公允价值_外文文献

公允价值_外文文献 公允价值计量属性与上市公司利润外文翻译 英文原文: FAIR VALUE ACCOUNTING IN THE BANKING SECTOR Mary Pacaperscu The Financial Instruments Joint Working Group (JWG) of Standard Setters issued in December 2000 the consultative document entitled “Draft Standard and Basis for Conclusions – Financial Instruments and Similar Items”. The Draft Standard reviews and assesses an extensive use of fair value accounting (FVA) as the basis for the valuation of all financial instruments in a bank’s balance sheet. The work of the JWG is linked to the long-term strategy of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) – recently replaced by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) – to introduce a comprehensive FVA framework for the recognition and measurement of financial instruments. The JWG invited comments on the Draft Standard from all interested parties by 30 September 2001. The IASB will evaluate the long-term prospects of FVA in the light of the comments received. This note conveys the comments of the European Central Bank (ECB) on an important dimension of the proposal put forward by the JWG, notably the application of FVA to the banking sector. After reviewing the main innovations of the Draft Standard, the note focuses on the critical aspects associated with the application of a full FVA regime to the banking sector and presents a possible way forward. I. The main innovations of the Draft Standard for the banking sector The present accounting rules for banks in the European Union distinguish between financial instruments held for trading purposes (in the trading book) and those intended to be held to maturity (in the banking book). Instruments held in the trading book are valued at market prices. A profit and/or loss arising from the revaluation of trading book instruments is recognised in the profit and loss account. The accounting rules for the trading book thereby take all market risks (i.e. price risk, interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk and liquidity risk) into account. Banking book instruments, by contrast, are carried in the balance sheet at the lower of historical cost and market value. Whereas a loss on a banking book instrument is transferred to the profit and loss account, unrealised gains are not recognised and can therefore become hidden reserves in the balance sheet. Therefore, the accounting rules for the banking book do not take market risks into account (except for the foreign exchange risk, where the end-period value is usually applied to almost all balance sheet items). The Draft Standard proposes a uniform rule for all financial instruments. The assets and liabilities are carried in the balance sheet at market values, if they are available, or at fair values calculated as an approximation of the market value by using a present value model for discounting the expected future cash flow. For banks, this would imply that the trading and banking books would receive equal accounting treatment, whereby all changes in value would be recognised in the balance sheet and transferred to the profit and loss account. The foreseen revaluation applies irrespective of whether a profit or loss has been realised or remains unrealised because all instruments are either marked to market or the fair value is estimated. The hidden reserves that may arise under the existing accounting rules thus disappear. Market - 1 - risks would be taken into account when calculating the value of financial instruments in both the trading and the banking book. II. Critical aspects According to its proponents, an FVA regime may constitute, from a conceptual point of view, an alternative approach to reporting financial performance in order to avoid some of the problems associated with the current historical cost accounting. One of its main advantages would be to enhance the degree of transparency of financial statements. However, this point of view remains theoretical due to the absence of homogeneity and therefore comparability in FVA methodologies. Furthermore, the possible concrete application of a full FVA regime (applying to all assets and liabilities) to the banking sector gives rise to some serious problems and concerns. The application of FVA may be suitable for the trading book of banks, which refers to transactions (buying and selling) of marketable securities and related instruments with the objective of making a profit from short-term price variations. The use of fair value for these transactions is consistent with the availability of market prices and the short-term horizon. However, the application of FVA to the banking book of banks, i.e. to non-negotiable instruments such as loans, appears to be inappropriate for at least three main reasons. First, the issue of relevance. FVA principles do not reflect properly the way in which banks manage their core business, namely the granting of loans. The essence of bank management in this area lies in taking long-term decisions about credit quality and concentration and fostering customer relationships over the life of the contracts. It is less concerned about short-term variations that represent the basis for the use of FVA principles. Therefore, there is the possibility that the introduction of FVA for the banking book might in principle create incentives for banks to alter their core business. This would be the case if banks decided to reduce their exposure to increased volatility of income (stemming from the accounting recognition of interest rate risk in the banking book) by shortening the average maturity of loans. Other ways to achieve the same goal would be the recourse to hedging techniques and the increased use of variable interest rates. The decision to reduce the average maturity of loans would depend also on other factors, including the nature of customer demand and the specific cost structure of individual banks. Second, the issue of feasibility. There are serious doubts that an adequate fair value can be determined for bank loans, which are non-negotiable instruments precisely because they embody elements that cannot be easily quantified in a standardised manner. First, there are, by definition, no secondary markets for these instruments. This is particularly true where credit risk markets do not appear to be sufficiently deep and liquid for the purpose concerned. Second, some relevant information for the determination of the fair value of loans (i.e. that stemming from the bilateral relationship between the borrower and the lender) would never be priced in a market. Third, the estimation techniques currently available (including the one proposed in the Draft Standard) suffer from methodological problems (e.g. modelling of non-interest income, appropriate discount rate, etc.), which increase the risks of error. Accordingly, they do not represent an effective benchmark for obtaining reliable fair values for loans. Therefore, the application of FVA to bank loans would give rise to many uncertainties hindering and working against the transparency and comparability of financial - 2 - statements. It is acknowledged, however, that the current and future developments in banks’ credit risk management systems – recognised also in the new capital adequacy regime proposed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision – may provide accounting standard-setters with useful elements to refine their methodologies, in particular regarding the measurement of credit risk. Doubts are also raised with regard to the application of FVA to the liability side of banks. For instance, the suggested methodology (the so-called “own credit risk”) to determine the fair value of debt instruments issued by banks entails that, if the rating of a bank deteriorates, the value of its equity will ultimately increase (since the difference in revaluation of debt instruments is accounted in the profit and loss account). This outcome is counter-intuitive and can be misleading for shareholders and creditors. Third, the issue of prudence. The use of FVA in the banking book would entail that potential profits and losses would be treated in the same way, by being recognised as soon as they emerge. This goes against the principle of prudence according to which losses stemming from the banking book should be recognised as soon as they are known, even if only potential, whereas profits should be recognised only if they are actually realised. Potential profits should be recognised only for marketable instruments. Therefore, there is the possibility that the application of FVA to the banking book might induce banks to adopt an imprudent behaviour. This is a crucial aspect also from the viewpoint of the banking supervisory function. III. Possible way forward In light of the critical aspects mentioned above, the ECB has a negative stance towards the possibility of applying an FVA regime to the banking book of banks. Against this background, the following developments could be considered in order to make a constructive use of the valid arguments that lie behind FVA. A first development would entail that, whereas FVA would not be recognised as an accounting standard for the banking book of banks, supervisory authorities might use it as a supplementary instrument to complement their assessment of the situation of individual credit institutions. A second development involves the adoption by banks of the so-called “dynamic provisioning”. This entails recognising that a proportion of the loan portfolio can deteriorate in the future and that this proportion can be measured ex ante on the basis of a specific statistical analysis. It would also involve the disclosure by banks of the results of stress-test analyses conducted on the interest rate sensitivity of the banking book. This approach would allow two criticisms associated with the current accounting standards to be overcome, notably that potential credit losses remain hidden until signs of deterioration are evident and that market participants have insufficient information about the interest rate risk profile of banks. - 3 - 翻译: 银行业公允价值会计核算 玛利亚?帕卡拉佩斯库 联合工作组的 标准 excel标准偏差excel标准偏差函数exl标准差函数国标检验抽样标准表免费下载红头文件格式标准下载 制定金融工具在2000年12月发出题为“金融工具及其标准草案和结论的基础”类似的项目的咨询文件。该标准草案的审查和评估的公允价值会计作为在银行的资产负债表所有的金融工具估值的基础被广泛使用。联合工作组将"引入全面的公平价值的金融工具确认和计量会计框架"作为与国际会计准则委员会的长期战略合作。该工作组从9月30日收集2001年所有对标准草案感兴趣的各种意见。国际会计准则委员会将根据收到意见评估公允价值会计的长期前景。 这些都表明了欧洲中央银行(ECB)对的联合工作组在这方面提出的重要建议，即是公允价值会计在银行业的应用。在审查了标准草案之后，重点说明关于与公允价值会计 制度 关于办公室下班关闭电源制度矿山事故隐患举报和奖励制度制度下载人事管理制度doc盘点制度下载 适用于银行业有关的关键问题，并提出一个可行的办法。 一、该标准草案对银行部门的主要创新 目前这个会计规则在欧盟银行中用来区分交易性金融工具和那些打算持有至到期的银行账户。这些金融工具持有的交易账户是按市场价格估价。从交易账户中重估利润和亏损来确认损益帐户。这个交易账户中的会计规则可以把一切市场风险(即价格风险，利率风险，外汇风险和流动性风险)都考虑在内。相比之下，银行账户中资产负债表的历史成本比市场价值低。而银行账上的一个工具损失转移到损益表，未实现的收益是无法识别，因此可以成为隐藏在资产负债表的储备。因此，银行账的会计规则不考虑市场风险(外汇风险，在最终期限值通常适用于几乎所有的资产负债表项目除外)。 该标准草案建议规定所有的金融工具统一规则。如果资产负债表中的资产和负债的市场价值是真实的，或者作为使用贴现的预计未来现金流量现值模型的市场价值近似公平价值计算。对银行来说，这将意味着，贸易及银行账户将获得平等的会计处理方法，即在所有价值变动将被确认在资产负债表及转入4页损益表中的第2页。不论是否盈利或亏损已经实现或者没有实现预期升值都适用，因为所有金融工具都是按市价或公平价值的估计。根据现行的会计规则一些可能出现的隐藏的储备将会消失。当计算交易和银行账的金融工具的价值时市场风险将被考虑在内。 二、关键方面 根据它的支持者，从概念的角度来看，公允价值会计可能形成新的制度，以另一种方法来报告财务业绩，以避免与当前历史成本会计相关的一些问题。其主要优势之一是要加强财务报表的透明度。然而，由于缺乏同质性和公允价值会计的可比性，这种观点仍然停留在理论上。此外，可能的一个完整的公允价值会计制度(适用于所有资产和负债)的具体适用给银行界带来了一些严重的问题和关切。 公允价值会计的应用可能适合银行的交易账户，这是指交易(买卖)的有价证券和作出从短期价格变动的利润目标相关票据。随着市场价格的短期地平线可用性，公平价值在这些交易中的使用是一致的。然而，公允价值会计的应用银行银行账，像贷款这种非流通票据，至少有三个主要理由使其看起来不当。 首先，与其相关的问题。 公允价值会计原则是不能正确地反映银行核心业务，即发放贷款的管理方式。该银行管理的实质在于在这一领域采取有关信贷质量和浓度，并 - 4 - 促进终生的 合同 劳动合同范本免费下载装修合同范本免费下载租赁合同免费下载房屋买卖合同下载劳务合同范本下载 客户关系长远的决定。它较少关注短期变化，这是针对公允价值会计原则的基础上使用。因此，公允价值会计在银行账的应用在原则上可以为银行改变其核心业务而创造的奖励，这也是可能的。这种情况下会出现以下情形，如果银行决定降低缩短平均到期贷款的风险增加收入的波动(从银行账的利率风险会计确认产生)。其他方法来达到同样的目标将是诉诸对冲技巧和增加使用可变利率。该决定减少贷款平均期限也将取决于其他因素，包括对客户需求及个别银行的成本结构的具体性质。 其次，可行性问题。这些不可转让票据作为适当的公允价值能够为银行贷款这里有很多严重的怀疑，因为他们所代表的不能容易的用一个标准化的方式量化。首先，根据定义，这些票据没有二级市场。尤其是这样的地方信用风险市场似乎没有得到充分深入的有关目的的关注。其次，一些用于贷款的公允价值确定有关信息(即，从的借款人和贷款人之间的双边关系所引起的信息)都不能在市场定价。第三，估计现有技术(包括标准草案的提出)面临方法上的问题(如模拟非利息收入，适当的折现率等)，从而增加出错的风险。他们并不代表一个获得贷款的可靠有效的公允价值基准。因此，在银行贷款中应用公允价值会计，能够引起许多不确定因素和阻碍对财务报表的透明度和可比性。众所周知，在银行的信贷风险管理系统的当前和未来发展中由巴塞尔银行监管委员会提出的新的资本充足制度可以为会计标准制定者提供有用的建议用来完善自己的方法，特别是关于信用风险的测量。 上面的质疑也提出了关于公允价值会计应用到银行负债方。例如，所谓的“自己的信用风险”，在确定由银行发行的债务工具的公允价值中，如果一家银行的评级恶化，其股票价值最终将增加(因为在债务工具重估差额于损益账入账)。这一结果是反直观的，能够误导股东和债权人。第三，谨慎的问题。公允价值会计在银行中的应用意味着将潜在的利润和亏损采用同样的处理方式将很快被认可。由损失所引起的银行账违背了审慎原则，即使只是潜在的账目也会很快被发现，而仅仅他们真正得到的利润被承认。只有有价票据被承认是潜在的利润。因此，还有一个可能性，即公允价值会计的应用到可能被银行采取轻率行为的银行账户。从银行监管职能的看这也是一个至关重要的方面。 三、未来可能的路向 在上述关键方面来看，欧洲央行就在银行的银行账使用公允价值会计制度的可能性存在消极立场。在这种背景下，随着它的发展应该审议公允价值背后会计的谎言提出一个建设性的有效依据。第一个发展将意味着公允价值会计也不会被承认为一个银行的银行账的会计标准，监管当局可能会使用它作为辅助手段，以完善他们个别信贷机构的情况的评估。 第二个发展涉及银行采用的所谓的“动态拨备”。这就需要认识到贷款组合在未来的比例会下降，而这一比例能够在一个具体的统计分析的基础上得到事前衡量。这也涉及银行账利率敏感性进行的压力测试分析结果的信息披露。这种做法可允许与现行的会计标准有关两个相关批评被克服，尤其是潜在的信贷损失仍然隐藏直到恶化的迹象明显和市场人士对银行的利率风险状况的资料不足。 - 5 - 下面是赠送的保安部制度范本,不需要的可以编辑删除!!!!谢谢! 保安部工作制度 - 6 - 一、认真贯彻党的路线、方针政策和国家的法津法觃,按照####年度目标的要求,做好####的安全保卫工作,保护全体人员和公私财物的安全,保持####正常的经营秩序和工作秩 序。 二、做好消防安全工作,认真贯彻“预防为主”的方针,教育提高全体人员的消防意识和防火知识,配备、配齐####各个楼层的消防器材,管好用好各种电器设备,确保####各通道畅 通,严防各种灾害事故的发生。 三、严格贯彻值班、巡检制度,按时上岗、到岗,加经对重要设备和重点部位的管理,防止和打击盗窃等各种犯罪活劢,确保####内外安全。 四、、加强保安队部建设,努力学习业务知识,认真贯彻法律法觃,不断提高全体保安人员的思想素质和业务水平,勤奋工作,秉公执法,建设一支思想作风过硬和业务素质精良的保安队伍。 11、保持监控室和值班室的清洁干净,天天打扫,窗明地净。 12、服从领导安排,完成领导交办任务。 5、积极扑救。火警初起阶段,要全力自救。防止蔓延,尽快扑灭,要正确使用灭火器,电器,应先切断电源。 - 7 - 6、一旦发生火灾,应积极维护火场秩序,保证进出道路畅通。看管抢救重要物资,疏散危险区域人员。 九、协同本部门或其他部门所进行的各项工作进行记录。 保安员值班操作及要求 一、交接岗 1、每日上午9时和下午 19时 为交接岗。 2、交接岗时将当班所接纳物品清点清楚,以及夜班所发生的情况未得到解决的需> - 8 - 面汇报。检查值班室内外的卫生状况,地面无纸屑,桌面无杂物,整齐清洁。 二、执勤 1、7:50 — 8:10、13:50 —14:10立岗迎接上班人员;12:00 — 12:20 、18:00 — 18:20立岗送下班人员。 2、值勤时做到遇见领导立岗,检查物品立岗,外来人员进出立岗。 3、门卫室值勤时,应做到坐姿端正,注规监规器的劢态,做好接待工作,值勤期间不看书报电规,听收音机。不不无关人员聊天,劝阻无关人员不要在门卫室寄存物品或打电话,禁止打瞌睡。 4、维持门口秩序,使之保持畅通。 5、熟记消防,报警,救护及内部联系电话。 三、巡逻 巡逻是防盗及发现####有不安全因素的重要措施。 1、每天按照巡检制度定时轮流巡逻。 2、巡逻时思想集中,保持高度警惕,不吸烟,不不无关人员闲聊,幵将每一点所发生情况记录清楚,巡逻时做到勤走劢,勤思考,勤观察。发现问题及时报告。 - 9 - 3、白天加强对观众区、办公区及楼道的巡逻,夜晚以机房为重点进行检查,每晚零点之后巡查不少于两次。 四、防火工作 1、严格门卫制度,严禁无关人员,将易燃易爆物品带入####。 2、发现违反安全觃定的电源和火种,应予以切断和熄灭,应报告####领导采取相关措施。 3、值勤时发现物质储存,保管不符合防火要求,消防器材移作他用及非正常使用灭火器,应及时阻止,幵报告,提请有关部门整改。 4、发生火灾先拨打 119 向消防部队报警,幵立即报告####领导。报警时简要讲清####地址,电话号码及火情,同时派人在门口接应,引导消防车进入火场,向消防人员介绍水源,总电闸部位等。 - 10 -