公允價值計量畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯

1、公允價值計量1.公允價值在國際財務(wù)報告準則中的規(guī)定在 2005 年11月，國際財務(wù)會計準則理事會為注解準則發(fā)表了一個討論意見,以財務(wù)會計為基礎(chǔ)的公允價值的初始確認和計量，由加拿大會計準則委員會的全體職員編寫。雖然意見包含了對于公允價值的討論，但它的主要目的是討論哪些計量屬性適合初始確認。意見是不斷更新的概念框架項目的一部分。這個概念框架項目致力于構(gòu)建一個為財務(wù)報表服務(wù)的計量概念。因為意見范圍和意圖的不同，它不在此論文中討論。然而，關(guān)于那篇討論意見的評論將會在國際財務(wù)報告準則的公允價值計量披露草案和美國財務(wù)會計準則概念框架計劃的第1號第157條以及現(xiàn)行公允價值計量指南。這篇討論意見是關(guān)于公允價值

2、計量的。國際財務(wù)報告準則要求某些資產(chǎn)、負債和權(quán)益性工具應(yīng)該在某些情況下用公允價值計量。然而，指南在公允價值方面的要求通常被準則稀釋了，并且準則在這方面的說明也并不是前后一致的。國際會計準則理事會認為單一來源的那些準則中有關(guān)于公允價值方面的指南將會簡化國際財務(wù)報告準則并且改善財務(wù)報表中公允價值的信息質(zhì)量。一個簡明的公允價值的定義和一個適用于所有公允價值計量的前后一致的指南將會更清晰地表達公允價值的對象并且消除公眾對于通過國際財務(wù)報告準則傳播的指南方面的顧慮。國際會計準則理事會強調(diào)公允價值計量項目并不是一種用來延伸公允價值在財務(wù)報表中應(yīng)用的手段。此外，項目的目標在于重新編寫、明晰、簡化在國際財務(wù)報

3、告準則中廣泛應(yīng)用的現(xiàn)有指南。然而，為了構(gòu)建一個按準則要求對于所有公允價值的計量都能統(tǒng)一指南的單一標準，必須對現(xiàn)有的指南做出修改。這些修改意見在第2號準則中做了進一步的討論，這可能會使公允價值在某些標準下的計量和在準則要求下進行的解釋和應(yīng)用都做出調(diào)整。在某些準則中，國際會計準則理事會（或其前身）有意識地納入了一些計量指南。這些指南會導(dǎo)致盡管它在公允價值的計量客體上并不是前后一致，但在這些客體的計量上仍被視為公允價值計量。例如，關(guān)于第3號準則第16段企業(yè)合并的指南中公允價值計量的客體就與企業(yè)合并中所涉及的項目如稅項資產(chǎn)、稅項負債和特定收益計劃中的員工福利經(jīng)資產(chǎn)或負債不一致。此外，一些準則包含了計量

4、的可靠性的標準。例如國際會計準則第16號固定資產(chǎn)中只有在公允價值能可靠確定時才可以使用公允模式計量。此項規(guī)定一點也不會改變指南中的相關(guān)部分。并且指南將會被逐項地探討。然而，國際會計準則理事會打算用公允價值計量項目對于目前沒有定義的項目編寫指南。如第17號準則租賃協(xié)議，同時也是把指南中沒有清晰表述的計量客體進行統(tǒng)一。由于美國財務(wù)會計準則第157號單一來源的指南和單一的主體，而這個主體適用于所有公允價值的計量，國際會計準則理事會就最初的觀點達成一致意見，那就是美國財務(wù)會計準則第157號對國際財務(wù)報告準則中不同指南的進行了改進。2.美國財務(wù)會計準則和國際財務(wù)報告準則在公允價值定義方面的不同之處美國會

5、計準則第157號第5段把公允價值定義為“在發(fā)生日一項合理交易中參與者能接受的賣出資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負債的價格?！蓖ㄟ^比較，在美國會計準則中公允價值的定義通常為：“理性的、有交易意向的參與者在一系列正常交易中愿意交換資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負債的價格（與準則原文在表達上略有不同）?！泵绹鴷嫓蕜t第157號在以下三個方面與國際財務(wù)報告準則有實質(zhì)性差異：1）美國財務(wù)會計準則第157號對于公允價值明確地說它是一個賣出價，而國際財務(wù)報告準則既沒有說公允價值是一個賣出價，也沒有說它是買入價。2）美國財務(wù)會計準則第157號的定義指明了市場參與者，而國際財務(wù)報告準則的定義中說的是在一系列正常交易中理性的、有意愿的參與方。3）對于負

6、債，美國會計準則第157號的定義意在指明負債的轉(zhuǎn)移（負債對于交易的另一方仍然存在，并不是負債有對方償還），國際財務(wù)報告準則主要指明的是哪些負債能夠在一系列正常交易中被理性的、有交易意向的參與者償還。2.1賣出價值的計量主體從持有資產(chǎn)或負有負債的參與者的角度看，在交易日假定一項交易是為了賣出資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負債。因此公允價值計量的主體就是在交易日決定買入資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負債能被交易對方接受的價格，即賣出價值。美國財務(wù)會計準則委員會認為以賣出價作為計量主題更適合，因為在市場參與者的角度來說它使對于與資產(chǎn)有關(guān)的未來現(xiàn)金流入和與負債有關(guān)的現(xiàn)金流出具體化。對于流入與流出概念的強調(diào)也符合美國財務(wù)會計準則中概念準則的第

7、6條財務(wù)要素注解中關(guān)于資產(chǎn)和負債的定義。概念準則的第六條第25段中定義了資產(chǎn)的未來現(xiàn)金流入，第35段中定義了負債的未來現(xiàn)金流出。國際財務(wù)報告準則的第49條財務(wù)報表的編制基礎(chǔ)中類似地定義了經(jīng)濟利益方面的資產(chǎn)未來現(xiàn)金流入和負債現(xiàn)金流出量。大部分國際會計準則理事會的成員認為以賣出價作為公允價值計量主體與這些定義是一致的并且是恰當?shù)?，因為它反映了以市場為基礎(chǔ)的對經(jīng)濟利益流入或流出的預(yù)期。其他成員同意這種觀點，但是在他們看來賣出價也反映了對于經(jīng)濟利益流入或流出企業(yè)的預(yù)期。因此，他們認為應(yīng)該把“公允價值”替換為其他更能反映計量屬性概念，例如“現(xiàn)行買入價”或“現(xiàn)有賣出價”。在美國財務(wù)會計準則第157號中對于

8、一個買入價的計量主體與賣出價的計量主體的規(guī)定有所不同。買入價定義為交易日在一項合理的交易中市場參與者為購入一項資產(chǎn)或承擔一項負債所付出的金額。某些成員假設(shè)不考慮交易成本，買入價和賣出價在同一市場的價格相同。然而，企業(yè)可能在一個市場買入一項資產(chǎn)或承擔一項負債而在另一個市場賣出資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負債。在這種情況下，美國財務(wù)會計準則第157號中的賣出價可能與買入價不同。在國際財務(wù)報告準則中規(guī)定的公允價值計量原則可能與賣出價的計量主體不一致。特別地，國際會計準則委員會認為這可能是公允價值初始計量的情形，例如：1)國際財務(wù)報告準則第3號。2)國際會計準則第17號租賃合同下融資租賃的資產(chǎn)和負債的初始確認。3)國際

9、會計準則第39號金融工具：某些金融資產(chǎn)和金融負債的初始確認和計量。在披露草案的修訂過程中，國際會計準則理事會可能會提出公允價值修改后的定義。這樣一來，它將完成對于公允價值計量在國際財務(wù)報告準則中的逐條審核。這樣做的目的在于評估每條標準規(guī)定的公允價值計量主體是否與準則給出的定義相一致。如果國際會計理事會得出在特定標準下既定的計量主體與給出公允價值的定義不相一致，或者披露草案的范圍又或是既定的計量主體把標準排除在外，則標準將被公允價值以外的概念重述（例如現(xiàn)行買入價）。為了協(xié)助審核，國際會計理事會需要理解國際財務(wù)報告準則的公允價值計量指南在實務(wù)當中是如何運用的。因此它要求被調(diào)查者去識別國際財務(wù)報告準

10、則中的這些公允價值計量在實務(wù)中哪些方面與美國財務(wù)會計準則第157號有不同。2.2市場參與者的看法美國財務(wù)會計準則第157號強調(diào)公允價值計量是以市場價為基礎(chǔ)的計量，并不是針對某一家企業(yè)進行的計量。因此，公允價值計量應(yīng)當基于一個假設(shè)，那就是市場參與者是使用一項資產(chǎn)或負債的市場價格。此外，即使沒有活躍市場或市場活動受限，公允價值的計量目標仍是一致的：去判定交易價格。這個交易價格是在合理交易中被市場參與者接受的賣出資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負債的價格,不管企業(yè)是否有賣出資產(chǎn)或轉(zhuǎn)移負債的能力和意圖。美國財務(wù)會計準則第157號第10段定義市場參與者作為資金市場上的買者或賣者是：1)不依賴報告?zhèn)€體，即他們不是關(guān)聯(lián)方；2)理

11、性的, 有關(guān)于財產(chǎn)或負債的合理理解和交易事項基于所有的可得數(shù)據(jù), 包括通過應(yīng)有的合理方式和習(xí)慣而取得的數(shù)據(jù)。3)能夠為持有財產(chǎn)或承擔負債辦理。4)愿意持有財產(chǎn)或承擔負債; 即他們是主動的而不是強迫這么做。通過比較，公允價值在國際財務(wù)報告準則中的定義設(shè)計是“在一系列正常交易中理性的、有意向的第三方”為國際會計準則第40號第42至44段投資性房地產(chǎn)的定義提供了具體解釋。公允價值的定義中所指的“理性的、有意向的第三方”，在文中“理性的”意味者投資性房地產(chǎn)的買房和賣方對于其的屬性和特征的信息是對稱的，并且在資產(chǎn)負債表日它的實際和潛在的使用年限和市場行情雙方都能獲取合理信息。有意向的購買者指的是購買者是

12、資源的而不是被迫的。潛在的購買者不會出比理智的、有意向的購買者更高的價格。有意向的賣方不是急于賣出資產(chǎn)或受迫的賣方，這樣的賣方打算以隨意的價格賣出資產(chǎn)，或者不去考慮現(xiàn)有市場的合理價格。有意向的賣方是以一個可得到的合理的價格自愿賣出投資性房地產(chǎn)的賣方。實際情況中，處理投資性房地產(chǎn)的所有者不必做這些考慮，有意向的賣方只是假定的左右者。（例如有意向的賣方不必考慮為投資性房地產(chǎn)的所有者考慮特定資源稅。）公允價值的定義設(shè)計的一系列合理的交易是一方與多方之間不存在特殊的關(guān)聯(lián)方關(guān)系，交易是在不存在任何關(guān)聯(lián)關(guān)系的獨立各方之間進行的。國際會計準則理事會最初的看法是市場參與者的看法通常與在國際財務(wù)報告中敘述合理的

13、有意向的相關(guān)方的一系列合理交易的概念是一致的。然而，在國際會計準則理事會看來，被提議的定義將更清楚地在 國際財務(wù)報告準則中體現(xiàn)。3.公允價值會計的應(yīng)用和實施的障礙這一直是一個有爭議的問題。即是否繼續(xù)使用傳統(tǒng)歷史成本會計措施還是選擇使用公允價值作為計量基礎(chǔ),并且反對者和支持者就這一問題提出了幾點質(zhì)疑。國際會計標準第39號(第9段)把公允價值定義為：在一項公平交易中，熟悉情況并且自愿交易的雙方交換一項資產(chǎn)或清償一基本原則債務(wù)所使用的金額。3.1對于公允價值的理解雖然在理論上看起來比較簡單, 但在實踐中這個定義需要進一步的理解。學(xué)者Barth 和Landsman認為,它可以被應(yīng)用在完全競爭市場上,但

14、事實并非總是如此。公允價值會計準則的應(yīng)用應(yīng)遵循三個步驟。市場價格是公允價值的最佳估計。第二個最佳選擇, 在找不到所計量項目的市場價格或市場信息質(zhì)量不高的情況下，可以使用所計量項目類似項目的市場價格作為其公允價值。最后，如果以上兩種價格都得不到的話，應(yīng)當考慮采用適當?shù)墓纼r技術(shù)來確定資產(chǎn)或負債的公允價值。因此,確定公允價值可能是通過使用幾種不同的方法,包括發(fā)公布的市場價格,未來現(xiàn)金流貼現(xiàn)或估值方法。最近發(fā)布的國際財務(wù)報告準則第9號準則的提案對金融工具的公允價值在交易成本可以被合理估計的情況下公允價值的計量做出指導(dǎo)。（例如在在廣泛意義上存在計量公允價值的可能性并且在這個范圍內(nèi)成本可以提供對公允價值的

15、最佳估計值，但更近一步用來確定公允價值的信息是不充分的）。國際財務(wù)報表告準則第9號準則還規(guī)定了不能成為最佳估計數(shù)的成本標準。這些標準包含了預(yù)期投資者的重大轉(zhuǎn)變，市場上投資產(chǎn)品的重大轉(zhuǎn)變或是投資的經(jīng)濟環(huán)境的重大變化。很多關(guān)于公允價值會計的爭論在其辯論過程中已有暗示。會計學(xué)文獻中涵蓋了相關(guān)學(xué)者的觀點，即歷史成本法與決策無關(guān)，因此需要有更好的方法來取而代之。公允價值會計的應(yīng)用是對歷史成本會計的一種取代，尤其是在金融工具方面。在這個領(lǐng)域，公允價值在很多情形下比歷史成本法更具有適應(yīng)性，這種計量對于報表數(shù)據(jù)的可靠性沒有損害，尤其是在現(xiàn)有市場價格可靠計量的情況下。金融工具的公允價值計量評估模式被視為反映了當

16、前的市場對經(jīng)濟狀況的影響, 而不是它們之前的歷史成本或企業(yè)的持有成本。因此可以說公允價值能夠被視為反映經(jīng)濟實質(zhì)。Barth得出結(jié)論,認為對決策有用的公允價值會計準則已經(jīng)解決了其是否應(yīng)該用在財務(wù)報表中以及應(yīng)該如何應(yīng)用在財務(wù)報表中的爭論。3.2公允價值應(yīng)用的障礙公允價值計量也并非是沒有受到爭議。諸如此類的批評觀點包括公允價值計量可能扭曲凈收入（主要是未實現(xiàn)的持有收益和損失方面的確認），并不是很準確，并且易受認為操縱和產(chǎn)生高額的成本。Benston 認為市場價值的實現(xiàn)是有缺陷的。這樣的缺陷除了在持有至到期資產(chǎn)的升值時，還有在計量衍生金融工具的公允價值時如果財務(wù)經(jīng)理有回旋余地的情況。因為公允價值預(yù)期估

17、值的偽造可能導(dǎo)致實務(wù)操作時錯報的風險。 反對觀點主要集中于資產(chǎn)價格和公平的股東價值的直接關(guān)系的并不總是發(fā)生。Benston批評把賣出價作為公允價值計量來計量某些資產(chǎn),如專用機床和在制品庫存，這些資產(chǎn)的賣出價可能為零或負數(shù)。最后Ronen就公允價值的會計計量的相關(guān)性提出了質(zhì)疑，認為它們不足以成為估計現(xiàn)金流量的可靠基礎(chǔ)。他還對公允價值計量的可靠性提出了質(zhì)疑主要是由于評估存在的主觀性。這種主觀性可能會導(dǎo)致財務(wù)經(jīng)理道德風險的提高。由于投資者的非理性和市場的低效導(dǎo)致公允價值會計計量的扭曲也是其受到質(zhì)疑的方面。 反對公允價值計量的行業(yè)主要是銀行業(yè)，銀行也反對公允價值會計，并且游說來反對全面實行公允價值會計

18、。據(jù)報告銀行業(yè)反對公允價值會計會導(dǎo)致收入的波動的增加，而這種波動與銀行業(yè)日常經(jīng)營業(yè)務(wù)的波動無關(guān)。并且這種波動會導(dǎo)致低效的資本配置，增加銀行的資金成本。歐盟銀行業(yè)也對國際會計準則（特別是第39號準則）公允價值會計提出強烈反對。3.3 公允價值會計的應(yīng)用實例涉及公允價值的價值相關(guān)性的研究表明對于投資性房地產(chǎn)估值，公允價值會計比歷史成本會計更有說服力。研究還表明公允價值由于對未實現(xiàn)的持有收益和損失的確認使其在收益方面比歷史成本會計存在更大的波動性。某些研究還表明公允價值會計的計量在價值相關(guān)性在低效的市場環(huán)境下也會發(fā)生。例如，有學(xué)者認為以公允價值計量的證券并沒有消除增量資本的影響。這個結(jié)果在證券的公允

19、價值和公允價值計量的利得和損失都適用。 然而，其他研究的結(jié)果并沒有證明公允價值的積極作用。例如，研究發(fā)現(xiàn)歷史成本法在某些情況下核算的相關(guān)增量價值要比公允價值計量的要高。并且，研究表明公允價值計量的投資性證券相對于賬面價值在增量價值方面更有說服力，這樣的結(jié)論至適用于投資性證券，并不適用于銀行存款、負債或長期負債。最后還有研究表明對于小型銀行的控股公司和沒有財務(wù)分析師的公司，在對負債和銀行存款的公允價值的會計計量方面能獲取的有用信息比歷史成本法要少。 國際財務(wù)報表準則在歐盟國家的應(yīng)用，這其中包括國際會計準則第32號和第39號，對歐洲的資本市場也產(chǎn)生了影響。例如研究表明歐洲資本市場表現(xiàn)出了應(yīng)用準則的

20、積極性的交易活動的增加的跡象，消極影響的交易減少的跡象。這樣的結(jié)果更導(dǎo)致了銀行投資者對于準則應(yīng)用的公開反對。此外學(xué)者發(fā)現(xiàn)在歐洲，實務(wù)界認為國際會計準則第32號和39號在操作上太過復(fù)雜，并且會成為國際財務(wù)報告準則應(yīng)用上的障礙。在西班牙的一項研究表明公允價值會計在金融工具方面的應(yīng)用會導(dǎo)致財務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)在短期內(nèi)不具有可比性，并且不能表明財務(wù)報表與與當?shù)毓墒械穆?lián)系。在固定資產(chǎn)的計量方面并沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)相似的問題。公允價值計量模式的可選擇性導(dǎo)致很多企業(yè)拒絕其的理由。3.4國際財務(wù)報告準則在新興經(jīng)濟體中的應(yīng)用對于國際財務(wù)報告準則在新興經(jīng)濟體中的運用歷來為一些研究的對象。學(xué)者Peng 和Bewley公允價值會計在中國的

21、應(yīng)用情況，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)盡管國際財務(wù)報告準則對于2007年中國新企業(yè)會計準則具有適用性，但在中國的上市公司并沒有得到廣泛應(yīng)用。盡管中國在成本計量中應(yīng)用了公允價值的計量方法，并且在企業(yè)會計準則中也設(shè)置了相關(guān)科目，但學(xué)者們斷言盡管中國會計準則與國際會計準則趨同，但在實務(wù)操作上由于政治、經(jīng)濟、文化和歷史的原因還是會有很大差別。研究表明國別的差異會成為國際會計準則施行的一項重大障礙。阿拉伯聯(lián)合酋長國不得不開發(fā)一套監(jiān)管系統(tǒng)來處理準則實施過程當中相關(guān)的信息安全和欺詐問題。附錄B：外文文獻原文Fair Value Measurements1.Fair Value Required in SFRS and IFRS

22、In November 2005 the IASB published for comment a discussion paper, Measurement Bases for Financial Accounting Measurement on Initial Recognition, written by the staff of the Canadian Accounting Standards Board. Although that paper contained a discussion of fair value, its primary purpose was to dis

23、cuss which measurement attributes were appropriate for initial recognition. That paper is part of the ongoing Conceptual Framework project that seeks to establish, among other things, a framework for measurement in financial reporting. Because of the different scope and intent of that paper, it is n

24、ot discussed in this discussion paper. However, comments on that discussion paper relating to the measurement of fair value will be considered in the development of the exposure draft of an IFRS on fair value measurement as well as in the Conceptual Framework project. Issue1.SFAS 157 and fair value

25、measurement guidance in current IFRS.IFRSs require some assets, liabilities and equity instruments to be measured at fair value in some circumstances. However, guidance on measuring fair value is dispersed throughout IFRSs and is not always consistent. The IASB believes that establishing a single so

26、urce of guidance for all fair value measurements required by IFRSs will both simplify IFRSs and improve the quality of fair value information included in financial reports. A concise definition of fair value combined with consistent guidance that applies to all fair value measurements would more cle

27、arly communicate the objective of fair value measurement and eliminate the need for constituents to consider guidance dispersed throughout IFRSs. The IASB emphasises that the Fair Value Measurements project is not a means of expanding the use of fair value in financial reporting. Rather, the objecti

28、ve of the project is to codify, clarify and simplify existing guidance that is dispersed widely in IFRSs. However, in order to establish a single standard that provides uniform guidance for all fair value measurements required by IFRSs, amendments will need to be made to the existing guidance. As di

29、scussed further in Issue 2, the amendments might change how fair value is measured in some standards and how the requirements are interpreted and applied. In some IFRSs the IASB (or its predecessor body) consciously included measurement guidance that results in a measurement that is treated as if it

30、 were fair value even though the guidance is not consistent with the fair value measurement objective.For example, paragraph B16 of IFRS Business Combinations provides guidance that is inconsistent with the fair value measurement objective for items acquired in a business combination such as tax ass

31、ets, tax liabilities and net employee benefit assets or liabilities for defined benefit plans.Furthermore, some IFRSs contain measurement reliability criteria. For example, IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment permits the revaluation model to be used only if fair value can be measured reliably This

32、project will not change any of that guidance.Rather, that guidance will be considered project by project.However, the IASB plans to use the Fair Value Measurements project to establish guidance where there currently is none, such as in IAS 17 Leases, as well as to eliminate inconsistent guidance tha

33、t does not clearly articulate a single measurement objective.Because SFAS 157 establishes a single source of guidance and a single objective that can be applied to all fair value measurements, the IASB has reached the preliminary view that SFAS 157 is an improvement on the disparate guidance in IFRS

34、s. However, as discussed in more detail below, the IASB has not reached preliminary views on all provisions of SFAS 157.2.Differences of The Definitions of Fair Value In Two StatementsParagraph 5 of SFAS 157 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer

35、a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Bycomparison, fair value is generally defined in IFRSs as the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction (withsom

36、e slight variations in wording in different standards). Thedefinition in SFAS 157 differs from the definition in IFRSs in three important ways:1)The definition in SFAS 157 is explicitly an exit (selling) price. Thedefinition in IFRSs is neither explicitly an exit price nor an entry (buying) price.2)

37、The definition in SFAS 157 explicitly refers to market participants. The definition in IFRSs refers to knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction.3)For liabilities, the definition of fair value in SFAS 157 rests on the notion that the liability is transferred (the liability to the

38、counterparty continues; it is not settled with the counterparty). The definition in IFRSs refers to the amount at which a liability could be settled between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction.These differences are discussed in more detail below.2.1 Exit Price Measurement Ob

39、jectiveThe Basis for Conclusions of SFAS 157 are stated below: The transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability is a hypothetical transaction at the measurement date, considered from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, the objecti

40、ve of a fair value measurement is to determine the price that would be received for the asset or paid to transfer the liability at the measurement date, that is, an exit price. The Board of FASB concluded that an exit price objective is appropriate because it embodies current expectations about the

41、future inflows associated with the asset and the future outflows associated with the liability from the perspective of market participants. The emphasis on inflows and outflows is consistent with the definitions of assets and liabilities in FASB Concepts Statement No.6, Elements of Financial INVITAT

42、ION TO COMMENT Statements. Paragraph 25 of Concepts Statement 6 defines assets in terms of future economic benefits (future inflows). Paragraph 35 of Concepts Statement 6 defines liabilities in terms of future sacrifices of economic benefits (future outflows).Paragraph 49 of the IASBs Framework for

43、the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements similarly defines assets and liabilities in terms of inflows and outflows of economic benefits. The majority of IASB members believe that a fair value measurement with an exit price objective is consistent with these definitions and is appropr

44、iate because it reflects current market-based expectations of flows of economic benefit into or out of the entity. Other IASB members agree with this view, but in their view an entry price also reflects current market-based expectations of flows of economic benefit into or out of the entity. Therefo

45、re, they suggest replacing the term fair value with terms that are more descriptive of the measurement attribute, such as current entry price or current exit price.An entry price measurement objective would differ from the exit price objective in SFAS 157 in that it would be defined as the price tha

46、t would be paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Some members of the IASB are of the view that an entry price and an exit price would be the same amount in the same market, assuming that transaction c

47、osts are excluded.However, an entity might buy an asset or assume a liability in one market and sell that same asset or transfer that same liability (ie without modification or repackaging) in another market.In such circumstances, the exit price in SFAS 157 would be likely to differ from the entry p

48、rice.Some fair value measurements required by IFRSs might not be consistent with an exit price measurement objective. In particular, the IASB observes that this might be the case when fair value is required on initial recognition, such as in:1)IFRS 3.2)IAS 17 for the initial recognition of assets an

49、d liabilities by a lessee under a finance lease.3)IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement for the initial recognition of some financial assets and financial liabilities.In developing an exposure draft, the IASB may propose a revised definition of fair value. If so, it will complete

50、 a standard-by-standard review of fair value measurements required in IFRSs to assess whether each standards intended measurement objective is consistent with the proposed definition. If the IASB concludes that the intended measurement objective in a particular standard is inconsistent with the prop

51、osed definition of fair value, either that standard will be excluded from the scope of the exposure draft or the intended measurement objective will be restated using a term other than fair value (such as current entry value). To assist in its review, the IASB would like to understand how the fair v

52、alue measurement guidance in IFRSs is currently applied in practice. It therefore requests respondents to identify those fair value measurements in IFRSs for which practice differs from the fair value measurement objective in SFAS 157. 2.2 Market Participant ViewSFAS 157 emphasises that a fair value

53、 measurement is a market-basedmeasurement, not an entity-specific measurement. Therefore, a fairvalue measurement should be based on the assumptions that marketparticipants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Furthermore, evenwhen there is limited or no observable market activity, the objec

54、tive ofthe fair value measurement remains the same: to determine the price that would be received to sell an asset or be paid to transfer a liability inan orderly transaction between market participants at the measurementdate, regardless of the entitys intention or ability to sell the asset ortransf

55、er the liability at that date.Paragraph 10 of SFAS 157 defines market participants as buyers and sellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset orliability who are:1)Independent of the reporting entity; that is, they are not related parties.2)Knowledgeable, having a reasonable

56、understanding about the asset or liability and the transaction based on all available information, including information that might be obtained through due diligence efforts that are usual and customary.3)Able to transact for the asset or liability.4)Willing to transact for the asset or liability; t

57、hat is, they are motivated but not forced or otherwise compelled to do so.In comparison, the definition of fair value in IFRSs refers toknowledgeable, willing parties in an arms length transaction.Paragraphs 42-44of IAS 40 Investment Property provide a description of this concept.The definition of f

58、air value refers to knowledgeable, willing parties.In this context, knowledgeable means that both the willing buyer and the willing seller are reasonably informed about the nature and characteristics of the investment property, its actual and potential uses, and market conditions at the balance shee

59、t date. A willing buyer is motivated, but not compelled, to buy. This buyer is neither over-eager nor determined to buy at any price.The assumed buyer would not pay a higher price than a market comprising knowledgeable, willing buyers and sellers would require.A willing seller is neither an over-eager nor a forced seller, prepared to sell at any price