【正文】 g modified historical cost and broader use of fair value. The IASB’s deliberations often focus on which of these estimates should be included in financial statements. Some constituents express concerns about how including more estimates will affect financial statements. The IASB’s apparent focus on measuring assets and liabilities using more estimates of the future stems from its mitment to achieving its stated objective of financial reporting. In particular, the IASB Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements (IASCB 1989) (hereafter, the Framework) states that the objective of financial reporting is to provide information useful to financ ial statement users in making economic decisions. It seems selfevident that financial statement amounts that reflect current economic conditions and uptodate expectations of the future will be more useful in making those decisions, which are made in the current economic environment. However, it also seems selfevident that not all expectations of the future should be recognized in financial statements today, particularly those that do not arise from events or transactions that have occurred. The definitions of assets and liabilities play a critical role in determining what types of expectations of the future are candidates for recognition in financial statements. One must identify precisely which asset or liability is being considered for recognition。 尤其是美國為了尋求發(fā)展，以詳細的規(guī)則擺脫偏見并融入一個更以原則為基礎的系統(tǒng)。 關鍵在于，它是 一個 財務報告 上的功 能，用來 告訴人們正在發(fā)生的事情。對次級投資估價的模型很有可能因為未來房價的走勢、利率以及房主能夠如何應對這些東西而無法估計。 但他們很快就遇到了一個問題。 CDOs 的問題并沒有令人失望的價值。一些大型金融機構 ,甚至早于規(guī)定地采用了 FAS 157。 FAS 157 基本上已建立了一個“公允價值層級”，把所輸入的估計方法通過它們的客觀性和可觀性 區(qū)分優(yōu)先次序 。第二，這將是完全的錯誤。 尤其 是那些 在活躍的市場 上交易的資產 如金融工具。那就是資產是否以“成本”記錄或以它們的“公允”（或市場）價值記錄會更好。 這當然是 從一個角度 來看待它 。 以 華爾街日報 來歸納 ， 結論 是 那些為了 夸大損失 而 “ 指責會計規(guī)則 ” 的人是 “ 叛亂 ” ，另外呼吁制定新的規(guī)則，這將在本質上，抑制金融市場波動。 在談到對資產的合適估價， FAS 157 是對在會計中最古老的爭論之一的最新貢獻者。 在另一方面，雖然歷史成本在交易發(fā)生時是客觀上合理的，但它很快就變成過時的。第一是信息將客觀可靠。 FAS 157 通過使用以下方法來處理這一問題：通過觀察以前曾使用的方法來估計公允價值。仍然 ,該標準似乎是這一棘手的問題的最佳解決方法。 金融市場能夠處理 那些 壞消息，而信息 的 真空是另一回事了。這意味著他們所面臨的是不得不依賴于財務模型去設法再創(chuàng)造一個假象銷售情況下的價格并以此作為記錄。但這不是一件容易的事。 但是捍衛(wèi)公允價值的人會指出，把財務資產 以 高于 它們出售價值這一 水平 記錄于賬簿上在 財務報告 中不是完全透明的模式 。 對于公允價值會計 的眾多方面 ,使它容易二次猜測 —— 缺乏具體數(shù)據 ,需要進行判斷 ,預測 的重要性 —— 可能日益成為一般財務報告越來越突出的特點 。 fair value。 沒有 一個負責的會計師或審計人員 會 希望 作出艱難 的判斷 ，當一旦這樣做將幾乎成為終結其職業(yè)生涯的事件。但那只是另一種說法，幸福的無知。 這不足為奇 ，所以，在某些情況下 ,資產價值已經被修改，可能是因為模型被調整又或是因為預言被更新 ,事情似乎變得更糟。 因此，對于那些在財務報告上帶有責任的人，當時的情況是極其無情的 。換句話說，每個人都開始緊張，把許多本來積極交易的工具全部停止了。 市場混亂 這改變了今年夏天。在這個列表中最低的“三級輸入”，就是最簡單的“不可觀察” ,也就是說 ,這些真的不存在活躍市場。 在這些 以 公允價值 記錄資產中應該是 某些種類的金融工具， 原因 是，金融工具 通常 是 在 活躍市場 以一個 可觀察到的價格 交易 。 根據 GAAP 原則，建筑以它的成本記錄，并在以后的季度和年度中計提折舊。 一張 發(fā)票 或者一合同的存在典 型 地 使支持資產價值 的 證據變得幾乎不能反駁 。與此相反， 一些 可以被指出在次優(yōu)困難考驗財務報告制度之后，作為它應該的來回答。 1 FAIR VALUE ACCOUNTING AND SUBPRIME Michael r. Young INTRODUCTION A proposition creeping its way into the discussion about the financial market dislocations arising from subprime loans is that it’s really our accounting system that is to blame. The argument is that new accounting rules are requiring writedowns that actually exaggerate losses and that financial markets are thereby being driven to levels that are artificially low. A consequence, as summarized by The Wall Street Journal, is a ―rebellion‖ by those who are ―blaming accounting rules‖ for exaggerated losses and calling for new rules that would, in essence, dampen financial market volatility. That is certainly one way of looking at it. And, no doubt, the billions in writedowns of mortgagebacked instruments and acpanying volatility in financial markets since this past summer have been no fun. Still, we should be slow to blame the accountants or new accounting standards for the subprime meltdown. To the contrary, some may be expected to point out that the aftermath of the subprime difficulties has put to the test a financial reporting system that has responded as it should. BEHIND THE SCENES: FAS 157 For those inclined to blame the accounting, the real culprit in the subprime mess is a fairly new standard, ―Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157‖ or ―FAS 157.‖ Issued in September 2020 and scheduled to take effect this past November, GAS 157 speaks to the valuation of certain kinds of assets, namely assets that should be recorded at fair value. Applicable to, among other things, financial instruments of the sort relevant to subprime loans, the standard specifies that such assets are to be recorded at the price for which they could be sold, that is, ―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.‖ Among accountants, this concept is referred to in shorthand as the ―exit price.‖ In speaking to the proper valuation of assets, FAS 157 is the latest contribution to one of the oldest debates in accounting. That is whether assets are better recorded at ―cost‖ or at their ―fair‖（ or market）value. The issue is one that has been vigorously debated for years, one of the reasons being that each side has had excellent arguments to support its position. Advocates of the ―cost‖ approach assert that cost is the best, most reliable, and most objective indication of ―fair value‖ at the time a transaction takes place. The existence of an invoice or a contract typically makes the evidence supporting the asset value all but irrefutable. Making the valuation even more reliable, such concrete evidence can be independently examined by an outside auditor of the financial statements. Accordingly, under the cost approach, there is paratively little need for judgment and, therefore, little opportunity for blunders or the manipulation of financial results. But that is only one side of th