《固定框架：相关性和可靠性【外文翻译】.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《固定框架：相关性和可靠性【外文翻译】.doc（8页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、本科毕业论文（设计）外 文 翻 译外文题目 Fixing the Framework：Relevance and Reliability 外文出处 Accounting Today; 1/24/2005, Vol. 19 Issue 2, P14-17, 3p 外文作者 Bahnson, Paul R. 原文：Fixing the framework: Relevance and reliabilityWe have been writing about the Financial Accounting Standards Boards Conceptual Framework, offeri
2、ng suggestions to the board as it fixes up the framework some 20 years after it was produced.So far, we have looked at the overall goal of standard setting, the objective for financial reporting, the relevance of the future cash flows to the reporting entity, and the role played by the entitys asset
3、s and liabilities through their ability to affect the amount, timing and uncertainty of those cash flows. We are persuaded that this ability, which we call “AAATUC” for convenience, is the elusive relevant attribute that escaped the grasp of accounting theorists for decades.This column addresses rel
4、evance and reliability, the two key qualities of information that make it useful for decisions. By and large, the framework explains them well, thanks to the work of two departed scholars: Dr. David Solomons, of the University of Pennsylyania, and Dr. Reed Storey, who served many years on FASBs staf
5、f.We believe that the board should produce a more helpful explanation of these qualities because we find that they are not fully understood. It seems that most folks still rely on their vernacular meanings, instead of the more rigorous and precise definitions in SFAC 2.We also think that the board s
6、hould amend its discussion of the relationship between relevance and reliability, specifically the idea that tradeoffs can take place between them.Finally, we again encourage FASB to boldly and decisively identify AAATUC as the relevant attribute of assets and liabilities. Doing so would open the do
7、or to improving not just the framework but also generally accepted accounting principles, which is, after all, the whole purpose of the exercise.RelevanceThe original framework describes relevance as the “capacity of information to make a difference in a decision by helping users to form predictions
8、 about the outcomes of past, present and future events, or to confirm or correct prior expectations”.Simply put, relevance comes from the content of the information. It is created by timeliness and either predictive value or feedback value. Based on the objectives described in SFAC 1, the relevant c
9、ontent provides insight into the entitys future cash flows, which, in large part, result from assets that it controls and liabilities that it owes. Relevance exists in qualitative information about assets, such as their nature and liquidity, and about liabilities, such as their terms and demands on
10、liquidity. For example, inventory is different from receivables and buildings, and long-term debt is different from derivative liabilities and accounts payable.The most crucial information describes the AAATUC of assets and liabilities. It is clearly helpful to have a quantitative representation of
11、this cash flow potential that is inherent in, for example, receivables, investments or even goodwill.Timeliness means that information is relevant when it provides up-to-date insight into AAATUC as of the reporting date; information is not helpful for looking forward if it provides insight only into
12、 past AAATUC. While an old fact may have been timely at an earlier date, it means nothing today if it doesnt reflect current conditions and circumstances. Consider, for example, shares of Enron and Apple. Information about their past market values does not provide a timely description of their prese
13、nt cash-flow potential.Despite its necessity, relevance is not sufficient for creating usefulness. ReliabilityIn particular, useful information must also have reliability, which SFAC 2 defines as the quality of information that assures that it is free from error and bias and faithfully represents wh
14、at it purports to represent. The statement explains that reliability exists when information has representational faithfulness, verifiability and neutrality.Faithfulness occurs when the reported magnitude of the relevant attribute is sufficiently close to the real amount. Faithfulness is not the sam
15、e as exact or precise measurement in effect, its OK to be within an acceptable range. Of course, any measurement (faithful or otherwise) accomplishes nothing if people place no confidence in it. That issue led FASB to identify verifiability as essential. Specifically, credibility is enhanced by havi
16、ng others confirm that the amount is close enough. Neutrality also boosts credibility because it assures users that the information was created through an unbiased process, with no agenda for encouraging one kind of decision over another. Like relevance, reliability is necessary to usefulness but no
17、t sufficient. Indeed, the framework has a very good discussion pointing out that it does absolutely no good to have a reliable depiction of an irrelevant fact.Relevance and reliability The relationship between relevance and reliability can be understood by bringing them together in four pairs.First,
18、 information is not useful if it unreliably describes irrelevant facts. Furthermore, nothing can be done to this information to make it useful.Second, consider information that is reliable but irrelevant. Because the goal is to help statement users predict future cash flows, it does little good to d
19、escribe a particular assets past AAATUC after it has changed over time. Even though the past ability used to be relevant and can still be reliably described using past facts (such as last years fair value), the past measure no longer has predictive value, nor can it be useful for that purpose again.
20、 Nothing can make this irrelevant information useful.Third, information that is both relevant and reliable is the only kind that is useful. To be useful, it must provide faithful insight into real future cash flow potential. Further, the reported amount must be verifiable and emerge from a neutral p
21、rocess. Users will make good decisions about cash flows to themselves if - and only if both these qualities exist.Fourth, what if the information is relevant but not reliable?This question leads us to the point that relevance is not a continuous quality that exists in various degrees. Information is
22、 either relevant or irrelevant.In contrast, there are degrees of reliability. Once AAATUC is known to be relevant, its possible to consider various ways to estimate its magnitude with different levels of reliability.For example, it is relevant to know the cash flow potential of a building acquired i
23、n a business combination. One measure might be its book value in the sellers accounts. Others might be market values estimated by the seller or the buyer. Still others might be its insured value or an appraised value. Indexed cost would be yet another measure. Finally, management could consult a dat
24、abase of prices form a large number of recent transactions. Each estimate would have relevance because it would be intended to provide insight into the assets cash flow potential.However, they definitely differ in terms of their reliability. Some would be unfaithful representations because they woul
25、dnt come from a process intended to describe current AAATUC (such as book value). Others would lack verifiability because they would come from uncorroborated sources. Still others would lack neutrality by coming from processes designed to generate a particular kind of information, including that whi
26、ch is “conservative”.Somewhere along the spectrum between less and more reliability is a point that constitutes “sufficient reliability”, taking into consideration the cost of generating it and the perception by users not auditors of how close the estimate comes to the real amount.Unlike relevance,
27、however, reliability can be improved by exerting additional effort. For example, bringing in one independent appraiser will produce more reliability than having a corporate officer estimate value, and engaging five appraisers will produce more reliability than one. Consulting a database with 50 rece
28、nt transactions will add even more reliability.Source: Accounting Today; 1/24/2005, Vol. 19 Issue 2, P14-17, 3p. 译文：固定框架：相关性和可靠性自从提出概念框架的说法后，我们已经从事写出财务会计准则委员会的概念框架和为建立此框架给委员会提出建议超过20年了。目前，我们已经观察了标准设定的整体财务报表目标，它包括未来现金流与报告实体的是否相关，实际存在的资产的角色扮演，可靠性影响数据的能力以及现金流的时间性和不确定性。为了方便起见，我们把这些能力统称为“AAATUC” ，这是一个难以理
29、解的相关的属性，它避免会计理论家的琢磨数十年了。这篇文章就是针对相关性和可靠性来说的，它们是使会计信息对制定决策有用的会计信息质量的两个关键特征。总的来说，此框架把它们解释得很好，感谢已经逝世的两位学者：宾夕法尼亚大学的大卫罗门斯博士和里德斯托瑞博士，他们都为财务会计准则委员会贡献了很多年。我们相信委员会会提出一个更有帮助的对这两个特征的解释，因为我们发现他们还没完全理解透彻。似乎很多人还是依赖于它们的自己语言的意思，而不是在财务会计概念公告2上更加严格精确的定义。我们也认为委员会应该改善他们讨论相关性和可靠性关系的方法，特别是这两者之间的权衡问题。最后，我们又一次鼓励财务会计准则委员会大胆果
30、断地把AAATUC定义为资产与负债的相关属性。这样大胆开放的想法不仅会改善理论框架，也会普遍接受会计准则，而且会计准则毕竟是所有行为整体目标。相关性原始的理论框架把相关性描述为“一种可以帮助会计信息使用者预测过去，现在和未来事件发生的结果或者证实和纠正之前预测的能力” 。简单地说，相关性来自于会计信息的内容。它有时间性，预测价值和反馈价值。根据财务会计概念公告1上描述的宗旨，相关性的内容让我们了解实体的未来现金流，这个结果很大部分程度都产生与它控制的资产和它所具备的可靠性。相关性存在于资产的定性需求中，比如它们的本质和流动性，关于负债，比如它们流动性的地位和需求。比如，存货不同于应收款项和建筑
31、物，长期负债不同于衍生负债和应付账款。最重要的会计信息就是描述资产和负债的AAATUC。它对于定量地陈述固有的最大现金流明显是有帮助的，比如应收款项，投资和商誉等。时间性的意思就是说，当会计信息提供最新的AAATUC见解时，它要具备相关性，如果它至少提供过去的AAATUC，那么会计信息对于未来的展望是没有帮助的。一个旧的实际在一个相对早点的时间也许是及时的，但是如果它没有反映现在的环境状况，那么它对于现在也是没有任何作用的。比如说安然公司和苹果公司的例子。它们就是过去市场价值的会计信息没能提供一个及时的关于现在最大现金流的描述。尽管相关性是必需的，但是它对于使会计信息有用还是不够的。可靠性特别
32、地，有用的会计信息必需具备可靠性，在财务会计概念公告2中这样定义可靠性，“保证会计信息不受错误，偏见和真实反映的影响的特征”。这一陈述解释了可靠性具有真实反映性，可验证性和中立性的特点。真实性反映在当报告的相关属性的大小与真实数据的接近程度。真实性与准确测量性不同，实际上，它只要保持在一个可以接受的程度就可以了。当然，任何测量方法（不管是真实性还是其它的）如果不相信它，它也就什么也完成不了了。这个问题导致财务会计准则委员会把可验证性定位了可靠性的基本属性。特别是，真实性在保证数据接近的问题上得到了加强。中立性也推动了真实性，因为它为会计信息使用者保证了会计信息是产生于一个公正的过程，而不带有任
33、何偏袒。正如相关性一样，对于发挥会计信息的有用性来说，可靠性是必需的，但是也不是足够的。事实上，此理论框架有一个很好的讨论结果出来，但是它对于一个不相关的事实的可靠描述一点作用也没有。相关性和可靠性相关性和可靠性之间的关系可以把它们分成四种情况进行理解。第一种情况是，如果会计信息既不具备可靠性，也不具备相关性，那么，它是没有用的。而且，没有任何办法可以使这种会计信息有用。第二种情况是，考虑到会计信息具备可靠性但是不具备相关性。因为会计信息的作用就是帮助会计信息使用者预测未来现金流，在它随着时间改变以后，它对于描述特殊资产的过去AAATUC是不起作用的。即使过去才能通常是有关的，而且也能够被可靠
34、的描述来使用过去的信息（例如去年的公允价值），但是过去的测量不仅有预测价值，而且它对最终目的也还是有用的。没有什么办法可以使这种无关的会计信息变得有用。第三种情况是，会计信息同时具备相关性和可靠性，这也是会计信息有用的唯一的一种情况。为了起到它的作用，会计信息必需提供真实可靠的能真正反映未来最大现金流的信息。而且，报告出来的数据必需是可验证的和能够从中立的过程方式中突显出来的。只有这样，这两种特征同时存在的情况下，会计信息使用者才会制定出对他们自己有利的现金流决策。第四种情况是，如果会计信息只具备相关性而不具备可靠性又会怎样呢?这个问题引导我们走向另一个观点，那就是，相关性不是一个存在于不同方
35、面的连续不断的特征。会计信息要么相关，要么不相关。相反的，可靠性却存在可靠程度的概念。以前，AAATUC是以具备相关性特征而闻名，根据不同方法评估不同可靠程度的大小是可能的。举个例子，在一个企业合并中，知道一栋建筑物的最大现金流是与它在这次事件中的所得有关的。一种测量结果可能是指卖主账目上的账目价值。另一种测量结果可能就是卖主或者买主评估的市场价值。也存在其它情况可能是它的保险价值或者评估价值。固定的成本也许也是一种测量结果。最后的结果可能是，管理者从一大堆的最近交易数据中来商定一个价格数据。而且每种评估都会具备相关性，因为它会被应用到评定现金流的最大流量中。然而，涉及到它们的可靠性的时候，它
36、们是明显不同的。有些可能是不具有真实代表性的，因为它们不是来自于企图去描述现在的AAATUC（例如账面价值）的过程。有些也可能缺乏可验证性，因为它们没有一个可证实的来源。也有些可能是缺乏中立性的，因为它们来自于产生一个特殊会计信息的过程，包括那些“保守的”。考虑到发生的成本和会计信息使用者的洞察力，关于可靠性多少的程度问题组成了“足够的可靠性”的观点不是所谓的审计而是怎样从评估转变到真正的数据上来。然而，不像相关性那样，可靠性可以运用额外的努力而使它得到提高。例如，与有一个共同的官方评估价值来比，交给一个独立的鉴定人将会使会计信息更加地可靠，而且雇佣五个评估员比雇佣一个所评估的价值也更加可靠。并且，投入50个最近的交易事件进行商定数据所得的会计信息也将更加可靠。来源：班霍夫保罗，今日会计，2004（1），P14-17.