Btoscle公允价值会计.doc

重庆理工大学毕业论文 金融危机后对公允价值黑洞问题的探究七夕，古今诗人惯咏星月与悲情。吾生虽晚，世态炎凉却已看透矣。情也成空，且作“挥手袖底风”罢。是夜，窗外风雨如晦，吾独坐陋室，听一曲尘缘，合成诗韵一首，觉放诸古今，亦独有风韵也。乃书于纸上。毕而卧。凄然入梦。乙酉年七月初七。-啸之记。 重 庆 理 工 大 学文 献 翻 译二级学院 会计学院 班 级 0665-1 学生姓名 张 璐 学 号 10606040238 译 文 要 求1、译文内容必须与课题（或专业）内容相关。2、外文翻译不少于1万印刷符；外文参考资料阅读量至少3篇（相当于10万印刷符以上）。3、译文原文（或复印件）应附在译文后备查。 译 文 评 阅导师评语（应根据学校“译文要求”，对学生外文翻译的准确性、翻译数量以及译文的文字表述情况等作具体的评价）指导教师： 年 月 日公允价值会计原文摘自由比斯的言论美国联邦储备理事会会员对信用协会投资组合经理大会上，11月18日， 2004。早上好。我很荣幸能够参加这次秋季会员大会报告。正如我同事在财务会计准则委员会（FASB）和国际会计准则委员会（IASB）(IASB)的同意，公允价值会计构成和许多的挑战，引发了重大的行业辩论公平价值会计题目已解散在美国倔强已逾10年。公允价值会计的支持者认为，公平价值是最相关的财政措施报告。然而，其他人认为，历史成本提供了更有益的措施，因为它更清楚的经济业务表现和公正的价值，因为估计不一定可靠或验证。 因此，哪一种会比较恰当？公允价值或历史成本？我想与大家分享的联邦储备的长期在这个问题上的立场。作为一位美国银行系统的管理者，我们要为确保金融机构采取健全会计政策和做法。我们继续支持提高透明度和加强经济信息的披露，旨在促进市场纪律并提供有用的信息决策者。我们还支持资产和公允价值会计在短期负债交易业务使用利润，如银行交易账户。而且我们支持增强的公允价值披露的信息的风险更广泛的描述部分风险和风险管理。但是，我们认为，会计行业应该是很谨慎地向更便于理解的公允价值概念切近，所有的金融资产负债记录在资产负债表内按公允价值和公允价值变动都记录在收入，无论实现与否。 财务会计准则委员会最近发表了一份关于提议标准公允价值计量，提供一般框架估价资产及负债前测量或按公允价值披露。1、1A在这当时，它不扩大公允价值的使用主要财务报表。我想在这里总结并与您分享美国联邦储备委员会的意见拟议标准，提供给在财务会计准则委员会的意见函的接触部分的过程。2、我们认为，作为一个良好的开端建议加强对计量在这方面的指导。不过，正如我现在所讨论的，大量重要的问题值得进一步审议，尤其在对.增加公允价值会计做出戏剧性的举动之前。但是在讨论这些具体问题之前让我必须强调一点：作为银行上司，美国联邦储备委员会认为，创新在继续改善我们的金融体系，改善风险管理是非常重要的。新的方法和金融工具允许银行组织改进其风险管理，通过选择的风险承担和目标水平脱落或限制不想要的位置。会计框架应提高透明度，围绕商业决策和为市民提供一个更好的风险管理的主题。公允价值计量问题值得进一步思考：可靠性和测量 假如市场是具有流动性的，以及所有资产和负债都具有透明度，公允价值会计显然会在决策过程依靠可靠有用的信息.然而，由于许多资产和负债没有一个活跃的市场，对估计公平价值的投入和方法比较主观，因此，估值不可靠。美国联邦储备工作人员研究显示，根据投入和估价方法使用，公允价值计量对银行贷款的估计可能相差很大。例如，公司债券及银团贷款市场内观察到较低评级的不同类别的利率已多达200至500个基点。这种广泛的范围发生在当债务人匹配时，高级债券和贷款的情况下。关于拟议的公允价值标准的财务会计准则委员会的声明表明，如果市场投入使用的估价则可靠性将大大增强但是，由于管理使用在选择市场投入的市场价格时，没有重大判断，可靠性将继续是一个问题。该提案确定了三个层次的估计，应以最低的第三级优先估计。这些估计数是没有根据活跃市场报价的相同或类似的资产或负债，而是盯模型的预测。该提案建议，如市场，收入的使用，多种途径和更换费用的办法，将改善这些估计的可靠性。然而，一些办法的可靠性多大影响，如果所有方法都在相同的基础资料为基础，因为往往是金融工具的情况。在我们作为一家银行的监管机构，我们注意到，在一些小的改动若干假设在一个定价模式可以有实质影响。一般来说，我们是满意的公允价值液体的贸易，金融机构在评估有重要的经验仪器测量过程。但是，我们认为，较低的资产和负债的流动性，可靠性是一个重要的问题。Fair Value AccountingAdapted from remarks by Susan Schmidt Bies,Member, Board of Governors of the Federal ReserveSystem, to the International Association of CreditPortfolio Managers General Meeting, November 18,2004.Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in your Fall General Meeting. As my colleagues at the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board(IASB) will agree, fair value accounting poses many challenges and has sparked significant industry debate.The subject of fair value accounting has been discussed in the United States for well over a decade. Advocates of fair value accounting believe that fair value is the most relevant measure for financial reporting. Others, however, believe that historical cost provides a more useful measure because it more clearly represents the economics of business performance and because fair value estimates may not be reliable or verifiable.So, which is more appropriatefair value or historical cost? Let me share with you the Federal Reserves long-standing position on this issue. As a supervisor of the U.S. banking system, we want to ensure that financial institutions follow sound accounting policies and practices. We continue to support improved transparency and enhanced financial disclosures, which promote market discipline and provide useful information to decision makers. We also support fair value accounting for assets and liabilities used in the business of short-term trading for profit, such as the trading account for banks. And we support enhanced disclosures of fair-value-based information as part of broader descriptions of risk exposures and risk management. However, we believe that the accounting industry should be very careful before moving toward a more comprehensive fair value approach, where all financial assets and liabilities are recorded on the balance sheet at fair value and changes in fair value are recorded in earnings, whether realized or not.The FASB recently issued a proposed standard on fair value measurements that provides a general framework for valuing assets and liabilities that are currently measured or disclosed at fair value. 1.At this time, it does not expand the use of fair values in the primary financial statements. I would like to summarize and share with you the Federal Reserves views on the proposed standard, which were provided to FASB in a comment letter as part of the exposure process.2.We see the proposal as a good first step toward enhancing measurement guidance in this area. However, as I will discuss in a moment, a number of important issues warrant further consideration, especially before dramatic moves are made toward increased fair value accounting.But before discussing these specific issues, allow me to emphasize one important point. As a bank supervisor, the Federal Reserve believes that innovations in risk management are very important to the continued improvement of our financial system. New methods and financial instruments allow banking organizations to improve their risk-management practices by selecting target levels of risk exposures and shedding or limiting unwanted positions. Accounting frameworks should improve transparency around business decisions and outcomes without providing a disincentive to better management of risk.FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT ISSUES THAT WARRANT FURTHER CONSIDERATIONReliability and MeasurementIf markets were liquid and transparent for all assets and liabilities, fair value accounting clearly would be reliable information useful in the decision making process. However, because many assets and liabilities do not have an active market, the inputs and methods for estimating their fair value are more subjective and, therefore, the valuations less reliable. Research by Federal Reserve staff shows that fair value estimates for bank loans can vary greatly, depending on the valuation inputs and methodology used. For example, observed market rates for corporate bonds and syndicated loans within lower rated categories have varied by as much as 200 to 500 basis points. Such wide ranges occur even in the case of senior bonds and loans when obligors are matched.The FASB statement on the proposed fair value standard suggests that reliability can be significantly enhanced if market inputs are used in valuation. However, because management uses significant judgment in selecting market inputs when market prices are not available, reliability will continue to be an issue.The proposal identifies three levels of estimates, with the lowest priority given to level-3 estimates. These estimates are not based on quoted prices in active markets for either identical or similar assets or liabilities, but rather on mark-to-model estimates. The proposal suggests