公允价值选择权对金融工具会计处理影响述评

20世纪90年开始,金融工具以及衍生金融工具的发展和普遍应用对财务会计提出了新的挑战,公允价值成为金融工具会计发展的新方向。但是,公允价值对历史成本的完全替代尚需时日,因此,现行的会计准则采取的是公允价值和历史成本共存的混合计量模式,准则制定机构提出了许多改进混合计量模式下的财务会计信息质量的措施,公允价值选择权就是其中之一。     

商业银行执行新会计准则前后会计信息的差异比较

一是引入了公允价值的计量属性，有利于全面揭示市场风险。新的会计体系将按照现行国际惯例把“公允价值”概念引入中国会计体系。公允价值计量模式，是指以市场价值或未来现金流量的现值作为资产和负债的主要计量属性的会计模式。新会计准则对计量属性做出了重大调整，不再强调历史成本为基础计量属性，全面引入公允价值、现值等计量属性，对于商业银行来说，差异较大的主要体现在金融工具、债务重组等方面。资本市场的波动，将直接影响商业银行特别是上市银行的资产负债表和利润表，增加了损益的波动和经营成果的不稳定性，加大了资本充足率管理难度。     

公允价值计量属性在我国推行的几点建议

随着社会经济的发展,金融工具、无形资产、人力资产、自创商誉的不断涌现,特别是衍生金融工具的日新月异,传统的会计计量观念和计量属性受到冲击.近年来,各国会计准则更多地使用"公允价值"这一全新的计量属性.我国2006年新颁布的<企业会计准则>(以下简称"新会计准则")---基本准则第四十二条明确了现行会计准则应采用5种会计计量属性,其中就包括了公允价值这一计量属性.本文拟从公允价值的概念、公允价值计量属性的优缺点等几方面展开讨论,以为公允价值在我国的推行提供一些合理化的建议.     

《金融工具确认和计量》准则对基金投资的影响

现行会计准则体系中《金融工具确认和计量》准则首次对金融工具的确认和计量做出了相关规定。本文分析了该准则对基金投资可能产生的影响，认为一方面公允价值计量模式将引起基金估值的变化，另一方面公允价值变动可能引起基金分红规模的扩大，这对基金投资者的影响是显而易见的。本文结合这两方面的影响对基金投资提出了相关建议。     

基于公允价值计量的衍生金融工具的会计风险探析——以中国建设银行股份有限公司为例

本文首先介绍在新会计准则中,衍生金融工具的公允价值计量的方法和原则。在此基础上,以中国建设银行股份有限公司为例,重点分析基于公允价值计量的衍生金融工具在会计确认、会计计量和会计信息披露中可能产生的风险。最后,提出了防范衍生金融工具使用公允价值计量的会计风险的方法。     

实施新会计准则 强化银行风险管理

实施新会计准则将促使银行完善风险管理体系、有效管理和控制市场风险。同时,实施新准则也有可能加剧金融资产和金融负债等财务指标的波动,其原因是公允价值计量属性要求金融工具的账面价值随公允价值的变动而变动,即金融工具公允价值的波动要及时在报表中予以确认,进而导致银行机构权益和资产负债率的变动。应对新会计准则,银行应提升风险管理水平,完善内部业绩评价体系;加大科技投入,开发、改造信息系统;创新监管方式,减少公允价值计量主观因素影响。     

公允价值计量对上市公司财务决策行为的影响 ——以金融工具为例

目前,公允价值计量广泛应用于金融工具.基于契约有用性的研究视角,金融工具的最优计量基础是公允价值.金融工具运用公允价值计量会对上市公司筹资、投资、收益分配等财务决策行为产生不同的影响.因此,公允价值会计准则需进一步完善,以防止公允价值再次成为会计粉饰的工具.     

浅析衍生金融工具对传统财务会计理论的冲击

财政部颁布的新会计准则中,金融工具会计准则因引入公允价值计量属性而受人瞩目.是否要求所有衍生金融工具按公允价值计量、衍生金融工具项目是否应在表内确认等等,这一直是衍生金融工具会计及其准则制订实践中长期存在争论的问题.本文对此进行分析和阐述.     

金融资产的计量及其对所得税的影响

我国新会计准则的一大亮点是大量采用了公允价值计量,进一步增加了财务报表信息的相关性。在新会计准则体系中,除了初始确认和计量大量采用公允价值外,某些资产的后续计量也规定或允许采用公允价值模式,这在金融资产计量中尤其明显。金融资产的后续计量采用公允价值模式,这与所得税政策不相吻合。文章主要以《企业会计准则第22号——金融工具确认与计量》和《企业会计准则第18号——所得税》为基础,阐述了以公允价值计量的金融资产的会计处理及其对所得税的影响。     

金融危机下吉林省应用公允价值计量模式的思考

金融危机下公允价值计量模式对企业会计信息的披露产生了极大的影响,吉林省可以从培育与完善各种公开市场、健全公允价值计量准则及其框架体系、规范评估技术、谨慎运用公允价值准则、强调如实表述、强化会计人员素质、加强各种活跃市场的监管、规范衍生金融工具的公允价值计量及其风险技露、加强投资者风险和素质教育、不断采用新技术完善公允价值应用环境等方面完善公允价值计量模式的应用,促进吉林省经济的发展.     

公允价值计量对我国银行业的影响分析

在公允价值计量是大势所趋的背景下,本文从理论上分析了公允价值计量对银行业以及金融稳定性的影响与冲击,并结合我国金融工具会计准则的颁布与实施,探讨了公允价值计量对我国银行业的预期影响。本文的分析表明,公允价值计量所涉及的重要概念以及许多实际重大问题还没有得以完全解决,并且它的实施确实会对银行业乃至整个金融体系产生重大影响和冲击。     

公允价值会计涉及的三个层次基本理论问题

本文认为公允价值计量模式是与财务报告的决策有用性目标相一致的,如果财务报告决策有用性的目标不能被推翻,则公允价值计量模式不会被取消。但是公允价值计量模式在短期内不会成为唯一的计量模式,21世纪将是混合计量模式的时代。既然混合计量模式将是未来相当长时期内的主要会计计量模式,那么各财务报表项目采用何种计量属性应以财务报表需达到的质量要求为判断依据,采用公允价值计量的项目应提高其信息质量。     

Research Note: Revisiting Fair Value Accounting––Measuring Commercial Banks' Liabilities

IAS 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement (IASB, 2000), requires assets to be marked to fair value if held-for-trading, available-for-sale purposes, or if they are derivatives; held-to-maturity securities, originated loans and originated securities are measured at amortized cost, providing they are not held-for-trading. Financial liabilities are measured at amortized cost except those that are held-for-trading or derivatives. A proposed amendment would accommodate improved fair value measurement of financial instruments. Commercial banks are greatly affected by any accounting standard concerning the recognition and measurement of financial instruments, whether related to assets or liabilities. This article demonstrates that the existing and proposed standards perpetuate the mismeasurement of interest rate risk for commercial banks. Under IAS 39 banks that have a balanced position, that is, no interest rate risk, counterfactually could show large changes in income through interest rate changes. An alternative accounting treatment, full fair value reporting of financial assets and liabilities, including all loans and deposits, is offered. Presently fair value data are mandated as footnote disclosure.     

Another step towards full fair value accounting for financial instruments

The international Joint Working Group of Standard Setters (JWG) was established by the IASC (replaced by the IASB in 2001) and other national accounting standard setters for the purpose of developing a comprehensive set of principles for reporting financial instrument at fair value. In December 2000 the JWG issued a Draft Standard addressing the accounting for financial instruments and similar items. The proposals in the Draft Standard would affect existing accounting practice in many areas, including those related to the use of hedge accounting. This article states the main problems that could result from applying the provisions of that Draft Standard, offering some alternative approaches to overcome those problems.     

Financial instruments in non-financial firms: what do we know?

Accounting for financial instruments is one of the most controversial standard setting issues. Attempts by standard setters to expand the scope of fair value measurement provoked fierce opposition from preparers, in particular from the financial industry but also, albeit less frequently and less scathingly, from non-financial firms. Academic research could help to bring the discussion onto a more objective level. Most of the existing research focuses on the financial industry and uses US disclosure data from the 1990s. More recent papers use recognition and measurement data from IFRS financial statements, again primarily from the financial industry. This paper provides novel evidence on the relevance of financial instruments for non-financial firms of the STOXX Europe 600 Index. The results in particular refute the myths that fair value measurement of financial instruments is pervasive and that many fair value measurements are of the problematic ‘level 3’ quality. The empirical evidence forms the background for a survey of the small body of existing research on the effects of accounting standards relating to financial instruments on non-financial firms. This survey covers research on the effects on risk management, on the volatility of cash flows and earnings, on earnings management and on the effects on user decisions. Both in the empirical sections and in the survey sections, I identify a number of areas for further research to overcome the poor current state of knowledge.     

关于公允价值会计的研究——面向财务会计的本质特征

论文从两个方面对公允价值进行了剖析。首先从经验数据层面(数据来自美国证监会挑选的50家金融机构)对公允价值应用结果进行了考察。其次,也是更重要的,又从财务会计的理论层面进行分析。公允价值计量在财务会计中是有用的,将公允价值计量与确认相结合的公允价值会计却无用,因为它是估计数字,估计数字若在资产、负债、权益(净资产)和收益中确认,这就歪曲了财务报表的数字(真实数与估计数相混合,已实现的收益与未实现的公允价值变动相混合)。历史成本信息由财务报表提供较好,而公允价值信息由报表附注、其他财务报告提供较好。     

论公允价值计量与资产减值会计计量的统一

本文从财务报告模式的转换讨论了建立与财务报表目标、会计信息质量特征和要素定义相符的计量标准,进而分析了现行主要准则体系中公允价值计量与资产减值会计计量的分离及其不利后果。在此基础上,提出了基于财务报告"价值观"的要求统一公允价值计量与资产减值会计计量的可能途径,从而为解决以FASB和IASB为主的不同准则制定机构关于资产减值会计计量的分歧,实现会计准则的全球趋同,以及建立全球统一的高质量会计准则提供了可行的思路。     

公允价值计量模式应用对商业银行的影响分析

新会计准则引入了公允价值计量模式,建立了完整的确认和计量体系.本文从商业银行角度入手,对公允价值计量模式在新准则中的具体应用进行了分析,提出了商业银行应提高对市场的风险管理能力,通过有效地确认公允价值来进一步提升商业银行会计信息的质量和透明度.     

关于公允价值本质的思考

目前会计界关于公允价值本质有"独立计量属性观"、"复合计量属性观"、"计量目标观"和"检验尺度观"等多种不同的观点,这些观点的形成与不同时期各国会计准则对公允价值的不同理解和规定密切相关。公允价值是在传统的"基于交易会计"逐步转向"基于价值会计"过程中形成的,公允价值的本质应放在"基于价值会计"体系中进行定位。"基于价值会计"在会计目标定位、会计信息质量要求、会计确认、会计计量以及财务报告等各个方面都与传统的"基于交易会计"有一定区别。在"基于价值会计"体系中,公允价值是会计计量力图实现的一种理想目标,各种计量属性是实现这一目标的具体手段,公允价值体现了"真实与公允"会计理念对采用各种计量属性进行价值计量的一种约束和要求。将公允价值狭义地定位成一种具体计量属性,不仅与公允价值在"基于价值会计"体系中的层次地位不符,也与各国会计准则关于公允价值计量的整体精神相违背,还与实务界常用的计量属性之一——"现行市价"有重复之嫌。     

Agency problems,accounting slack,and banks’ response to proposed reporting of loan fair values

We investigate the determinants of bank representatives’ responses to the United States Financial Accounting Standard Board’s 2010 Exposure Draft that proposes fair value measurement for most financial instruments. Over 85% of the 2971 comment letters were received from bank representatives, with most bank-affiliated letters addressing—and opposing—one issue: fair value measurement of loans. The Exposure Draft proposes that companies report both fair value and amortized cost measures for loans; thus, the proposal should result in increased levels of loan-related information and improved financial reporting transparency. We investigate three reasons for bank representatives’ resistance. First, fair value measurement should result in less accounting slack than the current incurred-loss model for loan impairments; therefore, we propose that representatives from banks that historically utilized that slack will resist fair value measurement for loans. Second, we propose that agency problems are an important motivating factor because bank representatives reaping more private benefits from their franchises have less incentive to support increases in financial reporting transparency. Third, we test whether the most common reasons for opposition included in the comment letters are associated with negative letter writing. Our analyses support the first two determinants of bank representatives’ resistance to the Exposure Draft. Specifically, accounting slack and lower demand for accounting transparency are strongly associated with resistance to the standard. However, we find that stated reasons for resistance are not associated with letter writing. Specifically, representatives at firms with difficult to value loans and firms that mostly hold loans to maturity are no more likely to resist the standard than others. The narrow scope of bank representatives’ comments and our empirical findings suggest that bankers’ responses to the Exposure Draft may be more driven by concerns over reduced availability of accounting slack and accompanying de facto regulatory forbearance than by the conceptual arguments they offer. Our results have implications for standard setters, who must navigate special interests as they attempt to promulgate high quality accounting standards, and for users of financial statements who must consider how political forces shape generally accepted accounting principles.