Under one of the changes adopted Thursday, the definition of an asset that is "other than temporarily impaired" will change. Once an asset gets that designation, it triggers a write-down in value that feeds through to the bottom line. In the case of banks, that may put capital below regulatory requirements.
Currently, to avoid the designation, management must assert that it has the intent and ability to hold on to the asset until its value recovers. Under the new rule, adopted by a 3-2 vote, companies could avoid the classification by stating that they intend to hold on to the asset and that it is more likely than not that they will, a looser standard.
Under one of the changes adopted Thursday, the definition of an asset that is "other than temporarily impaired" will change. Once an asset gets that designation, it triggers a write-down in value that feeds through to the bottom line. In the case of banks, that may put capital below regulatory requirements.
回复删除Currently, to avoid the designation, management must assert that it has the intent and ability to hold on to the asset until its value recovers. Under the new rule, adopted by a 3-2 vote, companies could avoid the classification by stating that they intend to hold on to the asset and that it is more likely than not that they will, a looser standard.
如果说一个标的的价格经常波动在30%上下,那么这个标的用mark-to-market计量就有问题,特别是在金融机构,那些有最低资本金要求的企业:
回复删除假如Citibank有一个资产账面价值为10,资本金为1,满足Basel要求,但是突然资产变为9,那么资本金就得变为零,肯定不Basel;而一段时间后,这个资产又变为12了,那么资本变为3,又超标准满足Basel了
FASB现在对例子资产的处理是,如果管理层能够说明其有能力并有意愿持有至到期,就可以不减记
回复删除修改后,管理层只需说明其有意愿持有。
芝加哥大学少壮派Luigi Zingales提出了用市场手段监管金融机构:margin account & Credit Default Swaps.但金融机构不满足Basel时就让其增资要么清场它,但是这个时候不是由银监会确定,而是由市场确定,由cds市场确定,当cds高到一定价格时,银监会就插手。问题是,这个价格又是多少呢,还是要银监会制定。
回复删除我认为准则要满足两个层面可比性就OK了:行业内、行业间(我怀疑)
回复删除在满足可比性的条件下,在准则细节设计上,让企业不好会计作假;当然,还需要证监会和交易所在制度上设计让企业不好作假
按这个思路,美国金融机构的会计准则,显然,行业内是没有满足可比性的,特别是OTC\衍生工具。对于金融机构有政府担保有保险性子的行业,除了行业内、行业间可比性外,还要体现担保机构的意识。