完全公允价值会计时代的到来.doc

本科毕业论文（设计）外 文 翻 译外文出处 Bank Asset/Liability Management,2009(10):7-8 外文作者 Orlando Hanselman 原文：Full Fair Value Accounting: Its Time Has ComeExecutive Summary: It is time to evaluate fair value 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 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 reflecting changes in market values for all assets and liabilities to determine the economic value of equity. Full fair value accounting with appropriately detailed disclosures should be required now for all reporting entities and for all assets and liabilities. Such a requirement also would result in equity stated on a full fair value basis. Historical cost should be properly relegated to no more than footnote disclosure. Full fair valueaccounting sharpens investor and management focus on long-term, risk-adjusted organizational performance and the optimization of economic value of equity. Full fair value accountingits time has come!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 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 voices. To sort through this rhetoric it is time to look at fair value accounting objectively by returning to the conceptual roots of our modern accounting framework and debunking certain false doctrines espoused by fair value accounting critics. As this analysis will substantiate,now is the time for full fair value accounting.Fair value accounting is not a new concept or recent phenomena:“Asset valuations (for 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 1938accounting change was made 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, The Institutional Risk Analyst, February 24, 2009).Earnest exploration of fair value accounting began in the early 1980s, long before it became a force recognized by Main Street and Washington. Elements of fair 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 practice. Write down to market of permanently impaired assets emerged. Investment accounting based upon managements intent was instituted with three separate portfolios and treatments: held-to-maturity; held for sale; trading. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards(“SFAS”) #159 now allows a one-time management election that is irrevocable wherein the reporting entity can choose to use fair value accounting for selected financial assets or liabilities. The result of this piecemeal approach has been a patch-work quilt of financial statement user confusion and reporting inconsistency depraved of conceptual integrity and heavily determined by management intent or election.During the early days of closed back room discussion, fair value accounting proponents suggested that movement from an historical cost standard to a market based approach would achieve at least five key financial reporting advantages:Enhance relevance and transparency; Reduce rule complexity; Lower earnings volatility; Enhance consistency and comparability;Converge U.S. accounting standards with emerging international accounting standards.As U.S. companies compete in an interdependent global economy and battle to costeffectively obtain equity and debt funding, these purported advantages assume a greatersense of urgency and magnitude.Historical cost accounting, where an asset is valued at the time of acquisition basedupon consideration tendered, is thought to have begun in the days 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 methods to approximate the expiration of usefulness,are understood to be crude estimations which provide only minor conceptual insightrelated to the underlying and changing value of an asset with passing time. A 1983 audit client pointed out this illogic to me by valuing their fixed assets using a self-determined and clearly non-GAAP accounting method. This client properly recorded the fixed asset at time of acquisition. Thereafter he then depreciated the asset using an acceptable methodology until the net asset value reached a fully depreciated state of zero. At that point he personally assessed the assets remaining utility and upon determining it was not worn out and indeed was still quite useful, he marked the asset backup to an estimated current market value. After the write-up, he once gain began the GAAP required depreciation process, with the cycle continuing until the asset was junked! When our audit procedures uncovered this unconventional approach, I met with the client to discuss his error. Despite my eloquence in explanation, my client reluctantly complied without ever changing his mind regarding the soundness of his logic. After all,the asset with a net depreciated book value of zero was still useful! Perhaps my practical client was simply ahead of his time. As a sage harbinger, my client was eloquently emphasizing the financial reporting advantage of enhanced relevance and transparency: an assets recorded book balance should reflect a best estimate of its current inherent value, utility and marketability.The complexity of rules eases with elimination of the current patch-work quilt approach. Consistency, comparability and transparency increases with standardization of rules, elimination of managements intent and adoption of more detailed disclosures including quantitative and qualitative 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 aligning with the rest of the world. The expected benefit of reduced earnings volatility from fair value is a strange and misguided point of advocacy which is ill advised and must be dismissed by serious minds. Conceptual purity of sound accounting primarily rests in standardized and reasonable reporting of the underlying economics of all business activity, objectively measuring and reporting results “as is” not “as desired”. Indeed, the recently stated fair value advantage of eliminating earnings volatility or smoothing earnings resulting from business activities has been historically and correctly frowned upon by learned professionals as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission. Disclosure of earnings volatility and economic turbulence is material to informed decision-making!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 objective “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.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 transaction 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 liquidation price. Such an exchange price economically considers future expected cash flows, all uncertainties or risks associated with the cash flows, risk premiums, a discount factor and market liquidity. Fair value for financial assets and liabilities is determined using a three level measurement hierarchy:Level One: quoted market prices for specific assets or liabilities.Level Two: use of valuation techniques and models or quoted market prices for comparable assets or liabilities.Level Three:unobservable inputs into the reporting entitys own analysis of underlying economic data to determine price 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 value and discounting techniques allow for appropriate fair value estimation for financial instruments which lack an advantageous market or suffer from either permanent or temporary illiquidity due to inactive markets or market disruptions.The definition and methods to determine fair value are well articulated in SFAS #159.The foundation to support this accepted fair value definition and determination model must begin with an understanding of fundamental financial 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 the risk-adjusted cash flow prospects related to all transactions. This information must illuminate the reporting entitys resources, claims to those resources and changes to the resources. The paramount criterion is decision making utility of the reported information.To ascertain the decision making utility of fair value compared 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 longstanding conceptual accounting framework. This framework,consisting of ten core characteristics, along with my subjective assessment is shown inTable A.These ten characteristics define the optimal quality 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 the trait. And finally, a “LOW”evaluation connotes poor reflection of the desired attribute.Fair value accounting is preferred to historic cost in decision usefulness, relevance,predictive value, feedback 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 prominence and relevance:Does the asset have remaining utility?Can the asset be sold today at a gain or loss?Will the risk-adjusted cash flow generated by the asset exceed the costs to maintain and hold the asset?Am I incurring economic loss or opportunity cost by continuing to hold this asset?Fair value answers these questions. Historic cost accounting does not.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 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 loans market value is less than the book carrying value on anhistoric cost basis. Future cash flow insights are gleaned from this fair value information as we know that the likelihood of borrower prepayment has now fallen. Past understanding of the lifetime economic value of the loan is also gained. We know that subsequently changed market circumstances have lessened the economic value of our prior decision. The measured insights from fair value are dynamic and timely, always sreflecting current rather than historic markets. Representational faithfulness is maintained by fair value as the current economic and market reality is dutifully captured and reported. Consequently, in seven of the ten conceptual characteristics, fair value accounting is proven to be more effective.Historic cost accounting modestly outperforms fair value in just two of the 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 become 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 independent evaluators since the purchase price is fixed and easily determined and any subsequent adjustments likely conform to standard depreciation schedules.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 values rating 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 validity of the assumptions and judgments underlying the fair value. Indeed, the flexibility of the fair value calculation, which more appropriately captures the current economic reality, is one of its greatest virtues. Such proper focus allows the evaluator to attest to the soundness of the measurements. I am confident that my sage audit client would prefer economically useful information over inaccurate and unrealistic measurements which are easily reproduced.Analyzing the conceptual integrity of fair value accounting compared to historic cost demonstrates the fundamental superiority of 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 clients confounding situation. It is also backed by my assessments of the attributes. Fair value accounting is not “LOW”on any characteristic, while historic cost is rated “LOW”in six dimensions. And finally, fair values marginal weakness in just two traits can be mitigated largely through reporting disclosure. Reasoned analysis confirms that fair value accounting is much more useful in decision making.译文：完全公允价值会计时代的到来摘要：通过回顾我们现代会计框架的概念根源，客观地计量公允价值会计的时代到来了。通过分析比较公允价值概念的完整性与历史成本会计的区别来证实公允价值测量与报告的明显的优越性。真正的资本充足率只有在风险调节的基础上才能被确定。这些需要合理的风险调节，出发点就是能够反映所有资产和负债，确定资本经济价值在市场价值的变化。完全公允价值会计和披露对于现在所有的报告实体和资产负债都是必需的。这种必需性也会使完全公允价值基础成为实体规定。历史成本应该适当降低不得高于附注中披露的数值。完全公允价值使投资者和管理者更加看重长期的风险调节组织的表现和企业经济价值的最优化。这些都宣布着完全公允价值的时代到来了！ 完全公允价值曾经一度是工薪阶层讨论的话题，现在已经由会计领域转移到美国的大街小巷和政界。最近，很多相关的文章都在发表。很多相关的论坛也在举行。这个问题已经使理事单位和那些坚定的支持者和手头有资金的投资者达成一致并说出他们的观点。为了整理这些华丽的词藻，现在是时候通过回归现代会计框架的概念根源和揭穿某些被公允价值会计的评论家支持的假信条来客观地评价完全公允价值了。如果这些分析将被证实了，那么现在就是完全公允价值的时代了。公允价值会计，它并不是一个全新的概念或者最近提出的观点。“资产估价（针对金融机构）都是在公允的市场价值上进行的。直到1938年，美联储才强迫其他的调整者去赞同银行资产的历史成本会计。在1938年，没有及时记录下资产历史价值的情况下，账户变更被用来鼓励新的贷款和使私人投资者能从联邦当局获得破产银行的资产。”（来源：“银行的压力测试”，沃克 托德，机构风险分析，2009，2，24）。早期公允价值的探究发生在二十世纪八十年代初期，不久后，它被大家和华盛顿（政府）所承认。由美国财务会计准则委员会（FASB）发布的公允价值会计理论被慢慢地认定为一般公认会计原则（GAAP）。成本与市价孰低会计成为公认的惯例。资产减值市场的出现。投资会计以管理者的意图为基础被设置成三种独立的投资组合和对待方法，它们是持有至到期、可供出售资产、交换资产。美国财务会计准则(公告)(SFAS)中的159号：在其的报告个体中规定，可以选择使用公允价值会计来计量特定的金融资产或金融负债。实行这些方法的结果是使得财务报告的使用者混淆财务报告的概念也与管理者的意图不一致。在早期的封闭式讨论期间，公允价值会计建议者，建议从一项历史成本标准去设立一个市场基础方法。此方法至少有五项财务报告发面的优势：1. 提高相关性和透明度2. 降低复杂程度3. 降低收入波动的影响4. 提高一致和可比较性5. 符合新国际会计准则的标准由于美国公司是在一种互助的全球经济中竞争的，并且在竞争中获得真正的公允和债务融资，这些竞争优势呈现出一种更强的紧迫感和重要性。历史性成本会计，资产以取得时的价值为入账价值，这种做法早在古代的古罗马人就开始了。这种长期存在的会计方法现在看来是不相关而且起到误导作用。会计折旧准则规定资产价值的减少应当使用很多标准化的和多变的折旧方法直到资产被耗用完毕。或者可以理解成是提供的概对短暂的时间的一项资产的潜在和改变价值的估计。 1983 年一位审计客户用自己的评估方法（非GAAP）评估自己的固定资产价值，并且指出这种理论是不符合逻辑的。首先这位审计客户严格的记录了取得固定资产的时候价值，然后他使用一系列适当的方法减少固定资产的价值，直到完全折旧或者净资产为零的这么一个状态。在他的观点中，他个人评估了资产剩余的效用，这种方法确实是非常有用的。他为资产的现时价值评估提供了一个坚实的后盾。后来美国一般会计公认原则（GAAP）将他的观点写入资产的折旧过程即资产周期性的损耗直到资产报废。当我们审计程序发现这种非传统方法时，我会见了这位审计客户并讨论他的错误所在。尽管我解释得确切，但是我的客户并没有改变他自己的一整套完整逻辑，他不情愿的接受我的观点。最终结果提出：当资产的账面价值为零时，资产还是有使用价值。我的客户明智的提出了他的观点，我的客户也强调了财务报告能增加相关性和透明度优点：即资产的账面价值余额应当最准确的表现资产的内在价值和内在效用这种综合的方法消除实时更新的复杂性。同时，这种方法也增加了准则的标准化和相关信息的透明度：对于管理者的意图以及评估方法在内的定性和定量见解应当通过财务报告披露更详细的披露。全球关注点在于国际会计标准将完全提出公允价值会计。美国与世界其他各国观点排成一致。从公允价值的角度计算降低收入的变动所带来的预期收益的观点是一种容易误导别人的观点。经过认真实考这种观点被否定。健全的会计制度和会计标准能够合理的解释所有经济业务的基础经济现象。客观的计量和报告要求资产计量达到“确实是”而不是“需要是”。事实上，对于最近提出的公允价值能够增加准则标准化和相关信息的透明度的优点已经成为历史，因为专业人士和美国证券交易委员会都不同意这个人观点。因此对于经济波动和盈余波动的披露