公允價值與歷史成本會計做比較，我們不能簡單地憑借審計客戶的邏輯，我們可以選擇通過分析一套完整的概念來定義長期會計框架。這種框架，包含十種核心特征與我主觀的評估一起記錄在A篇中。</p><p>　　這十種特征定義了財務(wù)報告的金融信息的最高質(zhì)量水平。對于“高等”評估指標(biāo)會計方法很難達(dá)到這種特

65、征?！爸械取北磉_(dá)了成功抓住本質(zhì)方面的一個綜合見解。最后，一次“低等”評估意味著所需信息的基本反映。</p><p>　　與歷史成本會計相比公允價值會計更具有決策有用性、相關(guān)性、預(yù)測價值、反饋價值，可靠性。當(dāng)需要做出保留一項資產(chǎn)或者處置一項資產(chǎn)的決定時，歷史成本不起作用。問題的關(guān)鍵在于突出決策有用性和相關(guān)性：</p><p><b>　　資產(chǎn)有無剩余價值？</b><

66、;/p><p>　　資產(chǎn)處置的收益或者虧損能馬上現(xiàn)實嗎？</p><p>　　風(fēng)險調(diào)整所產(chǎn)生的現(xiàn)金流量是否會超過資產(chǎn)的成本或者資產(chǎn)重置成本？</p><p>　　繼續(xù)持有這項資產(chǎn)是否會導(dǎo)致經(jīng)濟(jì)損失或者產(chǎn)生機(jī)會成本？</p><p>　　公允價值會計能夠回答這些問題，但歷史成本會計無法回答。</p><p>　　我們也能對公

67、允價值會計的未來做出合理預(yù)期。以前5%的貸款利率對于現(xiàn)有市場想類似風(fēng)險的一筆貸款的市場價格仍然是 7%。它表示一種預(yù)期的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失或者一項機(jī)會成本。如果繼續(xù)保持 5% 的貸款，這筆貸款的市場價值少于歷史成本下的賬面價值。未來現(xiàn)金流量表明了收集了的公允價值信息：債務(wù)人提前清償債務(wù)的可能性現(xiàn)在降低了。過去已經(jīng)理解了貸款的全部經(jīng)濟(jì)價值。隨后我們知道，市場形式的改變降低了我們預(yù)期的經(jīng)濟(jì)價值，測量表明：公允價值是動態(tài)更新的價值，反應(yīng)的是當(dāng)前價值而不

68、是歷史價值。因此在定義中的十個特征中的七個特征都表明公允價值更有效。</p><p>　　十條核心特征中僅僅二個核心特征，說明了歷史成本比公允價值更加謹(jǐn)慎。對于優(yōu)勢的理解，它僅僅簡單的被表示為長期的實踐和歷史成本會計的運用。因此對很多財務(wù)報告編制人而言，很多人選擇了歷史成本會計作為編制標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。歷史成本會計優(yōu)勢在于資產(chǎn)的購買價格是固定的，任何后續(xù)調(diào)制都符合折舊的原則。</p><p>　　然而

69、，并不完全是這樣，因為公允價值會計缺少理解性或可證實性，所以歷史成本會計的優(yōu)勢只是表面上的。然而通過充分披露和對公允價值的重大決策，會計報告的主體能夠提高對會計可理解性和可證實性。通過充分披露，一個未來決策者可重點關(guān)注公允價值的假設(shè)和判斷的有用性。確實，公允價值的計算具有靈活性，能更恰當(dāng)?shù)乇磉_(dá)當(dāng)前的經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)實，這是公允價值的最重大優(yōu)點之一。因此我相信，我的審計客戶會更喜歡使用這些有用的經(jīng)濟(jì)信息，而不是那些報告中很容易獲得且未經(jīng)證實的數(shù)據(jù)。