The Correlated Study On Accounting Standards For Business Enterprises No.22-Recognition And Measurement Of Financial Instruments

With the development of globalization of economy and theadvancement of financial innovation, the amount of exchangeconcerning financial instruments, especially financialderivative instruments are expanding sharply. Meanwhile more andmore categories occur and the techniques are getting even morecomplicated, which are new challenges to financial risk management.After China's entry into WTO, domestic enterprises involve morein the international market. In order to deal with internationalcompetition, and to elude risks, the demands for financialderivatives instruments are increasingly manifold. At the sametime, domestic financial reforms are accelerating, and capitalmarket is experiencing fast development, which creates goodatmosphere for the development of financial derivativesinstruments.Since 1970s, international accounting scholars are dedicatingto the research and establishment of accounting standards forfinancial instruments, and have achieved a series ofaccomplishments. Achievements of IASB and FASB are typical. Thestudy of our country starts in early 1990s, the research that timelargely makes up for the theoretical vacancy in the field offinancial instruments, promoting the advancement of financialrisk management and providing necessary theoretical guidance forthe financial practice. In Feb.15.2006 ministry of finance launchthe《Accounting Standards for Business Enterprises No.22——Recognition and Measurement of Financial Instruments》, symbolizedanother crucial step in the construction of China's accountingstandards for financial instruments. These four standards arecorrelated with each other and integrate as a whole logically.After the release of 《stock option》 a more complete standardsystem on financial instruments would come into being.The logics of the this paper is that based upon theintroduction of newly released standard,I discussed the latestimportant provisions, then set forth the theoretical foundationand realistic background of new provisions, thus gave furtheranalysis to the points yet to perfect. The significance of thispaper is to adapt to ever-complicating exchange activities, tosatisfy the accounting practice in financial industry and therelevant supervisory department, and to give suggestions forfurther perfection of relevant accounting principles andcalculating measures. Accounting is to reveal the essence ofeconomic activities, so it can boost the development of economicbusiness by the formalization of accounting calculation.Therefore the article is avail to understand the risk of financialderivative business, and at the same time build foundation for thesupervisory institutions to provide risk analysis and perfectionof supervision, and ultimately to benefit the development offinancial derivative business.This paper firstly reviewed the relevant documents, includingMengle,White,Morris,Olson's articles, which criticized thehistorical cost accounting and the necessity of fair value. Thenreviewed the different viewpoints of the definition of financialinstruments, GeJiashu's and SongXianzhong's are as therepresentatives. LiRonglin and YangYouhong claim fair valuemeasuring mode, while GeJiashu, ChangXun insist mixed measuringmode. In financial instruments reporting part, LiRonglin claimsto reflect in the report, while ZhuHailin claims to speciallytreated in the report, however, GeJiashu argues that whether somederivatives should be reported in or out of the report still needfurther discussion. Secondly, this paper gives a systemicintroduction to the newly released standard, including the firsttime introduced definition of financial instruments andderivative instruments and the regulation for the identificationand measurement of financial instruments. Thirdly, by thecomparison of international standard, the theoretical foundationand realistic background is discussed, which mainly includes thedefinition of financial instruments, the categories of financialassets, the identification and measurement of financialinstruments. By and large, the newly released standardsessentially are the same with the relevant part of internationalstandards. Considering that in our accounting practice, it iscommonly to handle earnings by using of switch-back ofdepreciation preparation, the new standards definitely stipulatethat counted financial asset depreciation preparation can not beswitched back. That is one of the differences in nature betweennew standard and international standard. Fourthly, this papercompared new standard with present system, and pointed out thevariance is in the classification of financial asset, norms ofidentification, risk precaution, time value of currency and fairvalue, etc. Fifthly, this paper evaluated the influence onfinancial condition and management in commercial bank with theimplementation of new standard. Then it analyzed the problem stillexist. Finally, the conclusion draws that large difference existbetween new standard and present one, and new standard isapproaching international standard. New standard first timeintroduce the definition of financial instruments and imbeddedderivative instruments, and the norm of financial instrumentsidentification. And it accounts the financial derivativeinstruments in the report which is formerly accounted out of report.Also it introduced the mixed measurement attribute. However, thatthe measurement of non-marketing financial instruments has todepending so much on the internal model of enterprise entity mayto a certain extent lead to the maneuver of measuring resultartificially. Therefore we should perfect appraising techniques,and fully consider the price in the fair trade. If the credit ofthe enterprise deteriorates, the fair value of financialliabilities is sure to decrease, and then the debtors are likelyto identify a income, as a result it would cause the increase ofshareholders' equity, which is not accord with the economicnature. So it is not avail to make decisions for the informationusers. This article suggests that it should not be identified asincome, while it merely should be disclosed in term of solidityfundamental. Mixed measuring attributes would lead to complicatethe accounting process, as a result, influencing the comparabilityof the financial report, so it is not avail to the information users.No matter in order to facilitate the rational investment of theinformation users, or to simplify the accounting of financialinstruments, fair value is better than any other measuringattributes. Therefore this paper suggests that under propersituation, mixed measuring attributes should transit to entirelyfair value measuring attributes.The accounting standards of financial instruments are not onlythe urging by the developing of domestic financial industry, butthe dispensable part of the accounting standards system. Financialinstruments accounting is a puzzle globally, so my endeavor is atmost avail to the readers to have a comprehensive understandingof this issue. This paper just to provide an opportunity for orenlighten the thinking of this issue, and maybe this paper canarouse more concerns on this issue, and then let the research gofurther.