金融资产减值预期损失模型发展变化及其应用分析

发布时间：2018-04-25 04:38

本文选题：金融资产减值 + 预期损失模型　；参考：《财政部财政科学研究所》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：2008年金融危机的爆发,现行金融资产减值的已发生损失模型广受诟病。金融危机咨询组在其报告中直接指出金融资产减值损失的延迟确认及不同资产减值方法差异是导致金融危机加剧的主要原因,建议考虑金融资产潜在风险的相关信息进行减值处理。IASB与FASB将减值作为重要议题,试图厘清金融资产减值的方法,提出了考虑资产未来信用损失的金融资产减值预期损失模型,取代现有的已发生损失模型。之后,两机构一直致力于提高模型的现实可行性,先后提出不同的方法并提交公众讨论。基于预期损失理念,IASB与FASB共同对预期损失模型进行完善,先后提出了预期损失模型的未来现金流量法、“二分类法”与“三组别法”。由于两机构目标的不一致,以及收到的反馈意见关注点差异,IASB从金融机构信用风险管理机制出发,提出了一个对资产初始确认后信用质量显著恶化与否区别处理的减值模型,而FASB则独立提出了金融资产初始确认所有预期信用损失的单一计量模型。目前,FASB和IASB就采用预计损失模型的必要性达成共识,但由于IASB希望减值准备的计提反映金融资产真实价值,而FASB坚持减值损失应覆盖资产所有未来损失,两机构无法就该模型的运作方式取得一致意见。本文采用规范研究方法,对预期损失模型从提出到逐步完善过程中,各阶段模型进行了合理性分析。从会计确认、计量、列报、披露方面,对IASB与FASB提出模型与已发生损失模型比较,着重分析两机构模型会计处理差异的原因,从正反两方面对预期损失模型进行评价,指出未来应从会计基础理论层面加深对模型的理解,从具体操作层面降低模型复杂度。根据我国会计准则国际趋同的路线,预期损失模型的应用已成为必然趋势,对金融资产占比较大的我国银行业具有重大影响,可能降低公众对银行不良贷款率的质疑。由于我国银行贷款减值多采取五级分类法与已发生损失模型相结合的方法,银行内部现有会计核算体系和风险管理机制难以支持预期损失模型,且面临会计政策与监管、税收政策的协调问题。因此我国应明确会计目标,根据银行等金融机构的特殊情况,进行金融资产减值会计准则修订。在保持模型统一性前提下,对相关具体规定保留适当的灵活度,以保证预期损失模型在中国的可操作性。同时建议银行自身应提高风险管理意识,完善内部系统,加强数据挖掘与分析,以应对预期损失模型。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：财政部财政科学研究所
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：F830.42

【参考文献】