外文翻译公允价值测量

杭州电子科技大学信息工程学院

毕业设计（论文）外文文献翻译

毕业设计（论文）题目 公允价值在债务重组中应用

翻译（1）题目

翻译（2）题目 系 公允价值测量 财经系

专 业 会计

姓 名

班 级

学 号

指导教师

公允价值测量

1 在 2006 年二月，国际会计准则委员会 (IASB) 和美国财务会计标准委员会 (FASB) 公布了再断言他们对美国公认会计原则 (GAAP) 和国际的金融报告标准 (IFRSs) 的集中承诺的一个备忘录和对他们的发展中高级质量的被分享的目的, 公共的为全球的使用资本市场的会计准则。集中工作在备忘录中被宣布的节目反映为使用 IFRSs ，而且在美国被登记的非美国公司为调节需要的拆迁以 IASB 、 FASB 和欧盟委员会在请教被美国证券交易管理委员会发展的 '路线图' 的设定标准上下文。工作节目关于测量公允价值包括一个计划。

2 FASB 最近已经发行『财务会计准则汇编』 157 号公允价值测量 (SFAS 157) ，在那里在备忘录被公布了之前，工作前进得好。SFAS 157 连同为美国 GAAP 测量公允价值的架构一起建立一种公允价值的定义。IASB 关于在 IFRSs 测量公允价值辨认出对指导的需要了和为增加的集中用美国 GAAP。结果， IASB 决定为它的熟虑以 FASB 的标准作为出发点。作为它的计划的第一个阶段,IASB 在被包含在 SFAS 157 的主要的发行上正在这讨论证券中出版它的初步视野。

3 IASB 计划连同讨论稿的发展在这讨论证券上举行回合-表格的会议。如果你对参加一个回合-表格的会议感兴趣，请在对这邀请的你的回应指出发表评论。请注意, 因为时间安排和场地拘束,正在指出一个利息可能能够参加的不是所有的人。

4 IASB 将会考虑反应至这邀请发表评论和在公允价值测量上发展 IFRS 的一个讨论稿方面相关的回合-表格的讨论。讨论稿将会被明确地为 IFRSs 的申请准备.虽然SFAS 157 的食品可能被用于讨论稿的预备, 但是，他们可能被重述或者改变对其他的 IFRSs 感到一致而且反映 IASB 的决定。IASB 计划在 2008 年初之前公布一个讨论稿。

5 在 2005 年十一月，IASB 为评论一个讨论证券公布, 测量基础为财务会计 - 在被加拿大会计准则委员会的全体职员写的原始承认上的测量。虽然那证券包含了公允价值的讨论, 但是，它的主要目的将讨论哪些测量归属适合原始承认。那证券是在其他的事物之中寻求建立在金融报告中的测量架构的继续基本概念计划的一部份。因为不同范围和那证券的意图，它不在这讨论证券中被讨论。然而，在那讨论上发表评论与公允价值的测量有关的证券在公允价值测量上和在基本概念计划将会在 IFRS 的讨论稿的发展被考虑。发行在现在的 IFRSs 中的 SFAS 157 和公允价值测量指导。 6 IFRSs 需要一些资产、负债和权益证券在一些环境中的公允价值被测量。然而，指导关于在 IFRSs 各处测量公允价值被驱散而且不总是一致。IASB 相信为是必需的所有的公允价值测量建立一个指导的根源由 IFRSs 将会两者都单一化 IFRSs 而且改善被包含在财务报告之中的公允价值数据的质量。一种公允价值的简洁定义和适用于所有的公允价值测量的一致的指导结合了会更清楚沟通公允价值测量的目的而且除

去对成份的需要考虑指导在 IFRSs 各处传播。

7 IASB 强调公允价值测量计划不是在金融报告中扩张公允价值的使用的方法。然而，计划的目的将编成法典, 澄清而且单一化存在 IFRSs 广泛地被驱散的指导。然而, 为了要建立由 IFRSs 提供统一的指导给是必需的所有的公允价值测量的一个单本位, 修正将会需要被制造现有的指导。依照在发行更进一步地讨论，修正可能改变公允价值如何在一些标准和需要如何被解释而且应用中被测量。

8 即使指导不是一致具有公允价值测量目的，在一些 IFRSs 中，IASB(或它的前任身体) 有意识地包含了测量造成被对待好像它是公允价值的一个测量的指导。举例来说，段落 IFRS 3 企业联合的 B16 提供对公允价值测量目的感到不一致的指导，因为项目在一个企业联合，像是税资产中获得,为定义利益计划征负债税而且用网捕雇员利益资产或负债。此外，一些 IFRSs 包含测量可靠性标准。只有当如果公允价值能靠地被测量，举例来说，信息家电 16 特性、工厂和设备允许要用的再估价模型。 这一个计划将不改变任何的那指导。然而, 指导将会是计划的考虑过计划。然而， IASB 计划使用公允价值测量计画建立指导哪里现在有没有人, 像是在信息家电 17 租赁, 连同除去不清楚地以关节连接一个测量目的不一致的指导。

9 因为 SFAS 157 建立一个指导的根源和能被适用于所有的公允价值测量的一个目的， IASB 已经到达 SFAS 157 是在 IFRSs 的不同指导方面的一个改良的初步的视野。然而，当做在下面更详细地讨论， IASB 在 SFAS 157 的所有食品上还没有到达预备的视野。差额在 SFAS 157 的公允价值的定义之间和在 IFRSs

10 SFAS 157 的第 5 段定义公允价值当做 '会被收到销售一个财产的价格或者支付在测量日期在市场叁加者之间的一个有秩序的交易事项中转移一个责任。公允价值通常在 IFRSs 被定义当做 '合计为哪一个财产可能被交换, 或一个责任付清, 在一个正常交易的聪明又乐意的政党之间'.在 SFAS 157 的定义在三个重要的方法中IFRSs 上不同于定义:

(a)在 SFAS 157 的定义明确地是出口 (卖盘) 价格。在 IFRSs 的 Thedefinition 是既不明确地出口价格也不记录 (买盘) 价格。

(b)在 SFAS 157 的定义明确地提到销售参加者。在 IFRSs 的定义在一个正常交易中提及聪明又乐意的政党。

(c)对于负债,责任被转移的在概念上的 SFAS 157 决算期的公允价值的定义 (对 counterparty 责任继续；它不与 counterparty 一起付清)。在 IFRSs 的定义提及合计在哪一个责任可能在一个正常交易中被付清。

11 这些差额更详细地被讨论。

问题2A： 出口价格测量目的

12 对于 SFAS 157 的结论的基价包括下列的讨论:

C26 交易事项销售财产或者转移责任在测量日期是一个假设的交易事项, 从持平财

产，或者亏欠责任的市场参加者的观点考虑。因此，公允价值测量的目的将决定会为财产被收到的价格或者支付也就是说在测量日期转移责任出口价格。 委员会 [FASB] 总结因为它具体表达与从市场叁加者的观点与责任有关的财产和将来的流出有关的关于将来的流入现在的期待，一个出口价格目的是适当的。在流入和流出上的强调是一致的具有 FASB 概念声明 6 号的资产与负债的定义, 金融邀请的元素发表评论声明。概念声明 6 的第 25 段根据将来的经济效益 (未来流入) 定义资产。 概念声明 6 的第 35 段根据经济效益 (未来流出) 的将来牺牲定义负债。

13 IASB 预备和财务报表的提示的架构的第 49 段同样地根据经济效益的流入和流出定义资产与负债。因为它反映经济效益的流转的现在位于市场期待进入，所以大多数的 IASB 成员相信一个公允价值测量用一个出口价格目的是一致的具有这些定义而且是适当的或从个体。

14 其他的 IASB 成员同意这视野，但是在他们的视野中一个入帐价格也反映经济效益的流转的现在位于市场期待进入或从个体。因此, 他们建议用测量归属更描述的条件更换期‘公允价值'，像是日常记录定价格或现在的出口价格。

15 一个入帐价格测量目的会在它会被定义为会被支付获得一个财产或者收到在测量日期在市场叁加者之间的一个有秩序的交易事项中承担一个责任的价格中在 SFAS 157 上不同于出口价格目的。IASB 的一些成员是有视野的一个入帐价格和出口价格会在相同的市场中是相同的合计, 傲慢的那交易事项费用被排除。然而，一个个体可能在一个市场中购买一个财产或者承担一个责任而且销售那个相同的财产或者在另外的一个市场中转移那个相同的责任 (没有修改的 ie 或再包装)。在如此的环境中，在 SFAS 157 的出口价格会可能不同于入帐价格。

16个一些公允价值测量必需的由 IFRSs 可能不对一个出口价格测量目的感到一致。 尤其，IASB 观察当公允价值在原始承认上被需要的时候，这可能是情形，像是在: (a)IFRS 3

(b)信息家电 17 为在一个融资租赁下面的一个承租人的资产与负债的原始承认, 和 (c)信息家电 39 金融证券: 为一些财务资产和金融负债的原始承认的承认和测量。 17 在发展一个讨论稿方面，IASB 可能提出一种公允价值的修正后定义。如果如此，它将会完成一个标准-在-之前公允价值测量的标准评论必需的在 IFRSs 估定每个标准的有意测量目的是否是一致的具有被提议的定义。如果 IASB 总结一个特别的标准的有意的测量目的是不一致的具有公允价值的被提议定义，或标准将会被排除在讨论稿的范围之外或者有意的测量目的将会使用公允价值之外的一个期被重新叙述.(像是‘日常记录价值’) 为了要协助它的评论，IASB 想要了解在 IFRSs 的公允价值测量指导如何现在在实务中被应用。它因此请求被告在 IFRSs 识别那些公允价值测量为哪一个实务在 SFAS 157 上不同于公允价值测量目的。

问题2B：市场参加者视野

18 SFAS 157 强调一个公允价值测量是市场基础测量而不是一个个体-特有的测量。 因此,公允价值测量应该基于市场参与者会在订定财产或责任的价格方面使用的假设被建立。此外，那里的任何时候是有限公司或者没有观察得出的市场活动，客观的公允价值测量保持相同: 决定价格。那会被收到销售一个财产或者被支付在测量日转移责任在市场参加者之间的有秩序的交易事项,不管个体的意图或者能力在那日期销售财产或转移责任。

19 SFAS 157 的第 10 段为财产在主要的 (或者大部分有利的) 市场中定义市场参加者作为买主谁是:

(a)不依赖报告个体；

(b)聪明的, 有关于财产的合理理解或责任和交易事项基于所有的可得数据, 包括可能被获得过平常和习惯的适当的勤奋努力的数据。

(c)能够为财产或责任办理。

(d)乐意的为财产或责任办理; 那是, 他们被给与动机但是不强迫或者强迫这么做。 20 在比较中，在 IFRSs 的公允价值的定义提到乐意的政党在一个正常交易中。信息家电 40 投资特性的第 42 段 44 提供这一个概念的描述：

42种公允价值的定义提及 '聪明又乐意的政党'。在这上下文，‘聪明的'意谓乐意的买主和乐意的卖主是被适度告知的自然，而且投资特性，它的真实又潜在使用和市场的特性在结帐日为条件。一个乐意的买主被给与动机，但是不强迫，购买。这一个买主是既非在-之上热心的也不决定以任何的价格购买。假装的买主不超过组成聪明又乐意的买主的一个市场支付较高的价格，而且卖主会需要。

43 一个乐意的卖主是既非一在-之上热心的也不一个被迫的卖主,准备以任何的价格销售, 也不一准备为不在现在的市场情况被视为合理的价格维持。乐意的卖主被给与动机以最佳价格在市场用语销售投资特性可获得的。因为乐意的卖主是一个假设的所有者，所以真实投资业主的事实环境不是一个这考量的部份。

44种公允价值的定义提及一个正常交易。交易事项在没有一个特别的政党或者特别的市场使价格交易事项不特性情况的关系之间是一。交易事项被假定在无关的政党之间, 每个独立地行动。

21 IASB 的初步视野是市场参加者视野对一个现在被包含在 IFRSs 的正常交易的聪明又乐意政党的概念感到通常一致。然而，在 IASB 的视野中，被提议的定义更清楚在 IFRSs 以关节连接位于市场的公允价值测量目的。

Fair Value Measurements

1 In February 2006 the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) published a Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming their commitment to the convergence of US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) and to their shared objective of developing high quality, common accounting standards for use in the world’s capital markets. The convergence work programme set out in the Memorandum reflects the standard-setting context of the ‘roadmap’ developed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in consultation with the IASB, FASB and European Commission for the removal of the reconciliation requirement for non-US companies that use IFRSs and are registered in the US. The work programme includes a project on measuring fair value.

2 The FASB has recently issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157), on which work was well advanced before the Memorandum of Understanding was published. SFAS 157 establishes a single definition of fair value together with a framework for measuring fair value for US GAAP. The IASB recognised the need for guidance on measuring fair value in IFRSs and for increased convergence with US GAAP. Consequently, the IASB decided to use the FASB’s standard as the starting point for its deliberations. As the first stage of its project, the IASB is publishing in this discussion paper its preliminary views on the principal issues contained in SFAS 157.

3 The IASB plans to hold round-table meetings on this discussion paper in conjunction with the development of an exposure draft. Please indicate in your response to this Invitation to Comment if you are interested in taking part in a round-table meeting. Please note that, because of timing and space constraints, not all of those indicating an interest may be able to take part.

4 The IASB will consider responses to this Invitation to Comment and the related round-table discussions in developing an exposure draft of an IFRS on fair value measurement. The exposure draft will be prepared specifically for application to IFRSs. Although provisions of SFAS 157 may be used in the preparation of an exposure draft, they may be reworded or altered to be consistent with other IFRSs and to reflect the decisions of the IASB. The IASB plans to publish an exposure draft by early 2008.

5 In November 2005 the IASB published for comment a discussion paper, Measurement Bases for Financial Accounting – Measurement on Initial Recognition, written by the staff of the Canadian Accounting Standards Board. Although that paper contained a discussion of fair value, its primary purpose was to discuss which measurement attributes were appropriate for initial recognition. That paper is part of the ongoing Conceptual Framework project that seeks to establish, among other things, a framework for measurement in financial reporting. Because of the different scope and intent of that paper, it is not discussed in this discussion paper. However, comments on that discussion paper relating to the measurement of fair value will be considered in the development of the exposure draft of an IFRS on fair value measurement as well as in the Conceptual Framework

project. Issue 1. SFAS 157 and fair value measurement guidance in current IFRSs

6 IFRSs require some assets, liabilities and equity instruments to be measured at fair value in some circumstances. However, guidance on measuring fair value is dispersed throughout IFRSs and is not always consistent. The IASB believes that establishing a single source of guidance for all fair value measurements required by IFRSs will both simplify IFRSs and improve the quality of fair value information included in financial reports. A concise definition of fair value combined with consistent guidance that applies to all fair value measurements would more clearly communicate the objective of fair value measurement and eliminate the need for constituents to consider guidance dispersed throughout IFRSs.

7 The IASB emphasises that the Fair Value Measurements project is not a means of expanding the use of fair value in financial reporting. Rather, the objective of the project is to codify, clarify and simplify existing guidance that is dispersed widely in IFRSs. However, in order to establish a single standard that provides uniform guidance for all fair value measurements required by IFRSs, amendments will need to be made to the existing guidance. As discussed further in Issue 2, the amendments might change how fair value is measured in some standards and how the requirements are interpreted and applied.

8 In some IFRSs the IASB (or its predecessor body) consciously included measurement guidance that results in a measurement that is treated as if it were fair value even though the guidance is not consistent with the fair value measurement objective. For example, paragraph B16 of IFRS 3 Business Combinations provides guidance that is inconsistent with the fair value measurement objective for items acquired in a business combination such as tax assets, tax liabilities and net employee benefit assets or liabilities for defined benefit plans. Furthermore, some IFRSs contain measurement reliability criteria. For example, IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment permits the revaluation model to be used only if fair value can be measured reliably This project will not change any of that guidance. Rather, that guidance will be considered project by project. However, the IASB plans to use the Fair Value Measurements project to establish guidance where there currently is none, such as in IAS 17 Leases, as well as to eliminate inconsistent guidance that does not clearly articulate a single measurement objective.

9 Because SFAS 157 establishes a single source of guidance and a single objective that can be applied to all fair value measurements, the IASB has reached the preliminary view that SFAS 157 is an improvement on the disparate guidance in IFRSs. However, as discussed in more detail below, the IASB has not reached preliminary views on all provisions of SFAS 157.

Issue 2. Differences between the definitions of fair value in SFAS 157 and in IFRSs

10 Paragraph 5 of SFAS 157 defines fair value as ‘the price 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.’ Bycomparison, fair value is generally defined in IFRSs as ‘the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction’ (withsome slight variations in wording in different standards). Thedefinition in SFAS 157 differs from the definition in IFRSs in three important ways:

(a)The definition in SFAS 157 is explicitly an exit (selling) price. Thedefinition in IFRSs is

neither explicitly an exit price nor an entry (buying) price.

(b)The definition in SFAS 157 explicitly refers to market participants. The definition in IFRSs refers to knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction.

(c)For liabilities, the definition of fair value in SFAS 157 rests on the notion that the liability is transferred (the liability to the counterparty continues; it is not settled with the counterparty). The definition in IFRSs refers to the amount at which a liability

could be settled between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. 11 These differences are discussed in more detail below.

Issue 2A. Exit price measurement objective

12 The Basis for Conclusions of SFAS 157 includes the following discussion:

C26The transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability is a hypothetical transaction at the measurement date, considered from the perspective of a market participant that holds the asset or owes the liability. Therefore, the objective of a fair value measurement is to determine the price that would be received for the asset or paid to transfer the liability at the measurement date, that is, an exit price. The Board [FASB] concluded that an exit price objective is appropriate because it embodies current expectations about the future inflows associated with the asset and the future outflows associated with the liability from the perspective of market participants. The emphasis on inflows and outflows is consistent with the definitions of assets and liabilities in FASB Concepts Statement No. 6, Elements of Financial INVITATION TO COMMENT Statements. Paragraph25 of Concepts Statement 6 defines assets in terms of future economic benefits (future inflows). Paragraph 35 of Concepts Statement 6 defines liabilities in terms of future sacrifices of economic benefits (future outflows).

13 Paragraph 49 of the IASB’s Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements similarly defines assets and liabilities in terms of inflows and outflows of economic benefits. The majority of IASB members believe that a fair value measurement with an exit price objective is consistent with these definitions and is appropriate because it reflects current market-based expectations of flows of economic benefit into or out of the entity.

14 Other IASB members agree with this view, but in their view an entry price also reflects current market-based expectations of flows of economic benefit into or out of the entity. Therefore, they suggest replacing the term ‘fair value’ with terms that are more descriptive of the measurement attribute, such as ‘current entry price’ or ‘current exit price’.

15 An entry price measurement objective would differ from the exit price objective in SFAS 157 in that it would be defined as the price that would be paid to acquire an asset or received to assume a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Some members of the IASB are of the view that an entry price and an exit price would be the same amount in the same market, assuming that transaction costs are excluded. However, an entity might buy an asset or assume a liability in one market and sell that same asset or transfer that same liability (ie without modification or repackaging) in another market. In such circumstances, the exit price in SFAS 157 would be likely to differ from the entry price.

16Some fair value measurements required by IFRSs might not be consistent with an exit price measurement objective. In particular, the IASB observes that this might be the case

when fair value is required on initial recognition, such as in:

(a)IFRS 3,

(b)IAS 17 for the initial recognition of assets and liabilities by a lessee under a finance lease, and

(c)IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement for the initial recognition of some financial assets and financial liabilities.

17In developing an exposure draft, the IASB may propose a revised definition of fair value. If so, it will complete a standard-by-standard review of fair value measurements required in IFRSs to assess whether each standard’s intended measurement objective is consistent with the proposed definition. If the IASB concludes that the intended measurement objective in a particular standard is inconsistent with the proposed definition of fair value, either that standard will be excluded from the scope of the exposure draft or the intended measurement objective will be restated using a term other than fair value (such as ‘current entry value’). To assist in its review, the IASB would like to understand how the fair value measurement guidance in IFRSs is currently applied in practice. It therefore requests respondents to identify those fair value measurements in IFRSs for which practice differs from the fair value measurement objective in SFAS 157.

Issue 2B. Market participant view

18SFAS 157 emphasises that a fair value measurement is a market-basedmeasurement, not an entity-specific measurement. Therefore, a fairvalue measurement should be based on the assumptions that marketparticipants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Furthermore, evenwhen there is limited or no observable market activity, the objective ofthe fair value measurement remains the same: to determine the price

that would be received to sell an asset or be paid to transfer a liability inan orderly transaction between market participants at the measurementdate, regardless of the entity’s intention or ability to sell the asset ortransfer the liability at that date.

19Paragraph 10 of SFAS 157 defines market participants as buyers andsellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset orliability who are:

(a)Independent of the reporting entity; that is, they are not related parties

(b)Knowledgeable, having a reasonable understanding about the asset or liability and the transaction based on all available information, including information that might be obtained through due diligence efforts that are usual and customary

(c)Able to transact for the asset or liability

(d)Willing to transact for the asset or liability; that is, they are motivated but not forced or otherwise compelled to do so.

20In comparison, the definition of fair value in IFRSs refers to‘knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction’.Paragraphs 42-44 of IAS 40 Investment Property provide a description of this concept:

42The definition of fair value refers to ‘knowledgeable, willing parties’.In this context, ‘knowledgeable’ means that both the willing buyer and the willing seller are reasonably informed about the nature and characteristics of the investment property, its actual and potential uses, and market conditions at the balance sheet date. A willing buyer is motivated, but not compelled, to buy. This buyer is neither over-eager nor determined to buy at any price. The assumed buyer would not pay a higher price than a market

comprising knowledgeable, willing buyers and sellers would require.

43A willing seller is neither an over-eager nor a forced seller, prepared to sell at any price, nor one prepared to hold out for a price not considered reasonable in current market conditions. The willing seller is motivated to sell the investment property at market terms for the best price obtainable. The factual circumstances of the actual investment property owner are not a part of this consideration because the willing seller is a hypothetical owner (ega willing seller would not take into account the particular tax circumstances of the actual investment property owner).

44The definition of fair value refers to an arm’s length transaction. Anarm’s length transaction is one between parties that do not have a particular or special relationship that makes prices of transactions uncharacteristic of market conditions. The transaction is presumed to be between unrelated parties, each acting independently.

21The IASB’s preliminary view is that the market participant view is generally consistent with the concepts of a knowledgeable, willing party in an arm’s length transaction that are currently contained in IFRSs. However, in the IASB’s view, the proposed definition more clearly articulates the market-based fair value measurement objective in IFRSs.

外文翻译考核表

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/k0s4.html