資料載入中.....
|
請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件:
https://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw/dspace/handle/987654321/52031
|
| 題名: | 我國現階段財務報表衡量公允價值之研究 |
| 其他題名: | A study of financial reporting measured at fair value in Taiwan |
| 作者: | 涂冠婷;Tu, Kuan-ting |
| 貢獻者: | 淡江大學會計學系碩士在職專班
顏信輝;Yen, Sin-hui |
| 關鍵詞: | 公允價值;公允價值衡量;Fair Value;Fair Value measurements |
| 日期: | 2010 |
| 上傳時間: | 2010-09-23 16:31:44 (UTC+8) |
| 摘要: | 公允價值會計近年來逐漸躍居主流，財團法人中華民國會計研究發展基金會近年來亦陸續參酌國際會計準則發佈以公允價值為衡量基礎的會計準則公報，本研究之主要目的係探討我國現階段實務界對於無活絡市場公開報價之金融工具、非金融資產(如固定資產及無形資產)及員工認股權，衡量其公允價值所採用之評價方法以及對該評價結果之態度、所面臨的困難點及額外增加相關成本耗費為何，並瞭解相關會計從業人員對於公允價值之看法究竟為何及是否需要相關配套措施，以提供有用資訊給財務報表編製者日後管理、使用者閱讀報表及主管機關後續制訂相關規範之參考，並對未來全面採用IFRS後在應用公允價值方面有所助益。
本研究藉由發放問卷之方式進行，分別發出1,217份及920份問卷予國內上市櫃公司之會計主管或相關會計人員及會計師事務所之執業會計師或相關從業人員，有效問卷分別回收155份及114份，回收率分別為13%及12%。根據問卷分析結果如下：
一、 公允價值之衡量方法選擇
(一)未上市櫃公司之權益工具之評價
大多數受訪者對於「以被投資公司最近期財務報表計算之淨值，並依該受評公司財務資訊予以調整」及「以專業鑑價機構之鑑價報告」衡量得出之公允價值給予比其他評價方法較高之信賴程度，惟大部份受訪公司偏向採用被投資公司最近期淨值，而大部份受訪會計師事務所從業人員卻偏向鑑價報告。
(二)未上市櫃公司之債務工具之評價
國內上市櫃公司偏向以最近報價平台之交易價格，並依採用該受評債務工具之發行條件予以調整來衡量該債務工具之公允價值；而會計師事務所從業人員則偏向採用專業鑑價機構提供鑑價報告所計算得出之公允價值。
(三)衍生金融工具之評價
國內上市櫃公司及會計師事務所從業人員對於「交易對手(如，承作銀行)提供之價格」給予比其他評價方法較高之信賴程度，惟有國內上市櫃公司受試者提出該價值可能隱含銀行之利潤，且表示由於查核會計師要求提供該價格之合理性分析，故仍有透過外部鑑價機構或自行以市場上相關可取得資訊來驗證。
(四)非金融資產(固定資產及無形資產)之評價
國內上市櫃公司及會計師事務所從業人員對於對評價方法之信賴程度依序為「專業鑑價機構提供鑑價報告」，其次為「參考相同資產在二手市場公開報價，並依該受評資產使用狀況予以調整」。
(五)員工認股權之評價
針對員工認股權公允價值之衡量，排除持無法表示態度之意見後，大多數受訪者對「會計師事務所或其他外部專業機構協助計算」及「Black-Scholes模型」給予比其他評價方法較高之信賴程度。
二、 採用公允價值之困難點
(一)無活絡市場金融工具評價之困難點
國內上市櫃公司及會計師事務所從業人員認為無活絡市場金融工具於評估其是否發生減損時，衡量該工具公允價值之困難點中，主要三項困難點為(1)因最近市場交易之公開報價不易取得，或市場價格受經濟環境影響無法反應真實價格；(2)若金融工具有受限制情形時，不易判斷其影響範圍，或調整受限幅度與會計師審計判斷不同；及(3)無法取得其他實質上相同金融工具之公允價值。
(二)非金融資產(固定資產及無形資產)評價之困難點
在衡量非金融資產(固定資產及無形資產)淨公允價值方面，國內上市櫃公司及會計師事務所從業人員者認為衡量上較不易之主要原因為(1)受評資產缺乏公開交易市場致無法比較；或(2)無法取得類似資產近期交易之價格。
(三)員工認股權評價之困難點
國內上市櫃及會計師事務所從業人員認為衡量員工認股權公允價值所遭遇到之困難，除選擇權評價模型之參數來源不易取得外，選擇權評價模型過於複雜，致使相關財會人員不易瞭解計算亦是衡量公允價值所面臨之困難。
(四)財務報表編製成本增加
財務報表採用公允價值衡量後，為強化外部客觀證據，除須增加外部專家鑑價成本外，由於相關公報規範複雜及對評價方法不熟悉，相關財會人員教育訓練成本、會計帳務作業成本及查核成本亦相對提高許多。
三、 對公允價值之看法
(一)採用公允價值之優點及缺點
大多數受訪者認同財務報表採用公允價值衡量，認為財務報表採用公允價值衡量後，雖會增加損益及資產要素之波動性，但也強化了公司財務狀況透明度，並為公司管理決策提供即時性財務資訊。然而，由於部份計算公允價值之模型參數係為主觀判斷之估計值，不易客觀驗證，除須評估其資訊可靠性且須考量其相對增加之成本。
(二)第34號公報第二次修訂條文認同情形
我國於97年10月參照IASB發佈修訂IAS 39及IFRS 7而公布第34號公報第二次修訂條文，國內上市櫃公司及會計師事務所從業人員對於此修正案認同程度之態度分歧，無明顯一致之意見。
(三)財務報表編製者與使用者之看法
整體而言，雖然公司及會計師事務所在編製或查核財務報表採用公允價值衡量過程中遭受到不少困難，但站在投資者立場則相對支持以公允價值衡量各財務要素。
(四)相關配套措施
為使財務報表更順利導入公允價值，絕大多數受試者普遍認為相關配套措施是非常必要的。主管機關或政府單位等相關機構除應統一建置可驗證性之公允價值評價系統或平台、成立具公信力諮詢機構並不定期舉辦座談會；並提供衡量公允價值表達及揭露資訊之實務應用或相關指引，均有助於企業更適切進行公允價值評價以減少試誤成本與時間。特別是當市場價格受整體經濟環境影響無法反應真實價格時，主管機關須適時提供替代衡量公允價值的方式以協助企業適當判斷非暫時性減損。
In recent years, fair value accounting has gradually become the mainstream. Accounting Research and Development Foundation in Taiwan releases fair value based accounting standards successively. In order to understand the implementation effect of fair value evaluation of financial instrument without quoted market price in active market, non-financial assets (such as fixed assets and intangible assets) and employee stock option, the research is to discuss the current status, difficulty and incremental cost of fair value measurement accounting and further viewpoints. This study provides detail practical fair value information for the companies and the authorities and would be helpful for the full adoption of IFRS.
This study gets the summarized conclusion by issuing not only 1,217 copies of questionnaires to the accounting manager and related personnel of domestic listed companies but also 920 copies of questionnaires to the practicing Certified Public Accountants and related staffs of CPA firms. Finally, 155 copies and 114 copies of questionnaires were received from the companies and CPA firms, respectively. The corresponding receiving rates are 13% and 12%.
The analysis result are as follows:
1. The fair value measurement
(1)Valuation of unlisting “Equity” financial instrument
Most respondents reply in this item give more reliance on fair value valuation from “adjusting net assets value of investee company''s most recent financial statements” and “valuation report of specialist”. But the companies prefer the former and the CPA firms prefer the latter instead.
(2) Valuation of unlisting “Debt” financial instrument
In practice, under the companies use the recent transaction price from quoted platform and adjust of the conditions of issuance and the CPA firms would rely more on specialist’s valuation report.
(3) Valuation of Derivative instruments
Both the companies and the CPA firms confirm the transaction price provided by counterparty. Because the implied profit of the counterparty and the further reasonable analysis request, the transaction price might need to be verified by specialist and adjusted quoted market price of similar financial instruments.
(4) Valuation of non-financial assets (such as fixed assets and intangible assets)
The companies and the CPA firms rely on the valuation result from “the specialists’ report” and “quoted prices for similar assets in secondary markets adjusted the usage of the asset” in sequence.
(5) Valuation of employee stock option
Exclude of the disclaimer of opinion, most respondents trust the stock option value results from “the reports of professional organizations” or “Black-Scholes model”.
2. The difficulty of fair value measurement
(1) Valuation of financial instrument in inactive markets (as Derivatives and Unlisting Debt/Equity instrument)
The major three difficult points of the impair valuation of the financial instruments in an inactive market are as follows:
(a) There is no recent quoted market price or the volatility of the market price due to the economic influence.
(b) The actual influence of limitation on financial instrument.
(c) There is no quoted price of essentially the same financial instruments.
(2) Valuation of non-financial assets (such as fixed assets and intangible assets)
The primary difficulty on measuring the fair value of non-financial assets are:
(a) The lack of publicly traded market for comparison.
(b) There is no transaction price of similar assets.
(3) Valuation of employee stock option
The main difficulty of measuring stock option is that the parameters of valuation model are not easy to obtain. Furthermore, the complex of the valuation methods and lack of knowledge of the accountants are also the difficulties.
(4) The additional coordination costs
In order to obtain objective fair value of financial instruments, the companies may need to increase the training costs for accountants, accounting operation cost, CPA auditing cost and expert valuation charges.
3. The opinion for fair value measurement.
(1) The strengths and weaknesses of fair value measurement
Strengths of fair value measurement:
(a) Increasing of the transparency of the financial reports although it also has volatility addition.
(b) The instant information for management decision.
Weaknesses of fair value measurement:
(a) Addition cost to offset the benefit.
(b) Too much subjective judgment and too little reliability of financial information.
(2) Level of acceptance of ROC SFAS No. 34 Second Amendments on October 17, 2008
The divergent attitudes between the companies and the CPA firms so there is no obvious opinion of this amendments.
(3) The relative opinion between preparers and users of financial reports
Overall, the users of financial reports are more supportive of fair value measurement than the preparers of financial reports.
(4) Assorted procedures
In order to more successfully into the financial statements measured at fair value, the authorities should provide verified valuation technical and more practical guidance to enterprise and CPA firms to strengthen education training and reduce trial and error cost and time. Especially when the market price biased by the economic environment, the authorities should provide more timely and appropriate fair value measurement criterion to assist enterprises to make accurate impairment judgments. |
| 顯示於類別: | [會計學系暨研究所] 學位論文
|
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 |
大小 | 格式 | 瀏覽次數 |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML | 302 | 檢視/開啟 |
|
在機構典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.
|
