淺談對會(huì)計(jì)選擇的實(shí)證研究外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Discussion of Empirical Research on Accounting Choice</p><p>　　1. Defining Accounting Choice</p>&

2、lt;p>　　The definition of accounting choice is important because it places boundaries on the set of topics or phenomena to be studied. Just as the absence of an agreed-upon definition of the object of study can hinder

3、research (examples include "earnings quality" and "earnings management") the use of an ambiguous or overly expansive definition can lead to disputes about what has been learned. FLV’s intentionally br

4、oad definition of accounting choice encompasses “any decision whose primary purpose is to </p><p>　　FLV’s definition of accounting choice is expansive along several dimensions. One is the nature of the decis

5、ion maker. Interpreted literally, FLV’s definition includes decisions made by managers, auditors, audit committee members and perhaps even standard setting groups, particularly if the focus is on implementation guidance

6、(for example, the activities of the Emerging Issues Task Force). Most accounting choice research does not include decision makers other than managers among those responsible</p><p>　　Expanding the scope of a

7、ccounting choice to include decisions made by decision makers other than managers suggests some possible research opportunities. For example, we could examine auditors' decision-making processes when confronted with

8、ambiguous accounting guidance or contentious issues, and the role of audit committees in monitoring management’s selection and implementation of accounting methods. Interpreted broadly, FLV’s definition of accounting cho

9、ice would suggest we draw on, and encour</p><p>　　A second dimension of expansiveness in FLV's definition of accounting choice is the nature of the choice. The definition includes: choices among equally

10、acceptable rules (what I term “hard” accounting choices, such as selecting LIFO versus FIFO for inventory valuation or choosing between straight line versus accelerated depreciation methods); judgments and estimates requ

11、ired to implement generally accepted accounting rules (for example, the estimated service life of long-lived assets or the esti</p><p>　　This definition of accounting choice covers a diverse set of activitie

12、s that affect accounting numbers. On the cash flow dimension, accounting choice includes everything from real decisions (that is, decisions with direct cash flow implications) whose accounting consequences are simply one

13、 of several (possibly) second and third order outcomes, to accounting decisions with no real effects . Heterogeneity of accounting choice along the cash flow dimension is particularly important because, as poin</p>

14、<p>　　Another dimension along which accounting choice, as defined by FLV, displays significant heterogeneity is effects on income. While some choices have both immediate and longer term income effects (e.g., the d

15、ecision to extend asset service lives), other choices (such as those involving aggregation and classification) affect only components of income, period by period. This distinction implies that some choices are intended t

16、o affect the over time pattern of reported income (e.g., shifts in loan l</p><p>　　FLV's definition of accounting choice is silent on the matter of motivations. As evidenced by the taxonomy introduced in

17、 section 3 of their paper, accounting choice can be driven by managerial self-interest, by a wish to maximize the interests of shareholders, possibly at the expense of some other contracting party, or by a wish to provid

18、e information. What is not clear is whether motives are likely to be matched with choices, in the sense that only certain choices can be used, or are best used,</p><p>　　2. Consequences of FLV's Definiti

19、on of Accounting Choice.</p><p>　　FLV’s decision to adopt an expansive view of accounting choice has several consequences for their paper. One consequence is that the demarcation between accounting choice an

20、d related research areas (voluntary disclosure, determinants of compensation, corporate governance) is not crisp. A second, very positive consequence is that FLV provide broad coverage of an important body of accounting

21、research. By taking an expansive view of their topic, they are able to summarize and critique a material po</p><p>　　The results of these studies have at least two implications which bear on FLV’s discussion

22、. First, they suggest that it is not choice of rules or treatments within GAAP (such as LIFO versus FIFO) that shareholders, or parties presumptively acting in the interests of shareholders, find troublesome; rather it i

23、s the judgments that managers make in implementing GAAP that are problematic. Thus, one implication is that researchers should focus less on accounting method choice and more on implementati</p><p>　　The sec

24、ond implication of these studies pertains to FLV's call for research on the consequences of accounting choice. The research on AAER's and class action litigation bears directly on the costs of bad accounting impl

25、ementations, and suggests that quantifying the adverse effects of bad accounting (e.g., shareholder, bondholder and possibly taxpayer losses; increases in the cost of capital or loss of access to the capital markets) mig

26、ht be an appropriate extension of this literature. Arguably, </p><p>　　3. Implementation Decisions Versus Method Choice Decisions</p><p>　　3.1. Responses to the recommendation that researchers f

27、ocus on implementation decisions.</p><p>　　A focus on implementation decisions can take either an aggregated or a disaggregated approach. The aggregated approach is perhaps best exemplified by the significan

28、t body of work examining discretionary and non-discretionary accruals. The disaggregated approach features a focus on individual accounting items known to require substantial managerial judgment and to have a significant

29、 impact on reported profitability (e.g., loan loss reserves in banks (Wahlen [1994], among others) and revisions of </p><p>　　The aggregated approach has the advantage, in FLV's framework, of considering

30、 multiple choices or at least the aggregated outcomes of multiple choices. The disaggregated approach has the potential advantage, in FLV’s framework, of yielding precise directional predictions based on the researcher&#

31、39;s understanding and analysis of how decision makers trade off the incentives associated with the accounting object of study. The approach also has the advantage of responding to FLV’s suggestion that rese</p>&

32、lt;p>　　The disaggregated approach also has the disadvantage, in FLV's framework, of providing a piecemeal, one-choice-at-a-time analysis. I believe that FLV's assessment of this approach – as opposed to the wa

33、y researchers have implemented this approach – is unduly pessimistic. That is, I think the disaggregated approach can be used to amass, one study at a time, a set of empirical regularities that, taken together, provide a

34、 general set of results and insights. However, because accounting researchers </p><p>　　4.2. Responses to the recommendation that researchers focus on choices among accounting rules.</p><p>　　FL

35、V also suggest a re-consideration of research designs that explicitly consider multiple accounting rules, along the lines of those used by Hagerman and Zmijewski [1979] and Hagerman [1981]. One recent study which takes s

36、uch an approach is Bowen, DuCharme and Shores’ [1999] examination of inventory and depreciation method choices in 1984, 1990 and 1996. They consider 19 explanatory variables drawn from two decades of research, and conclu

37、de that the explanatory power of the variables, as a group</p><p>　　Because U.S. GAAP features relatively few free choice accounting alternatives, it is possible that FLV's suggestion for more research o

38、n choices among accounting rules would be most effectively implemented in international settings. Some International Accounting Standards (IAS), for example, explicitly offer both a benchmark treatment and an allowed alt

39、ernative. Consistent with the view that research on the choices among allowed alternatives under IAS would be of interest to external evaluators </p><p>　　Source：Jennifer Francis. Discussion of Empirical Res

40、earch on Accounting Choice[EB/OL].http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=258521.html,2001-02-06/2001-10-24.</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　淺談對會(huì)計(jì)選擇的實(shí)證研究</p><p>

41、<b>　　1.會(huì)計(jì)選擇的定義</b></p><p>　　會(huì)計(jì)選擇的定義很重要，因?yàn)樗岩唤M主題或現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行設(shè)限研究。正如一個(gè)沒有商定的定義將阻礙研究（例如“盈余質(zhì)量”和“盈余管理”），使用一個(gè)有歧義或過于寬泛的定義會(huì)導(dǎo)致我們對已學(xué)到的知識產(chǎn)生質(zhì)疑。FLV（Fields, Lys and Vincent）對會(huì)計(jì)選擇進(jìn)行了寬泛的定義，“任何決定的初衷是對記賬系統(tǒng)的輸出有所影響?！逼涠x廣泛的從

42、幾個(gè)方面進(jìn)行考慮。</p><p>　　(1)決策者的性質(zhì)。從字面上看，F(xiàn)LV的定義中，做出決定的人包含經(jīng)理、審計(jì)師、審計(jì)委員會(huì)成員甚至可能是制定準(zhǔn)則的組織，尤其是重點(diǎn)需要對實(shí)施進(jìn)行指引（例如對緊急任務(wù)小組提出的活動(dòng)）。大多數(shù)對會(huì)計(jì)選擇的研究，并不包括除那些對做出會(huì)計(jì)選擇決策負(fù)責(zé)決策者的其他會(huì)計(jì)決策者，因此研究者似乎都采用了與FLV理論中隱含的注意引導(dǎo)管理人員做出會(huì)計(jì)選擇相同的限制。然而，在他們的研究框架下，管理

43、決策可以被看作是與那些有興趣、能夠影響決定做出、記賬系統(tǒng)的輸出的人有相關(guān)激勵(lì)交易的人。會(huì)計(jì)選擇的范圍擴(kuò)大到包括經(jīng)營決策者和其他決策者將提供更多的研究機(jī)會(huì)。例如，當(dāng)遇到不明確的會(huì)計(jì)指導(dǎo)或有爭議的問題是我們可以考察審計(jì)師的決策過程，監(jiān)督審計(jì)委員會(huì)的作用以及其會(huì)計(jì)方法的實(shí)施。廣義的解釋FLV對會(huì)計(jì)選擇的定義建議并鼓勵(lì)我們，借鑒更多在企業(yè)治理和審計(jì)工作中的相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)。</p><p>　　(2)、FLV對會(huì)計(jì)政策選擇的定義

44、中的第二個(gè)擴(kuò)展意義是選擇的性質(zhì)。該定義包括：在可接受的準(zhǔn)則中選擇（即我所謂的“硬”會(huì)計(jì)方法選擇，如對庫存材料計(jì)價(jià)選擇先進(jìn)先出法還是后進(jìn)先出法，或在資產(chǎn)評估時(shí)選擇加速折舊法還是直線法）；對判斷和評估，需要按可接受的會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則實(shí)施（例如，評估固定資產(chǎn)預(yù)計(jì)使用壽命或津貼，判斷無法收回的賬款）；披露的決定（如在會(huì)計(jì)政策中提供說明的詳細(xì)程度的）；關(guān)于時(shí)間的決定（如持有期間的靈活性必須按會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則的要求提前或延期）；關(guān)于游說活動(dòng)（如努力阻止財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則

45、委員會(huì)通過頒布準(zhǔn)則要求對員工股票期權(quán)費(fèi)用化）；有關(guān)顯示的選擇（例如，財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告要求的通過一個(gè)或兩個(gè)報(bào)表或股東權(quán)益變動(dòng)表內(nèi)容，顯示其他綜合收益因素）；關(guān)于聚集的決定（如收入組成部分在何種程度上作為單獨(dú)項(xiàng)目顯示）；關(guān)于分類的決定（如，對混合證券可分為股票與債券）；通過某些途徑實(shí)現(xiàn)預(yù)期賬目核算從而決定交易的結(jié)構(gòu)（例如，許多形式的資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表外融資）；關(guān)于實(shí)際生產(chǎn)和投資決策（如減少廣告費(fèi)用在研究和開發(fā)階段的支出）；這種選擇的定義涵蓋了多個(gè)影

46、響會(huì)計(jì)數(shù)字的因素。在現(xiàn)金流方面，會(huì)計(jì)選擇包括實(shí)際決定中的一切（即決定直接現(xiàn)金流涵義），</p><p>　　沿FLV對會(huì)計(jì)選擇的定義的另一個(gè)方面，顯示的異質(zhì)性對收入的影響是重大的。雖然有些選擇對收入有近期的和延期的影響（例如，決定延長資產(chǎn)的使用壽命），其他的選擇（如涉及聚合與分類的）只對時(shí)期內(nèi)收入的組成部分有影響。這種區(qū)別意味著，一些選擇是為了影響收入報(bào)告超時(shí)模型（如，貸款損失準(zhǔn)備金化），也有一些是為了影響時(shí)期內(nèi)

47、收入的組成部分（如，涉嫌操縱會(huì)計(jì)成本的，應(yīng)當(dāng)以出讓部分商品的成本開支劃分為營業(yè)費(fèi)用）還有一些是為了即影響組成部分又影響超時(shí)模型（如，與組合業(yè)務(wù)相關(guān)的特殊費(fèi)用，包括不恰當(dāng)?shù)奈磥頎I業(yè)費(fèi)用）。據(jù)推測，這些不同選擇的動(dòng)機(jī)正如預(yù)期的結(jié)果一樣。</p><p>　　FLV對會(huì)計(jì)選擇的定義對動(dòng)機(jī)問題保持了沉默。如本文第三部分對分類學(xué)介紹，會(huì)計(jì)選擇可以由管理自身利益支配，通過其他締約者的代價(jià)以期望股東利益最大化，或期望提供信息。

48、會(huì)計(jì)選擇與動(dòng)機(jī)是否匹配尚不清楚，在這個(gè)意義上看來，只有一部分或能夠達(dá)到預(yù)期目的的選擇是可以用的。（我在文章中的第五部分詳細(xì)的討論了這個(gè)問題）。</p><p>　　2.FLV關(guān)于會(huì)計(jì)選擇定義的影響</p><p>　　FLV采用廣義的會(huì)計(jì)選擇的對他們?nèi)蘸蟮恼撐漠a(chǎn)生了許多影響。其中一個(gè)是，強(qiáng)化了會(huì)計(jì)選擇與相關(guān)研究領(lǐng)域（自愿披露、決定因素補(bǔ)償、公司治理）的界限。第二，積極地影響是，F(xiàn)LV為會(huì)計(jì)

49、研究的重要主體提供了廣闊的覆蓋范圍。通過使用廣義的主題，他們能夠總結(jié)和批評會(huì)計(jì)研究文獻(xiàn)的資料部分。第三，也許是最重要的，對未來的研究，他們對會(huì)計(jì)方法選擇的視角包括實(shí)施會(huì)計(jì)方法，除了他們自己的方法。我個(gè)人的看法是，實(shí)施問題比“硬”會(huì)計(jì)選擇為理解會(huì)計(jì)選擇的動(dòng)機(jī)和后果能夠提供更多的機(jī)會(huì)。審議執(zhí)行情況的決定作為會(huì)計(jì)選擇的關(guān)鍵因素，似乎與一些團(tuán)體的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告評估結(jié)果的行為是一致的。例如，美國證券交易委員會(huì)（SEC）與美國負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)督財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告制度似乎更重

50、視決策執(zhí)行情況，而不是會(huì)計(jì)方法選擇。特別美國證券交易委員會(huì)委員和工作人員在發(fā)言中表示沒有將工作重點(diǎn)放在會(huì)計(jì)方法選擇，而是放在決策的實(shí)施上。（Levitt [1998]）最近美國證券交易委員會(huì)員工會(huì)計(jì)公告也側(cè)重于實(shí)質(zhì)性判斷的執(zhí)行問題（審計(jì)局第99號），定時(shí)定量安排重組費(fèi)用金額（審計(jì)局第100號）和收入確認(rèn)（審計(jì)局第101號）。</p><p>　　這些研究的結(jié)果對FLV的討論至少有兩方面的影響。首先，他們認(rèn)為它不是

51、在公認(rèn)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則（如先進(jìn)先出法和后進(jìn)先出法）的規(guī)則下的選擇，股東或締約人可以假設(shè)性的推定出股東的利益，從而找出麻煩；相反，它是管理者在實(shí)施會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則中根據(jù)管理者的判斷做出的。因此，一個(gè)隱含的意義是，研究人員應(yīng)側(cè)重于決策的執(zhí)行而不是會(huì)計(jì)方法的選擇。本人在第四部分闡述了這個(gè)問題。</p><p>　　其次，這些研究涉及到與FLV要求的研究會(huì)計(jì)選擇后果相關(guān)的內(nèi)容。對會(huì)計(jì)及審計(jì)實(shí)施報(bào)告以及集體訴訟行為的研究，集體訴訟承受的不

52、良會(huì)計(jì)措施的直接代價(jià)，以及量化不良會(huì)計(jì)措施（例如股東、債券持有人和可能的納稅人損失；增加資金或進(jìn)入資本市場帶來的成本損失）的負(fù)面影響，可以作為這篇論文適當(dāng)?shù)臄U(kuò)展。可以說，經(jīng)理和其他利益相關(guān)者可能對直接或客觀能夠帶來利益的良好會(huì)計(jì)措施更有興趣。經(jīng)證明，對利潤的識別比識別成本更困難；舉例，見Botosan [1997]。</p><p>　　3.決策的實(shí)施與選擇的對比</p><p>　　3.

53、1對建議研究人員集中于決策實(shí)施的回應(yīng)</p><p>　　關(guān)于執(zhí)行決定的重點(diǎn)聚合或分解的方法。通過對可任意支配或不可任意支配的利息這一主體工作的審查，聚集的方法可能是一個(gè)最好的例子。分類方法的特點(diǎn)是對反應(yīng)盈利能力的報(bào)告中有重大影響的個(gè)別會(huì)計(jì)項(xiàng)目需要大量的管理判斷。</p><p>　　聚合方法的優(yōu)點(diǎn)是在FLV的框架內(nèi)，考慮多種選擇，或至少匯總多個(gè)選擇的結(jié)果。分類方法的潛在優(yōu)勢是，在FLV的

54、框架內(nèi)，靈活精確的預(yù)測是基于研究者對如何權(quán)衡與研究會(huì)計(jì)對象相關(guān)獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)的理解和分析。這個(gè)方法也有響應(yīng)FLV主張研究者用他們的會(huì)計(jì)專業(yè)知識改善會(huì)計(jì)選擇研究計(jì)劃的優(yōu)點(diǎn)。應(yīng)用專業(yè)知識和分散方法的一個(gè)好例子是Miller and Skinner’s [1998]對遞延所得稅資產(chǎn)的調(diào)查研究。這些作者們考察管理者的遞延所得稅計(jì)價(jià)津貼，與以區(qū)分這些估計(jì)是否符合財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則第109號的原意，是否符合寬松的關(guān)聯(lián)手段的約束或符合收入平滑原理。</p>

55、;<p>　　該分類方法也有缺點(diǎn)，在FLV的框架下，提供了一個(gè)漸進(jìn)的限時(shí)的分析。我認(rèn)同F(xiàn)LV的這種評估方法，它是作為反對研究者已經(jīng)實(shí)施這種方法的方式——是過分悲觀的。也就是說，我認(rèn)為分類的方法可以用來將同一時(shí)間和同一經(jīng)驗(yàn)規(guī)律的研究積聚在一起，以提供一套通用的結(jié)果和見解。但是，由于會(huì)計(jì)研究人員并不總是努力一仔細(xì)徹底的闡明，他們認(rèn)為自己的結(jié)果是大眾的，并為現(xiàn)有的文獻(xiàn)提供了成果，讀者也能從中容易的得出摒棄分散和不確定的研究的印象

56、。</p><p>　　3.2對研究者集中于對會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)則的選擇的回應(yīng)</p><p>　　FLV也建議重新考慮關(guān)于明確考慮多重會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)則的規(guī)劃研究，沿著他們以前使用的Hagerman and Zmijewski [1979] and Hagerman [1981]的道路。最近獲得這一方法的一個(gè)研究是Bowen, Du Charme and Shores [1999]對1984, 1990和19

57、96年存貨及折舊方法選擇的審查。他們繪制出，最近二十年的研究中的19個(gè)解釋變量，整體來講，伴隨著工業(yè)成員額外增加5-10%，變量的解釋功效是23-27%。Bowen等人的結(jié)論的悲觀程度遠(yuǎn)不及FLV的，在他們的推斷中說，“我們對會(huì)計(jì)方法選擇的決定性經(jīng)濟(jì)因素的分析，證明了在過去20年中獲得了相當(dāng)重大的進(jìn)步”。Bowen等人的結(jié)論相當(dāng)樂觀的一個(gè)原因可能是他們集中于全部的文獻(xiàn)，而不是在獨(dú)立研究中或大或小的矛盾。</p><p

58、>　　由于美國GAAP以相對少量可供選擇的會(huì)計(jì)選擇為特色，更多的研究FLV的建議對在會(huì)計(jì)規(guī)則之中的選擇會(huì)在國際設(shè)置最有效地將被實(shí)施. 像一些國際會(huì)計(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)(IAS)，明確地提供一種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和一個(gè)允許的選擇。與國際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則下允許的可供選擇的研究一致，將引起外部評估者對財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告結(jié)果的興趣。1999年8月十五日，SEC總會(huì)計(jì)師美國會(huì)計(jì)協(xié)會(huì)的Lynn Turner的信件，邀請了對固有特征的研究與在IAS提供的選擇之中的選擇相關(guān)，并且這些選擇方案