Standard Research on Fair Value Measurement:International Development and Analysis
- 管理学院－学位论文 
关于公允价值究竟“是什么”以及公允价值到底应该如何计量与披露一直以来都是理论界与实务界争议的焦点，而目前准则体系中对这两个问题进行了最好的回答的就是公允价值计量的准则。2006年，FASB发布了SFAS157号《公允价值计量》准则，在该准则中对公允价值进行了全新的定义，提出了公允价值的层次观念并指出了公允价值的估值方法。然而在金融危机中，SFAS157却成为了众矢之的和金融界攻击的直接对象。虽然FASB以及SEC坚决的为SFAS157进行辩护，但他们也承认现行准则存在不足，急需修订。之后FASB多次发表工作人员立场公告和会计准则更新，并将其与SFAS157共同编入《美国公认会计原则会计准则编纂》的“编纂专题820：公允价值会计计量和披露”。 IASB于2009年5月发布了《公允价值计量》征求意见稿，该征求意见稿与SFAS157在公允价值的定义、有序交易的定义、公允价值在资产与负债中的应用、公允价值的层次与估值方法等主要方面取得一致，但在适用范围、参照市场、最高和最好的使用方式、巨量持有因素、首日损益、估值假设、公允价值在权益工具上的应用以及公允价值的披露上有所差别。这些差别很可能会导致主体在计量资产或负债的公允价值时，由于遵循了不同的准则指南，而得到不同的计量结果。为了消除差别达成一致，IASB与FASB的公允价值计量联合工作组多次召开圆桌会议，针对征求意见稿的反馈意见进行了深入的探讨和激烈的辩论。而我国也于2009年11月发布了“趋同路线图”，在国际趋同的过程中，我国无可避免的需要建立起一套统一完整的公允价值计量体系。因此，本文选择IASB和FASB公允价值计量项目进行追踪，根据联合工作组在2010年-2011年召开的联合会议资料，对项目取得的进展和达成的共识进行总结和评述。 本文首先就公允价值会计的热点问题进行了探讨，作为对准则的理论补充。笔者首选考察了公允价值计量的价值基础选择，即计量公允价值时选择脱手价格、买入价格还是使用价值作为其定价依据的问题；其次，笔者就公允价值的计量属性问题进行了探讨，本文认为公允价值现有的定义其实质上是一种计量的目标观念，而非狭义的某种计量属性或者广义的复合计量属性。然而定义与实务的不一致常常会导致一些应用上的困惑，为了解决这一问题，笔者对当前理论界提出的解决方案进行了总结，并分析了各种方案的利弊。 之后，本文详细的分析了目前准则之间差异的原因，介绍了联合工作组对准则做出的修订决议，并结合2010年8月IASB发布的《公允价值计量》准则员工草案和FASB于同期颁布的《公允价值计量与披露》会计准则更新征求意见稿印证本文的建议与结论。虽然员工草案和会计准则更新的征求意见稿可以说是最接近准则终稿的草案，但是其中也有一些值得推敲的地方，本文将结合FASB会计准则更新征求意见稿的反馈意见，一并进行了介绍与分析。 最后，笔者回顾了我国公允价值应用的历程，指出我国市场活跃度低是公允价值无法得到广泛应用的主要原因，并且目前我国这种历史成本与公允价值混合计量的现状还将长期延续。为扩大公允价值的应用范围，改进公允价值计量的可靠性，笔者提出了自己的建议。What is the actual meaning of fair value? How should the fair value be measured and disclosed? These questions seem quite basic, yet rouse continuous argument and attention in the academy. Currently, the most relevant answer to these questions can be found in the Fair Value Measurement Standard. Published by FASB in 2006, SFAS157 Fair Value Measurement standard made a brand new definition of fair value, first brought up hierarchy theory in to fair value system and presented the valuation method of fair value. However, during the financial crisis, SFAS157 became the sitting duck to critics. Although FASB and SEC tried their best to defend SFAS15, they had to admit that various blemishes existed in current standards and father amendment was in urgent need. After that, FASB published four FSPs and several ASUs and gather those documents together into Topic820: Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure. Fair Value Measurement Standard Exposure Draft issued by IASB in May 2009 differs from SFAS157 in the following aspects: the scope of application, the reference market, the highest and best use, blockage factors, one day gains or losses, valuation premise, the fair value of equity instruments, and the disclosure detail of fair value, yet reaches agreement with SFAS157 in the main aspects such as the definition of fair value and orderly transaction, application of fair value in assets and liabilities, hierarchy of fair value and valuation method. However, these differences might result in conflicts when adopting different guidance from IFRS and GAAP in measuring fair value. To avoid the potential conflicts and reach consensus, IASB and FASB made the effort to set up the joint work group, trying to improve the standard based on analysis of the respondent to the exposure draft. This article followed the trail of the IASB and FASB Fair Value Measurement project, collected the latest joint meeting materials released in 2010 to 2011, and reviewed the progress and consensus achieved across the project. First of all, this article focuses on the hot issues in fair value measurement. Firstly, we address the value basis of fair value measurement, in other words, which one should be the basis for pricing, the exit price, the entry price or the value in use. Secondly, this article makes further discussion about the measurement attributes of fair value. Instead of one kind measurement attribute or a compound of measurement attributes, this article believes that the currently definition of fair value is essentially an objective conceptual of measurement. To solve this dilemma, we conclude the present scholars' propose solutions and analyze their advantages and disadvantages. After that, his article analyzes in detail the reasons of the differences between these standards, presents each amending resolution to the standard by the staff. The suggestions and conclusions is supported by the Fair Value Measurement Staff Draft published by IASB in June 2010 and Proposed ASU-Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures Exposure Draft issued by FASB in the same time. Although the mentioned two drafts are the most likely equivalent to the final standard, some particular details, which will be discussed in this article, are still worth considering. Finally, this article analyses the current situation of requirement and application of fair value in China. Based on the analysis, it can be found that the main reason why fair value can hardly be widely used in China is the low market activity. Thus the currently used duple measurement solution (combine the historic cost and fair value) should last for a long period. In order to expand the application of fair value and to improve the reliability of fair value measurement, this article ends with specific and concrete suggestions.