关于资产评估价值的探讨

关于资产评估价值的探讨刘玉平资产评估是一门应用性、操作性较强的学科。但是，任何学科都是建立在科学理论基础之上的，有着深厚的理论基础。资产评估价值是资产评估中必须明确的问题。如何理解资产评估价值的涵义及其特征，我们进行了初步的研究①。为了系统把握资产评...     

技术资产评估方法选择之我见

要对一项技术资产进行科学、合理的评估,无论从理论或是可操作性方面,成本法都不适于技术资产的评估,市场法虽然从理论上可行,但可操作性很低,采用收益现值法,不仅符合技术资产的价值理论,而且可操作性强.     

我国当前评估实践中应用收益法存在的问题分析及对策

成本法、市场法和收益法是国际通行的资产评估的三大方法.随着我国资产交易的日趋活跃,无形资产评估、企业价值评估的需求增长,过去应用成本法来评估这些资产的做法已经越来越不适应社会发展的需求,取而代之的是应用收益法来评估无形资产、企业价值.与之相应,社会各界日益关注收益法在评估过程中的应用.     

资产基础法≠成本法

按照《企业价值评估指导意见（试行）》的要求,资产评估机构在评估企业价值时需采取两种或两种以上的方法进行评估。由于市场法受到我国目前公开信息披露量的制约,资产基础法和收益法成为目前企业价值评估中最常用的两种评估途径。因业内的习惯意识,资产基础法往往被理解为评估单项资产时采用的成本法。     

谈谈资产评估的价值基础

古典经济学中的劳动价值论和现代西方经济学中的供求平衡价值理论是资产评估的理论基础.采用现行市价法评估单项资产的价值是市场价值,采用重置成本法评估单项资产的价值主要是非市场价值.目前采用重置成本加和法评估一个持续经营企业的整体资产价值,当物价上涨时作为财务报告的补充资料来增强财务报告的有用性是必要的,但不符合持续经营价值的定义.现行市价法和收益现值法是评估一个持续经营企业的整体价值的有效方法,也是现代西方经济学中的供求平衡价值理论的体现,但现行市价法操作较难,因此整体资产的价值评估应定位于收益现值法.     

对资产评估中的"资产"概念的探析

资产是评估的对象,有关资产本质的理论也是评估理论的基础,但在我国资产的概念更多的是从会计角度出发的,评估中资产定义也过多地体现了会计的计量性质.本文从资产评估的几个基本问题入手,结合资产评估的前提假设、原则,试图从评估中的资产与其它领域的资产的区别于联系中把握资产的概念.     

资产评估重置成本法及其应用研究

资产评估在我国刚刚起步。为了正确运用这一方法对国有资产和非国有资产进行评估,以维护资产所有者和经营者的合法权益,有必要就其理论和实践方面的问题作进一步地探讨。这里,就重置成本法及其在资产评估中的应用问题谈一些看法。一在一般情况下,商品生产经营者购建资产的主要目的不是为了出售,而是为了使用。但是,当生产经营情况发生变化以后,物主又可将资产转让,使其再转化为货币或商品。资产     

浅析成本法评估公路收费权的不适应性

成本法的原理是生产费用价值观,它是从重新构建一项资产所需费用支出的角度来评估资产的价值,资产价值量的大小与其费用支出是密切相关的。有人主张用成本法评估公路收费权的价值,笔者认为成本法在公路收费权评估中具有明显的不适用性:1、公路收费权是指依托在公路实物资产上的     

数据资产的识别确认与价值评估

本文对数据资产的识别确认与价值评估进行深入探讨。对于数据资产的识别确认,本文比较了资产评估中的数据资产识别与会计核算中的数据资产确认的异同,着重分析了数据资产控制权及预期经济利益的判断,并对数据资产评估对象与评估范围的界定做出详细阐述。对于数据资产的价值评估,本文分别研究了运用成本法、收益法和市场法评估数据资产的难点事项,为数据资产评估提供理论支持与实践指导。     

关于资产基础法中评估增减值所得税的处理

我国的企业价值评估发展至今．收益法和市场法的应用越来越普遍，但从并购重组市场的评估方法应用情况来看．成本法（资产基础法）仍然占据着非常重要的地位：同时．资产基础法评估实务中的一些疑问和争议仍未得到解决，关于资产基础法评估增减值是否要考虑所得税就是其中一个争论不断、值得探讨的问题。     

跨行查询收费:替银行说几句话

银行卡跨行查询收费一经推出即遭到铺天盖地的反对,有的消费者甚至诉诸法庭。银行收取跨行查询费的行为究竟是出于对市场化原则的尊重还是蔑视?     

微笑传递快乐 激情奉献奥运

前言：在2008年北京奥运会上,奥运志愿者成为了一道亮丽的风景线,他们用自己最美的微笑和热情的服务给世界留下了深刻的印象。在这个充满青春朝气的群体中,也活跃着财政青年的身影,他们以40天辛勤付出和无私奉献,圆满完成使命,为北京奥运的成功举办贡献了力量,也留下人生中美好的回忆。现刊载中评协奥运志愿者——李念辰和崔新园的文章,将他们辛苦工作的经历再现,让他们的欢乐与广大读者共享。     

Managing for efficiency, managing for equity

It is a truism that not all managers do the same things in the same ways. Less often recognized, however, is the fact that the essential tasks and goals of management are not everywhere the same. Indeed, so unlike each other are the two primary systems of management--the "technocratic" and the "political"--that they consistently vary in the implicit contract offered to participants, the career path of members, the use of organizational structure, the choice of purpose, and the allocation of resources, but also provides a conceptual framework for understanding why they happen and what can be done to prevent their happening in the future.     

寿险产品评价体系研究

中国保险市场的发展,迫切需要建立保险评价体系.保险产品的评价体系是保险评价的核心,其主要目标是以保险产品相对透明为目的进行的.在所有的保险产品中,人身保险产品与社会大众关系最为密切,人身保险在保险业的保费收入中也占有决定性地位.所以,当务之急是首先建立人身保险产品的评价体系.寿险保单的保障程度、投资价值以及附带的服务水平是寿险产品的核心问题,应当成为寿险产品评价的主要内容.本文重点从寿险产品保障程度进行评价研究.     

Trust for accounting and accounting for trust

This paper combines insights from the sociology of knowledge and the emerging practice-based literature on learning and knowing to extend the institutional framework of accounting change developed by Burns and Scapens [Burns, J., Scapens, R.W., 2000. Conceptualising management accounting change: an institutional framework. Manage. Acc. Res., 11, 3–25]. In particular, it explores how management accounting systems (MAS) can be implicated in processes of learning and culture change, and used to identify ‘trustworthy’ solutions in the face of organisational crises. A case study of an Italian company, which was subject to massive change following its acquisition by General Electric, is used to discuss how, when crises arise and organisation members find themselves under intense pressure for change, their rationales and routinised behaviour, which are driven by the existing knowledge and cultural assumptions, are challenged. The case illustrates how MAS can act as sources of trust for the processes of change – i.e., accounting for trust; while at the same time being socially constructed objects of trust – i.e., trust for accounting. Drawing on the concept of personal trust and the notion of roles as access points to organisational (expert) systems, the paper discusses how, in this case, finance experts facilitated the acceptance and progressive sharing of new rationales and routines. Clearly, this does not guarantee that change will occur or occur in some ‘desired’ direction in other cases, but it increases the possibility of replacing trust in the predictability of routines with feelings of trust for change.     

Accounting for decisions and decisions for accounting

Behavioral decision theory (BDT) is concerned with “accounting for decisions”. The development of this interdisciplinary field is traced from the appearance of several key publications in the 1950s to the present. Whereas the 1960s saw increasing theoretical and empirical work, the field really started to flourish in the 1970s with the appearance of the review by Slovic & Lichtenstein (Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, pp. 549–744, 1971), and key papers on probabilistic judgment (Tversky & Kahneman, Science, pp. 1124–1131, 1974), and choice (Kahneman & Tversky, Econometrica, pp. 263–291, 1979). From the early 1980s to the present, BDT has seen considerable consolidation and expansion and its influence now permeates many fields of enquiry. After this brief history, eight major ideas or findings are discussed. These are: (1) that judgment can be modeled; (2) bounded rationality; (3) to understand decision making, understanding the task is more important than understanding the people; (4) levels of aspiration/reference points; (5) use of heuristic rules; (6) the importance of adding; (7) search for confirmation; and (8) thought as construction. Next, comments are addressed to differences between BDT and problem solving/cognitive science. It is argued that whereas many substantive differences are artificial, two distinct communities of researchers do exist. This is followed by a discussion of some major shortcomings currently facing BDT that include questions about the robustness of findings as well as overconcern with a few specific, “paradoxial” results. On the other hand, there are many interesting issues that BDT could address and several specific suggestions are made. Moreover, these issues represent opportunities for accounting research and several are enumerated. Finally, BDT presents “decisions for accounting” in the sense that scarce resources need to be allocated to different types of research that could illuminate accounting issues. The argument is made that BDT is one research metaphor or paradigm that has proved useful in accounting and that should be supported. Such support, however, may mean that some researchers may work on issues that, at first blush, might seem distant from accounting per se.     

关于《以财务报告为目的的评估指南（试行）》的起草说明

为适应新兴评估市场领域的发展,规范注册资产评估师执行以财务报告为目的的评估业务,保证评估执业质量,维护社会公共利益和资产评估各方当事人合法权益,中评协在财政部有关司局的帮助和指导下,组织有关专家起草了《以财务报告为目的的评估指南（试行）》（以下简称《指南》）。为便于评估机构和注册资产评估师以及相关部门、人士全面理解《指南》,现将有关起草情况说明如下。