本文選題：股權(quán)投資 + 對(duì)賭協(xié)議�。� 參考：《中國財(cái)政科學(xué)研究院》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：現(xiàn)今,對(duì)賭協(xié)議因其特有的自身屬性,成為近年來股權(quán)投資實(shí)務(wù)中常見的業(yè)績(jī)控制手段,也是目前企業(yè)投融資協(xié)議的主要方式,但在會(huì)計(jì)處理上,由于缺乏相關(guān)的明確規(guī)定,引入國內(nèi)的時(shí)間短且實(shí)踐尚不充分,會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則對(duì)這一領(lǐng)域的規(guī)范也僅僅是原則性的,至今在理論理解和準(zhǔn)則具體實(shí)施應(yīng)用方面仍然存在異議,需要研究和進(jìn)一步細(xì)化完善。在對(duì)賭協(xié)議會(huì)計(jì)處理中,最為關(guān)鍵的一步是對(duì)賭協(xié)議初始確認(rèn)與計(jì)量,只有較為公允地進(jìn)行對(duì)賭協(xié)議初始確認(rèn)與計(jì)量,才能準(zhǔn)確地進(jìn)行對(duì)賭協(xié)議的會(huì)計(jì)核算。當(dāng)前階段,對(duì)賭協(xié)議的會(huì)計(jì)處理主要按照現(xiàn)行相關(guān)《企業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則》及有關(guān)會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)定執(zhí)行,2014年,財(cái)政部對(duì)《企業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則》進(jìn)行了大范圍的修訂,對(duì)包含《企業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第22號(hào)——金融工具確認(rèn)和計(jì)量》及《企業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第37號(hào)——金融工具列報(bào)》在內(nèi)的多項(xiàng)準(zhǔn)則相關(guān)條文進(jìn)行了修訂和增刪。隨后財(cái)政部頒發(fā)了《關(guān)于印發(fā)金融負(fù)債與權(quán)益工具的區(qū)分及相關(guān)會(huì)計(jì)處理規(guī)定)的通知》(財(cái)會(huì)[2014]13號(hào)文),對(duì)金融工具分類及會(huì)計(jì)處理進(jìn)行了規(guī)定,但規(guī)定中缺乏對(duì)賭協(xié)議會(huì)計(jì)處理具體規(guī)定。2017年4月6日,財(cái)政部正式發(fā)布新版金融工具系列會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則,分別對(duì)《企業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第22號(hào)—金融工具確認(rèn)和計(jì)量》、《企業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第23號(hào)—金融資產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移》和《企業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第24號(hào)—套期保值》進(jìn)行了重大修訂,新修訂的金融工具準(zhǔn)則與國際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則理事會(huì)發(fā)布的國際財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告第9號(hào)金融工具(IFRS9)基本趨同。其中,與對(duì)賭協(xié)議相關(guān)的規(guī)定有:簡(jiǎn)化了嵌入衍生金融工具的會(huì)計(jì)處理;增加套期會(huì)計(jì)中期權(quán)時(shí)間價(jià)值的會(huì)計(jì)處理方法·;增加套期會(huì)計(jì)中信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)敞口的公允價(jià)值選擇權(quán)修訂后的套期會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則規(guī)定。盡管如此,這些準(zhǔn)則及相關(guān)規(guī)定是原則性的,在會(huì)計(jì)要素的確認(rèn)及或有對(duì)價(jià)初始確認(rèn)與計(jì)量等方面的相關(guān)規(guī)定不夠細(xì)化和全面,導(dǎo)致實(shí)務(wù)中關(guān)于對(duì)賭協(xié)議的會(huì)計(jì)處理亦存在較大爭(zhēng)議。鑒于上述情況,出于進(jìn)一步完善企業(yè)對(duì)賭協(xié)議會(huì)計(jì)處理規(guī)范,提升有關(guān)企業(yè)對(duì)賭協(xié)議會(huì)計(jì)信息質(zhì)量的考慮,筆者結(jié)合我國現(xiàn)行與對(duì)賭協(xié)議會(huì)計(jì)處理相關(guān)的準(zhǔn)則及會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)范規(guī)定,分析了我國會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)范中關(guān)于對(duì)賭協(xié)議會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)定中針對(duì)投資方對(duì)賭協(xié)議的初始確認(rèn)與計(jì)量的現(xiàn)存問題,并針對(duì)這些問題嘗試性提出了完善我國對(duì)賭協(xié)議會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)范的相關(guān)建議。本文認(rèn)為,金融工具會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則中關(guān)于對(duì)賭協(xié)議會(huì)計(jì)處理存在的不足之處主要有三點(diǎn),其一是根據(jù)現(xiàn)行準(zhǔn)則不能明確判斷對(duì)于以諸如管理層去留等企業(yè)經(jīng)營管理行為作為對(duì)賭標(biāo)的之對(duì)賭協(xié)議的會(huì)計(jì)處理;其二是由于當(dāng)前會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則未對(duì)金融變量做出詳細(xì)的定義,導(dǎo)致無法準(zhǔn)確判斷對(duì)賭協(xié)議是否能夠確認(rèn)為衍生金融工具;其三是在關(guān)于對(duì)賭協(xié)議作為衍生金融工具是否與主合同進(jìn)行分拆處理的規(guī)定方面存在不足之處。企業(yè)合并會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的相關(guān)規(guī)定中關(guān)于投資方對(duì)賭協(xié)議的會(huì)計(jì)處理存在的不足之處主要有兩點(diǎn),其一是關(guān)于或有對(duì)價(jià)是否計(jì)入合并成本的相關(guān)規(guī)定不夠細(xì)化;其二是現(xiàn)行會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)范中缺乏關(guān)于投資方對(duì)賭協(xié)議初始確認(rèn)時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)確認(rèn)為資產(chǎn)類的金融工具還是負(fù)債類的金融工具的細(xì)化規(guī)定,使得實(shí)務(wù)中投資方對(duì)賭協(xié)議的初始確認(rèn)帶來較大分歧。公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則中關(guān)于對(duì)賭協(xié)議初始計(jì)量的規(guī)定的不足之處在于會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則中對(duì)衍生金融工具定價(jià)的相關(guān)指南較為原則化,導(dǎo)致實(shí)務(wù)中此類期權(quán)定價(jià)具有很大的主觀性和隨意性,而如果不能合理定價(jià),后續(xù)的會(huì)計(jì)處理結(jié)果的可靠性與相關(guān)性就難以保證。關(guān)于對(duì)賭協(xié)議投資主體分類的相關(guān)規(guī)定的不足之處在于,準(zhǔn)則規(guī)定通過判斷主體身份的方式來決定適用何種會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則,但是卻未就主體身份的判斷給出明確的界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和識(shí)別條件;另一方面,關(guān)于非風(fēng)投機(jī)構(gòu)的股權(quán)投資按照風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資機(jī)構(gòu)的模式操作下該采用何種判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和依據(jù),以及如何進(jìn)行會(huì)計(jì)處理缺乏詳細(xì)規(guī)定。除此之外,對(duì)于作出業(yè)績(jī)承諾的一方是投資方自身的情況,缺乏會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則解釋公告等會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)范,也未采用會(huì)計(jì)實(shí)務(wù)案例指引方式明確這種特殊事項(xiàng)的會(huì)計(jì)處理原則。針對(duì)以上不足之處,本文嘗試性提出了相關(guān)的改進(jìn)、補(bǔ)充、完善和細(xì)化會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則及先關(guān)規(guī)定的建議,以期為我國有關(guān)投資企業(yè)賭協(xié)議的會(huì)計(jì)處理規(guī)范的進(jìn)一步完善提供有益參考。
[Abstract]:Nowadays, gambling agreement has become a common means of performance control in stock investment practice in recent years because of its own characteristic, and it is also the main mode of investment and financing agreement at present. However, in accounting treatment, due to lack of relevant clear regulations, the introduction of domestic time is short and the practice is not sufficient, accounting standards are standardized in this field. The most important step in the accounting treatment of gambling agreement is the initial confirmation and measurement of the betting agreement, and only a relatively fair initial confirmation and measurement of the betting agreement can be made to be accurate. In the current stage, the accounting treatment of the betting agreement is mainly carried out in accordance with the current relevant accounting standards and relevant accounting regulations. In 2014, the Ministry of finance made a large revision to the accounting standards for enterprises, including the accounting standards for Enterprises No. twenty-second, financial instruments confirmation and measurement and enterprises. The relevant provisions of the Accounting Standards No. thirty-seventh, the financial instruments listed, have been revised and added and deleted. The Ministry of Finance issued the notice of "the distinction between the issuance of financial liabilities and rights and interests tools and the relevant accounting treatment provisions) (article [2014]13 of Finance and accounting), which stipulates the classification of financial instruments and accounting treatment, but stipulates that There is a lack of specific provisions on the accounting treatment of gambling agreement in April 6th.2017. The Ministry of Finance formally issued a new series of accounting standards for financial instruments in April 6th. The accounting standards for "Enterprise Accounting Standards No. twenty-second - financial instruments confirmation and measurement >" Accounting Standards No. twenty-third - financial asset transfer > and < Accounting Standards twenty-fourth - hedging > are carried out, respectively. The revised, newly revised financial tool guidelines are basically converged with the international financial report no. ninth (IFRS9) issued by the international accounting standards board. Among them, the provisions related to the betting agreement are: simplifying the accounting treatment of the embedded derivative financial instruments; increasing the accounting treatment of the time value of the mid-term rights of the hedging accounting; increasing the hedging. However, the accounting standards and relevant regulations are principled, and the relevant provisions in the confirmation of the accounting elements and the initial confirmation and measurement of the price are not detailed and comprehensive, which leads to the accounting treatment of the gambling agreement in practice. In view of the above, in view of the further improvement of the accounting standard for gambling agreement and the consideration of the quality of the accounting information of the betting agreement, the author analyzes the accounting standard accounting in our country's accounting standards in accordance with the current rules and regulations related to the accounting treatment in our country and the betting agreement. In accordance with the existing problems in the initial confirmation and measurement of the betting agreement between the investor and the investor, the author puts forward some suggestions to improve the accounting standard of the betting agreement in China. This article holds that there are three main points in the financial instruments accounting standards about the accounting treatment of gambling agreement. It can't make a clear judgment on the accounting treatment for the betting agreement with the business management behavior such as the management layer, and the second is that the current accounting standards do not make a detailed definition of the financial variables, which leads to the inaccurate judgment of whether the betting agreement can be considered as a derivative financial instrument. There are inadequacies in the provisions of the betting agreement as a derivative financial instrument or not with the main contract. There are two main shortcomings in the relevant provisions of the enterprise merger accounting standards about the accounting treatment of the betting agreement, one is that the relevant provisions about whether or not the price is included in the merger cost are not fine enough. The second is that the current accounting standards lack the detailed provisions on financial instruments that should be recognized as financial instruments or liabilities of assets when the investor should confirm the initial confirmation of the betting agreement, which makes the investors in the practice of the initial confirmation of the betting agreement. The deficiency lies in the principle that the relevant guidelines for the pricing of derivative financial instruments are more principled in the accounting standards, which leads to the substantial subjectivity and randomness of the option pricing in practice, and the reliability and relevance of subsequent accounting treatment results are difficult to guarantee if they are not reasonably priced. The deficiency of the relevant provisions of the class is that the criterion determines which accounting standards to be applied by the way of judging the subject identity, but it does not give a clear definition and recognition conditions for the judgment of the main body of identity; on the other hand, the equity investment in non venture capital institutions should be adopted under the mode of the venture capital institution. In addition, the party that makes the performance commitment is the investor's own situation, lacks the accounting standards for accounting standards interpretation bulletin, and does not use the accounting practice case guidance to clarify the accounting treatment principles of this particular item. Inadequacies, this article attempts to put forward relevant improvements, supplement, improve and refine the accounting standards and the recommendations of the first customs regulations, in order to provide useful reference for the further improvement of the accounting standards for investment enterprise gambling agreements in China.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國財(cái)政科學(xué)研究院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：F275;F832.51

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 程繼爽;程鋒;;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”在我國企業(yè)中的應(yīng)用[J];中國管理信息化(綜合版);2007年05期

2 程鋒;;高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)激勵(lì)下的對(duì)賭協(xié)議及應(yīng)用[J];財(cái)會(huì)通訊(理財(cái)版);2007年04期

3 ;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”的是是非非[J];資本市場(chǎng);2009年06期

4 金龍;;小議對(duì)賭協(xié)議及其應(yīng)用[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟(jì);2009年20期

5 陳淑卿;;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”在我國企業(yè)中的運(yùn)用[J];太原科技;2009年12期

6 張光宇;汪明麗;;基于博弈角度的對(duì)賭協(xié)議分析[J];中國商界(下半月);2010年06期

7 劉武;;對(duì)賭協(xié)議及其風(fēng)險(xiǎn)對(duì)策[J];中國外資;2011年02期

8 施光耀;王燕;馬林;;對(duì)賭協(xié)議:天使與魔鬼的博弈[J];資本市場(chǎng);2011年09期

9 許藝峰;饒育蕾;鄭磊;洪清華;何志聰;;對(duì)賭協(xié)議:天使還是邪魔[J];董事會(huì);2011年11期

10 趙迎華;;關(guān)于對(duì)賭協(xié)議融資的探討[J];中國外資;2011年23期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 楊占武;;對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律問題[A];2009中華全國律師協(xié)會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)專業(yè)委員會(huì)年會(huì)論文集[C];2009年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 本報(bào)記者 屈麗麗;別讓“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”忽悠了自己[N];中國經(jīng)營報(bào);2008年

2 范媛;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”：帶刺的玫瑰[N];中國經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)報(bào);2011年

3 潘紹俊;當(dāng)融資遇上對(duì)賭協(xié)議 是美酒還是毒藥？[N];東莞日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

4 本報(bào)記者 范媛;對(duì)賭協(xié)議：誰贏誰輸？[N];中國經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)報(bào);2012年

5 本報(bào)記者 許浩;最高法提審 “對(duì)賭協(xié)議”合法性待“判決”[N];中國經(jīng)營報(bào);2012年

6 段愛群;對(duì)賭協(xié)議的兩種模式[N];中國會(huì)計(jì)報(bào);2013年

7 浙江采悠園林公司董事長 凌俊杰;對(duì)賭協(xié)議詳解[N];中國花卉報(bào);2014年

8 陳明鍵;讓“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”成為雙贏游戲[N];中國高新技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)導(dǎo)報(bào);2006年

9 劉曉忠;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”能載舟亦能覆舟[N];證券時(shí)報(bào);2006年

10 金融街PE;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)及其防范[N];中國財(cái)經(jīng)報(bào);2008年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 劉子亞;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資、企業(yè)控制權(quán)和企業(yè)績(jī)效[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2015年

2 陳朝毅;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”法律效力問題分析與制度建構(gòu)[D];中國政法大學(xué);2017年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 許靜;股權(quán)投資企業(yè)對(duì)賭協(xié)議的初始確認(rèn)與計(jì)量[D];中國財(cái)政科學(xué)研究院;2017年

2 昝凌霄;對(duì)賭協(xié)議問題研究[D];河北大學(xué);2014年

3 李露露;對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律效力及實(shí)踐運(yùn)用研究[D];天津師范大學(xué);2013年

4 司潔陳;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資中對(duì)賭協(xié)議的研究[D];貴州財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2014年

5 王曉敏;論對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律效力[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

6 高浩翔;對(duì)賭協(xié)議的法律性質(zhì)及效力研究[D];天津師范大學(xué);2015年

7 應(yīng)娟;對(duì)賭協(xié)議的效力認(rèn)定研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

8 焦珊珊;論“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”的法律效力與法律價(jià)值[D];中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2015年

9 王建宇;探究對(duì)賭協(xié)議的稅收處理[D];中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2015年

10 戚文雯;“對(duì)賭協(xié)議”法律問題研究[D];貴州民族大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1878397