本文選題：金融資產(chǎn)減值 + 預(yù)期損失模型��； 參考：《財(cái)政部財(cái)政科學(xué)研究所》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：2008年金融危機(jī)的爆發(fā),現(xiàn)行金融資產(chǎn)減值的已發(fā)生損失模型廣受詬病。金融危機(jī)咨詢組在其報(bào)告中直接指出金融資產(chǎn)減值損失的延遲確認(rèn)及不同資產(chǎn)減值方法差異是導(dǎo)致金融危機(jī)加劇的主要原因,建議考慮金融資產(chǎn)潛在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的相關(guān)信息進(jìn)行減值處理。IASB與FASB將減值作為重要議題,試圖厘清金融資產(chǎn)減值的方法,提出了考慮資產(chǎn)未來(lái)信用損失的金融資產(chǎn)減值預(yù)期損失模型,取代現(xiàn)有的已發(fā)生損失模型。之后,兩機(jī)構(gòu)一直致力于提高模型的現(xiàn)實(shí)可行性,先后提出不同的方法并提交公眾討論。 基于預(yù)期損失理念,IASB與FASB共同對(duì)預(yù)期損失模型進(jìn)行完善,先后提出了預(yù)期損失模型的未來(lái)現(xiàn)金流量法、“二分類法”與“三組別法”。由于兩機(jī)構(gòu)目標(biāo)的不一致,以及收到的反饋意見(jiàn)關(guān)注點(diǎn)差異,IASB從金融機(jī)構(gòu)信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理機(jī)制出發(fā),提出了一個(gè)對(duì)資產(chǎn)初始確認(rèn)后信用質(zhì)量顯著惡化與否區(qū)別處理的減值模型,而FASB則獨(dú)立提出了金融資產(chǎn)初始確認(rèn)所有預(yù)期信用損失的單一計(jì)量模型。目前,FASB和IASB就采用預(yù)計(jì)損失模型的必要性達(dá)成共識(shí),但由于IASB希望減值準(zhǔn)備的計(jì)提反映金融資產(chǎn)真實(shí)價(jià)值,而FASB堅(jiān)持減值損失應(yīng)覆蓋資產(chǎn)所有未來(lái)?yè)p失,兩機(jī)構(gòu)無(wú)法就該模型的運(yùn)作方式取得一致意見(jiàn)。本文采用規(guī)范研究方法,對(duì)預(yù)期損失模型從提出到逐步完善過(guò)程中,各階段模型進(jìn)行了合理性分析。從會(huì)計(jì)確認(rèn)、計(jì)量、列報(bào)、披露方面,對(duì)IASB與FASB提出模型與已發(fā)生損失模型比較,著重分析兩機(jī)構(gòu)模型會(huì)計(jì)處理差異的原因,從正反兩方面對(duì)預(yù)期損失模型進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià),指出未來(lái)應(yīng)從會(huì)計(jì)基礎(chǔ)理論層面加深對(duì)模型的理解,從具體操作層面降低模型復(fù)雜度。 根據(jù)我國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則國(guó)際趨同的路線,預(yù)期損失模型的應(yīng)用已成為必然趨勢(shì),對(duì)金融資產(chǎn)占比較大的我國(guó)銀行業(yè)具有重大影響,可能降低公眾對(duì)銀行不良貸款率的質(zhì)疑。由于我國(guó)銀行貸款減值多采取五級(jí)分類法與已發(fā)生損失模型相結(jié)合的方法,銀行內(nèi)部現(xiàn)有會(huì)計(jì)核算體系和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理機(jī)制難以支持預(yù)期損失模型,且面臨會(huì)計(jì)政策與監(jiān)管、稅收政策的協(xié)調(diào)問(wèn)題。因此我國(guó)應(yīng)明確會(huì)計(jì)目標(biāo),根據(jù)銀行等金融機(jī)構(gòu)的特殊情況,進(jìn)行金融資產(chǎn)減值會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則修訂。在保持模型統(tǒng)一性前提下,對(duì)相關(guān)具體規(guī)定保留適當(dāng)?shù)撵`活度,以保證預(yù)期損失模型在中國(guó)的可操作性。同時(shí)建議銀行自身應(yīng)提高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理意識(shí),完善內(nèi)部系統(tǒng),加強(qiáng)數(shù)據(jù)挖掘與分析,以應(yīng)對(duì)預(yù)期損失模型。
[Abstract]:With the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008, the existing model of impairment of financial assets has been widely criticized. In its report, the Financial crisis Advisory Group directly pointed out that the delayed recognition of impairment losses of financial assets and the differences in methods of impairment of different assets were the main reasons leading to the aggravation of the financial crisis. It is suggested that the relevant information concerning the potential risk of financial assets be taken into account. IASB and FASB take impairment as an important issue, try to clarify the methods of impairment of financial assets, and propose a model of expected loss of impairment of financial assets, which takes into account the future credit losses of financial assets. Replace the existing loss model. Since then, the two organizations have been working to improve the feasibility of the model, putting forward different methods and presenting them to the public for discussion. Based on the idea of expected loss, IASB and FASB improve the expected loss model, and put forward the future cash flow method, "two classification method" and "three group method" of expected loss model. Due to the inconsistency of the objectives of the two institutions and the differences in the feedback received, IASB puts forward a impairment model to deal with the significant deterioration of credit quality after the initial recognition of assets, starting from the credit risk management mechanism of financial institutions. FASB independently proposed a single measurement model for initial recognition of all expected credit losses of financial assets. At present, FASB and IASB have reached a consensus on the necessity of adopting the expected loss model. However, because IASB hopes that the provision of impairment provisions reflects the real value of financial assets, FASB insists that impairment losses should cover all future losses of assets. The two agencies were unable to agree on how the model would work. In this paper, the rationality of the expected loss model in each stage is analyzed by using the normative research method. From the aspects of accounting recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure, this paper compares the model of IASB and FASB with the model of loss that has occurred, analyzes the reasons of accounting differences between the two models, and evaluates the model of expected loss from positive and negative aspects. It is pointed out that in the future we should deepen the understanding of the model from the basic accounting theory level and reduce the complexity of the model from the concrete operation level. According to the line of international convergence of accounting standards in China, the application of expected loss model has become an inevitable trend, which has a significant impact on the banking industry, which accounts for a large proportion of financial assets, and may reduce the public's doubts about the non-performing loan ratio of banks. Due to the combination of the five-level classification method and the loss model, the existing accounting system and risk management mechanism in banks are difficult to support the expected loss model, and face accounting policies and supervision. The coordination of tax policy Therefore, our country should make clear the accounting target, according to the special situation of banks and other financial institutions, revise the accounting standards of impairment of financial assets. In order to ensure the maneuverability of the expected loss model in China, the flexibility of the relevant regulations is reserved on the premise of maintaining the unity of the model. At the same time, it is suggested that banks should improve their awareness of risk management, improve their internal system, and strengthen data mining and analysis to cope with the expected loss model.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：財(cái)政部財(cái)政科學(xué)研究所
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：F830.42

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 易傳和;曹坤;;基于順周期性的信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)期損失模型和已發(fā)生損失模型的對(duì)比分析[J];系統(tǒng)工程;2012年02期

2 陸露;邵曉輝;;基于預(yù)期損失模型的金融資產(chǎn)減值準(zhǔn)備計(jì)提——以房地產(chǎn)業(yè)銀行貸款為例[J];財(cái)會(huì)月刊;2012年23期

3 鮑曉英;;IASB“預(yù)期損失模型”及對(duì)我國(guó)準(zhǔn)則制定的影響[J];財(cái)會(huì)通訊;2013年01期

4 洪金明;楊亞軍;;對(duì)金融資產(chǎn)減值準(zhǔn)則的國(guó)際跟蹤[J];財(cái)務(wù)與會(huì)計(jì);2013年07期

5 陶能虹;禹靜;;IASB金融資產(chǎn)減值會(huì)計(jì)動(dòng)態(tài)與對(duì)策[J];金融會(huì)計(jì);2010年05期

6 石盛林;;金融危機(jī)對(duì)信貸資產(chǎn)減值方法的影響及預(yù)期損失模型實(shí)踐對(duì)策[J];金融會(huì)計(jì);2010年11期

7 陸建橋;朱琳;;跟蹤國(guó)際 主動(dòng)參與 積極應(yīng)對(duì) 深入研究金融工具會(huì)計(jì)最新動(dòng)向與對(duì)策——財(cái)政部金融工具會(huì)計(jì)工作組第二次會(huì)議綜述[J];會(huì)計(jì)研究;2010年02期

8 葛家澍;陳朝琳;;財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告概念框架的新篇章——評(píng)美國(guó)FASB第8號(hào)概念公告(2010年9月)[J];會(huì)計(jì)研究;2011年03期

9 邢麗瀅;;淺議以預(yù)期損失模型計(jì)量金融資產(chǎn)減值[J];會(huì)計(jì)之友(中旬刊);2010年05期

10 中國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)銀行預(yù)期損失模型課題組;姚明德;;金融資產(chǎn)減值理論分析及預(yù)期損失模型最新進(jìn)展[J];金融會(huì)計(jì);2012年07期

，

本文編號(hào)：1799810