论生产性生物资产后续计量属性的选择

《企业会计准则第5号——生物资产》颁布后,如何对生产性生物资产的计量属性进行选择,在准则中规定企业要采用公允价值模式对生产性生物资产进行计量。文章就公允价值的概念、目前采用公允价值的障碍和现实选择予以分析。     

生物资产计量模式选择的思考

生物资产是农业企业重要的生产资料和不可或缺的资产 ,计量是生物资产会计理论的核心和关键问题。生物资产对象极为特殊 ,要选择符合资产特性的计量模式。其影响因素包括对会计本质的理解、企业会计不同目的的选择、会计的契约观或信息观、相关性与可靠性的选择与权衡、不同计量属性本身的特性、市场环境的成熟程度、信息成本和效益的约束等。IAS 4 1明确规定生物资产在初始确认和各个资产负债表日 ,按公允价值减去预计至销售将发生的费用计量 ,我国对生物资产的计量不能完全照搬IAS 4 1的规定 ,可以选择历史成本计量的基础上 ,辅之以公允价值信息的方式。     

生产性生物资产后续计量的探讨

《企业会计准则第5号——生物资产澍生物资产的后续计量作了明确的规定，其中第二十二条规定“有确属证据表明生物资产的公允价值能够持续可靠取得的，应当对生物资产采用公允价值”。同时规定了采用公允价值计量的二个条件是：（1）生物资产有活跃的交易市场；（2）能够从交易市场上取得同类或类似生物资产的市场价格及其他相关信息，从而对生物资产的公允价值作出合理估计。随着市场经济的不断完善，农村市场的不断活跃，生物资产后续计量采用公允价值模式的条件似乎已经具备了。     

我国生物资产计量模式的现实选择

国际会计准则对生物资产的计量采用的是公允价值的计量模式,与国际会计准则不同,我国会计准则对生物资产的计量采用的是以历史成本为主的计量模式,这是由生物资产的特点和我国当前所处的经济环境等因素共同决定的。     

浅谈公允价值计量模式在渔业生物资产中的应用

我国与国际的生物资产准则最大的区别在于对生物资产的计量模式的选择不同,目前我国已具备渔业生物资产公允价值计量的可行性,结合渔业生物资产的生物特性,明确公允价值计量模式在渔业生物资产中的初始与后续计量方法,提出完善渔业生物资产公允价值计量的保障措施,对渔业生物资产价值进行合理计量,为信息使用者提供有用的信息.     

对生产性生物资产减值确认和计量的探讨

生产性生物资产减值的确认和计量是以成本模式计量的生物资产会计核算的重要组成部分。本文首先阐述了生产性生物资产减值的相关规定及其制定的理论依据,结合农业上市公司自执行新会计准则体系后生产性生物资产计提减值准备的具体情况,分析出可回收金额的难以确定是制约生物资产减值会计核算的主要原因,进而提出确定生产性生物资产可收回金额的程序、实务操作方法和已计提的生产性生物资产减值应允许部分转回的建议。     

论成本核算视角的盆花生物资产计量模式

随着低碳经济战略的实施，我国盆花生产规模增长迅速，国内销售额持续上升，出口额不断扩大。在我国盆花产业蓬勃兴起的形势下，绿大地、顺鑫农业、东方园林等农业股业绩迅速提升。但它们无一例外都对盆花生物资产采用了历史成本计量模式，这与国外推行公允价值计量模式形成了鲜明的对比。那么，盆花生物资产的特点如何，我国上市公司应如何对盆花生物资产进行计量，本文将就上述问题进行探讨。     

长期资产减值损失转回研究

正一、长期资产减值损失的制度分析(一)我国准则规定《企业会计准则第8号——资产减值》规定,除存货、公允价值计量的投资性房地产、消耗性生物资产、建造合同形成的资产、递延所得税资产、融资租赁中出租人为担保的余值、22号准则规定的金融资产以及未探明石油天然气矿区权益不适用于第8号准则外,其他长期资产(主要包括长期股权投资、采用成本模式计量的投资性房地产、固定资产、无形资产、生产性生物资产、探明石油天然气矿区权益、商誉等)采用账面价值与未来可收回金额孰高确定减值损     

非货币性资产交换中公允价值的运用研究

在非货币性资产交换中对换入资产的入账价值的确定以及损益的确认是一个不可回避的难题,如何选择正确的计量属性对换入资产的入账价值进行确认,以至使企业的会计信息质量更可靠、更相关;有很多地方值得研究。非货币性资产交换中,在满足条件的情况下,采用公允价值计量,会计信息的相关性将得到更充分的体现。由于公允价值数据的获取有一定的难度,需要很多的估计与判断,使得公允价值的推广运用受到了限制,但是,估计和判断是会计具有的特性,我们不应将专业人员的判断与“人为操纵”混为一谈。因此,在会计计量属性中选择公允价值计量,对我国会计报表的质量的提高将有很大的促进作用,这样将有利于决策者做出正确的决策,使得资本市场得到不断完善,经济也将会持续发展。     

生物资产计量问题探讨

国际会计准则第41号(IAS41)——农业项目,提出了生物资产的概念,并提出用公允价值对生物资产进行计量,准则自22003年1月1日开始执行,这一准则在很大程度上规范了农业企业的会计处理。目前,我国还没有制定生物资产准则,但是这并不意味着我国企业不受其影响。例如,我国的对外投资企业需要按照 IAS41提供会计报表,国内的农业企业要吸引外资也需要按此准则提供会计报表给国外的投资人,以确定可能的投资报酬。下面我们就生物资产的计量问题作一些探讨。     

资产减值会计计量问题研究

本文研究的目的在于探讨资产减值会计计量的基本问题,即可收回金额的确定。本文从公允价值和现值两个方面展开研究,提出了资产减值会计中公允价值和现值计量的指导性框架,并从完善主体预算制度的角度探讨了现值技术在资产减值计量中运用的可行性。     

我国生物资产准则与IAS41的比较与思考

本文对我国生物资产会计准则与IAS41的异同点进行了比较分析,并在此基础上对当前和今后我国生物资产准则的完善进行了探讨。作者认为,我国生物资产准则与IAS41相比,在规范范围,生物资产确认、计量和披露诸方面实现了“大同”,但也存有“小异”;“大同”是我国实现会计国际趋同的客观要求,“小异”则是我国当前会计环境和会计改革进程的必然。从长远看,生物资产的计量应逐步由以历史成本为主转为以公允价值为主,实现计量属性选择优先序与IAS41的一致,同时,应在未来修订的生物资产准则和应用指南中充实、细化其信息披露的相关内容。     

Asset use and the relevance of fair value measurement: evidence from IAS 41

This study investigates whether asset use influences the relevance of fair value measurement. Specifically, I examine whether fair value is more relevant when it is applied to in-exchange assets than when it is applied to in-use assets. I test the framework on a sample of international firms that adopt International Accounting Standard 41. Using a difference-in-differences approach, I find that earnings information is significantly more relevant when firms measure in-exchange biological assets at fair value, but book value and earnings information is significantly less relevant when firms measure in-use biological assets at fair value. Consistent with these results, in cross-sectional analyses I find that investors discount the fair value of in-use biological assets and their associated unrealized gains and losses relative to the fair value of in-exchange biological assets. At present, the Conceptual Framework provides little guidance on asset measurement, resulting in inconsistencies across measurement standards. Thus, my findings may provide insight to standard setters and those interested in conceptually based asset measurement.     

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.     

Measurement Model or Asset Type: Evidence from an Evaluation of the Relevance of Financial Assets

This study focuses on the operation of the Level 1, 2, and 3 measurement uncertainty hierarchy embedded in the SFAS 157 accounting for financial assets. Prior studies conclude the SFAS 157 fair value measurement model and prevailing financial market conditions are causal factors for the lower value relevance of the Level 3 financial assets. The contribution of our paper is to provide evidence on an additional, hitherto undocumented source of measurement uncertainty impacting the relevance of SFAS 157 financial assets to investors: the type of asset appearing in Level 3 financial assets as a result of asset securitizations and SFAS 140 securitization accounting. The paper also presents evidence that suggests the SFAS 166 amendments were unable to fully address informational transparency for financial assets arising from securitizations. The key contribution is evidentiary insights suggesting the prescribed measurement model has a relatively lower impact on measurement uncertainty and relevance of financial assets compared to the effects of the asset type.     

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.     

公允价值会计的国际应用

本文比较全面和系统地回顾了公允价值会计在国际上的运用及对公允价值问题的实证研究。在评价公允价值运用于会计准则的基础上,对公允价值会计的现状以及未来发展进行了讨论。总的来看,公允价值由于其高度的相关性,已受到各界的高度关注。公允价值会计极有可能成为21世纪资产和负债的计量基础。     

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。     

Performance Reporting under Fair Value Accounting

Abstract

This paper compares performance measurement under fair value accounting vs. U.S. GAAP accounting. As illustrated in the paper, the main difference between fair value accounting and U.S. GAAP accounting lies in the treatment of gains and losses on both assets and liabilities. Fair value accounting would report all gains and losses on both assets and liabilities in the period in which they arise. U.S. GAAP on the other hand, recognizes gains and losses over the life of the block of business (or at the time of a transaction). When net gains and losses on assets and liabilities are immaterial, the pattern of earnings under both systems can be quite similar. However, If a company is generating significant gains or losses on its net book of business (such as in the case of an asset/liability mismatch), fair value accounting will reveal this much sooner than U.S. GAAP. When the full impact of its actions (including gains and losses) is reported in the current period, management is in a better position to understand how the value of the company is changing and adjust its decisions accordingly. This is one of the main reasons for moving to a fair value system and is expected to be a major benefit if fair value accounting is ultimately adopted.