会计准则的共同框架【外文翻译】.doc

1、外文翻译原文：A Common Framework for Accounting StandardsIn September 2010,the U.S.Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) completed the first phase of a project that will influence global standards setting for many years to come.Specifically,the

2、Boards converged key portions of their conceptual frameworks.This months column will explain what the Boards have done and the significance of their accomplishment.Whats a Conceptual Framework?A conceptual framework for a set of accounting standards is an explicit declaration of the fundamental conc

3、epts on which the set of standards is based.The concepts addressed by conceptual frameworks tend to be general in nature,broad in scope,and stable over time.For example,a conceptual framework typically will identify the kinds of financial statements that reporting entities should prepare (balance sh

4、eet,income statement,etc.) and define the basic elements of those financial statements (assets,liabilities,income, expenses,etc.). Having a conceptual framework eliminates the need for a standards setter,such as the FASB or the IASB,to reestablish core concepts each time it develops or updates a sta

5、ndard.Additionally,by consistently referring to a stable conceptual framework,a standards setter is more likely to promulgate standards that are consistent with each other as well as with significant assumptions and constraints. The conceptual framework of U.S.Generally Accepted Accounting Principle

6、s (GAAP) is documented in a series of Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts (SFACs) issued by the FASB.The IASB has documented the conceptual framework of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in its Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements.Though sim

7、ilar in some respects,the two frameworks have always been separate and distinct from each otheruntil recently.As part of their efforts to converge the specific standards that comprise U.S.GAAP and IFRS,the Boards have begun to converge their conceptual frameworks as well.The FASB-IASB Conceptual Fra

8、mework ProjectIn October 2004,the FASB and the IASB added a joint conceptual framework project to their agendas.The objective of the project is “to develop an improved common conceptual framework that provides a sound accounting standards.”In other words,the Boards have been working together to repl

9、ace their separate frameworks with a single framework on which both future U.S.GAAP and future IFRS will be based.Each Board is committed to making the single framework better than either ones existing framework. The joint conceptual framework project consists of eight phases,designated “A”through “

10、H”:A. Objective and qualitative characteristicsB. Elements and recognitionC. MeasurementD. Reporting entityE. Presentation and disclosure, including financial reporting boundariesF. Framework purpose and status in GAAP hierarchyG. Applicability to the not-for-profit sectorH. Remaining issuesIn July

11、2006,the FASB and the IASB issued a Preliminary Views (PV) document for Phase A that described the Boardstentative thoughts on the overall objective of financial reporting and on the necessary and desirable qualitative characteristics of reported financial information.After further deliberations,the

12、 Boards issued an Exposure Draft (ED) for Phase A in May 2008 that proposed the first two chapters of a common conceptual framework.Final versions of those two chapters were subsequently issued by the Boards on September 28,2010. The FASB issued the two chapters together as SFAC No.8,“Conceptual Fra

13、mework for Financial ReportingChapter 1,The Objective of General Purpose Financial Reporting,and Chapter 3,Qualitative Characteristics of Useful Financial Information(a replacement of FASB Concepts Statements No.1 and No.2).”(SFAC No.1 was “Objectives of Financial Reporting by Business Enterprises,”

14、and SFAC No.2 was “Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information.”)The Board had previously issued only seven SFACs in its 37-year historynone of them in the past 10 years.The infrequency of SFAC issuance reflects the high degree of stability in the FASBs conceptual framework over time.But c

15、hange happens,and the less frequently it happens,the more significant it is when it does happen. For its part,the IASB incorporated the two chapters into a revised version of its framework that it published as The Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting 2010.Previously,the IASB hadnt made a sub

16、stantive revision to its framework since 2001. Again,that fact that conceptual frameworks dont change frequently makes the recent changes by the FASB and the IASB all the more notable.The Objective of General Purpose Financial ReportingChapter 1 of the Boardscommon conceptual framework focuses on th

17、e overall objective of financial reporting.As stated in SFAC No.8,“The objective of general purpose financial reporting is to provide financial information about the reporting entity that is useful to existing and potential investors, lenders,and other creditors in making decisions about providing r

18、esources to the entity.”This is broadly consistent with the FASBs prior objective as stated in SFAC No.1:“Financial reporting should provide information that is useful to present and potential investors and creditors and other users in making rational investment,credit,and similar decisions.”The new

19、ly defined objective is also similar to the IASBs prior objective of“providing information about the financial position,performance,and changes in financial position of an entity that is useful to a wide range of users in making economic decisions.”The aspect of the new converged objective that diff

20、ers most from each Boards previous objective is the emphasis on “general purpose” financial reporting.Both Boards currently view their standards-setting efforts as directed at the needs of financial-statement users who arent in a position to obtain specific information tailored to each users individ

21、ual needs.Qualitative Characteristics of Useful Financial InformationThe FASB and the IASB decided that the second chapter they issued recently will actually be Chapter 3 of their common conceptual framework.The Boards have reserved Chapter 2 for the output of Phase D (the reporting entity phase) of

22、 the conceptual framework project.Most of us think of the information in financial statements as being primarily quantitative in nature.But the FASB and the IASB have long recognized that there are certain qualitative characteristics of financial information that affect its usefulnessspecifically,ho

23、w useful it is for making the kinds of economic decisions that users of financial statements make.Accordingly,the Boards have identified such qualitative characteristics in Chapter 3.As outlined above, there are in principle two distinct components to these payments, which are the transaction value

24、at the point of purchase (which is the cost of the resource consumed) and the difference between this value and the actual settlement amount (which is a cost of finance). Yet, in practice, this distinction is rarely made, and the suppliers credit terms are typically rolled up into a single amount. W

25、hile it would be possible for accounting standards to require the separate calculation of all financing expenses, the current absence of such a requirement means that an entitys operating profit includes suppliers retum on finance. For the sake of consistency between the income statement and the bal

26、ance sheet, accounts payable should therefore also be classified as operating. If they were not, measures of retum on capital employed would be artificially low. Conceptually, if financing activity is defined by nature, classifying accounts payable as operating would be the wrong answer, but practic

27、ally it would at least be intemally consistent.It would not be the wrong answer, however, according to a fianctional perspective on financing activity. Indeed, the absence of a separately reported financing expense can be viewed as evidence that the underlying fiinction is not financing. The case fo

28、r the functional perspective is stronger still if standard-setters also seek to achieve consistency with the cash flow statement. Consider, for example, an asset retirement obligation. The liability is by nature a source of finance, which results fi-om an operating expense and which increases as fin

29、ancing expenses (interest costs) are incurred. The cash settlement of the liability does not distinguish, however, between the operating and financing components of the liability: there is not an operating cash flow separate fi-om a financing cash flow. These concems over measurement reliabilitymigh

30、t suggest that the gain or loss from revised cash flow estimates should be reported as operating, yet the same would not be tme for a gain or loss from revisions to expected discount rates, which are the capitalised counterpart of the current periods interest costs and so are not candidates for incl

31、usion in operating profit.The Boards have deemed relevance and faithful representation to be the fundamental qualitative characteristics of useful financial information.This reflects the Boardsbelief that financial information must exhibit those characteristics in order to be useful for making decis

32、ions.Additionally,the Boards have identified comparability,verifiability,timeliness,and understandability as qualitative characteristics that enhance the usefulness of financial information.Such characteristics complement the fundamental characteristics and enhance decision-usefulness when they are

33、present.In short,they are “nice to have”characteristics rather than “must have”ones.(As a matter of personal opinion,I find it somewhat disturbing that the Boards dont consider understandability to be “fundamental.”)In addition to fundamental and enhancing qualitative characteristics,the Boards have

34、 also identified a pervasive constraint:cost. They clearly recognize that if the costs of applying a particular accounting standard would exceed the benefits of doing so,then it makes no sense to impose such a standard on reporting entities.The fundamental characteristics, enhancing characteristics,

35、and pervasive constraint that the Boards have mutually identified represent a blending of concepts that were, for the most part,already present in their prior conceptual frameworks.The earlier frameworks of U.S.GAAP and IFRS,however,differed from each other with regard to relative priorities among t

36、he characteristics and the wording used to describe them.A less straightforward case arises if there is a loan of resource but the counterparty is not a bank or other financial institution. Would this change the initial observation regarding the nature of financing activity? A case that can be appli

37、ed here is a pension obligation, for which the counterparty is employees rather than a bank. A defined benefit pension plan involves the entity deferring settlement of an amount equal to the service cost, incurring interest costs thereon and then repaying the amount owed in the form of a pension. In

38、 principle, employees could accept immediate settlement of services rendered instead of entering a pension agreement, and an entity could achieve this immediate settlement by borrowing, with the net effect that the entity substitutes a bank loan for a pension obligation. Either way, the existence of

39、 the liability is associated with fiiture interest costs and repayment of capital, and there is a clear distinction between the expenses relating to operating activity (i.e. the service cost that gives rise to the liability) and the method by which these expenses are financed (either by employees or

40、 by the bank). A similar argument can also be made for cases other than pension obligations, such as provisions for deferred tax, where the counterparty providing finance (i.e. accepting deferred settlement) is the govemment. For some other provisions, such as those for asset retirement obligations,

41、 a clearly identifiable counterparty might be absent: an entitys current operating activity gives rise to a current obligation to incur future cash outflows, but payment will eventually be made to an entity that is not yet known. The absence of a current counterparty does not, however, change the co

42、nclusion that the entitys operating activity is being financed by means of deferred settlement. Interest costs are recognised purely as a consequence of this deferral, and not as a consequence of further operating activity, and the situation is no different in substance from a bank loan: the carryin

43、g amount of the provision equals the amount that the entity would need to borrow in order to settle its obligation, and the unwinding of the discount rate is equal to the interest costs that would be incurred on the amount borrowed.What Now?Because the conceptual framework of U.S.GAAP isnt itself au

44、thoritative,the recent revisions to it dont change authoritative U.S.GAAP as documented in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification(TM).The revisions do change authoritative IFRS,however,because the conceptual framework of IFRS is considered authoritative. Chapter 2 of the common conceptual framew

45、ork is due to be released by the end of 2010.As noted previously,it will address the concept of the reporting entity (Phase D).The Boards are also currently working on Phases B (Elements and Recognition) and C (Measurement).Although the conceptual framework project is currently being conducted in pa

46、rallel with numerous standard-level projects,its successful completion will be essential to the ultimate success of all of the Boardsconvergence efforts.As I say in the Convergence Guidebook for Corporate Financial Reporting (Wiley),“If different standard setters disagree on the basic concepts of fi

47、nancial reporting,then it is unlikely that those standard setters will ever agree on specific standards.”Now that the FASB and the IASB have agreed on some portions of a common conceptual framework,we see that the Boards are indeed capable of converging their standards at the conceptual level and ar

48、e intent on achieving even more conceptual convergence in the years ahead.Source: Pounder, Bruce. A Common Framework for Accounting Standards J. Strategic Finance,2010,(11) : 61-64.译文：会计准则的共同框架2010年9月，美国财务会计准则委员会(FASB)和国际会计准则委员会（IASB）完成了一个项目的第一阶段，这个项目将在以后的多年里影响全球标准的制定。特别是，委员会会合的关键部分就是他们的概念构造。这个月的专栏将

49、说明委员会做了什么和他们的成就意义。什么是概念框架？一套会计准则的概念框架是一个基础概念的明确声明，概念机构的概念致词一般倾向于在世界上，广阔的范围，和稳定的将来。举个例子，一个概念框架通常会鉴定财务报表（资产负债表、损益表等等）的调查报告实体准备，和确定那些财务报表的基本元素（财富、责任、收入、费用等等）。淘汰一个概念框架需要一个标准主体，例如财务会计准则委员会或国际会计准则委员会，重新开发或更新一个标准来重建核心概念。同时，由他们鉴定这个概念框架的可靠性，由标准主体公布标准是比较可靠的，这样相互符合有意义的假定和限制。美国通用会计准则(GAAP)的概念框架被财务会计准则委员会发布的一系列的财务会计概念公告(SFACS)等文件证明。国际会计准则委员已经用文件证明了国际财务报告准则(IFRS)的概念框架的准备工作和提供的财务报表列报。虽然这两个组织一直都相互分离和区分，但在某些方面类似。他们的部分努力成果汇集于具体标准，包括美国通用会计准则和国际财务