外文翻译--金融工具公允价值会计银行监管的意义

《外文翻译--金融工具公允价值会计银行监管的意义》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译--金融工具公允价值会计银行监管的意义（12页珍藏版）》请在毕设资料网上搜索。

1、本科毕业论文（设计） 外 文 翻 译 外文题目 Fair value accounting for financial instrument：some implications for bank regulation 外文出处 Working paper, University of North Carolina. 外文 作者 Wayne R. Landsman 原文 ： Fair Value Accounting for Financial Instruments: Some Implications for Bank Regulation Introduction Accounting s

2、tandards setters in many jurisdictions around the world, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the European Union, have issued standards requiring recognition of balance sheet amounts at fair value, and changes in their fair values in income. For example, in the United Stat

3、es, the Financial Accounting Standards Board requires recognition of some investment securities and derivatives at fair value. In addition, as their accounting rules have evolved, many other balance sheet amounts have been made subject to partial application of fair value rules that depend on variou

4、s ad hoc circumstances, including impairment (e.g., goodwill and loans) and whether a derivative is used to hedge changes in fair value (e.g., inventories, loans, and fixed lease payments). The Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board (hereafter FASB and

5、IASB) are jointly working on projects examining the feasibility of mandating recognition of essentially all financial assets and liabilities at fair value in the financial statements. In the US, fair value recognition of financial assets and liabilities appears to enjoy the support the Securities an

6、d Exchange Commission (hereafter SEC). In a recent report prepared for a Congressional committee (SEC, 2005), the Office of the Chief Accountant of the SEC states two primary benefits of requiring fair value accounting for financial instruments. First, it would mitigate the use of accounting-motivat

7、ed transaction structures designed to exploit opportunities for earnings management created by the current “mixed-attribute”part historical cost, part fair valuesaccounting model. For example, it would eliminate the incentive to use asset securitization as a means to recognize gains on sale of recei

8、vables or loans. Second, fair value accounting for all financial instruments would reduce the complexity of financial reporting arising from the mixed attributed model. For example, with all financial instruments measured at fair value, the hedge accounting model employed by the FASBs derivatives st

9、andard would all but be eliminated, making it unnecessary for investors to study the choices made by management to determine what basis of accounting is used for particular instruments, as well as the need for management to keep extensive records of hedging relationships. But, as noted in the SEC re

10、port, there are costs as well associated with the application of fair value accounting. One key issue is whether fair values of financial statement items can be measured reliably, especially for those financial instruments for which active markets do not readily exist (e.g., specialized receivables

11、or privately placed loans). Both the FASB and IASB state in their Concepts statements that they consider the cost/benefit trade off between relevance and reliability when assessing how best to measure specific accounting amounts, and whether measurement is sufficiently reliable for financial stateme

12、nt recognition. A cost to investors of fair value measurement is that some or even many recognized financial instruments might not be measured with sufficient precision to help them assess adequately the firms financial position and earnings potential. This reliability cost is compounded by the prob

13、lem that in the absence of active markets for a particular financial instrument, management must estimate its fair value, which can be subject to discretion or manipulation. Assessing the costs and benefits of fair value accounting for financial reporting to investors and other financial statement u

14、sers in particular reporting regimes is difficult. Assessing the costs and benefits of bank regulators mandating fair value accounting for financial institutions for the purpose of assessing a banks regulatory capital is perhaps even more challenging. The purpose of this paper is to provide some pre

15、liminary views on the issues bank regulators face when assessing the costs and benefits of using fair value for determining regulatory capital and making other regulatory decisions. To this end, I begin by reviewing extant capital market studies that examine the usefulness of fair value accounting t

16、o investors. I then discuss implementation issues of determining financial instruments fair values. In doing so, I again look to evidence from the academic literature. Finally, I discuss marking-to-market implementation issues that are of particular relevance to bank regulators as they consider the

17、effects of fair value measurement on bank earnings and capital, and the attendant effects on real managerial decisions. Background of Fair Value Accounting in Standard Setting Definition of Fair Value The FASB defines “fair value” as “the price at which an asset or liability could be exchanged in a current transaction between knowledgeable, unrelated willing parties” (FASB, 2004a). As the FASB notes, “the objective of a fair value