co-yqhxr公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)

1、 我們II打敗了敵人。 我們II把敵人打敗了重慶理工大學(xué)文 獻(xiàn) 翻 譯二級(jí)學(xué)院會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)院班 級(jí) 0665-1學(xué)生姓名張璐 學(xué) 號(hào) 10606040238重慶理工大學(xué)畢業(yè)論文金融危機(jī)后對(duì)公允價(jià)值黑洞問(wèn)題的探究譯文要求1、譯文內(nèi)容必須與課題（或?qū)I(yè)）內(nèi)容相關(guān)。2、 外文翻譯不少于1萬(wàn)印刷符；外文參考資料閱讀量至少 3篇（相當(dāng)于10萬(wàn)印刷符以上）。3、譯文原文（或復(fù)印件）應(yīng)附在譯文后備查。譯文評(píng)閱導(dǎo)師評(píng)語(yǔ)（應(yīng)根據(jù)學(xué)?！白g文要求”，對(duì)學(xué)生外文翻譯的準(zhǔn)確性、翻譯數(shù)量以及譯文的文字表述情況等作具體的評(píng)價(jià)）指導(dǎo)教師：公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)原文摘自由比斯的言論 美國(guó)聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備理事會(huì)會(huì)員 對(duì)信用協(xié)會(huì)投資組合經(jīng)理大會(huì)上，11月

2、18日，2004。早上好。我很榮幸能夠參加這次秋季會(huì)員大會(huì)報(bào)告。 正如我同事在財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則 委員會(huì)（FASB和國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)（IASB）的同意，公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)構(gòu)成和許多的 挑戰(zhàn)，引發(fā)了重大的行業(yè)辯論公平價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)題目已解散在美國(guó)倔強(qiáng)已逾 10年。公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)的支持者認(rèn)為，公平價(jià)值是最相關(guān)的財(cái)政措施報(bào)告。 然而，其他人 認(rèn)為，歷史成本提供了更有益的措施，因?yàn)樗宄慕?jīng)濟(jì)業(yè)務(wù)表現(xiàn)和公正的價(jià)值， 因?yàn)楣烙?jì)不一定可靠或驗(yàn)證。因此，哪一種會(huì)比較恰當(dāng)？公允價(jià)值或歷史成本？我想與大家分享的聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備的 長(zhǎng)期在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上的立場(chǎng)。作為一位美國(guó)銀行系統(tǒng)的管理者，我們要為確保金融機(jī)構(gòu) 采取健全會(huì)計(jì)政策和做法。我們繼

3、續(xù)支持提高透明度和加強(qiáng)經(jīng)濟(jì)信息的披露，旨在促 進(jìn)市場(chǎng)紀(jì)律并提供有用的信息決策者。我們還支持資產(chǎn)和公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)在短期負(fù)債交 易業(yè)務(wù)使用利潤(rùn)，如銀行交易賬戶(hù)。而且我們支持增強(qiáng)的公允價(jià)值披露的信息的風(fēng)險(xiǎn) 更廣泛的描述部分風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理。 但是，我們認(rèn)為，會(huì)計(jì)行業(yè)應(yīng)該是很謹(jǐn)慎地向更 便于理解的公允價(jià)值概念切近，所有的金融資產(chǎn)負(fù)債記錄在資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表內(nèi)按公允價(jià)值 和公允價(jià)值變動(dòng)都記錄在收入，無(wú)論實(shí)現(xiàn)與否。財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)最近發(fā)表了一份關(guān)于提議標(biāo)準(zhǔn)公允價(jià)值計(jì)量，提供一般框架估價(jià)資產(chǎn)及負(fù)債前測(cè)量或按公允價(jià)值披露。1、在這當(dāng)時(shí)，它不擴(kuò)大公允價(jià)值的使用主要財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表。我想在這里總結(jié)并與您 分享美國(guó)聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備委員會(huì)的意

4、見(jiàn)擬議標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，提供給在財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)的意見(jiàn)函的 接觸部分的過(guò)程。2、我們認(rèn)為，作為一個(gè)良好的開(kāi)端建議加強(qiáng)對(duì)計(jì)量在這方面的指導(dǎo)。不過(guò)，正 如我現(xiàn)在所討論的，大量重要的問(wèn)題值得進(jìn)一步審議，尤其在對(duì)增加公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)做 出戲劇性的舉動(dòng)之前。但是在討論這些具體問(wèn)題之前讓我必須強(qiáng)調(diào)一點(diǎn)： 作為銀行上司，美國(guó)聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備 委員會(huì)認(rèn)為，創(chuàng)新在繼續(xù)改善我們的金融體系， 改善風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理是非常重要的。新的方 法和金融工具允許銀行組織改進(jìn)其風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理， 通過(guò)選擇的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)承擔(dān)和目標(biāo)水平脫落或 限制不想要的位置。會(huì)計(jì)框架應(yīng)提高透明度，圍繞商業(yè)決策和為市民提供一個(gè)更好的 風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理的主題。公允價(jià)值計(jì)量問(wèn)題值得進(jìn)一步思考：可靠性和測(cè)量

5、假如市場(chǎng)是具有流動(dòng)性的，以及所有資產(chǎn)和負(fù)債都具有透明度， 公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)顯 然會(huì)在決策過(guò)程依靠可靠有用的信息然而，由于許多資產(chǎn)和負(fù)債沒(méi)有一個(gè)活躍的市 場(chǎng)，對(duì)估計(jì)公平價(jià)值的投入和方法比較主觀，因此，估值不可靠。美國(guó)聯(lián)邦儲(chǔ)備工作人員研究顯示，根據(jù)投入和估價(jià)方法使用，公允價(jià)值計(jì)量對(duì)銀 行貸款的估計(jì)可能相差很大。例如，公司債券及銀團(tuán)貸款市場(chǎng)內(nèi)觀察到較低評(píng)級(jí)的不 同類(lèi)別的利率已多達(dá)200至500個(gè)基點(diǎn)。這種廣泛的范圍發(fā)生在當(dāng)債務(wù)人匹配時(shí)， 高 級(jí)債券和貸款的情況下。關(guān)于擬議的公允價(jià)值標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)的聲明表明， 如果市場(chǎng)投入使用 的估價(jià)則可靠性將大大增強(qiáng)但是，由于管理使用在選擇市場(chǎng)投入的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格時(shí)

6、， 沒(méi)有 重大判斷，可靠性將繼續(xù)是一個(gè)問(wèn)題。該提案確定了三個(gè)層次的估計(jì)，應(yīng)以最低的一一第三級(jí)優(yōu)先估計(jì)。這些估計(jì)數(shù)是 沒(méi)有根據(jù)活躍市場(chǎng)報(bào)價(jià)的相同或類(lèi)似的資產(chǎn)或負(fù)債，而是盯模型的預(yù)測(cè)。該提案建議， 如市場(chǎng)，收入的使用，多種途徑和更換費(fèi)用的辦法，將改善這些估計(jì)的可靠性。然而, 一些辦法的可靠性多大影響，如果所有方法都在相同的基礎(chǔ)資料為基礎(chǔ)， 因?yàn)橥?金融工具的情況。在我們作為一家銀行的監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)， 我們注意到，在一些小的改動(dòng)若干假設(shè)在一個(gè) 定價(jià)模式可以有實(shí)質(zhì)影響。一般來(lái)說(shuō)，我們是滿意的公允價(jià)值液體的貿(mào)易， 金融機(jī)構(gòu) 在評(píng)估有重要的經(jīng)驗(yàn)儀器測(cè)量過(guò)程。但是，我們認(rèn)為，較低的資產(chǎn)和負(fù)債的流動(dòng)性， 可靠性

7、是一個(gè)重要的問(wèn)題。Fair Value Acco un ti ngAdapted from remarks by Susa n Schmidt Bies,Member, Board of Gover nors of the Federal ReserveSystem, to the International Association of CreditPortfolio Man agers Gen eral Meet ing, November 18, 2004.Good mornin g. I appreciate the opport un ity to participate in yo

8、ur Fall Gen eral Meeting. As my colleagues at the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the Intern atio nal Acco unting Sta ndards Board(IASB) will agree, fair value acco un ti ng poses many challe nges and has sparked sig nifica nt in dustry debate.The subject of fair value acco unting ha

9、s bee n discussed in the Un ited States for well over a decade. Advocates of fair value acco unting believe that fair value is the most releva nt measure for finan cial report ing. Others, however, believe that historical cost provides a more useful measure because it more clearly represe nts the ec

10、ono mics of bus in ess performa nee and because fair value estimates may not be reliable or verifiable.So, which is more appropriate fair value or historical cost? Let me share with youthe Federal R eserves longanding positi on on this issue. As a supervisor of the U.S.banking system, we want to en

11、sure that finan cial in stituti ons follow sound acco un ti ng policies and practices. We continue to support improved tran spare ncy and enhan ced finan cial disclosures, which promote market discipli ne and provide usefulin formati on to decisi on makers. We also support fair value acco unting for

12、 assets and liabilities used in the bus in ess of short-term tradi ng for profit, such as the trad ing acco unt for ban ks. And we support enhan ced disclosures of fair-value-basedin formati on as part of broader descriptio ns of risk exposures and risk man ageme nt. However, we believe that the acc

13、o un ti ng in dustry 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 earnin gs, whether realized or not.The FASB recently issued

14、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.s views1. At this time, it does not expand the use of fair values in the primary financial statements. I would like to summarize

15、and share w ith you the Federal Reserveon 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 measureme nt guida nce in this area. However, as I will discuss in a mome nt, a nu mber of imp

16、orta nt issues warra nt further con siderati on, especially before dramatic moves are made toward in creased fair value acco unting.But before discuss ing these specific issues, allow me to emphasize one importa nt point. As a bank supervisor, the Federal Reserve believes that innovations in risk ma

17、n ageme nt are very importa nt to the con ti nued improveme nt of our finan cial system. New methods and finan cial in strume nts allow banking orga ni zati ons to improve their risk-ma nageme nt practices by selecti ng target levels of risk exposures and shedd ing or limit ing unwan ted positi ons.

18、 Acco un ti ng frameworks should improve tran spare ncy around bus in ess decisi ons and outcomes without providi ng a dis incen tive to better man ageme nt of risk.FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT ISSUES THAT WARRANT FURTHER CONSIDERATIONReliability and Measureme ntIf markets were liquid an d tran spare nt f

19、or 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 in puts and methods for estimat ing their fair value are more subjective and, therefore, th

20、e valuati ons less reliable.Research by Federal Reserve staff shows that fair value estimates for bank loa ns can vary greatly, depe nding on the valuati on in puts and methodology used. For example, observed market rates for corporate bonds and syn dicated loa ns within lower rated categories have

21、varied by as much as 200 to 500 basis poin ts. Such wide ran ges occur eve n in the case of senior bonds and loa ns whe n obligors are matched.The FASB stateme nt on the proposed fair value sta ndard suggests that reliability can be sig nifica ntly enhan ced if market in puts are used in valuati on.

22、 However, because man ageme nt uses sig nifica nt judgme nt in select ing market in puts whe n 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 that