外文翻譯--公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)、金融和會(huì)計(jì)可靠性的關(guān)系（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文2900字，2000單詞，1.1萬(wàn)英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Source: Michael Power. Fair value accounting, financial economics and the transformation of reliability[J]. Accounting and Business Research 2010.11(4) :197-210

2、 </p><p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯譯文 </b></p><p><b>　　原文 </b></p><p>　　Fair value accounting, financial economics and the transformation of reliability</p><p>

3、;　　The conception and application of 'fair value' measurement within financial reporting has an ad hoc history which reaches back at least two decades (Omiros and Jack, 2008). In the 1980s the term was widely app

4、lied within the context of acquisition accounting as a basis for the allocation of entry values to acquired assets. The procedure yielded a figure for purchased goodwill and opening book values, but was not without its d

5、ifficulties and controversies. For example, contractual and transaction</p><p>　　By 2007, just prior to the financial crisis, the status of fair value measurement had changed entirely, having acquired both a

6、n expanded significance and position of controversy within the financial accounting policy process. Indeed, the idea of fair value measurement for accounting came to be a motivating and quasi-philosophical principle at t

7、he centre of an accounting reform process led in different ways by specific members of FASB and IASB.' Fair value could be said to be much more than just </p><p>　　Even before the largest financial crisi

8、s since the 1930s caused this change program me to stumble and compromise, fair value was the subject of heated debate by policy makers, practitioners and academics alike. However, the idea of fair value accounting seeme

9、d to have momentum and became institutionalised despite strident opposition from many quarters about features of its implementation, not least from European banks seeking to retain reporting discretion in key areas. <

10、/p><p>　　This essay addresses the following question: how and why did this change in the status and significance of fair value in accounting over two decades happen? Though it would be reasonable to answer this

11、 question by the forensic analysis of successive developments of accounting standards embodying fair value, a more thematic approach is adopted which takes a step back from the technical detail and interprets the rise of

12、 fair value in terms of a contest between fundamentally different conceptions o</p><p>　　Many commentators have hinted at the importance of measurement reliability in accounting, but it has been largely trea

13、ted by all sides in the fair value debate as if it were a simple uncontested thing. Yet, close analysis suggests that actors operate with very different conceptions of reliability, and that measurement reliability in acc

14、ounting is what might be called a 'social construct'. Accordingly, the arguments which follow about fair value also provide a tentative outline for a 'sociology o</p><p>　　In the next section the

15、 main contours of the contemporary debate about fair value are sketched, drawing on several summaries and analyses. The discussion focuses on how a distinctive notion of accounting, and therefore reliability, emerged and

16、 was articulated prior to the financial crisis. Subsequent sections explore the wider institutional conditions of possibility for this transformation which, at least for a time, became tightly interconnected and reinforc

17、ing - something which explains the re</p><p>　　Section 3 deals with the rise of financial economics both as a challenge to, and as a cultural resource for, financial accounting. The preconditions for fair va

18、lue lie in a progressive articulation of decision relevance for accounting which draws on highly abstract conceptions of users, markets and price formation. Section 4 argues that the problem of accounting for derivatives

19、 challenged the credibility of accounting but also acted as a catalyst for the expanded significance of fair value and a</p><p>　　The concept of' fair value' measurement emerged in financial accounti

20、ng and was accepted in the abstract long before it was a subject of analysis and dispute (Bromwich, 2007). Furthermore, 'fair value' is not itself a single measurement methodology but encompasses a variety of app

21、roaches for the estimation of an exit value. So it is hardly surprising that many of the arguments which have been developed for and against the use of fair values in accounting are not well-supported by evidence (Laux &

22、lt;/p><p>　　Definitions of fair value vary in subtle ways that may end up mattering in law but from afar, and to the untutored eye, they look similar. FAS 157 (FASB, 2006) defines fair value as: 'the price

23、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'. LASB (2009) reproduces this as a core principle. </p><

24、;p>　　This definition, which has existed in various slightly modified forms for many years, might appear uncontentious. Yet, it is a complex hybrid of ideas and assumptions which point to the estimated prices that migh

25、t be received in a market, one which turns out to have specific and assumed characteristics. This causes several commentators to remark on the 'fictional' and 'imaginary' nature of fair values (e.g. Casso

26、n and Napier, 1997) and to bemoan their 'subjectivity' and potential for manipulatio</p><p>　　Proponents of fair values in accounting often appeal to notions of telling things 'as they are' a

27、nd of improving transparency. They point to areas such as pension accounting or the savings and loans industry in North America where fair values would have made problems (deficits, poor performing loans) visible much ea

28、rlier, thereby enabling corrective action. An often heard trope is that one 'should not shoot the messenger' of poor asset quality. Yet sceptics argue that fair value accounting has c</p><p>　　when a

29、ccounting is tightly coupled to prudential regulatory systems, and the unreliability of markingto model in less than liquid asset markets, especially for assets which are being held for the long term. </p><p&g

30、t;　　According to Laux and Leuz (2009) the fair value debate should not be polarised. The use of fair values is neither responsible for the financial crisis nor entirely innocent. Furthermore, arguments against fair value

31、 do not automatically translate into arguments for historical cost accounting. Information about current values, or best estimates of those current values, is likely to be useful for management and market analysts in con

32、junction with lots of other bits of information. Contracts and c</p><p>　　While much of the heat generated by fair value concerns the politics of reporting discretion for banking institutions, Laux and Leuz

33、(2009) suggest that the polarisation in the debate is founded primarily on different views about the goals of accounting. In parallel but somewhat differently, it can be argued that the debate is also driven by different

34、, almost unconscious, views about what it is for an estimated accounting value to be reliable. </p><p>　　One of the explicit motivations for the expanded significance of the use of fair values is its perceiv

35、ed potential to minimise the freedom to manipulate accounting numbers (CFA, 2007). Market-based values are, almost by definition, a non-management based referent and this is consistent with early standards on audit evide

36、nce quality hierarchies which prioritise sources of evidence which are independent of both auditee and auditor. So an important aspect of the 'fair value' concept is to establish</p><p>　　Reliability

37、 is one of the fundamental qualitative characteristics of accounting information as articulated in early conceptual frameworks (FASB,1980). Yet the reliability of accounting numbers is not a given: it is always founded o

38、n a consensus whose strength is an empirical and not a conceptual fact. The consensus is often implicit and taken for granted, but becomes more problematic at times of conflict and competition when questions of power and

39、 authority become visible. Ideas of accounting re</p><p>　　This new conception of accounting reliability takes as its benchmark the most liquid, orderly markets, those typically associated with financial ass

40、ets and liabilities. This benchmark, and the idea of reliability it embodies, is extended to analogies and models which simulate market prices using accepted economic methodologies' ，the so-called levels 2 and 3 in t

41、he fair value hierarchy of valuation methods. It is not unusual for policy solutions in one setting to migrate from their original conte</p><p>　　It should be remembered that accounting policy discussions ha

42、ve visited the issue of measurement reliability many times before. For example, in the late 1980s, brand valuers using a mix of analogical and model-based reasoning challenged the prevailing prohibition against valuing i

43、nternally generated brands. The debate, while conducted in technical terms, was highly sensitive to the credibility of valuation expertise proposed by non-accountant valuers (e.g. Interbrand). The UK Accounting Standard&

44、lt;/p><p>　　The brand accounting debate reminds us that conceptions of reliability in financial reporting can change as bodies of valuation knowledge become accepted as a basis for transactions. In turn, market

45、 liquidity may be increased by the credibility of such methodologies which further increases their credibility in a virtuous performative circle (Napier and Power, 1992). Just as with the brand debate of the late 1980s,

46、level 2 and 3 fair values pose resource and expertise challenges both for audit fi</p><p><b>　　譯文 </b></p><p>　　公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)、金融和會(huì)計(jì)可靠性的關(guān)系</p><p>　　公允價(jià)值計(jì)量屬性在財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告中的應(yīng)用已有二十多年，

47、首先提出這一概念的是在歐米和杰克的著作中。在20世紀(jì)80年代，公允價(jià)值計(jì)量屬性已廣泛運(yùn)用于收購(gòu)業(yè)務(wù)的會(huì)計(jì)核算，企業(yè)運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值來(lái)計(jì)量分配取得資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值。在會(huì)計(jì)核算過(guò)程中運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量與賬面價(jià)值之間差異，作商譽(yù)處理，大家對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)上計(jì)入商譽(yù)的處理還沒有產(chǎn)生過(guò)爭(zhēng)議。例如，合同價(jià)格與交易成本之間的差額，會(huì)計(jì)核算時(shí)把差額計(jì)入商譽(yù)，類似于把它作為企業(yè)的無(wú)形資產(chǎn)。以上這些對(duì)公允價(jià)值與實(shí)際成本之間差額的會(huì)計(jì)處理，或多或少地為財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)的發(fā)展奠定了基礎(chǔ)。而

48、目前要討論的是如何合理地運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值，一些學(xué)者認(rèn)為:完全發(fā)揮公允價(jià)值的積極作用，除了要有高水平的估值技術(shù)，還需要在一個(gè)信息流動(dòng)快速的市場(chǎng)環(huán)境和法制規(guī)范的市場(chǎng)體系。歷史成本計(jì)量屬性的缺陷是與市場(chǎng)價(jià)值的差異較大，人們普遍認(rèn)為運(yùn)用歷史成本計(jì)量是不合理的。</p><p>　　在2007年之前，也就是在金融危機(jī)爆發(fā)之前，運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量在會(huì)計(jì)核算上發(fā)生了較大的變化，收購(gòu)業(yè)務(wù)的會(huì)計(jì)核算在范圍上有所擴(kuò)展，在會(huì)計(jì)確認(rèn)上的爭(zhēng)議有

49、所增加。FASB和IASB這兩個(gè)組織從哲學(xué)角度對(duì)公允價(jià)值進(jìn)行了研究，為公允價(jià)值的發(fā)展奠定了一定的理論基礎(chǔ)，使用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的支持者不斷增多，為后來(lái)公允價(jià)值計(jì)量成為一種國(guó)際趨勢(shì)做了一個(gè)很好的鋪墊。</p><p>　　在1930年全球發(fā)生金融危機(jī)的時(shí)候，相關(guān)的國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則對(duì)運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值進(jìn)行會(huì)計(jì)核算作了一定的限制。學(xué)術(shù)界對(duì)公允價(jià)值的爭(zhēng)論一直很激烈，反對(duì)者對(duì)運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值進(jìn)行會(huì)計(jì)核算的反對(duì)呼聲很高，他們要求至少在歐洲銀行

50、的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告中還是有自由裁量權(quán)。但是，公允價(jià)值的運(yùn)用在市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化的大趨勢(shì)下是勢(shì)不可擋的。</p><p>　　本文主要討論了以下問(wèn)題:公允價(jià)值在過(guò)去二十多年的地位和意義發(fā)生了怎樣的演變?這個(gè)問(wèn)題許多學(xué)者研究認(rèn)為，會(huì)計(jì)估值技術(shù)在不斷地發(fā)展，會(huì)計(jì)信息的可靠性概念在不斷地修正，從哲學(xué)上說(shuō)這兩種事物均是不斷發(fā)展的，萬(wàn)事萬(wàn)物也是存在普遍聯(lián)系的，那么推論出估值技術(shù)和會(huì)計(jì)信息的可靠性存在一定的聯(lián)系，當(dāng)然這個(gè)聯(lián)系是間接聯(lián)系。在

51、承認(rèn)上述的假設(shè)之后，同樣根據(jù)哲學(xué)思想萬(wàn)事萬(wàn)物都是在不斷發(fā)展運(yùn)動(dòng)的思想，市場(chǎng)在不斷地發(fā)展，估值技術(shù)也在不斷發(fā)展，但是估值技術(shù)是根據(jù)不斷變化的市場(chǎng)不斷發(fā)展的，估值技術(shù)相對(duì)于市場(chǎng)來(lái)說(shuō)是落后的，運(yùn)用這個(gè)落后的估值技術(shù)確認(rèn)的價(jià)值，該價(jià)值和市場(chǎng)價(jià)值之間就會(huì)有一定的差別，就是哲學(xué)上說(shuō)的矛盾。</p><p>　　許多評(píng)論家都認(rèn)為會(huì)計(jì)信息可靠性是非常重要的。單從直接意義上來(lái)說(shuō)公允價(jià)值計(jì)量對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)信息可靠性是沒有什么影響，但是從企業(yè)

52、采用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量之后才生的會(huì)計(jì)信息對(duì)于社會(huì)的影響，就是可以從會(huì)計(jì)信息的可靠性上解釋，也就是可以這么說(shuō)公允價(jià)值為會(huì)計(jì)信息的可靠性理論基礎(chǔ)提供了一個(gè)初步的輪廓。</p><p>　　在下一節(jié)主要討論了公允價(jià)值在當(dāng)代的發(fā)展，并作了相關(guān)的總結(jié)和分析。主要討論了會(huì)計(jì)獨(dú)立性的概念，并且分析之前提到過(guò)的金融危機(jī)。</p><p>　　隨后的章節(jié)探討了一些制度改革的建議:第三條建議涉及的是金融和經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)發(fā)展

53、問(wèn)題，對(duì)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)而言是文化資源。在公允價(jià)值運(yùn)用方面，認(rèn)為公允價(jià)值的運(yùn)用取決于會(huì)計(jì)相關(guān)使用者、市場(chǎng)環(huán)境和價(jià)格這幾個(gè)因素。第四條建議是，對(duì)衍生工具的會(huì)計(jì)計(jì)量問(wèn)題提出質(zhì)疑，認(rèn)為市場(chǎng)信譽(yù)對(duì)公允價(jià)值的運(yùn)用有催化劑的作用。第五條建議，認(rèn)為應(yīng)取消對(duì)資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表合法化的概念束縛，這樣不僅創(chuàng)造了資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表會(huì)計(jì)的需求，而且是促進(jìn)公允價(jià)值邊緣化的沃土。最后，第6節(jié)提出，在世界范圍內(nèi)公允價(jià)值的運(yùn)用將會(huì)構(gòu)建一個(gè)新的全球化會(huì)計(jì)核算系統(tǒng)。世界級(jí)專家制定者將對(duì)國(guó)際政治經(jīng)

54、濟(jì)進(jìn)行新的治理規(guī)劃。</p><p>　　以下是對(duì)運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值與會(huì)計(jì)信息可靠性之間的關(guān)系進(jìn)行的分析:公允價(jià)值的計(jì)量首先出現(xiàn)在財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)的核算中，并且很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間范圍內(nèi)，都被認(rèn)為是一個(gè)抽象的概念，直到布羅米奇2007年發(fā)表關(guān)于可靠性論述這一書中才開始對(duì)公允價(jià)值的概念進(jìn)行具體界定，對(duì)相關(guān)的計(jì)量方法進(jìn)行分析討論。此外，有學(xué)者認(rèn)為公允價(jià)值并非是一種計(jì)量方式，而是包括了出口估值計(jì)量方法及各種計(jì)量方法的一個(gè)計(jì)量體系。對(duì)這么一個(gè)體系

55、的提出，一開始有反對(duì)呼聲是可以理解的，畢竟一些人的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益存在一定的損失。在相關(guān)的法規(guī)上，公允價(jià)值概念及運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的界定存在著一定的模糊性，一些企業(yè)的會(huì)計(jì)人員素質(zhì)參差不齊，對(duì)規(guī)定的理解不同，僅一家企業(yè)內(nèi)部就有不統(tǒng)一的計(jì)量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，更何況在全國(guó)范圍內(nèi)的所有企業(yè)運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值產(chǎn)生的差別了。</p><p>　　對(duì)公允價(jià)值的定義的表述有很多，但都是在微妙的方面有所不同，SFAS的157(財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)，2006年)

56、對(duì)公允價(jià)值定義為:將資產(chǎn)出售能夠收到的現(xiàn)金或者是同類商品在市場(chǎng)上的交易價(jià)格。</p><p>　　對(duì)于上述這個(gè)定義，它在略加修改后一直被認(rèn)為公允價(jià)值的公認(rèn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，大家對(duì)這個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)還沒有產(chǎn)生過(guò)爭(zhēng)議。然而，它是以完全市場(chǎng)為假設(shè)條件的，導(dǎo)致一些評(píng)論家(例如卡森和內(nèi)皮爾，1997年)對(duì)公允價(jià)值這個(gè)定義的看法有片面性。布羅米奇(2007年)總結(jié)歸納了許多公允價(jià)值產(chǎn)生依據(jù)，得出的結(jié)論是公允價(jià)值的定義可以有很多角度。</p&

57、gt;<p>　　許多學(xué)者都支持運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量，他們認(rèn)為，使用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量可以極大地提高會(huì)計(jì)信息的透明化，如果運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值進(jìn)行計(jì)量，退休金儲(chǔ)蓄與北美銀行的赤字問(wèn)題可能早就被監(jiān)管部門發(fā)現(xiàn)了。但還是有一部分學(xué)者反對(duì)使用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量，他們認(rèn)為公允價(jià)值計(jì)量只會(huì)制造一個(gè)虛假的養(yǎng)老保險(xiǎn)基金的知名度，可能還會(huì)加快福利計(jì)劃流產(chǎn)。反對(duì)運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的學(xué)者主要還是考慮到市場(chǎng)存在一定缺陷，因?yàn)椴豢赡苊總€(gè)市場(chǎng)都是完全市場(chǎng)，要使現(xiàn)有的市場(chǎng)接近完

58、全市場(chǎng)，需要制定許多的法律規(guī)范使市場(chǎng)變得有序，需要投入許多監(jiān)管費(fèi)使市場(chǎng)變得穩(wěn)定，需要加快信息流通使市場(chǎng)資源流動(dòng)性變大。</p><p>　　勞克斯和勞斯(2009)認(rèn)為公允價(jià)值的辯論不應(yīng)兩極化。公允價(jià)值計(jì)量屬性的使用沒有直接引發(fā)金融危機(jī)，但是也不能說(shuō)完全沒有關(guān)系。此外，對(duì)公允價(jià)值爭(zhēng)論不會(huì)涉及到歷史成本計(jì)量的問(wèn)題上去。對(duì)合同和契約訂立的金額受市場(chǎng)價(jià)值波動(dòng)影響不大，但是公允價(jià)值受宏觀環(huán)境的調(diào)控影響很大，這就可以說(shuō)明公

59、允價(jià)值的計(jì)量屬性的政治性很強(qiáng)，尤其在金融危機(jī)中。</p><p>　　在金融危機(jī)中，公允價(jià)值牽涉到的主要問(wèn)題是:送達(dá)金融機(jī)構(gòu)報(bào)表上以公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的會(huì)計(jì)信息對(duì)相關(guān)決策者的影響。勞克斯和勞斯(2009)闡述的觀點(diǎn)主要是對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)目標(biāo)的意見不同。他們研究得出的主要觀點(diǎn)是運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量使會(huì)計(jì)信息更可靠。</p><p>　　明確使用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量動(dòng)機(jī)，對(duì)更好使用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量具有重要的意義，可以減少企業(yè)

60、的盈余管理(終審法院，2007年)。該法則對(duì)公允價(jià)值作的定義是:使賬面價(jià)值盡可能接近于市價(jià)。</p><p>　　《財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)，1980》一書上對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)可靠性是這樣認(rèn)為的:可靠性是會(huì)計(jì)信息的基本信息特征之一。認(rèn)為會(huì)計(jì)信息可靠性這種論斷，是從實(shí)際經(jīng)驗(yàn)中得出的，并不是從理論上推論出的。隨著社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展，會(huì)計(jì)信息可靠性可能不再是一個(gè)絕對(duì)數(shù)，而是一個(gè)合理的范圍。</p><p>　　提高會(huì)

61、計(jì)信息的可靠性，會(huì)計(jì)政策通過(guò)多次修訂來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)。其他相關(guān)的理論成果如:在20世紀(jì)80年代末，研究品牌學(xué)的學(xué)者提出品牌類比估價(jià)模型。會(huì)計(jì)事務(wù)所通過(guò)研究估值技術(shù)，積累相關(guān)實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)來(lái)提高估值水平。</p><p>　　上述學(xué)者研究的類比估價(jià)模型給我們的啟示是:我們可以利用估值知識(shí)來(lái)提高會(huì)計(jì)信息的可靠性，當(dāng)然提前條件還是要在完全市場(chǎng)下。會(huì)計(jì)事務(wù)所在對(duì)運(yùn)用公允價(jià)值計(jì)量的會(huì)計(jì)信息審計(jì)時(shí)，需要利用相關(guān)的模型對(duì)它進(jìn)行復(fù)核測(cè)試