外文翻譯--公允價值會計、金融和會計可靠性的關系（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文2900字，2000單詞，1.1萬英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Source: Michael Power. Fair value accounting, financial economics and the transformation of reliability[J]. Accounting and Business Research 2010.11(4) :197-210

2、 </p><p><b>　　外文文獻翻譯譯文 </b></p><p><b>　　原文 </b></p><p>　　Fair value accounting, financial economics and the transformation of reliability</p><p>

3、;　　The conception and application of 'fair value' measurement within financial reporting has an ad hoc history which reaches back at least two decades (Omiros and Jack, 2008). In the 1980s the term was widely app

4、lied within the context of acquisition accounting as a basis for the allocation of entry values to acquired assets. The procedure yielded a figure for purchased goodwill and opening book values, but was not without its d

5、ifficulties and controversies. For example, contractual and transaction</p><p>　　By 2007, just prior to the financial crisis, the status of fair value measurement had changed entirely, having acquired both a

6、n expanded significance and position of controversy within the financial accounting policy process. Indeed, the idea of fair value measurement for accounting came to be a motivating and quasi-philosophical principle at t

7、he centre of an accounting reform process led in different ways by specific members of FASB and IASB.' Fair value could be said to be much more than just </p><p>　　Even before the largest financial crisi

8、s since the 1930s caused this change program me to stumble and compromise, fair value was the subject of heated debate by policy makers, practitioners and academics alike. However, the idea of fair value accounting seeme

9、d to have momentum and became institutionalised despite strident opposition from many quarters about features of its implementation, not least from European banks seeking to retain reporting discretion in key areas. <

10、/p><p>　　This essay addresses the following question: how and why did this change in the status and significance of fair value in accounting over two decades happen? Though it would be reasonable to answer this

11、 question by the forensic analysis of successive developments of accounting standards embodying fair value, a more thematic approach is adopted which takes a step back from the technical detail and interprets the rise of

12、 fair value in terms of a contest between fundamentally different conceptions o</p><p>　　Many commentators have hinted at the importance of measurement reliability in accounting, but it has been largely trea

13、ted by all sides in the fair value debate as if it were a simple uncontested thing. Yet, close analysis suggests that actors operate with very different conceptions of reliability, and that measurement reliability in acc

14、ounting is what might be called a 'social construct'. Accordingly, the arguments which follow about fair value also provide a tentative outline for a 'sociology o</p><p>　　In the next section the

15、 main contours of the contemporary debate about fair value are sketched, drawing on several summaries and analyses. The discussion focuses on how a distinctive notion of accounting, and therefore reliability, emerged and

16、 was articulated prior to the financial crisis. Subsequent sections explore the wider institutional conditions of possibility for this transformation which, at least for a time, became tightly interconnected and reinforc

17、ing - something which explains the re</p><p>　　Section 3 deals with the rise of financial economics both as a challenge to, and as a cultural resource for, financial accounting. The preconditions for fair va

18、lue lie in a progressive articulation of decision relevance for accounting which draws on highly abstract conceptions of users, markets and price formation. Section 4 argues that the problem of accounting for derivatives

19、 challenged the credibility of accounting but also acted as a catalyst for the expanded significance of fair value and a</p><p>　　The concept of' fair value' measurement emerged in financial accounti

20、ng and was accepted in the abstract long before it was a subject of analysis and dispute (Bromwich, 2007). Furthermore, 'fair value' is not itself a single measurement methodology but encompasses a variety of app

21、roaches for the estimation of an exit value. So it is hardly surprising that many of the arguments which have been developed for and against the use of fair values in accounting are not well-supported by evidence (Laux &

22、lt;/p><p>　　Definitions of fair value vary in subtle ways that may end up mattering in law but from afar, and to the untutored eye, they look similar. FAS 157 (FASB, 2006) defines fair value as: 'the price

23、that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date'. LASB (2009) reproduces this as a core principle. </p><

24、;p>　　This definition, which has existed in various slightly modified forms for many years, might appear uncontentious. Yet, it is a complex hybrid of ideas and assumptions which point to the estimated prices that migh

25、t be received in a market, one which turns out to have specific and assumed characteristics. This causes several commentators to remark on the 'fictional' and 'imaginary' nature of fair values (e.g. Casso

26、n and Napier, 1997) and to bemoan their 'subjectivity' and potential for manipulatio</p><p>　　Proponents of fair values in accounting often appeal to notions of telling things 'as they are' a

27、nd of improving transparency. They point to areas such as pension accounting or the savings and loans industry in North America where fair values would have made problems (deficits, poor performing loans) visible much ea

28、rlier, thereby enabling corrective action. An often heard trope is that one 'should not shoot the messenger' of poor asset quality. Yet sceptics argue that fair value accounting has c</p><p>　　when a

29、ccounting is tightly coupled to prudential regulatory systems, and the unreliability of markingto model in less than liquid asset markets, especially for assets which are being held for the long term. </p><p&g

30、t;　　According to Laux and Leuz (2009) the fair value debate should not be polarised. The use of fair values is neither responsible for the financial crisis nor entirely innocent. Furthermore, arguments against fair value

31、 do not automatically translate into arguments for historical cost accounting. Information about current values, or best estimates of those current values, is likely to be useful for management and market analysts in con

32、junction with lots of other bits of information. Contracts and c</p><p>　　While much of the heat generated by fair value concerns the politics of reporting discretion for banking institutions, Laux and Leuz

33、(2009) suggest that the polarisation in the debate is founded primarily on different views about the goals of accounting. In parallel but somewhat differently, it can be argued that the debate is also driven by different

34、, almost unconscious, views about what it is for an estimated accounting value to be reliable. </p><p>　　One of the explicit motivations for the expanded significance of the use of fair values is its perceiv

35、ed potential to minimise the freedom to manipulate accounting numbers (CFA, 2007). Market-based values are, almost by definition, a non-management based referent and this is consistent with early standards on audit evide

36、nce quality hierarchies which prioritise sources of evidence which are independent of both auditee and auditor. So an important aspect of the 'fair value' concept is to establish</p><p>　　Reliability

37、 is one of the fundamental qualitative characteristics of accounting information as articulated in early conceptual frameworks (FASB,1980). Yet the reliability of accounting numbers is not a given: it is always founded o

38、n a consensus whose strength is an empirical and not a conceptual fact. The consensus is often implicit and taken for granted, but becomes more problematic at times of conflict and competition when questions of power and

39、 authority become visible. Ideas of accounting re</p><p>　　This new conception of accounting reliability takes as its benchmark the most liquid, orderly markets, those typically associated with financial ass

40、ets and liabilities. This benchmark, and the idea of reliability it embodies, is extended to analogies and models which simulate market prices using accepted economic methodologies' ，the so-called levels 2 and 3 in t

41、he fair value hierarchy of valuation methods. It is not unusual for policy solutions in one setting to migrate from their original conte</p><p>　　It should be remembered that accounting policy discussions ha

42、ve visited the issue of measurement reliability many times before. For example, in the late 1980s, brand valuers using a mix of analogical and model-based reasoning challenged the prevailing prohibition against valuing i

43、nternally generated brands. The debate, while conducted in technical terms, was highly sensitive to the credibility of valuation expertise proposed by non-accountant valuers (e.g. Interbrand). The UK Accounting Standard&

44、lt;/p><p>　　The brand accounting debate reminds us that conceptions of reliability in financial reporting can change as bodies of valuation knowledge become accepted as a basis for transactions. In turn, market

45、 liquidity may be increased by the credibility of such methodologies which further increases their credibility in a virtuous performative circle (Napier and Power, 1992). Just as with the brand debate of the late 1980s,

46、level 2 and 3 fair values pose resource and expertise challenges both for audit fi</p><p><b>　　譯文 </b></p><p>　　公允價值會計、金融和會計可靠性的關系</p><p>　　公允價值計量屬性在財務報告中的應用已有二十多年，

47、首先提出這一概念的是在歐米和杰克的著作中。在20世紀80年代，公允價值計量屬性已廣泛運用于收購業(yè)務的會計核算，企業(yè)運用公允價值來計量分配取得資產(chǎn)的價值。在會計核算過程中運用公允價值計量與賬面價值之間差異，作商譽處理，大家對會計上計入商譽的處理還沒有產(chǎn)生過爭議。例如，合同價格與交易成本之間的差額，會計核算時把差額計入商譽，類似于把它作為企業(yè)的無形資產(chǎn)。以上這些對公允價值與實際成本之間差額的會計處理，或多或少地為財務會計的發(fā)展奠定了基礎。而

48、目前要討論的是如何合理地運用公允價值，一些學者認為:完全發(fā)揮公允價值的積極作用，除了要有高水平的估值技術，還需要在一個信息流動快速的市場環(huán)境和法制規(guī)范的市場體系。歷史成本計量屬性的缺陷是與市場價值的差異較大，人們普遍認為運用歷史成本計量是不合理的。</p><p>　　在2007年之前，也就是在金融危機爆發(fā)之前，運用公允價值計量在會計核算上發(fā)生了較大的變化，收購業(yè)務的會計核算在范圍上有所擴展，在會計確認上的爭議有

49、所增加。FASB和IASB這兩個組織從哲學角度對公允價值進行了研究，為公允價值的發(fā)展奠定了一定的理論基礎，使用公允價值計量的支持者不斷增多，為后來公允價值計量成為一種國際趨勢做了一個很好的鋪墊。</p><p>　　在1930年全球發(fā)生金融危機的時候，相關的國際會計準則對運用公允價值進行會計核算作了一定的限制。學術界對公允價值的爭論一直很激烈，反對者對運用公允價值進行會計核算的反對呼聲很高，他們要求至少在歐洲銀行

50、的財務報告中還是有自由裁量權。但是，公允價值的運用在市場經(jīng)濟全球化的大趨勢下是勢不可擋的。</p><p>　　本文主要討論了以下問題:公允價值在過去二十多年的地位和意義發(fā)生了怎樣的演變?這個問題許多學者研究認為，會計估值技術在不斷地發(fā)展，會計信息的可靠性概念在不斷地修正，從哲學上說這兩種事物均是不斷發(fā)展的，萬事萬物也是存在普遍聯(lián)系的，那么推論出估值技術和會計信息的可靠性存在一定的聯(lián)系，當然這個聯(lián)系是間接聯(lián)系。在

51、承認上述的假設之后，同樣根據(jù)哲學思想萬事萬物都是在不斷發(fā)展運動的思想，市場在不斷地發(fā)展，估值技術也在不斷發(fā)展，但是估值技術是根據(jù)不斷變化的市場不斷發(fā)展的，估值技術相對于市場來說是落后的，運用這個落后的估值技術確認的價值，該價值和市場價值之間就會有一定的差別，就是哲學上說的矛盾。</p><p>　　許多評論家都認為會計信息可靠性是非常重要的。單從直接意義上來說公允價值計量對會計信息可靠性是沒有什么影響，但是從企業(yè)

52、采用公允價值計量之后才生的會計信息對于社會的影響，就是可以從會計信息的可靠性上解釋，也就是可以這么說公允價值為會計信息的可靠性理論基礎提供了一個初步的輪廓。</p><p>　　在下一節(jié)主要討論了公允價值在當代的發(fā)展，并作了相關的總結和分析。主要討論了會計獨立性的概念，并且分析之前提到過的金融危機。</p><p>　　隨后的章節(jié)探討了一些制度改革的建議:第三條建議涉及的是金融和經(jīng)濟學發(fā)展

53、問題，對財務會計而言是文化資源。在公允價值運用方面，認為公允價值的運用取決于會計相關使用者、市場環(huán)境和價格這幾個因素。第四條建議是，對衍生工具的會計計量問題提出質疑，認為市場信譽對公允價值的運用有催化劑的作用。第五條建議，認為應取消對資產(chǎn)負債表合法化的概念束縛，這樣不僅創(chuàng)造了資產(chǎn)負債表會計的需求，而且是促進公允價值邊緣化的沃土。最后，第6節(jié)提出，在世界范圍內(nèi)公允價值的運用將會構建一個新的全球化會計核算系統(tǒng)。世界級專家制定者將對國際政治經(jīng)

54、濟進行新的治理規(guī)劃。</p><p>　　以下是對運用公允價值與會計信息可靠性之間的關系進行的分析:公允價值的計量首先出現(xiàn)在財務會計的核算中，并且很長時間范圍內(nèi)，都被認為是一個抽象的概念，直到布羅米奇2007年發(fā)表關于可靠性論述這一書中才開始對公允價值的概念進行具體界定，對相關的計量方法進行分析討論。此外，有學者認為公允價值并非是一種計量方式，而是包括了出口估值計量方法及各種計量方法的一個計量體系。對這么一個體系

55、的提出，一開始有反對呼聲是可以理解的，畢竟一些人的經(jīng)濟利益存在一定的損失。在相關的法規(guī)上，公允價值概念及運用公允價值計量的界定存在著一定的模糊性，一些企業(yè)的會計人員素質參差不齊，對規(guī)定的理解不同，僅一家企業(yè)內(nèi)部就有不統(tǒng)一的計量標準，更何況在全國范圍內(nèi)的所有企業(yè)運用公允價值產(chǎn)生的差別了。</p><p>　　對公允價值的定義的表述有很多，但都是在微妙的方面有所不同，SFAS的157(財務會計準則委員會，2006年)

56、對公允價值定義為:將資產(chǎn)出售能夠收到的現(xiàn)金或者是同類商品在市場上的交易價格。</p><p>　　對于上述這個定義，它在略加修改后一直被認為公允價值的公認標準，大家對這個標準還沒有產(chǎn)生過爭議。然而，它是以完全市場為假設條件的，導致一些評論家(例如卡森和內(nèi)皮爾，1997年)對公允價值這個定義的看法有片面性。布羅米奇(2007年)總結歸納了許多公允價值產(chǎn)生依據(jù)，得出的結論是公允價值的定義可以有很多角度。</p&

57、gt;<p>　　許多學者都支持運用公允價值計量，他們認為，使用公允價值計量可以極大地提高會計信息的透明化，如果運用公允價值進行計量，退休金儲蓄與北美銀行的赤字問題可能早就被監(jiān)管部門發(fā)現(xiàn)了。但還是有一部分學者反對使用公允價值計量，他們認為公允價值計量只會制造一個虛假的養(yǎng)老保險基金的知名度，可能還會加快福利計劃流產(chǎn)。反對運用公允價值計量的學者主要還是考慮到市場存在一定缺陷，因為不可能每個市場都是完全市場，要使現(xiàn)有的市場接近完

58、全市場，需要制定許多的法律規(guī)范使市場變得有序，需要投入許多監(jiān)管費使市場變得穩(wěn)定，需要加快信息流通使市場資源流動性變大。</p><p>　　勞克斯和勞斯(2009)認為公允價值的辯論不應兩極化。公允價值計量屬性的使用沒有直接引發(fā)金融危機，但是也不能說完全沒有關系。此外，對公允價值爭論不會涉及到歷史成本計量的問題上去。對合同和契約訂立的金額受市場價值波動影響不大，但是公允價值受宏觀環(huán)境的調(diào)控影響很大，這就可以說明公

59、允價值的計量屬性的政治性很強，尤其在金融危機中。</p><p>　　在金融危機中，公允價值牽涉到的主要問題是:送達金融機構報表上以公允價值計量的會計信息對相關決策者的影響。勞克斯和勞斯(2009)闡述的觀點主要是對會計目標的意見不同。他們研究得出的主要觀點是運用公允價值計量使會計信息更可靠。</p><p>　　明確使用公允價值計量動機，對更好使用公允價值計量具有重要的意義，可以減少企業(yè)

60、的盈余管理(終審法院，2007年)。該法則對公允價值作的定義是:使賬面價值盡可能接近于市價。</p><p>　　《財務會計準則委員會，1980》一書上對會計可靠性是這樣認為的:可靠性是會計信息的基本信息特征之一。認為會計信息可靠性這種論斷，是從實際經(jīng)驗中得出的，并不是從理論上推論出的。隨著社會經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展，會計信息可靠性可能不再是一個絕對數(shù)，而是一個合理的范圍。</p><p>　　提高會

61、計信息的可靠性，會計政策通過多次修訂來實現(xiàn)這一目標。其他相關的理論成果如:在20世紀80年代末，研究品牌學的學者提出品牌類比估價模型。會計事務所通過研究估值技術，積累相關實踐經(jīng)驗來提高估值水平。</p><p>　　上述學者研究的類比估價模型給我們的啟示是:我們可以利用估值知識來提高會計信息的可靠性，當然提前條件還是要在完全市場下。會計事務所在對運用公允價值計量的會計信息審計時，需要利用相關的模型對它進行復核測試