公允价值的确定—估值的本质是的职业判断的评价而不仅仅是一套规则【外文翻译】

1、本科毕业论文设计外 文 翻 译外文出处 STRATEGIC FINANCE 外文作者 Alfred M. King, CMA, CFM 原文：Determining Fair ValueThe very essence of valuation is the professional judgment of the appraise, not just a set of rules. Fair value financial reporting is being blamed for the sub prime meltdown, bank failures, the credit crunc

2、h, and the current recession. Global warming is about the only thing not being blamed on fair value(FV)and mark-to-market(MTM)accounting. Before we're through, however, MTM will probably be blamed for global warming, obesity, and the collapse of Detroit's Big 3 domestic automakers. Rarely ha

3、ve technical accounting, valuation, and financial reporting issue received so much attention from politicians, think tank specialists, columnists, and even TV journalists. Combined, these voices have raised the temperature of the discussion while shedding very little light on the issues. It should b

4、e no surprise that the public-unhappy with market turmoil, bailouts, tight money, and a plunging stock market-is ready to point the finger at any and all participants within the business sector. Since it's easy to blame MTM if you don't really understand it, crise for a mandatory "chang

5、e" in accounting rules are receiving a surprising amount of traction. The following quote from a November 13,2021, letter written by the American Bankers Association (ABA) to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) puts the basic issue into perspective: "Recording OTTI other than t

6、emporary impairment that is based on credit impairment is non-controversial in the banking industry-financial institutions fully understand and support the need to record such impairment. However, there has been and continues to be much controversy over recording losses that are based on the market&

7、#39;s perception of value (fair value),which often results in recognizing losses that exceed credit losses or recording losses for instruments that have experience with their terms.emphasis added The erosion of earnings and capital due to a market's perception of losses or due to a lack of liqui

8、dity that drives values lower is misleading to investors and other users of financial statements."What Is Mark-to-Market Accounting? For many years companies were able to show on their balance sheet the cost of securities they owned. U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principlws (GAAP) seemingl

9、y said you should never anticipate gains (writing assets up) until they are realized. Meanwhile, losses should be recognized as soon as possible. This appeared to be a one-way street: "Good news" (gains) was hidden from creditors and shareholders, but “bad news(losses) was recognized. The

10、rule about taking losses “immediatelyreally meant that write-downs had to be taken only when a decline in market value of securities was considered “other than temporary.Since it was hard to define a “temporarydecline in market price, many companies chose to retain the original cost value on the bal

11、ance sheet. They would disclose as supplementary information the current market price(s) of the traded securities they owned. This way, shareholders and creditors could get a picture of the“realeconomics of the business. Further, by showing original cost on the balance sheet and current market value

12、s in the footnotes or in paren-theses, the company avoided reporting gains and losses from changes in the market price of securities unless, and until, they were actually sold. Companies were happy with this approach, and there were few complaints from financial analysts because it was easy to adjus

13、t the balance sheet for those who wanted to make that effort. But a few journalists, academics, and analysts complained that this approach permitted companies to“cherry-pickgains and losses. By selling stock with a built-in profit, the company would report an increase in income and earnings per shar

14、e (EPS).If there had been some windfall and the company wanted to offset the gain, they could always sell securities that traded below the actual cost. This combination of choosing when to recognize gains and losses was referred to as “earnings managementand was criticized severely. At the same time

15、 this debate was going on, the policymakers at the FASB were making a revolutionary change in financial reporting. Many members of the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) will remember that the original mantra of accounting was to “matchrevenues and expenses. This was the gold standard for tho

16、se who studied accounting as an undergraduate more than 10 or 15 years ago. The balance sheet was of secondary importance in that environment. In many respects, the balance sheet was a residual for carrying expenditures asassets prior to their being matched up with the appropriate revenues. The ulti

17、mate manifestation of the matching concept was deferred taxes, the balance of which was very difficult to understand or explain. So the FASB, in its Conceptual Framework project, came to the belief that matching per se wasnt important. Its far better, the Board stated, to emphasize the balance sheet

18、. Get the balance sheet right, and income for the year would be the difference between opening and closing net worth or equity. This new Conceptual Frame work has gradually been put in place with each new Standard the FASB has issued. Starting with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS)

19、No.107,"Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Statements, "and SFAS No.115,"Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, "and concluding with SFAS No.133,"Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, "the Board has man dated tha

20、t almost all financial instruments should bevalued at fair value and that changes in the market value of ecurities whose prices are marked to market should be reflected in the profit and loss (P&L) statement or equity section of the balance sheet. Therefore, changes in market value must now be r

21、eported directly. Then some two years ago the Board issued SFAS No.157,"Fair Value Measurements. "This new Standard, contrary to popular opinion, does not require further or additional use offair value in financial reporting. What it does do is mandate that whenever fair value is required,

22、 it must be performed in accordance with the definition of fair value now embodied in GAAP. What's the Real Market?If there's a good market price, and if you have assets that are not only readily available for sale but are likely to be sold, then disclosing the current market prices should b

23、e mandatory. There are two separate concepts incorporated into the above sentence, and each is important:Theres a functioning market with willing buyers and sellers not under compulsion.There are assets that could and would be sold into that market.Look at the two requirements. Taken separately, eac

24、h is necessary but not sufficient to support MTM accounting.Requirement No.1.There has to be a functioning market for the quoted prices to reflect real value. The problem over the past six months is that many of the reported sales were forced or liquidating. Forced or liqui-dating sales do not repre

25、sent fair market value and according to the FASB and SEC, really don't reflect fair value either. The trouble is that when Merrill Lynch sold some $30 billion (face value) of securities at 22 cents on the dollar, some observers believed that was a market price in accordance with the definition o

26、f SFAS No.157.The problem is that the FASB's use of the term "orderly transaction "appears to be misinterpreted by many companies.The term “willing seller in the FMV definition would be a lot easier to interpret. There is little doubt that Mer-rill Lynch was an unwilling seller because

27、 it was being forced to sell securities, almost irrespective of price, in order to improve its capital position. The business press, in fact, commented at the time that they were lucky to obtain any bid because the real question was how the buyer (a hedge fund) was ultimately going to make out. The

28、Merrill Lynch transaction was “orderly in the sense that the buyer paid the seller. But the whole thrust of the FASB definition on "exit value" meant that it was easy to interpret the 22 cents on the dollar as Merrill's "exit price." In effect, this is the argument the ABA ma

29、de in another part of the letter from which I quoted earlier.The ABA argument really faults the major accounting firms for trying to apply “rules regarding the fair value of a particular security and determining by that rule when an impairment exists and must be recorded. Yet there are no formal rul

30、es in GAAP as to the determination of "the market." The real determination of fair value or fair market value involves judgment.The need for judgment is the reason that we'll never arrive at full fair value accounting. Liquidation values differ from going-concern values. Who will tell

31、a company what assumption to make, whether FV should be determined on liquidation or going-concern assumptions? And who will determine whether a particular transaction by a third party, as reported in the press, was or was not a forced sale? Forced or liquidating sales don't represent the "

32、market." Yet without specifying the assumption, how could you compare Company A, which values every thing at going concern, with Company B in the same industry, which values everything at liquidation value? Both values can fulfill the SFAS No.157 definition of fair value, depending on your assu

33、mption of which "market participant" would be the buyer.Requirement No. 2.Determining the fair value of assets that won't be sold appears to provide little useful information to investors and creditors. The overriding purpose of financial reporting, according to the FASB sown Conceptua

34、l Framework, is to provide information about future cash flows.If there won't be future cash flows because management has determined that the assets arent for sale, how does provision of FV information aid in investor decision making? You can argue that management perhaps should be willing to se

35、ll any and all assets，but we haven treached the point where creditors and shareholders actu-ally run the company. In fact, the only time that creditors do get to make such decisions is after the company has filed for bankruptcy.To assert that financial reporting should be based on a bankruptcy model

36、 that everything is for sale would surely destroy the real underlying value of any going concern. There's a vast difference between valuing assets for the purpose for which they were acquired and valuing them as though they would or could be liquidated.The Role of Professional Judgment in Valuat

37、ionAs I said earlier, blaming mark-to-market accounting for the financial reporting problems of financial institution smisses the point. The real issue is in trying to make the FASBs definition of fair value, which focuses on sales to “market participants, provide useful and valid data. The FASB def

38、inition of fair value is flawed, as discussed above. The single-minded application of auditors in interpreting any recent transaction as automatically representative of fair value simply adds to the problem. In effect, the FASB and auditors implicitly assume that fair value is a single objective amo

39、unt that, with sufficient effort, can (1) be determined by management,(2) review-d by auditors，(3) disclosed to investors and creditors. Its this flawed assumption that lies at the heart of the untold discussions among the participants in the financial reporting world.The fact is that the “value of

40、any asset is never a precise figure. Values can be determined objectively and without bias, but only within a range. This range may be plus or minus 10% of the midpoint. Accountants cant work with ranges; they need a single dollar amount that can be processed through journal entries to the financial

41、 statements.But there are no black boxes for valuation where you input variables and an answer pops out. The very essence of valuation is the professional judgment of the appraiser. Different appraisers will arrive at some what different indications of value. Ordinarily, if two appraisers are given

42、the same assignment and the same basic assumptions(liquidation value or value in-use),they will usually be within the 10% plus or minus mentioned above.Unfortunately, when it was drafting SFAS No.157,the FASB chose not to heed the advice of professional appraisers. We warned the Board and the staff

43、that their definition was flawed and would cause problems. They “listened but then chose to go their own way. That, of course, is their prerogative. They make the rules. But SFAS No.157 is fundamentally flawed. The definition of fair value, now enshrined in GAAP, underlines the Boards lack of unders

44、tanding about how appraisers actually do their work. The problems now facing the government, investors, and financial institutions have been wildly exacerbated by SFAS No.157.Again, the issue isnt mark-to-market accountingits the definition of fair value used to derive the so-called “market. Until S

45、FAS No.157 is changed and auditors are willing to accept the professional judgment of appraisers, the problems hitting the headlines will continue. We may not like it, but things will probably get worse before there can be true improvement. The FASB and auditing firms arent noted for flexibility!bal

46、ance. This new standard also enhances the disclosure requirements in FAS 115 ASC 320, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, and FSP FAS 115-1 and FAS 124-1, The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments, which are now required f

47、or both annual and interim periods. ASU 2021-05, Measuring Liabilities at Fair Value, finalized in August 2021, clarifies FAS 157s (ASC 820's) guidance on the fair value.Source: Alfred M. King, CMA, CFM，Determining Fair Value - The very essence of valuation is the professional judgment of the ap

48、praise, not just a set of rules，J. STRATEGIC FINANCE，2021，1：5-12.译文：公允价值确实定估值的本质是的职业判断的评价，而不仅仅是一套规那么公允价值财务报告正因为次级抵押贷款市场崩盘，银行倒闭，信贷紧缩以及目前的经济衰退而备受责难。全球变暖恐怕是唯一不会归咎于公允价值和市值会计计量的事物了。但在我们取得一致意见之前，国内底特律三大汽车制造商的崩溃，连同全球变暖，甚至是肥胖问题都很有可能归咎于市值计量。很少有会计处理，估价报告和财务报告问题受到这么多从政客，智囊团专家，专栏作家，甚至电视记者的注意力.总的来说 ，这些声音，提高了的讨论热

49、度，却很少落实到实际的问题。我们对于公共不满意市场动乱，企业救助，银根紧缩以及股市下跌不应该有丝毫奇怪，矛头指向任何参与市场的的商业部门。因为所有问题真的很容易归咎于市值计量当你并不真正了解它时，危机之下对于会计准那么强制性的“变革会获得一种能量惊人的推动力。下面引用的是2008年11月13日的一封信件，是由美国银行家协会 ABA 写给财务会计准那么委员会 FASB 提出纳入其观点的根本问题：“根据QTTI记录最后贷款人以外的银行业以信贷减值准备为根底是毫无争议的-金融机构需要记录这些贷款的减值准备以表达他们的充分理解和支持.但是，现状并将继续下去的关于记录减值准备的争议，是基于市场评价角度的

50、的价值公允价值，凭经验其结果往往是在期限内认定贷款的减值损失超过信贷亏损。 另加着重号其对收入和资本的侵蚀是由于市场评价的损失或由于缺乏流动资金，而较低的推动价值正在误导投资者和其他财务报表的使用人。 一、什么是市值会计计量？多年来，公司可以在其资产负债表上说明他们所拥有证券的本钱。美国通用会计准那么 GAAP 似乎说你永远不应该预期收益记作资产增加，直到他们在实际上被确认。同时，损失应该得到尽快确认.这似乎是一条单行道：“好消息收益要被权人和股东隐藏，但“坏消息亏损却要被确认。这项确认损失“即时性的规那么实际上意味着，只有考虑当一个证券的市场价值的下降被认为是“非暂时性的。由于很难确定一个“

51、临时的市场价格的下降，许多公司选择在资产负债表上保存历史本钱的价值。他们或者可以将目前他们所拥有证券的3月市场交易价格作为补充资料披露。这样，股东和债权人可以获得一张“真正的更为经济的业务图表。此外，通过在资产负债表和目前市场价值中的脚注或在括号中展示历史本钱，防止报揭发生损益变化的公司证券的市场价格，除非直到他们在实际上被售出.公司乐于使用这一做法，很少有金融分析师抱怨，因为那些希望做出这种努力的人很容易调整资产负债表。但有几个记者，学者，分析师指责说 ，这种做法允许公司“自由选择收益和损失。通过出售股票获得内置的利润，公司可以报告增加收入和每股盈利 EPS 。假设出现了一些意外，公司可以寄

52、希望以增益抵消，他们随时可以低于实际本钱进行买卖证券的交易。这种选择确认收益和损失的模式被称为“盈余管理 ，并受到严厉批评。在这种辩论进行的同时，决策者在财务会计准那么委员会发布了革命性变化的财务报告。许多管理会计师协会IMA的成员将会记得，会计的初始规定是“匹配收入和支出。这是对于那些10年或15年前会计本科毕业的人来说可谓是金科玉律的标准。资产负债表在这种环境中是次要的。许多方面中，资产负债表在进行资产支出匹配相应的收入之前可能只是多余的，而最终表达匹配概念是递延税金，它的余额是很难理解或难以解释的。因此，财务会计准那么委员会，在其概念框架工程，开始相信匹配本身并不重要。它的要好得多，委员

53、会指出，要强调资产负债表，确保资产负债表的权利，以及对于每年收入将区别期初和期末的净资产或股权。这一新的概念框架随着财务会计准那么委员会发布的每一条新的标准正在逐步建立之中。从美国财务会计准那么财务会计107，“披露关于公允价值的财务报表和“美国财务会计准那么第115号，某些涉及债务及证券股本投资的会计处理，并总结财务会计No.133，“会计衍生性工具和对冲活动董事会已经授权，几乎所有的金融工具应按公允价值的变动来确认其价值，证券市场价值的变化，其价格应是市价反映在公司盈利和亏损PL声明上或表达在股本局部的资产负债表上。因此，市场价值的变化，现在必须直接报告。然后在大约两年之前，委员会发布公告

54、No.157，“公允价值计量。这一新标准，违背了当时流行的建议，并不需要进一步的或额外的在财务报告中使用公允价值.每当公允价值是必要的才可以采用它，必须按照依据公允价值的定义的并得到表达的美国通用会计准那么执行。 二、何为真正的市场？如果有一个良好的市场价格，并且你的资产不但能有价值的售出而且能适当的被售出，那么揭露货币市场价格就是强制性的。在以上的句子当中有两个分类表达，每个的重点在于：运行市场是伴随着客户和客户和销售者的意愿而不是在强迫的根底上，资产是可以并应该在市场中被售卖的。看看这两个要求。执行两个分类，每一个都是必须的但并不是充足的去支持MTM账目。 条件1：需要一个运行市场来明细价格从而反映出真实的价值。很多销售报告是强迫得来或者是破产的问题都是在六个月之前出现的。强迫或者破产销售不要重新提及公平的市场价值，并且通过FASB和SEC，任一的都不能转移公平的价值。这个困难就是，当Merrill Lynch 售出有价证券的$300亿面额价值，SFAS的观察员在结合定义和意见一致的情况下应该认定这就是市场价格。现在的问题是，财务会计准那么委员会使用的“有效交易似乎被很多公司误解了。 “愿意卖方这个术语在FMV中