...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Review of accounting studies >A Standard setter's framework for selecting between fair value and historical cost measurement attributes: a basis for discussion of 'Does fair value accounting for nonfinancial assets pass the market test?'
【24h】

A Standard setter's framework for selecting between fair value and historical cost measurement attributes: a basis for discussion of 'Does fair value accounting for nonfinancial assets pass the market test?'

机译：在公允价值和历史成本计量属性之间进行选择的标准制定者的框架：“非金融资产的公允价值会计是否通过市场检验？”的讨论基础。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This paper describes an income-statement-focused framework for selecting between between the fair value and historical cost measurement attributes that differs from the balance-sheet-focused relevance versus reliability tradeoff perspective that is common to most academic research. This income-statement-focused framework is then applied to the Christensen and Nikolaev setting in Rev Account Stud 18(3), (2013) to suggest that most of the study's findings are not surprising and can be explained by differences in the income-relevance of fair value and historical cost measures for nonfinancial assets rather than issues with the reliability of fair value measurements, which is the perspective taken by the authors. The paper closes by suggesting additional research on the use of fair value and historical cost measures for nonfinancial assets that would be most relevant to current standard-setting activities of the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
机译：本文介绍了一种以收入声明为中心的框架，用于在公允价值和历史成本计量属性之间进行选择，这与大多数学术研究中常见的以资产负债表为中心的相关性与可靠性权衡的观点不同。然后，将这种以收入声明为重点的框架应用于Rev Account Stud 18（3），（2013）中的Christensen和Nikolaev设置，以表明大多数研究结果不足为奇，并且可以用收入相关性的差异来解释非金融资产的公允价值和历史成本计量方法，而不是与公允价值计量方法的可靠性有关的问题，这是作者的观点。最后，本文建议对非金融资产使用公允价值和历史成本计量的其他研究，这些研究与财务会计准则委员会当前的准则制定活动最相关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号