【正文】 rvable inputs, which includes quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices from identical or similar assets in 4inactive markets, and other relevant market data. Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs (., model assumptions). They should be used to derive a fair value if observable inputs are not available, which is monly referred to as a marktomodel approach. Fair value is defined similarly under IFRS as the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties, in an arm’s length transaction. In determining fair value, IFRS make similar distinctions among inputs as FAS 157: Quoted prices in active markets must be used as fair value when available. In the absence of such prices, an entity should use valuation techniques and all relevant market information that is available so that valuation techniques maximize the use of observable inputs (IAS 39). It is recognized that an entity might have to make significant adjustments to an observed price in order to arrive at the price at which an orderly transaction would have taken place (., IASB Expert Advisory Panel, 2020). 3. Fairvalue accounting, illiquidity, and financial crises FVA and its application through the business cycle have been subject to considerable debate (., ECB, 2020。 Veron, 2020).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 effects of its own. In this article, we attempt to make sense of the current fairvalue debate and discuss whether many of the arguments in this debate hold up to further scrutiny. We e to the following four conclusions. First, much of the controversy about FVA results from confusion about what is 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 will always face these issues and tradeoffs。 畢 業(yè) 設 計（論 文） 外 文 參 考 資 料 及 譯 文 譯文題目： 公允價值會計的危機 : 正確理解最近的辯論 學生姓名： 學 號： 專 業(yè)： 會計學 所在學院： 商學院 指導教師： 職 稱： 講師 2020 年 3 月 10 日 The Crisis of Fair Value Accounting: Making Sense of the Recent Debate* Christian Laux GoetheUniversity Frankfurt and Christian Leuz The University of Chicago Booth School of Business amp。 NBER April 2020 (Forthing in Accounting, Organizations and Society) Abstract The recent financial crisis has led to a vigorous debate about the pros and cons of fairvalue accounting (FVA). This debate presents a major challenge for FVA going forward and standard setters’ 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 market (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 . GAAP. Third, historical cost accounting (HCA) is unlikely to be the remedy. There are a number of concerns about HCA as well and these problems 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: Marktomarket； Fair value accounting； Financial institutions；Liquidity； Financial crisis； Banks； Procyclicality 1. Introduction The recent financial crisis has turned the spotlight on fairvalue accounting (FVA) and led to a major policy debate involving among others the . Congress, the European Commission as well banking and accounting regulators around the world. Critics argue that FVA, often also called marktomarket accounting (MTM),1has significantly contributed to the financial crisis and exacerbated its severity for financial institutions in the . and around the the other extreme, proponents of FVA argue that it merely played the role of the proverbial messenger that is now being shot (., Turner, 2020。 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 recognize 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 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 . GAAP or IFRS. Both standards allow for deviations from market prices under certain circumstances (., 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 the institutional framework, which could give rise to unintended consequ