《未来公允价值的变化【外文翻译】（可编辑） .doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《未来公允价值的变化【外文翻译】（可编辑） .doc（16页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、未来公允价值的变化-【外文翻译】 外文文献翻译原文:Fair Value Changes Ahead The use of fair value in financial reporting is not new; it is required 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
2、 crisis, there has been considerable discussion 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, the International Accounting Standards Board IASB,
3、 but also securities participants in the global capital markets. Responses to the financial crisis have focused on fair value accounting and have led to changes in the standards that will affect financial reporting going forward.The Fair Value Debate At the center of the fair value debate is SFAS 15
4、7, Fair Value Measurements, which went into effect for financial assets and liabilities in 2008. SFAS 157 clarifies 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 n
5、ot specify when to use fair value. SFAS 157 and its current market price objective only apply when other standards require or permit the use of fair value. The reporting model in the United States and abroad is a mixed-attribute model that uses a combination of measurements, including historical cos
6、t, 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 are now required when accounting for a business combination under SFAS 141 R, Business Combinations. In addition, companies have the option to volunt
7、arily use fair value for certain financial items for which fair value is not otherwise required in specified circumstances under SFAS 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. Nevertheless, fair value is still used most frequently for financial assets. But fair value
8、 is not alwaysused on an ongoing basis mark-to-market; it often is used only when a financial asset is impaired. In todays distressed markets, many of the financial assets that trade in those markets e.g., mortgage-related securities are impaired. The requirement to record impairment losses based on
9、 fair values that represent current market prices has raised concerns about when to use fair value in financial reporting. 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 t
10、he absence of observable market data to support the fair values. Some, including banking institutions subject to regulatory capital requirements, claim that fair value accounting has led to pro-cyclical behavior by forcing impairment write-downs to amounts that do not reflect the true economic value
11、s 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 be suspended or modified. For example, in a public SEC roundtable on mark-to-market accounting on October 29,2008, William M. Isaac, chairman o
12、f the Secura Group of LECG and former FDIC chairman, stated: When there are temporary impairments of asset values due to economic and marketplace turmoil, regulators must give institutions an opportunity to survive the temporary impairment. Permanent impairment should be recognized, but assets shoul
13、d not be marked to unrealistic fire-sale prices. Regulators must evaluate the assets on the basis of their true economic value over a reasonable time horizonIt is the use of MTM accounting, when markets are not functioning properly, that has produced terribly misleading accounting and disclosures th
14、at value assets well below their true economic valueI believe it is extremely important that bank regulation be counter-cyclical, not pro-cyclicalIt is not sound public policy to cause banks to hesitate in the creation of reserves during good times when they can best afford the hit to earnings. Othe
15、rs, however, including many investors, say that the information conveyed through fair value accounting is useful for decision making and enhances thetransparency of financial information, which is critical in times of stress. They say that fair value accounting has exposed the deteriorating financia
16、l 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 opposing the suspension of mark-to-market accounting issued on October 1, 2008, the Center for Audit
17、Quality, the Council of Institutional Investors, and the CFA Institute stated: Suspending fair value accounting during these challenging economic times would deprive investors of critical financial information when it is needed most. Fair value accounting with robust disclosures provides more accura
18、te, timely,and comparable information to investors than amounts that would have been reported under other alternative approaches. Investors have a right to know the current value of an investment, even if the investment is falling short of the past or future expectations. The Emergency Economic Stab
19、ilization Act of 2008 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 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: Study on M
20、ark-to-Market Accounting. Based on its study, the SEC concluded that fair value accounting provides decision-useful information to investors and did not play a meaningful role in recent bank failures. The SEC recommended that fair value accounting be improved, not suspended. Tn its report, the SEC e
21、mphasized that having standards in place that meet the needs of investors is critical, noting that the objective of financial reporting is to provide relevant, transparent, and unbiased financial information to investors and the capital markets in order to facilitate informed investment decisions.Fa
22、ir Value Changes for 2009 Reporting At this point, the key principles outlined in SFAS 157 are in effect for 2009 reporting. Recently issued fair value guidance claritles-but does not change-those principles. These recent clarifications emphasize the need for judgments that could change how some are
23、 applying those principles in the current environment, and requires more fair value disclosures. 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 asset or liability at
24、the measurement date i.e.,the exit price. The clarifying guidance affirms the fair value objective in SFAS 157. This means that fair value is a current market price the price that would be received or paid today under current market conditions, not a future market price what might be received or pai
25、d at some future date under different market conditions. Because fair value is a market-based measurement, the current market price is determined based on the assumptions that market participants would use when determining fair value. Input hierarchy. The fair value hierarchy in SFAS 157 prioritizes
26、 the use of observable market prices, while allowing for the use of other inputs that would be considered by market participants when making decisions. The clarifying guidance affirms the fair value hierarchy approach in SFAS 157 but emphasizes that market prices should not be the sole basis for a f
27、air value measurement unless they can be observed in an active market for identical items and result from orderly 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
28、remains the same. 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 emphasizes that determining whether the market for an item is or continues to be ac
29、tive requires judgment, considering the volume and level of activity for the item in comparison to normal levels. Orderly 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 se
30、ller has had sufficient time to market the asset and undertake marketing activities that are usual and customary for transactions involving similar items. The clarifying guidance emphasizes that determining whether a transaction is orderly or disorderly i.e., a distressed sale or forced transaction
31、where the seller is compelled to transact requires judgment and the consideration of factors specific tothe transaction, not the market. For example, a disorderly transaction might be indicated if the seller is in or near bankruptcy or receivership, if the seller was forcedto sell to meet regulatory
32、 requirements, or if the seller 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 to automatically conclude that all market activity
33、 represents disorderly transactions. Conversely, it is not appropriate to automatically conclude that all market activity represents orderly transactions representative of fair value. Adjustments. SFAS 157 indicates that market prices that are not Level 1 inputs must be evaluated for adjustment. The
34、 clarifying guidance emphasizes that market prices that are not Level I inputs 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 it
35、ems, that can be observed in markets that are not active for identical or similar items, and that result from disorderly transactions Level 2 inputs. When those are used to determine fair value, they must be evaluated for adjustment and considered together with the results of valuation techniques us
36、ing other available inputs. When there are different indications of fair value, determining the point within the range that is most representative of fair value-the price at which market participants would transact under current market conditions-requires judgment, especially a consideration of the
37、extent to which the inputs used in the valuation techniques are relevant in the circumstances.Most Progress Needed The Obama administration has proposed financial regulatory reforms that call on standards setters to make substantial progress on improvements to financial reporting in key areas highli
38、ghted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation,” calls for improvements in the areas of fair value accounting, accounting for financial instruments, and loan loss provisioning see also “Report of the Financial Stability Forum on Addressing Pro-cyclicalit
39、y in theFinancial System,April 2009. It also calls for progress on the development of asingle set of high-quality global standards. The Financial Crisis Advisory Group FCAG, a group formed by FASB and the IASB to advise on the standards-setting implications of the financial crisis and potential chan
40、ges to the global regulatory environment, highlighted the need for similar improvements in its July 28, 2009, report to FASB and the IASB.Fair Value Challenges Notwithstanding the many clarifications provided by standards setters, determining fair value in the current environment will continue to be
41、 challenging. The 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 work and analysis requiring informed judgments. Given calls from th
42、e public and investors to increase transparency, there have also been many fair value and other “disclosure solutions,” and more are yet to come. 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 p
43、roposed IFRS guidance on fair 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 in U.S. GAAP and IFRS today, and the need for improv
44、ements going forward, a converged solution that produces the same fair value standard for U.S. GAAP and IFRS should be preferable to two similar-but different- fair value standards.Source: MacDonald, Linda A. Fair Value Changes Ahead. CPA Journal. Vo 180 Issue I.Jan 2010: 24-27译文:未来公允价值的变化公允价值在财务报告中
45、的使用并不是新想法,它在许多标准中是要求或存许 可被使用的,其中-作已经实施了长达数十年之久。然而,由于金融危机使它的 角色陷入资产减值和市场波动中,目前已经育相当多的关于公允价值在财务报ft 中使用的讨论和争论。随着金融危机的扩人,对公允价值的争论Q经发展成为 个全球性的问题,其中不仅涉及FASB 美W财务会计准则委员会)以及W际同 行W际会计准则委员会(IASB,而且也包括仝球资本市场中的证券参与片。对 金融危机的反应主要集中在公允价值会计上,并旦导致了影响财务报告向前发展 的标准的变化。对公允价值的争论 公允价值争论的核心是2008年为影响金融资产和负债而生效的SFAS财务 会计准则公冉
46、)第157 公允价值计量。SFAS第157兮明确表示,当公允价 值用于财务报告时,其计量应该代表现行的市场价格。它建立了确定公允价值的 框架,但是它没有指出何时使用公允价值。SFAS第157兮和现行市场价格的目 标只适用于其他标准需要或允许使用公允价值的情况。 在美国(和国外)的报告模型是一种混合属性模型,其中包括历史成本、 公允价值和其他计价*础,如低成木或公允价值。近儿年来公允价值的应用已经 在不断扩人。例如,现在更多的公允价值会计要求为SFAS 141 R企业合并项 目下的企业合并作解释。此外,公司有选择权自愿使用公允价值作为特定的金融 项目,诉则公允价值就会被SFAS第159兮中特定的
47、情况所要求,作为金融资产 和金融负债的公允价值选杼虽然如此,公允价值还是在财务报告中使用的域频 繁的。但是,公允价值并非总是以持续的方式被使用(以市值计价);只有当一 个金融资产被削弱时,它才?常被使用。在现在的低价市场,许多金融资产在这 ?市场贸秘(如与抵押贷款相关的证券)中被削弱了。 记录于公允价值扣除减值损失的要求,表现出当前市场上的价格己经开 始关注何时该在财务报告中使用公允价值。关ft的焦点主要集中在相叉性和可靠 性的长久问题上,连Inf不稳定性造成的在汴收益中报告公允价值方面的改变,尤其是缺乏观察得出的市场数据所支持的公允价值丨二。 ?些金融机构,包括受监管的资金需求*,宣称公允价
48、值会计已经导致迫使 减值金额不反映真实经济价值资产的循环行为。他们说减值己经引起-?个己经恶 化的金融危机的恶性循环,而II.公允价值会计应该被中止或修正。例如2008年 10月29 FI,在以市值计价的美W证券交铋委w会的公众圆桌会议上,William M. Isaac, LECG安全组主席和前FDIC 联邦存款保险公司)上席陈述到:当存 在由于经济和市场混乱导致的资产价值暂时的资本损失时,调整各必须给机构遭 受暂时的资木减损幸存的机会我们庖该认识到永久性损密,但是资产不应该 被设置为不切实际的物品拍卖价格。调整芥必须根据他们的真实经济价值在适当 的时间段评估资产当市场没有适当的运作?,就会
49、产生严误导会计和披露R 远低于他们的真实经济价值的资产价值,这就是MTM动量指标)会计的使用 我相信极为重要的是,银行管理控制是反循环的,而不是助长周期性循环的在 他们能更好地承担盈余负担时,这听起米Jf?不像是由于稳同的公共政策导致银行 在创造准备金好时期的停滞。 然而,包括其他许多的投资者说,在紧张时刻最关键的是透过公允价值会计 被传达的数据有利T?决策和增加财务信总透明度。他们说公允价值会计暴露出许 多金融机构恶化的财务状况,而n.暂停公允价值会计会使资本市场中的投资存信 心变弱同时增加不安定的因素。例如,在2008年10月1 II ?份反对暂停按市值 计价的会计联合声明中,审计质量中心、法人投资各委员会中心和CFA 注册 金融分析师)机构陈述到:当它人部分是不可或缺的时候,在这动荡的经济时 代暂停公允价值会计将会剥夺投资茗的要财务信息?公允价值会计与稳健披露 会提供相比于在其他荇代选择方法之下的报告数量更正确、及时和相关的数据给 投资
