《最新公允价值计量在我国会计核算中的应用研究(外文翻译参考)》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《最新公允价值计量在我国会计核算中的应用研究(外文翻译参考)（21页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、最新公允价值计量在我国会计核算中的应用研究(外文翻译参考)毕 业 设 计论 文外 文 参 考 资 料 及 译 文译文题目： 公允价值会计的危机: 正确理解最近的辩论 学生姓名： 葛慧敏 学 号： 0901208036 专业： 会计学 所在学院： 商学院 指导教师： 王思武 职称： 讲师 2013年3月10日The Crisis of Fair Value Accounting: Making Sense of the Recent Debate*Christian LauxGoethe-University FrankfurtandChristian LeuzThe University of
2、 Chicago Booth School of Business & NBERApril 2022(Forthcoming in Accounting, Organizations and Society)AbstractThe recent financial crisis has led to a vigorous debate about the pros and cons of fair-value accounting (FVA). This debate presents a major challenge for FVA going forward and standard s
3、etters push to extend FVA into other areas. In this article, we highlight four important issues as an attempt to make sense of the debate. First, much of the controversy results from confusion about what is new and different about FVA. Second, while there are legitimate concerns about marking to mar
4、ket (or pure FVA) in times of financial crisis, it is less clear that these problems apply to FVA as stipulated by the accounting standards, be it IFRS or U.S. GAAP. Third, historical cost accounting (HCA) is unlikely to be the remedy. There are a number of concerns about HCA as well and these probl
5、ems could be larger than those with FVA. Fourth, although it is difficult to fault the FVA standards per se, implementation issues are a potential concern, especially with respect to litigation. Finally, we identify several avenues for future research. Key Words: Mark-to-market； Fair value accountin
6、g； Financial institutions；Liquidity； Financial crisis； Banks；Procyclicality 1. Introduction The recent financial crisis has turned the spotlight on fair-value accounting (FVA) and led to a major policy debate involving among others the U.S. Congress, the European Commission as well banking and accou
7、nting regulators around the world. Critics argue that FVA, often also called mark-to-market accounting (MTM),1has significantly contributed to the financial crisis and exacerbated its severity for financial institutions in the U.S. and around the world.2On the other extreme, proponents of FVA argue
8、that it merely played the role of the proverbial messenger that is now being shot (e.g., Turner, 2022; Veron, 2022).3In our view, there are problems with both positions. FVA is neither responsible for the crisis nor is it merely a measurement system that reports asset values without having economic
9、effects of its own.In this article, we attempt to make sense of the current fair-value debate and discuss whether many of the arguments in this debate hold up to further scrutiny. We come to the following four conclusions. First, much of the controversy about FVA results from confusion about what is
10、 new and different about FVA as well as different views about the purpose of FVA. In our view, the debate about FVA takes us back to several old accounting issues, like the tradeoff between relevance and reliability, which have been debated for decades. Except in rare circumstances, standard setters
11、 will always face these issues and tradeoffs; FVA is just another example. This insight is helpful to better understand some of the arguments brought forward in the debate. Second, there are legitimate concerns about marking asset values to market prices in times of financial crisis once we recogniz
12、e that there are ties to contracts and regulation or that managers and investors may care about market reactions over the short term. However, it is not obvious that these problems are best addressed with changes to the accounting system. These problems could also (and perhaps more appropriately) be
13、 addressed by adjusting contracts and regulation. Moreover, the concern about the downward spiral is most pronounced for FVA in its pure form but it does not apply in the same way to FVA as stipulated by U.S. GAAP or IFRS. Both standards allow for deviations from market prices under certain circumst
14、ances (e.g., prices from fire sales). Thus, it is not clear that the standards themselves are the source of the problem. However, as our third conclusion highlights, there could be implementation problems in practice. It is important to recognize that accounting rules interact with other elements of
15、 the institutional framework, which could give rise to unintended consequences. For instance, we point out that managers concerns about litigation could make a deviation from market prices less likely even when it would be appropriate. Concerns about SEC enforcement could have similar effects. At the same time, it is important to recognize that giving management more flexibility to deal with potential problems of FVA (e.g., in times of crisis) also opens the door for manipulation. For instance, managers could use deviations from allegedly depressed mar
