【正文】 7 次級(jí)估值挑戰(zhàn)的余波在爭(zhēng)論中，所以，這在很大 程度 上取決于我們的訴訟 和監(jiān)管 系統(tǒng)在 沒(méi)有任何實(shí)際辦法 去做出 艱難的 判決 的情況下把法律處罰放在什么位置上。一種或另一種方式， 以及含義編制找到一種方法，可以拿出 他們 的最佳估計(jì) 并 報(bào)告給投資者。 問(wèn)題在于相關(guān)資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值無(wú)法被計(jì)算出。頂部是“一級(jí)輸入”，它被定義為“在活躍的市場(chǎng)中有相同的 資產(chǎn)或負(fù)債的報(bào)價(jià) (調(diào)整 )，報(bào)告主體在測(cè)量日有權(quán)利使用。 公允價(jià)值擁護(hù)者 主張的邏輯是以它的購(gòu)買(mǎi)價(jià)格來(lái)?yè)碛幸环莨善钡脑?，之后?dāng)價(jià)格在市場(chǎng)中上漲或下降時(shí)交易。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，由于 數(shù)十億 的 住房抵押貸款 文書(shū)的劃減以及 伴隨金融市場(chǎng)的波 動(dòng) ，致使 今年夏天以來(lái)一直 不景氣 ?！痹跁?huì)計(jì)師中，這一概念作為“出口價(jià)格”被稱為速記。因此，“成本”法有兩個(gè)結(jié)果。 為了征求社會(huì)公眾的意見(jiàn)， FAS 157 的草案分發(fā)給了金融各界，當(dāng)時(shí) 不是每個(gè)人都熱衷于它的三個(gè)級(jí)別的做法 ，那些深思熟慮的評(píng)論家非常擔(dān)心由于使用三級(jí)輸入而假設(shè)出來(lái)的價(jià)值的可靠性。所以財(cái)務(wù)人員和會(huì)計(jì)師很快發(fā)現(xiàn)自己有需要去應(yīng)付三級(jí)?！? 沮喪是可以理解的。 Accounting Horizons Vol. 20, No. 3 September 2020 pp. 271–285 Including Estimates of the Future in Today’s Financial Statements Mary E. Barth SYNOPSIS: This paper explains why the question is how, not if, today’s financial statements should include estimates of the future. Including such estimates is not new, but their use is increasing. This increase results primarily because standardsetters believe asset and liability measures that reflect current economic conditions and uptodate expectations of the future will result in more useful information for making economic decisions, which is the objective of financial reporting. This is why standardsetters seem focused on fair value accounting. How estimates of the future are incorporated in financial statements depends on the asset and liability measurement attribute, and on financial reporting definitions of assets and liabilities. The present definitions depend on identifying past transactions or events that give rise to expected inflows or outflows of economic benefits and, for inflows, control over the expected benefits. Thus, not all expected inflows or outflows of economic benefits are recognized. Disclosures in the notes can help users understand recognized estimates and can provide information about unrecognized estimates. Including more estimates of the future in today’s financial statements would result in an ine measure that differs from today’s ine, but such a measure arguably provides better information for making economic decisions. Keywords: financial statements。 但是何謂訴訟？ 不管人們關(guān)于公允價(jià)值的想法如何，次級(jí)余波后的特征之一就是 有 變得 完全適得其反 的潛在可能。對(duì)他們而言，他們希望能得到關(guān)于他們次級(jí)工具在價(jià)值方面的最新信息以應(yīng)對(duì)金融市場(chǎng)的迅速走勢(shì)。我們都太熟悉了發(fā)生了什么。 這是一個(gè)幾乎無(wú)法克服的挑戰(zhàn) ，以一 般邏輯去考慮，每次查看價(jià)格，財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表都要被更新。為了 使估值更加可靠，這種具體的證據(jù)可以由外部 的審計(jì)員對(duì) 財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表 獨(dú)立審查 。 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 the argument. The other is that historical cost, while objectively reliable at the moment a transaction takes place, can bee outdated fairly quickly. That is particularly so for assets 2 that are traded in active markets – such as financial instruments. What is the logic, the fair value adherents assert, of keeping a share of stock on the books at its purchase price when the price has increased or decreased in market trading thereafter? More broadly, insistence upon c