財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)外文翻譯—財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露阿爾巴尼亞和意大利公司的證據(jù)（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　字?jǐn)?shù)：英文4819單詞，2734字符；中文15451漢字</p><p>　　出處：Dicuonzo G, Fusco A, Dell’Atti V. Financial Risk Disclosure: Evidence From Albanian And Italian Companies[J]. KnE Social Sciences, 2017, 1(2): 182-196.<

2、/p><p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)：　</b></p><p>　　Financial Risk Disclosure: </p><p>　　Evidence from Albanian and Italian Companies</p><p>　　Abstract In recent years standard s

3、etters, regulators and professional bodies worldwide have shown an increased interest in risk reporting. This has reflected the fallacy of the financial reporting model to communicate a company’s risk profile, the recent

4、 scandals and the financial crisis. The European Union, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and other national standard setters have introduced specific requirements in order to impose companies to highli

5、ght the principal financ</p><p>　　Previous studies show large heterogeneity in risk reporting within individual countries and identify size as key determinant of risk disclosure. A few researches propose a c

6、ross-country investigation of risk reporting and to date there is a lack of evidence about companies operating in Southern Europe, especially in the Balkans.</p><p>　　The aim of this study is twofold. First,

7、 we fill this gap by analyzing risk reporting regulations in Albania and in Italy to examine the different requirements. Second, we examine risk information disclosed by a sample of 12 Albanian companies and 12 Italian c

8、ompanies within their annual reports, using content analysis. Due to small sample size we offer preliminary findings about financial risk disclosure. The results show that on average Albanian companies disclose less info

9、rmation on financial</p><p>　　Keywords: Financial risk disclosure, risk reporting, risk disclosure, content analysis, cross-country investigation</p><p>　　1. Introduction</p><p>　　I

10、n recent years risk reporting has received increasing attention by standard setters, regulators and professional bodies worldwide. Since 2007, listed companies must report the exposure, the objectives and the processes f

11、or managing financial risks (IFRS 7). Similarly, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has developed new guidelines to improve risk reporting. This interest reflects the fallacy of the financial reporting model to communic

12、ate company’s risk profile, the recent scandals and the 200</p><p>　　The objective of this study is to provide further empirical evidence about the financial risk reporting practices in Albania and in Italy

13、and key factors that influence risk disclosure decisions.</p><p>　　The extant literature focuses on: i) the level of compliance with ad hoc standard about market risk; ii) the impact of risk disclosure on de

14、cision making; iii) the determinants of mandatory financial risk reporting practices. A few of prior researches focused on cross-country investigation, but they are limited to U.S., Canadian, UK and German settings. This

15、 study contributes to fill the gaps by exploring the differences between Albanian and Italian financial risk reporting. This paper proceeds </p><p>　　2. Albanian and Italian Risk Disclosure Regulations</p

16、><p>　　The increased importance of risk information has led financial accounting bodies and national legislators to enhance and improve risk reporting requirements. In the last decade a gradual transition from

17、voluntary risk disclosure to mandatory risk disclosure has been observed, in response to request of investors and users of financial statements. This change concerned the majority of European countries even if it is adop

18、ted in different ways and times.</p><p>　　In this paragraph we examine the regulatory developments about risk reporting in Albania and in Italy. To understand the differences on mandatory risk disclosure we

19、offer a preliminary brief overview about the two accounting systems.</p><p><b>　　Albania</b></p><p>　　The first step of Albania for the development of an accounting framework right a

20、fter the starting of the transition period is represented by the issue of Law No. 7661 “On accounting”, entered into force the 1st January 1993. This law establishes the rules, the principles and the procedures to draw u

21、p the Financial Statement of all companies in Albania.</p><p>　　The financial report recommended by Law No. 7661 consists in Balance Sheet, Comprehensive Income Statement and Summary Notes and all of them mu

22、st be considered and drafted as a unique and inseparable element. At the beginning no specific format was required but only a minimum of elements of financial report indicated by the law. Even if the law provided for a c

23、hart of accounts, the Minister of Finance enabled operators to use the Annual Fiscal format report.</p><p>　　It can be stated that the introduction of this first accounting law was forced by the opening to t

24、he market economy and the starting of the first private entrepreneurship and it was still influenced by the old accounting practices.</p><p>　　The framework produced few transparency and it was inconsistent

25、with Albanian Company Law. In order to enhance foreign investment and to respond to European Union struggles to increase the accounting harmonization, Albanian government issued Law No. 9228 “on Accounting” in 2004, whic

26、h is still into force. </p><p>　　The Law of 2004 also identifies the National Council of Accounting (NCA) as an independent public professional body with legal entity, which is first of all required to devel

27、op national accounting standards.</p><p>　　The main impact on Albanian accounting framework is the introduction and approval of National Accounting Standards (NAS, or SKK in Albanian language) by the NCA. Th

28、ey were written taking IAS/IFRS as example and result compliant with them. They entered into force in 2008 and the first financial reports written consistently with the new standards have been issued in 2009.</p>

29、<p>　　Even if the introduction of Standards compliant with IAS/IFRS improved Albanian accounting practices, Albanian financial reports are still considered to be on a poor quality level. The only sector which issues

30、 a higher level of reports is the Banking sector: the reason is the affiliation of Albanian banks to European groups which force to adopt a standard accounting practice. Moreover, the affiliation to foreign groups produc

31、es the import of higher qualified staff than average Albanian accountan</p><p>　　Regarding risk disclosure, the only requirements by NAS are included in Standard No. 3, which in paragraph 37 states that enti

32、ties must indicate policies used in evaluating financial instruments and other information regarding financial instruments in order to improve financial statement’s comprehension. Paragraph 39, in the end, requires that

33、entities must disclose all the information which enables users to evaluate financial instrument in place relevance and their characteristics.</p><p>　　Albanian framework doesn’t require more disclosure for f

34、inancial risk and the Authority did not prepare any best practice regarding this particular aspect of accounting.</p><p><b>　　Italy</b></p><p>　　In Italy we can identify three stages

35、 that have characterized the regulatory changes in risk reporting. Before 2005 disclosure was fundamentally voluntary because firm had discretion to choose which information regarding risks had to be communicated. It was

36、 generically required to describe the trend of the management, which could consist also in a risk disclosure. A study run in the period 2000-2003 shows high variability in risk disclosure policies, in respect of industry

37、 and firm size. The mai</p><p>　　The second stage (2005-2007) shows an increase in financial risk mandatory disclosure requirements.</p><p>　　Through Legislative Decree 394/2003 the Italian syst

38、em adopted Directive 2001/65/EC regarding fair value of financial instrument evaluation.</p><p>　　In order to illustrate the new requirements, Italian standard setter (Organismo Italiano di Contabilità,

39、 OIC) issued Standard No. 3 “Information about financial instruments to be disclosed in Supplementary Notes and Management Report” in March 2006. Through this document, the standard setter clarifies fair value evaluation

40、 and gives exemplifications regarding derivatives’ evaluation. OIC 3, like IFRS 7, divides risk into the following categories: market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk and othe</p><p>　　From the above, it is

41、 evident that in the period taken into consideration financial risk disclosure became mandatory while non-financial risk disclosure remained voluntary.</p><p>　　The third stage started in 2007 with the amend

42、ment of article 2428 Civil Code by the Legislative Decree 32/2007. This Decree has been adopted as mandatory content of Directive 2003/51/EC, also known as “Accounts Modernization Directive”. The new regulations state th

43、at Management Report must present “an accurate, balanced and exhausting analysis of the firm’s financial situation and management trends and results” (…) “and also a description of main risks and uncertainties to which t

44、he firm is exp</p><p>　　3. Literature Review</p><p>　　The growth of the risk disclosure’s demand from the financial market represents an incentive for academics and practitioners’ associations t

45、o investigate risk reporting. Starting from the nineties, the literature examined the need of information to improve risk disclosure quality. It has been revealed that through the analysis of firm risk communication’s be

46、st practices it is possible to assess the relevance of this kind of corporate disclosure.</p><p>　　Literature contribution consists in the analysis of risk factors communicated by the companies. The present

47、work pays attention to the empirical researches which showed the risk disclosure’s policies and the limits of annual report disclosure in the absence of a common legal framework. In order to evaluate informative contents

48、 of risk disclosure, some Authors observed the nature (qualitative or quantitative), the dimension (financial or non-financial), the time frame (past, present or prospectiv</p><p>　　In conclusion, the result

49、s of the different works made at international level show that risk disclosure practices are still inadequate. Most of the information disclosed is qualitative and generic and it turns to be un-useful for financial state

50、ments users, who prefer information regarding future events’ impact on the firm’s economy instead of what happened in the past. Some surveys made on investors and analysts sample show a limited appreciation about the ris

51、k reporting practices, so the impro</p><p>　　Given the regulatory background and the gaps in empirical previous studies on financial risk disclosure in Southern Europe, our paper aims at providing a prelimin

52、ary analysis on risk reporting practices in Albania and in Italy. Our expectations are that Italian companies disclose more information about financial risk than Albanian companies.</p><p>　　4. Research Desi

53、gn</p><p>　　4.1. Sample Selection</p><p>　　To conduct our research, we analyse annual financial reports of Albanian companies and we compare them with Italian companies’ financial reports. Becau

54、se of the lack of an organic list of entities operating in Albania and the difficulties to find financial statements useful for our research, we use a small size sample, constructed as following.</p><p>　　In

55、 the beginning, the sample consisted in 70 Albanian entities, selected among affiliated to Italian-Albanian Chamber of Commerce. Their financial reports have been collected from the National Registration Centre, in which

56、 the entities are obliged to deposit, among other documents, their annual reports. From the initial 70 entities sample, we excluded: i) 19 associations or tax and legal services; ii) 12 companies with 2014 financial repo

57、rts missing; iii) 2 financial companies and other 2 IAS/IF</p><p>　　After the selection of Albanian companies, a symmetrical sample of Italian companies using national accounting standards (OIC) has been con

58、structed. We chose Italian firms considering the same industry and the similar size of the companies from Albania.</p><p>　　The final sample is composed of 12 Albanian firms using NAS and 12 Italian firms us

59、ing OIC.</p><p>　　4.2. Method of analysis</p><p>　　To examine and classify financial risks disclosure within the Albanian and Italian annual reports we use content analysis. This approach has be

60、en widely adopted in previous studies on narrative disclosure. Content analysis is defined as “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of th

61、eir use”. According to the extant literature, a single coder performed the content analysis to ensure reliability. Financial risk informa</p><p>　　1.financial risk management;</p><p>　　2.credit

62、risk;</p><p>　　3.liquidity risk;</p><p>　　4.price risk;</p><p>　　5.interest rate risk;</p><p>　　6.currency risk;</p><p>　　7.other financial risk (as a resi

63、dual category).</p><p>　　This analysis captures three attributes of each sentence:</p><p>　　1.time orientation: past, present or no-time specific, forward-looking;</p><p>　　2.type:

64、quantitative, qualitative;</p><p>　　3.nature: good news, bad news, neutral news.</p><p>　　5. Findings and Discussion</p><p>　　In this section we examine how Albanian and Italian com

65、panies disclose relevant information about their financial risk exposure. A total of 44 sentences were identified within the Albanian sample, whereas we found a total of 124 sentences within the Italian sample. As shown

66、in table 6, Albanian companies disclose on average 4 sentences about financial risk, while Italian companies disclose 10 sentences. This evidence con-firms our expectations about the predominance of financial risk disclo

67、sure </p><p>　　As regards risk categories, we can observe that Albanian firms disclose mostly other financial risk (75%). Examining their annual reports, we find that these risks arise mainly from tax regula

68、tion or litigation problems, factors that can affect negatively the financial position. Information about financial risk management (5%), credit risk (2%), liquidity risk (2%) and currency risk (5%) appears less importan

69、t for Albanian firms. Some information is provided to users of financial statements rega</p><p>　　Italian companies disclose mainly information about credit risk (32%) and liquidity risk (21%), in line with

70、users’ expectations, as revealed by a survey (CFA Institute, 2011). The other risk categoriesare disclosed on average from 10% (price risk) to 13% (interest rate risk).</p><p>　　One possible explanation for

71、these differences is probably linked to the regulatory environment and accounting standards. Italy has a more pervasive legislation about financial risk disclosure, similar to IFRS 7, than Albania.</p><p>　　

72、6. Conclusions</p><p>　　This paper is a first financial risk disclosure study that compares two Southern Europe countries. Based on a content analysis of annual reports of a matched-sample of 24 firms from A

73、lbania and Italy, we provide evidence on the individual-country and the cross-country levels.</p><p>　　We find a prevalence of present (or no-time specific) and of qualitative risk disclosure. Forward-lookin

74、g information is missing in Italian reports, while Albanian firms provide some details on the future, especially about the possible impact of tax regulation. Descriptive cross-country statistics suggest heterogeneity in

75、risk disclosure quantity. Italian firms provide more risk disclosure than Albanian firms. This finding is consistent with more strict regulation imposed by Legislative Decree 3</p><p>　　Our study is subject

76、to limitations. Firstly, we examine a limited sample size of Albanian and Italian companies due to a difficulty to find published Albanian annual reports. Secondly, we analyse only the quantity of disclosure and we do no

77、t provide evidence on the quality of disclosure.</p><p><b>　　中文譯文：</b></p><p>　　財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露：阿爾巴尼亞和意大利公司的證據(jù)</p><p>　　摘要 近年來，全球標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定者、監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)和專業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)對風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告的興趣日益增強(qiáng)。這反映了財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告模式對傳達(dá)公司風(fēng)險(xiǎn)狀況、

78、最近的丑聞和金融危機(jī)的失誤。歐盟、國際會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會（IASB）和其他國家標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定者已經(jīng)提出了具體要求，以強(qiáng)制公司突出他們面臨的主要財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和不確定性因素。其理念是，通過更好地了解公司的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)暴露和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理實(shí)踐，高質(zhì)量的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露有助于投資者和其他市場參與者參與決策過程。</p><p>　　以往的研究表明，單個國家的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告具有很大的異質(zhì)性，確定規(guī)模是風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露的關(guān)鍵決定因素。一些研究提出了對風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告的跨國調(diào)查，到目

79、前為止，在南歐，特別是在巴爾干地區(qū)開展業(yè)務(wù)的公司缺乏證據(jù)。</p><p>　　這項(xiàng)研究的目的是雙重的。首先，我們通過分析阿爾巴尼亞和意大利的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告規(guī)定來填補(bǔ)這一空白，以審查不同的要求。其次，我們使用內(nèi)容分析法，對12家阿爾巴尼亞公司和12家意大利公司在其年度報(bào)告中所披露的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)信息進(jìn)行分析。由于樣本量小，我們提供了有關(guān)財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露的初步調(diào)查結(jié)果。結(jié)果表明，平均而言，阿爾巴尼亞公司披露的財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)信息比意大利公司要

80、少。對于這一證據(jù)，可以給出不同的解釋：一）在阿爾巴尼亞，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露條例的規(guī)定不太嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)，因?yàn)樗鼉H限于向投資者通報(bào)金融工具的相關(guān)性和貸款的條款和條件；二）與意大利公司相比，阿爾巴尼亞公司披露風(fēng)險(xiǎn)信息的動機(jī)較少。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露，內(nèi)容分析，跨國調(diào)查</p><p><b>　　1.引言</b></p><p&g

81、t;　　近年來，全球標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定者、監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)和專業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)越來越重視風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告。自2007年以來，上市公司必須報(bào)告財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)敞口、目標(biāo)和流程（IFRS 7）。同樣，金融穩(wěn)定委員會（FSB）制定了新的準(zhǔn)則方針來改進(jìn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告。這種關(guān)注反映了財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告模式對傳達(dá)公司風(fēng)險(xiǎn)狀況、最近的丑聞和2007-2009年金融危機(jī)的失誤。</p><p>　　本研究的目的是，就阿爾巴尼亞和意大利的財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告實(shí)踐以及影響風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露決策的關(guān)鍵

82、因素，提供進(jìn)一步的實(shí)證證據(jù)。</p><p>　　現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)集中在：一）遵守市場風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的特設(shè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的程度；二）風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露對決策的影響；三）強(qiáng)制性財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告實(shí)踐的決定因素。以前的一些研究集中在跨國調(diào)查上，但僅限于美國、加拿大、英國和德國。本研究通過探索阿爾巴尼亞和意大利財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告之間的差異，來填補(bǔ)這一空白。本文的研究進(jìn)展如下。第2節(jié)繼續(xù)描述風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露規(guī)則。第3節(jié)綜述了相關(guān)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告實(shí)踐。第4節(jié)提供了研究設(shè)計(jì)的細(xì)節(jié)。第5節(jié)

83、描述了主要發(fā)現(xiàn)，第6節(jié)詳細(xì)說明了結(jié)論。</p><p>　　2.阿爾巴尼亞和意大利的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露規(guī)則</p><p>　　風(fēng)險(xiǎn)信息的重要性日益增強(qiáng)，導(dǎo)致財(cái)務(wù)會計(jì)機(jī)構(gòu)和國家立法者提高和改進(jìn)了對風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告要求。在過去十年中，根據(jù)投資者和財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表使用者的要求，已經(jīng)逐步從自愿性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露過渡到了強(qiáng)制性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露。這種變化涉及到大多數(shù)歐洲國家，盡管其實(shí)施的方式和時間各有不同。</p><p

84、>　　在本節(jié)中，我們審查了阿爾巴尼亞和意大利的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告監(jiān)管的發(fā)展情況。為了理解強(qiáng)制性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露的差異，我們對這兩個國家的會計(jì)規(guī)定作了初步的概述。</p><p><b>　　阿爾巴尼亞</b></p><p>　　在過渡期開始之后，阿爾巴尼亞建立了會計(jì)體系的第一步，以《會計(jì)法》第7661號法案為代表，1993年1月1日生效。該法制定了阿爾巴尼亞所有公司財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表的制

85、定規(guī)則、原則和程序。</p><p>　　第7661號法案建議的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告包括資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表、全面收益表和簡要說明，所有這些都必須作為一個獨(dú)特的、不可分割的要素加以考慮和起草。一開始，不需要特定的格式，只需要法律規(guī)定的最低限度的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告要素。即使法律規(guī)定了會計(jì)科目表，財(cái)務(wù)部長也允許運(yùn)營商使用年度財(cái)政格式報(bào)告。</p><p>　　可以說，這第一個會計(jì)法的引入是由于市場經(jīng)濟(jì)的開放和首批私營企業(yè)創(chuàng)業(yè)

86、的要求，它仍然受到舊會計(jì)實(shí)務(wù)的影響。</p><p>　　該體系缺乏透明度，與阿爾巴尼亞公司法不一致。為了加強(qiáng)外商投資，并對歐盟努力提高會計(jì)協(xié)調(diào)，阿爾巴尼亞政府在2004年頒布了第9228號會計(jì)法，至今仍在生效。</p><p>　　2004年的法案還將國家委員會（NCA）確定為一個具有法人資格的獨(dú)立公共專業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)，這是制定國家會計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的首要要求。</p><p>　

87、　對阿爾巴尼亞會計(jì)體系的主要影響是由NCA引進(jìn)和批準(zhǔn)了國家會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則（NAS或阿爾巴尼亞語的SKK）。他們以IAS/IFRS為例，結(jié)果與之相符。它們于2008年生效，并于2009年發(fā)布了符合新標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的首份財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告。</p><p>　　即使采用符合IAS/IFRS的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來改進(jìn)阿爾巴尼亞的會計(jì)慣例，但阿爾巴尼亞的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告仍然被認(rèn)為質(zhì)量差。只有銀行部門才能發(fā)布更高級別的報(bào)告：原因是阿爾巴尼亞銀行加入了歐盟集團(tuán)，迫使它們采

88、用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)會計(jì)實(shí)踐。此外，由于長期的會計(jì)傳統(tǒng)，與外國集團(tuán)的關(guān)系產(chǎn)生了高素質(zhì)員工的引進(jìn)，而非一般的阿爾巴尼亞會計(jì)師。與此同時，阿爾巴尼亞銀行在提高會計(jì)水平方面開展了重要工作。其他部門的公司質(zhì)量低下，主要是由于缺乏第三方的信息要求、管理局沒有要求“最佳實(shí)踐”以及缺乏有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的行政人員。鑒于財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告質(zhì)量的低劣，銀行并不認(rèn)為年度報(bào)告對調(diào)查貸款申請人的財(cái)務(wù)狀況非常重要。</p><p>　　關(guān)于風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露，NAS的唯一要求包括在第

89、3號標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中，其中第37段規(guī)定，實(shí)體必須說明用于評估金融工具和其他有關(guān)金融工具的信息的政策，以提高財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表的理解能力。最后第39款要求實(shí)體必須披露所有信息讓使用者能夠評估金融工具的相關(guān)性及其特點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　阿爾巴尼亞的會計(jì)體系不要求較多的財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露，管理當(dāng)局也沒有就財(cái)務(wù)這一特定方面編制任何最佳實(shí)踐。</p><p><b>　　意大利</b></p&

90、gt;<p>　　在意大利，我們可以看出風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告中監(jiān)管變化的三個階段。2005年之前的披露基本上是自愿的，因?yàn)楣居袡?quán)選擇哪些關(guān)于風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的信息必須必須被傳達(dá)的。通常需要描述管理的趨勢，這也可能包括風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露。2000-2003年期間的一項(xiàng)研究表明，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露政策在行業(yè)和企業(yè)規(guī)模方面存在很大差異。主要因素是沒有關(guān)于風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露的規(guī)定。</p><p>　　第二階段（2005-2007）顯示了對財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)強(qiáng)制性披露

91、的要求有所增加。</p><p>　　通過第394/2003號法令，意大利系統(tǒng)通過了歐共體關(guān)于金融工具評估公允價(jià)值的第2001/65號指令。</p><p>　　為了說明新的要求，意大利標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定者（意大利會計(jì)機(jī)構(gòu)，OIC）于2006年3月發(fā)布了3號標(biāo)準(zhǔn)“關(guān)于補(bǔ)充票據(jù)和管理報(bào)告中披露的金融工具的信息”。通過這份文件，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定者澄清公允價(jià)值評估，并給出衍生品評估的范例。OIC 3與IFRS 7

92、一樣，將風(fēng)險(xiǎn)劃分為以下幾類：市場風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、流動性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和其他價(jià)格風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。</p><p>　　從上述可見，在考慮到財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露的時期，財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露是強(qiáng)制性的，而非金融風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露仍然是自愿的。</p><p>　　第三階段于2007年開始，第32/2007號立法令修正了“民法典”第2428條。該法令已被通過為2003/51號法令歐共體的強(qiáng)制性內(nèi)容，也稱為“帳戶現(xiàn)代化指令”。新條例規(guī)定，管理報(bào)

93、告必須對企業(yè)的財(cái)務(wù)狀況、管理趨勢和結(jié)果進(jìn)行準(zhǔn)確、均衡和詳盡的分析，并對企業(yè)面臨的主要風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和不確定性進(jìn)行描述。還規(guī)定，這一分析必須“與實(shí)體和企業(yè)業(yè)務(wù)復(fù)雜性相一致”，并包括 “以了解公司的財(cái)務(wù)狀況、趨勢和結(jié)果的必要的財(cái)務(wù)指標(biāo)，并在必要時，與具體業(yè)務(wù)、人力資源和環(huán)境有關(guān)的非財(cái)務(wù)指標(biāo)”。因此，現(xiàn)在的法律體系不僅包括財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的強(qiáng)制性披露，而且還包括可能影響公司的所有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)類別的可靠系統(tǒng)。</p><p><b>　

94、　3.文獻(xiàn)綜述</b></p><p>　　金融市場風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露需求的增長，是學(xué)術(shù)界和從業(yè)者協(xié)會對風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告進(jìn)行調(diào)查的動機(jī)。從九十年代開始，文獻(xiàn)研究了信息披露對提高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露質(zhì)量的必要性。據(jù)透露，通過分析公司傳達(dá)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的最佳實(shí)踐，可以評估這類公司披露的相關(guān)性。</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)的貢獻(xiàn)包括分析公司所傳達(dá)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)因素。目前研究關(guān)注的是，在缺乏共同法律體系的情況下，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露政策和年度報(bào)告

95、披露的局限性的實(shí)證研究。為了評估風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露的信息內(nèi)容，一些作者觀察到發(fā)布并傳遞給市場的每一項(xiàng)信息的性質(zhì)（定性或定量）、維度（財(cái)務(wù)或非財(cái)務(wù)）、時間范圍（過去、目前或未來）和影響（正或負(fù)）。這種分析允許評估現(xiàn)有的報(bào)告模式和公司披露的信息的可變性。目前，許多文獻(xiàn)都在調(diào)查一般的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露實(shí)踐，而一些研究則調(diào)查財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露或特定類別的財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。</p><p>　　總而言之，國際上不同的文獻(xiàn)結(jié)果表明，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露實(shí)踐仍然不足。披露

96、的大部分信息都是定性和通用的，對財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表使用者來說是不起作用的，他們更喜歡未來事件對公司經(jīng)濟(jì)的影響，而不是過去發(fā)生的事情。對投資者和分析師進(jìn)行的一些調(diào)查顯示，對風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告實(shí)踐的認(rèn)識具有局限性，因此風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露模式的改進(jìn)是必要的(CFA協(xié)會)。</p><p>　　鑒于監(jiān)管背景以及南歐財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)披露以往實(shí)證研究的空白，本文旨在對阿爾巴尼亞和意大利的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)報(bào)告實(shí)踐進(jìn)行初步分析。我們的預(yù)期是，與阿爾巴尼亞公司相比，意大利公司披露

97、了更多財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)信息。</p><p><b>　　4.研究設(shè)計(jì)</b></p><p><b>　　4.1.樣品選擇</b></p><p>　　為了進(jìn)行研究，我們分析了阿爾巴尼亞公司的年度財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告，并將其與意大利公司的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告進(jìn)行了比較。由于缺乏在阿爾巴尼亞運(yùn)作的實(shí)體名單和難以找到對我們研究有用的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表，我們使用一個小

98、型樣本，構(gòu)建如下。</p><p>　　起初，樣本包括70個阿爾巴尼亞實(shí)體，選自隸屬于意大利-阿爾巴尼亞商會。他們的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告是從國家注冊中心收集的，各實(shí)體必須在其他文件中存放其年度報(bào)告。從最初的70個實(shí)體樣本，我們排除了：一）19家協(xié)會或稅務(wù)和法律服務(wù)；二）12家公司缺少2014份財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告；三）2家金融公司和2家IAS/IFRS的采用者；四）有23家公司缺少敘述性信息。因此，阿爾巴尼亞公司的樣本包括12家使用NA

99、S的非財(cái)務(wù)公司（阿爾巴尼亞語的SKK）。</p><p>　　在選定阿爾巴尼亞公司后，建立了一個使用國家會計(jì)準(zhǔn)則（OIC）的意大利公司的對稱樣本。我們選擇了與阿爾巴尼亞公司同一行業(yè)和類似規(guī)模的意大利公司。</p><p>　　最終樣本由12家使用NAS的阿爾巴尼亞公司和12家使用OIC的意大利公司組成。</p><p><b>　　4.2.分析方法<