从公允价值计量的发展看双重会计计量模式的必然趋势

本文回顾公允价值计量的历史背景及其发展历程认为,单一的会计计量模式无法适应时代的发展潮流,只有以公允价值和历史成本为主的双重计量模式,才能满足经济发展的需要。只要金融创新存在,公允价值会计就不会消失,在今后的财务会计与财务报告中,双重计量并存仍将是一个长期并持续发展的态势。     

从公允价值计量的发展看双重会计计量模式的必然趋势

本文回顾公允价值计量的历史背景及其发展历程认为,单一的会计计量模式无法适应时代的发展潮流,只有以公允价值和历史成本为主的双重计量模式,才能满足经济发展的需要。只要金融创新存在,公允价值会计就不会消失,在今后的财务会计与财务报告中,双重计量并存仍将是一个长期并持续发展的态势。     

试论财务会计双重计量模式的必然性

财务会计发展历程证明,无论是历史成本计量模式,还是公允价值计量模式,单一的财务会计计量模式都无法适应现代多变而复杂的经济环境的需要。2008年全球金融危机使得业界对备受青睐的公允价值计量模式提出质疑,认为它是罪魁祸首,而开始对双重财务计量模式或是多重财务计量模式加大研究。本文简单介绍了财务会计计量模式的发展历程,对当前业界的几种财务会计计量模式趋势进行分析,结合笔者的实际工作经验,提出以历史成本计量和公允价值计量模式并存的财务会计计量模式将成为必然趋势。     

会计计量模式的探讨

自20世纪下半叶以来,对传统的会计计量模式的批评和新的计量模式的研究从未停止。过去的经验告诉我们,历史成本计量有着不可替代的优越性和必要性,但是其局限性同样无法避免。本文认为:在不久的将来,历史成本、公允价值并用的"双重计量模式"是会计计量模式的必然选择。     

会计计量模式的探讨

自20世纪下半叶以来,对传统的会计计量模式的批评和新的计量模式的研究从未停止。过去的经验告诉我们,历史成本计量有着不可替代的优越性和必要性,但是其局限性同样无法避免。本文认为:在不久的将来,历史成本、公允价值并用的"双重计量模式"是会计计量模式的必然选择。     

论后金融危机时期会计双重计量模式并存的必然趋势

2008年金融危机让全球经济严重受挫,备受推崇的公允价值再次成为理论界、实务界讨论的重点,在一片质疑声中各界再次对会计计量模式的进行了探索.会计计量模式的选择受会计信息质量要求的制约,而会计信息质量又取决于会计目标的制定.本文首先分析了会计计量目标以及会计信息质量特征,然后在对比了历史成本和公允价值计量模式各自优劣的基础上,提出双重计量模式的并存是后金融危机时期会计计量模式的必然趋势.     

新会计准则中公允价值计量属性运用的思考

<正>我国财政部于2006年2月发布的新会计准则体系,在诸多方面实现了新的突破,其中公允价值计量属性的运用是最为显著的方面,主要在金融工具、投资性房地产等17个具体准则中不同程度地运用了公允价值,意味着我国传统意义上以历史成本为主导的计量模式被历史成本、公允价值等多重计量属性并存的计量模式所取代,标志着我国会计向国际趋同迈出了实质性的一步。     

资产分类下的公允价值计量属性探讨

公允价值的双重计量属性是历史的选择,资产分为通用性资产和专用性资产,本文通过比较得出,用公允价值计量的项目在市场上存在替代品,符合通用性资产的定义,由此得出了通用性资产适合公允价值计量,专用性资产不适合公允价值计量的结论。     

资产分类下的公允价值计量属性探讨

公允价值的双重计量属性是历史的选择,资产分为通用性资产和专用性资产,本文通过比较得出,用公允价值计量的项目在市场上存在替代品,符合通用性资产的定义,由此得出了通用性资产适合公允价值计量,专用性资产不适合公允价值计量的结论。     

浅谈公允价值计量模式在我国会计中的适用性及适用范围

“公允价值”作为一个全新的计量属性概念，起源于20世纪80年代美国证券交易管理委员会与金融界之间，关于金融工具尤其是衍生金融工具确认、计量的争论。美国财务会计准则委员会（FASB）在1990年以来发布了一系列涉及确认与计量以及现值技术应用问题的财务会计准则概念公告，随后于2000年2月又正式发表了第7辑概念公告《在会计计量中使用现金流量信息和现值》，继而在国际国内都掀起了一股“公允价值会计计量模式”的旋风。目前在国内，讨论的焦点主要是“现阶段公允价值是否可取代历史成本”以及“公允价值加何计量”。大体上存在三种观点：一种观点认为使用公允价值计量比历史成本更具优越性，且已经具备使用公允价值的条件，所以，应使用公允价值计量。另一种观点认为，使用公允价值计量存在一些弊端，且受客观条件所限，现阶段还不应使用公允价值计量。第三一种观点认为，在现阶段应该是历史成本和公允价值同时并存。笔者比较倾向于最后一种观点，实行公允价值的计量模式是未来一种趋势，但是，在现阶段还不宜用公允价值完全替代历史成本，即在我国这一特殊国情的条件下，采用公允价值与历史成本共同计量这一过渡模式还是比较理想的。     

公允价值计量模式下生产性生物资产会计处理的探讨——以林木类资产为例

由于农业活动的特殊性,生物资产的计量模式的选择一直是农业会计研究领域的热点之一。国际会计准则采用公允价值对生产性生物资产进行计量,而我国会计准则采用以历史成本为主、公允价值为辅的计量模式。本文通过对两种计量属性的比较,结合生产性生物资产自身的特点,提出公允价值是生产性生物资产计量的最优选择,最后举例阐述了公允价值计量模式下生产性生物资产的具体会计处理。     

Articulation,Profit or Loss and OCI in the IASB Conceptual Framework: Different Shades of Clean (or Dirty) Surplus

Abstract

The 2015 International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Conceptual Framework Exposure Draft (2015 IASB CF ED) proposes a mixed valuation and transactions approach to income determination. Nevertheless, it does not clearly choose between single or dual concepts of profit, which renders the 2015 IASB CF ED’s financial accounting model somewhat incoherent. The 2015 IASB CF ED proposes a rebuttable presumption that profit or loss should be all-inclusive. Only the IASB can rebut this presumption, but the 2015 IASB CF ED provides no clear conceptual basis on which to rebut this presumption. In spite of considering dual measurement, the IASB believes that it is neither possible, nor necessary, to distinguish between profit or loss and other comprehensive income (OCI) on a conceptual basis. This paper suggests that the 2015 IASB CF ED’s approach to measurement can be improved by introducing a deprival value measurement rule in cases where fair value and historical cost are not appropriate. Furthermore, it argues that under dual measurement it is both necessary and possible to make a conceptual distinction between the realised items of income and expense in profit or loss and those recognised by accretion in OCI.     

Fair Value Measurements of Control Premiums

As the overview of the current state of research within this paper shows, the debate around fair value measurements is far from over. This paper analyzes fair value measurement requirements in a controversial scenario, namely when a control premium exists. The analyses of the paper show that, while measurement rules around control premiums could have a material impact on fair value measurements and the financial statements as a whole, significant fair value measurement issues remain unresolved. The conclusion is that fair value measurements should include or exclude control premiums consistently. It is argued that including control premiums for all fair value measurements is the most faithful representation of the underlying economic phenomenon. This paper contributes to the fair value measurement debate by comparing the merits of alternative fair value measurements for control premiums and highlights an area where researchers, investors, and other users should exercise caution when evaluating financial statements.     

关于在财务会计中采用公允价值的探讨

近年来,美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)和国际会计准则理事会(IASB)大力倡导会计计量运用面向现在和未来的、以市场为基础的公允价值。本文着重研究并比较IASB和FASB给出的公允价值定义和相关的基本概念,认为公允价值是面向市场、以假想交易为对象的一种估计价格,可以有三级估计,最佳的估计是(相同)资产或负债主市场或最有利市场的价格,指出了它带来的缺陷。文章认为,公允价值计量乃是财务会计发展的大势所趋;如果公允价值得以全面应用,则财务会计将有可能反映企业的价值(或其近似值)。     

会计计量属性的探讨——市场价格、历史成本、现行成本与公允价值

资产和负债必须有相关的计量属性。本文讨论三项资产(包括负债)的三项属性,即市场价格、历史成本、现行成本和公允价值。市场价格是所有计量属性的基本概念,其他计量属性如历史成本、现行成本、现行销售(脱手)价格都来自市场价格。本文详细解释并说明历史成本和现行成本,重点是公允价值。在本文中,我们介绍并陈述了九个不同的公允价值定义,讨论了公允价值的层次,并反复说明公允价值是在现行交易中的估计价格,而不是在过去交易中形成的实际价格。     

A Standard setter’s framework for selecting between fair value and historical cost measurement attributes: a basis for discussion of “Does fair value accounting for nonfinancial assets pass the market test?”

This paper describes an income-statement-focused framework for selecting between between the fair value and historical cost measurement attributes that differs from the balance-sheet-focused relevance versus reliability tradeoff perspective that is common to most academic research. This income-statement-focused framework is then applied to the Christensen and Nikolaev setting in Rev Account Stud 18(3), (2013) to suggest that most of the study’s findings are not surprising and can be explained by differences in the income-relevance of fair value and historical cost measures for nonfinancial assets rather than issues with the reliability of fair value measurements, which is the perspective taken by the authors. The paper closes by suggesting additional research on the use of fair value and historical cost measures for nonfinancial assets that would be most relevant to current standard-setting activities of the Financial Accounting Standards Board.     

Fair Value Accounting and Stewardship*

Current standards define fair value as the market price at which an asset could be sold or a liability could be settled in the normal course of business. Setting aside measurement issues, assessing the relevance of exit values has intensified in recent years as fair value becomes a pervasive component of accounting regulation. The current debate about accounting measurement is framed in terms of making a choice between fair value and historical cost. In this article I argue that this is not a correct framing of the issues; knowledge of fair value alone cannot help investors to evaluate stewardship, because they would not know how much resources the management had sacrificed to obtain that fair value. To properly evaluate stewardship, investors need both types of information, historical cost and fair value.Using this information, a rate‐of‐return‐like index of stewardship quality is proposed. This commentary concludes with a statement about three significant drawbacks of relying solely on fair value accounting.     

我国公允价值计量研究的现状及相关问题探析

本文在分析我国公允价值计量研究现状的基础上,对公允价值的概念、公允价值与其他计量属性之间的关系、公允价值计量的可靠性以及公允价值层级等几个方面进行了深入探悉。公允价值研究领域的不均衡和公允价值方法研究的不足构成了前几年我国会计准则、制度中公允价值应用的障碍;"时态观"是公允价值的一个本质特征;公允价值是由"现行市价"和"现值"两种计量属性发展而来的一种具有"复合"性质的计量属性;公允价值会计信息不仅相关,而且具备合理的可靠性;合理界定公允价值层级是可靠计量公允价值的基础。     

新会计准则下公允价值会计理论的研究

与提高会计信息质量的相关性相适应,完善和应用公允价值计量是一种趋势。作为五大计量属性之一,基于理论上的局限性,应用上大量的假设和前提,公允价值计量是可供选择的计量方法之一。因此,要积极、稳妥地推进公允价值的计量,提高会计信息的质量,更好地服务于经济发展。     

Does fair value accounting for non-financial assets pass the market test?

The choice between fair value and historical cost accounting is the subject of long-standing controversy among accounting academics and regulators. Nevertheless, the market-based evidence on this subject is limited. We study the choice of fair value versus historical cost accounting for non-financial assets in a setting where market forces rather than regulators determine the outcome. In general, we find a very limited use of fair value accounting. However, the observed variation is consistent with market forces determining the choice. Fair value accounting is used when reliable fair value estimates are available at a lower cost and when they convey information about operating performance. For example, with very few exceptions, firms’ managers commit to historical cost accounting for plant and equipment. Our findings contribute to the policy debate by documenting the market solution to one of the central questions in the accounting literature. Our findings indicate that, despite its conceptual merits, fair value is unlikely to become the primary valuation method for illiquid non-financial assets on a voluntary basis.