【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 d between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length differences are discussed in more detail below. Exit Price Measurement Objective The Basis for Conclusions of SFAS 157 are stated below: The 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 of 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 , Elements of Financial INVITATION TO COMMENT Statements. Paragraph 25 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). 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 marketbased expectations of flows of economic benefit into or out of the entity. Other IASB members agree with this view, but in their view an entry price also reflects current marketbased 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’. 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 , 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 such circumstances, the exit price in SFAS 157 would be likely to differ from the entry price. Some 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: 1)IFRS 3. 2)IAS 17 for the initial recognition of assets and liabilities by a lessee under a finance lease. 3)IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement for the initial recognition of some financial assets and financial liabilities. In developing an exposure draft, the IASB may propose a revised definition of fair value. If so, it will plete a standardbystandard 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. Market Participant View SFAS 157 emphasises that a fair value measurement is a marketbasedmeasurement, not an entityspecific 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. Paragraph 10 of SFAS 157 defines market participants as buyers and sellers in the principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset orliability who are: 1)Independent of the reporting entity。 that is, they are not related parties. 2)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. 3)Able to transact for the asset or liability. 4)Willing to transact for the asset or liability。 that is, they are motivated but not forced or otherwise pelled to do so. In parison, the definition of fair value in IFRSs refers to‘knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction’.Paragraphs 4244of IAS 40 Investment Property provide a description of this concept. The definition of fair valu