利潤表中的投資性房地產(chǎn)在公允價值模式下的變化來自于香港的證據(jù)外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　中文2900字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p>　　外文題目 Value-relevance of presenting changes in fair value of investment properties in the inco

2、me statement: evidence </p><p>　　from Hong Kong </p><p>　　外文出處 Accounting and Business Research </p><p>　　外文作者 Stella So and Malcolm S

3、mith </p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Value-relevance of presenting changes in fair value of investment properties in the income statement: evidence from Hong Kong</p>

4、<p>　　IAS 40 (2000) represents the first time that the IASB permits a fair value model for non-financial assets (IASCF, 2008c). Under the fair value model, investment properties are carried at fair values and chang

5、es in fair value, whether up or down, are included in the profit or loss for the period and presented in the income statements. Supporters of the fair value model believe that fair values give users of financial statemen

6、ts more useful information than other measures, such as depreciated cost</p><p>　　However, Penman (2007) does not entirely agree; he evaluates historical cost and fair value accounting from two perspectives-

7、equity valuation and stewardship and concludes that while fair value accounting is a plus at a conceptual level, the minuses add up with fair value implemented as exit price (whether estimated or observed in active marke

8、ts) and the problems with historical cost accounting remains unresolved. </p><p>　　Singleton-Green (2007) summarises the problems of fair value accounting as: (1) the lack of active markets for most assets a

9、nd liabilities, which means that most fair value measurements are estimates and are highly subjective and potentially unreliable; (2) costly information, especially for smaller companies; and (3) the recognition of profi

10、ts based on fair values, which mean that unrealised profits or losses from changes in fair value are recognised, and result in greater volatility and unpred</p><p>　　Empirical studies assessing the relevance

11、 and reliability of fair value accounting versus historical cost-based accounting focus on financial instruments, and the results from these studies are generally mixed. Barth (1994) finds that, for a sample of US banks

12、with data from 1971–1990, disclosed fair value estimates of investment securities provide significant incremental explanatory power for bank share prices beyond that provided by historic costs. Fair value gains and losse

13、s of investment sec</p><p>　　In contrast, Danbolt and Rees (2008), using UK data, report no support for full fair value accounting. While fair value income is considerably more value-relevant than historic c

14、ost income, the higher relevance disappears in the presence of changes in fair value accounting balance sheet values. Danbolt and Rees (2008) interpret their results as evidence of the absence of an obvious advantage fro

15、m adopting fair value income accounting if fair value balance sheet values are available to the user. </p><p>　　Value-relevance research studies the association between fair value estimates and share prices

16、or returns. Sloan (1999) comments that while this association provides evidence that investors find fair value estimates to be relevant, the inferences regarding reliability are indirect and limited by the fact that shar

17、e prices reflect many factors other than the fair value estimates. Dietrich et al. (2001) subsequently use a direct approach to investigate the reliability of mandatory annual fair valu</p><p>　　The New Zeal

18、and (hereafter NZ) SSAP No. 17 ‘Accounting for Investment Properties and Properties Intended for Sale’ (NZSA, 1989) previously allowed NZ companies the choice of recognising unrealised gains or losses either in the incom

19、e statement, or as movements in an investment property revaluation reserve, unless the total of the reserve was insufficient to cover a deficit, in which case the amount of deficit was to be charged in the income stateme

20、nt as part of operating results. The NZ equivale</p><p>　　Taken together, findings from prior studies of firms in the US, UK and Australian capital markets during the 1990s suggest that investors have been p

21、rovided with fair value information (whether recognised or disclosed) that is generally reliable and relevant (whether fair value estimated by management or independent valuer). More research should be undertaken to test

22、 empirically whether relevance and reliability improve after the implementation of the fair value standards on financial instrument</p><p>　　Like Owusu-Ansah and Yeoh (2006), this study examines the extensio

23、n of fair value accounting to investment properties and the presentation of their fair value changes in the income statements (rather than in the revaluation reserve) in particular. Unlike Owusu-Ansah and Yeoh (2006), th

24、is study employs data from accounting periods when the related fair value accounting standard HKAS 40 is implemented. Comparison is then made with those from the immediate pre-implementation accounting periods when</p

25、><p>　　Empirical results</p><p>　　Although HKAS 40 (2004) allows a free choice between cost and fair value models, all 92 companies in the initial sample chose to adopt the fair value model.</p&

26、gt;<p>　　All the 92 companies are retained for data analysis,with extreme variable values verified against their sources. Since no procedural errors or extraordinaryevents are identified, all the data collected fo

27、r the 92 companies are retained for the subsequent analysis.</p><p>　　Each company is evaluated twice, in two consecutive accounting years before and after the adoption of HKAS 40 (2004).</p><p>

28、;　　Table 1 describes the distribution of accounting year-ends, years of last-time following of SSAP 13 (2000) and years of first-time adoption of HKAS 40 (2004) for the 92 companies in this study.</p><p>　　A

29、ppendix A details their identities. Most companies have March 31 or December 31 accounting year-ends, and adopt HKAS 40 (2004) for the first time in 2005 or 2006. While HKAS 40 (2004) mandates adoption for annual periods

30、 beginning on or after 1 January 2005, 17 companies choose to adopt HKAS 40 (2004) early.13 </p><p>　　Tables 2A and 2B contain descriptive statistics for the 92 sample companies in the study during the year(

31、s) when HKAS 40 (2004) is adopted for the first time compared to the year(s) when SSAP 13 (2000) is adopted for the last time.</p><p>　　On the whole, when companies apply HKAS 40 (2004) for the first time, t

32、hey are experiencing higher earnings and higher market values and offering their investors higher abnormal returns; this may be attributable to the strong economy in Hong Kong in 2005 and 2006. The Centa-City Index has i

33、ndeed been increasing during the sample period, although at a significantly lower rate when HKAS 40 (2004) is applied for the first time. Firm size and Centa-City index changes are both controlled for in this </p>

34、<p>　　There is also an indication of higher earnings volatility14 as a result of applying HKAS 40 (2004). The mean gains and losses in fair value of investment properties are HK$827m which is almost equal to the ea

35、rnings before such gains and losses of HK$848m. In contrast, the mean investment properties open market value excess deficits or surpluses of HK$24m amounts to only 3% of the earnings before such excess deficits or surpl

36、uses of HK$757m.</p><p>　　Further indication of higher earnings volatility15 is available in Table 3 showing the results of a paired-sample t-test performed to compare the earnings volatility before and afte

37、r the application of HKAS 40 (2004). Earnings volatility is expressed as the number of standard deviations from a five-year mean (mean of the earnings of the five years ending on the year of HKAS 40 (2004) application).

38、Earnings volatility is significantly higher after the adoption of HKAS 40 (2004) (t = 4.678, p = 0.</p><p>　　4.1. Short window event study</p><p>　　Table 4 reports the regression results from th

39、e estimation of equation (1). Results for the shortwindow event study provide evidence that the presentation of changes in fair value of investment properties in the income statements as required by HKAS 40 (2004) is mor

40、e informative to investors than the presentation required by SSAP 13 (2000).Investors respond to the information on changes in fair value in the income statement, as released in the results announcement, causing abnormal

41、 returns. The </p><p>　　As expected, neither earnings (EARNB) nor earnings change before investment properties’ open market value/changes in fair value (?EARNB) is significant in explaining the abnormal retu

42、rn within the short window when SSAP 13 (2000) is adopted in the financial statements.</p><p>　　Although the overall R2 is only 1.0%, this is consistent with the results from prior short-window studies.</

43、p><p>　　All the coefficients are positive except that of investment properties’ value changes (i.e. IPVC),which is negative (but not statistically significant).Barth et al. (1990) and Barth (1994) also find sim

44、ilar negative coefficients for securities market price gains and losses and interpret them as evidence of a market that perceives that securities gains and losses are used to smooth earnings.</p><p>　　4.2. L

45、ong-window abnormal return – unexpected earnings association</p><p>　　The regression results for the long window abnormal return and unexpected earnings association are reported in Table 4. As the window ope

46、ns wider, the earnings before changes in open market value or fair value (i.e. EARNB) in equation (2) also become significant at the 5% level and the overall adjusted R2 increases to 17.7%. This is consistent with the re

47、sults from prior studies using long windows where significance of earnings is found together with higher overall R2.</p><p>　　Source: Stella So .Malcolm Smith, Value-relevance of presenting changes in fair v

48、alue of investment properties in the income statement: evidence from Hong Kong. Accounting and Business Research, 2009 Vol. 39. No. 2. pp. 103-118. </p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　利潤表中

49、的投資性房地產(chǎn)在公允價值模式下的變化：來自于香港的證據(jù)</p><p>　　國際會計準則第40（2000）首次聲明，國際會計準則委員會允許非金融資產(chǎn)的公允價值模式（IASCF，2008c）。根據(jù)公允價值模式，投資性房地產(chǎn)隨著公允價值變動，無論是向上或向下，都包含在該期間的利潤或虧損中，并體現(xiàn)在收益報表中。公允價值模式的支持者認為，公允價值與其他任何模式相比，給財務(wù)報表使用者提供了更多有用的信息，如折舊費用，并且在

50、公平價值模式下的變動與投資性房地產(chǎn)的財務(wù)的有機組成部分有著千絲萬縷的聯(lián)系，并且因此表現(xiàn)在收入報表中（IASCF，2008c）。雖然國際會計準則第40號（2000）允許主體在公允價值模式和成本模式中進行選擇，國際會計準則第40號的基礎(chǔ)結(jié)論（2000年）明確指出，從公允價值模式到成本模式的后續(xù)計量的進行是基于更加適當?shù)谋憩F(xiàn)（IASCF，2008c）。</p><p>　　然而,作者(2007)并不完全同意,他評估來自

51、兩種觀點的股票估值和服務(wù)意識的歷史成本計量和公允價值會計,并認為,當公允價值會計是在一個概念水平上的相加,并且歷史成本會計問題仍未解決。</p><p>　　辛格爾頓-格林（2007）總結(jié)了公允價值會計的問題：(1)對大多數(shù)資產(chǎn)和負債缺乏活躍的市場,這就意味著大多數(shù)公允價值計量是估計方法和具有高度主觀性和潛在的不可靠性;(2)昂貴的信息,特別是小的公司;(3)基于公允價值的對于盈利的認識,而這通常意味著利潤或損失

52、的完成從公允價值變動計入當期損益,并導致更大的波動和不可預測性。本研究集中在第三期,投資性房地產(chǎn)的公允價值變動,在利潤表和估價準備金。</p><p>　　評估公允價值會計與歷史成本會計的相關(guān)性和可靠性的證實研究是集中在金融工具的,來自于這些研究得結(jié)果一般具有混合性。巴特(1994)發(fā)現(xiàn),以美國的銀行1971到1990年數(shù)據(jù)為例,揭示的公允價值的估計增量為銀行的股價提供了顯著的債券投資解釋力，它超越所能夠提供的歷

53、史成本。公允價值收益和證券投資損失（其結(jié)構(gòu)來自于每年兩次的公允價值評估）,然而,發(fā)現(xiàn)解釋力增量對于一年一度的收益率(股價)卻并沒有顯著的變化，由于增加了測量誤差。近似結(jié)果全部等得到使用銀行數(shù)據(jù)。與卡魯而的結(jié)果(2003)等不同;與其使用銀行數(shù)據(jù),他們以封閉式基金為樣本，在封閉式基金中通常包含投資證券，還包括了與其他資產(chǎn)和負債微不足道幾乎所有的資產(chǎn)。這是一個有利條件,因為潛在的問題已經(jīng)被消除了，這些潛在的問題是通過公允價值計量模式來測量資

54、產(chǎn)和負債的，而不是其他歷史成本模式。股票價格和投資證券的公允價值之間的關(guān)聯(lián),以及分享收益和公允價值之間證券的利得和損失，這些都被發(fā)現(xiàn)了。為了研究證券投資的公允價值的可靠性差異是否影響信息，卡羅爾等人檢測了股票價格和不同類型的公允價值基金之間的關(guān)聯(lián)，并發(fā)現(xiàn)，在所有情況下，包括在市場上的交易，在股票價格</p><p>　　相反,里斯(2008),使用英國數(shù)據(jù),報告不支持全公允價值會計。當然公允價值收入要比歷史成本收

55、益有更多的價值相關(guān)。 Danbolt和里斯(2008)解釋他們的證據(jù)結(jié)果對于采用公允價值會計沒有一個明顯的優(yōu)勢，如果公允價值收入資產(chǎn)負債表是提供給用戶的話。</p><p>　　價值相關(guān)性調(diào)查研究了公允價值估計和股票價格或者返利之間的關(guān)聯(lián)。史隆(1999)評論,雖然這個關(guān)聯(lián)性提供證據(jù)表明，投資人發(fā)現(xiàn)公允價值估計相關(guān)關(guān)于可靠性是間接推論和有限的事實,股票價格的反映了許多其他的因素公允價值評估。迪特里希孫俐 (200

56、1)后來使用了更直接的方法來調(diào)查每年強制性的公允價值鑒定的可靠性，這是由英國投資性房地產(chǎn)的特許計量師來實現(xiàn)的。迪特里希孫俐 (2001)等人還發(fā)現(xiàn)了考核信度在由部監(jiān)測評估師和六大核數(shù)師的監(jiān)控下，在不斷上升。</p><p>　　新西蘭(以下簡稱紐西蘭)SSAP 17號的“投資性房地產(chǎn)會計和擬出售房地產(chǎn)”（NZSA,1989）之前允許新西蘭公司未變現(xiàn)收益或虧損的選擇，無論是在利潤表, 或在投資性房地產(chǎn)得重估儲備變動

57、，除非總儲備已經(jīng)不足以支付赤字,在這種情況下,赤字的金額作為經(jīng)營業(yè)績的一部分，在收益表扣除。Owusu-Ansah和Yeoh(2006)研究了兩種可供選擇的會計處理的相對價值的相關(guān)性。他們的研究結(jié)果表明，在損益表確認未實現(xiàn)的收益并不在他們的價值的相關(guān)條款中。然而,Owusu-Ansah和Yeoh(2006)只包括具有在投資性房地產(chǎn)價值具有積極變化的公司。</p><p>　　綜合起來看,公司在此之前的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，在

58、美國、英國和澳大利亞的資本市場在20世紀90年代就建議，投資者一直被提供公允價值信息（無論是被確認的或被披露的),這些信息一般都具有可靠性和相關(guān)性 (無論是被管理層還是獨立評估師評估的公允價值)。更多的研究應(yīng)該進行實證，檢驗是否具有相關(guān)性和可靠性，工程實施后提高公允價值標準(例如金融工具IAS 39)和擴展到非財務(wù)資產(chǎn)公允價值(如下。IAS 40)。</p><p><b>　　實證結(jié)果</b&g

59、t;</p><p>　　雖然HKAS 40期(2004年)允許在成本與公允價值模式之間自由選擇,92家公司在首次樣品中選擇采用公允價值模式。</p><p>　　所有的92家分公司維持數(shù)據(jù)的分析,極其變量值驗證了他們的來源。因為沒有程序錯誤或非凡的事件被確認, 92家公司所有的所收集到的數(shù)據(jù)都為后續(xù)分析所保留。</p><p>　　每個公司評估兩次,并在連續(xù)兩個會

60、計年前后均采用HKAS 40(2004)。</p><p>　　表1描述了在這項研究中的92家公司在會計年結(jié)束以及最后一次遵循會計準則第13（2000）條那年和首次采用香港會計準則第40號（2004）那年的分布。附錄A詳細描述了他們的身份。大多數(shù)公司采用3月31日或12月31日會計年度為結(jié)束時間，并在2005年或2006年第一次采用會計準則第40號（2004）。而香港會計準則第40號（2004年）規(guī)定采用2005

61、年1月1日開始的或其之后的年度期間，17家公司選擇最先采用香港會計準則第40號（2004）。</p><p>　　表2A和2B包含研究中的92家樣本公司在與最后一次采用會計實務(wù)準則13號（2000）那年相比，第一次采用香港會計準則第40號（2004）那年期間的描述性統(tǒng)計分析。</p><p>　　總的來說,當公司第一次使用香港會計準則第40號(2004)時,都經(jīng)歷較高的收入和更高的市場價值

62、并為他們的投資者提供了異常高的回報;這可能是由于2005年和2006年香港的強大經(jīng)濟。中原指數(shù)在采樣周期的確一直在增加,盡管是以較低的比率在增加，那時香港會計準則第40號（2004）是第一次應(yīng)用。公司規(guī)模和中原指數(shù)的變化都在本研究中受到控制。本研究中的所有自變量也按公司的開始的市場價值在增加。結(jié)果表明了相對于總資產(chǎn)的投資性房地產(chǎn)的比例的顯著增加,即從會計實務(wù)準則13號（2000）應(yīng)用時的0.345 上升到香港會計準則第40號（2004）

63、應(yīng)用時的0.403。</p><p>　　由于應(yīng)用香港會計準則第40號（2004）還存在一個較高的收入波動的跡象。在投資性質(zhì)的公允價值中的平均利潤和損失為827m港元,幾乎相當于在848m港元損益下收益。相比之下, 在超過757m港元的虧損或者盈余之前，平均的投資性房地產(chǎn)公開市值超過只占收入3%的2400萬港元的虧損或者盈余。</p><p>　　較高收入波動的跡象在表3中是可利用的，顯示

64、了在香港會計準則第40號（2004）應(yīng)用的前后的相比于收益波動的配對樣本的結(jié)果。收入波動是根據(jù)歷時五年的平均收入的標準差數(shù)量來表述的。收入波動在采用香港會計準則第40號（2004）后有顯著的提高。</p><p>　　表4報道了估計方程的結(jié)果。較短的事件研究的結(jié)果提供了一些證據(jù),表明香港會計準則第40號（2004）需要的損益表中的投資性房地產(chǎn)公允價值變動的表述是包含更多的信息給投資者。投資者對損益表中公允價值變動

65、信息做出反應(yīng),發(fā)布最后公告時,會導致不正常的回報。雖然整體R2只是1.0%,這是符合原有較短的研究的結(jié)果。</p><p>　　所有的系數(shù)是積極的,除了投資性房地產(chǎn)價值，它是消極的但不是重要的。Barthetal（1990）和Barth（1994）也發(fā)現(xiàn)了類似的證券的市場價格收益和損失負系數(shù)并把其作為市場的證據(jù)來解釋。</p><p>　　出處:斯特拉，史密斯.收入報表中的投資性房地產(chǎn)在公