CGA加拿大注册会计师Fair Value Measurement

　　1993年，为了帮助和促进会计行业在中加两国的发展，培养下一代会计师，以促进全球会计事业的发展，CGA在加拿大国家发展署的资助下进入中国，并在这期间逐渐热门，高顿网校小编为想要了解Fair Value Measurement的同学介绍一下：
 

　　Fair Value Measurement
 

　　An IASB project aimed at clarifying the definition of fair value.
 

　　In May 2008, the IASB issued an exposure draft entitled Fair Value Measurement. The goal of the draft was threefold: to establish a single source of guidance for all fair value measurements, to clarify the definition of fair value, and to enhance disclosures about fair value. It would also increase convergence with US GAAP – specifically, SFAS 157.
 

　　The IASB could no longer overlook the fact that guidance on measuring fair value was dispersed across many standards and was not always consistent. The “rules” relating to fair value had been added to IFRS piecemeal over many years. Given that many  standards require (IAS 39, IFRS 3) or permit (IAS 16, IAS 38) assets and liabilities to be measured at fair value, it made no sense to ignore the growing challenge of a system of financial reporting standards in which the guidance was incomplete. The ad hoc nature of the standards provided neither a clear measurement objective nor a sufficiently robust framework for measuring fair value.
 

　　The standard resulting from this project will define fair value, provide guidance on how to measure fair value, and set the disclosure requirements relating to fair value measurements. If adopted, the proposed standard would apply only when an existing IFRS already requires an asset or liability to be measured at fair value (it will not extend the ambit of fair value measurement to standards that currently do not require fair values to be presented on the face of the balance sheet).
 

　　Like its source, Statements of Financial Auditing Standards (SFAS) 157, the IASB project defines fair value as: “the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.”
 

　　Recognizing the illiquidity of current credit markets, and the fact that for some (many? most?) non-financial assets there is no active or fully functioning market, the IASB adds this guidance: “in the absence of an observable market to provide pricing information, an entity shall consider the characteristics of market participants who would enter into a transaction for the asset or liability.” In other words, an estimation is possible, based on the notion of what market participants might do if the market existed or was active.
 

　　The IASB plans to adopt the three-level hierarchy embodied in SFAS 157 regarding inputs to the fair value measurement process. This fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (LevelⅠ inputs) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (LevelⅢ inputs). When the inputs used to measure the fair value of an asset or a liability fall into different levels of the hierarchy, the IASB proposes that the fair value measurement be categorized at the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement.
 

　　LevelⅠ inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the entity can access at the measurement date.
 

　　LevelⅡ inputs are inputs other than quoted prices included within LevelⅠ that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly (prices) or indirectly (derived from prices). If the asset or liability has a specified term, a LevelⅡ input must be observable for (substantially) the full term of the asset or liability.
 

　　LevelⅢ inputs are unobservable inputs for the asset or liability that are not based on observable market data.
 

　　Finally, the draft proposes a number of disclosures that can be summarized by the following: for assets and liabilities, an entity should disclose information that enables users of its financial statements to assess the methods and inputs used to develop those measurements and, for fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (LevelⅢ), the effect of the measurements on profit or loss or other comprehensive income for the period. The deadline for comments was the end of September. Assuming there are no significant issues, the IASB intends to issue the resulting IFRS early in 2010.
 

　　高顿网校小编真诚希望以上信息对您能有所帮助！