会计选择与风险管理：SFAS第115和美国银行控股公司外文翻译.docVIP

外文翻译 原文 Accounting Choices and Risk Management:SFAS 115 and U.S. Bank Holding Companies Material Source: / Author: Huddler, Leslie D., Kohl beck, Mark J. and McNally, Mary Lea Under SFAS 115, shareholders’ equity increases with unrealized gains and decreases with unrealized losses on AFS securities. At the time SFAS 115 was exposed for comment, the definition of bank regulatory capital conformed closely to GAAP equity.2 Consequently, if a bank classified securities with unrealized gains or losses as AFS, its GAAP equity and regulatory capital levels were both immediately affected. Moreover, future changes in market values of AFS securities impacted future GAAP equity and regulatory capital. This potential capital volatility increased the uncertainty about future regulatory compliance and thereby increased regulatory risk if a bank classified securities as AFS. Banks could eliminate the regulatory impact of SFAS 115 by classifying no securities as AFS (i.e. by classifying all securities as held to maturity). However, securities classified as held to maturity (HTM) are not costlessly available to meet liquidity demands. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took a hard line with respect to enforcing SFAS 115. In particular, if a firm sold any securities classified as HTM, the SEC required the reclassification of the entire HTM portfolio as AFS and immediate inclusion of unrealized gains or losses in GAAP equity and regulatory capital. Thus, banks needed to assess current and future liquidity needs to avoid classifying too few securities as AFS. Banks’ responses to the regulatory risk induced by SFAS 115 may have involved more than the accounting classification of existing securities. A 1993 Ernst Young survey of banks and thrifts found that over one-half of the respondents expected to change their investment strategy in response to SFAS 115 (CPA Journal, 1994). Banks manage their operations and risk in a coordinated fashion – there is evidence that ban