-hea
外文翻译
--
金融工具公允价值会计银行监管的
意义
本科毕业论文（设计）
外
文
翻
译
外文题
目
Fair value accounting for financial
instrument
：
implications for
bank regulation
外文出处
Working paper, University of North Carolina.
外文作者
Wayne R.
Landsman
some
原文：
Fair Value Accounting for Financial
Instruments: Some Implications
for Bank
Regulation
Introduction
Accounting
standards
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 States, 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
various
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
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 and 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-motivated transaction
structures designed to exploit
opportunities for earnings management
created by the current
“mixed
-
attribute”―part
histo
rical cost, part
fair
values―accounting
model.
For
example,
it
would
eliminate
the
incentive to use asset
securitization as a means to recognize gains on
sale of receivables 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 FASB’s derivatives
standard 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 report, 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 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
statement 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
firm’s
financial
position
and
earnings
potential.
This
reliability
cost
is compounded by the problem 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 users 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 bank’s regulatory
capital
is
perhaps
even
more
challenging.
The
purpose
of
this
paper
is
to
provide
some
preliminary
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
to
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
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
measurement is to e
stimate an
exchange price for the asset or
liability being measured in the absence
of
an
actual
transaction
for
that
asset
or
liability.”
Implicit
in
this
objective
is the notion that fair value is well defined so
that an asset
or liability’s exchange
pric
e fully captures its value. That
is, the
price at which an asset can be
exchanged between two entities does not
depend
on
the
entities
engaged
in
the
exchange
and
this
price
also
equals
the
value-in-use
to
any
entity.
For
example,
the
value
of
a
swap
derivative
to
a
bank
equals
the
price
at
which
it
can
purchase
or
sell
that
derivative,
and
the
swap's
value
does
not
depend
on
the
existing
assets
and
liabilities
on the bank’s
balance sheet. For such a bank, Barth and Landsman
1995
notes that this is a strong
assumption to make particularly if many of
its
assets
and
liabilities
cannot
readily
be
traded.
I
will
return
to
the
implications
of
this
problem
when
discussing
implementation
of
marking-to-market issues
below.
Applications to standard
setting
In
the
US,
the
FASB
has
issued
several
standards
that
mandate
disclosure
or
recognition
of
accounting
amounts
using
fair
values.
Among
the
most
significant
in
terms
of
relevance
to
financial
institutions
are
those standards that
explicitly relate to financial instruments. Two
important disclosure standards are
Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards SFAS No. 107, Disclosures
about fair value of financial
instruments FASB, 1991 and SFAS No.
119, Disclosure about derivative
financial instruments and fair value of
financial instruments FASB,
1994
.
SFAS
No.
107
requires
disclosure
of
fair
estimates
of
all
recognized
assets
and
liabilities,
and
as
such,
was
the
first
standard
that
provided
investors
with
estimates
of
the
primary
balance
sheet
accounts
of
banks,
including securities,
loans, deposits, and long-term debt. In addition,
it
was
the
first
standard
to
provide
a
definition
of
fair
value
reflecting
the
FASB’s
objective
of
obtaining
quoted
market
prices
wherever
possible.
SFAS No. 119
requires disclosure of fair value estimates of
derivative
financial
instruments,
including
futures,
forward,
swap,
and
option
contracts.
It
also
requires
disclosure
of
estimates
of
holding
gains
and
losses for instruments that are held
for trading purposes.
Among
the
most
significant
fair
value
recognition
standards
the
FASB
has issued are SFAS No.
115, Accounting for certain investments in debt
and equity securities FASB, 1993 ,
SFAS No. 123 Revised , Share-based
payments
FASB,
2004
,
and
SFAS
No.
133,
Accounting
for
derivative
instruments and
hedging activities FASB, 1998 . SFAS No. 115
requires
recognition at fair value
investments
in equity and debt
securities
classified
as
held
for
trading
or
available-for-sale.
Fair
value
changes
for
the former appear in income, and fair value
changes for the latter
are included as
a component of accumulated other comprehensive
income,
i.e.,
are
excluded
from
income.
Those
debt
securities
classified
as
held
to maturity continue to
be recognized at amortized cost. SFAS No. 123
Revised requires
the
cost
of
employee
stock
options
grants
be
recognized
in income using
grant date fair value by amortizing the cost
during the
employee
vesting
or
service
period.
This
requirement
removed
election
of
fair
value
or
intrinsic
value
cost
measurement
permitted
under
the
original recognition
standard, SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-based
Compensation FASB,
1995
.
Until
recently,
most
firms
elected
to
measure
the cost of employee
stock options using intrinsic value. However, for
such
firms,
SFAS
No.
123
requires
they
disclose
a
pro
forma
income
number
computed
using
a
fair
value
cost
for
employee
stock
option
grants,
as
well
as key model inputs
they use to estimate fair values.
SFAS
No. 133 requires all freestanding derivatives be
recognized at
fair
value.
However, SFAS
No.
133
retains
elements
of
the
existing
hedge
accounting
model.
In
particular,
fair
value
changes
in
those
derivatives
employed for
purposes of hedging fair value risks e.g.,
interest rate
risk
and
commodity
price
risk are
shown
as
a
component
of
income,
as
are
the changes in fair
value of the hedged balance sheet item e.g.,
fixed
rate
loans
and
inventories
or
firm-commitments
i.e.,
forward
contracts . If the so-called fair value
hedge is perfect, the effect on
income
of the hedging relationship is zero. In contrast,
fair value
changes in those derivatives
employed for purposes of hedging cash flow
risks e.g.,
cash
flows
volatility
resulting
from
interest
rate
risk
and
commodity price risk are shown as a
component of accumulated other
comprehensive income because there is
no recognized off-setting change
in
fair value of an implicitly hedged balance sheet
item or anticipated
transaction.
Outside of the US, standards issued by
the IASB are often accepted
or required
as generally accepted accounting principles GAAP
in many
countries. For example, the
European Union generally requires member
country firms to issue financial
statements prepared in accordance with
IASB
GAAP
beginning
in
2005.
IASB
GAAP
comprises
standards
issued
by
its
predecessor
body,
the
International
Accounting
Standards
Committee
IASC , as well as
those it has issued since its inception in 2001.
The