外币折算外文翻译(编辑修改稿)

外币折算外文翻译(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

are translated at rates that prevailed when the underlying transactions took place, although average rates are suggested when revenue or expense transactions are voluminous. When nonmoary items abroad are valued at historical cost, the translation procedures resulting from the temporal method are virtually identical to those produced by the moarynonmoary method. The two translation methods differ only if other asset valuation bases are employed, such as replacement cost, market values, or discounted cash flows. Because it is similar to the moarynonmoary method, the temporal method shares most of its advantages and disadvantages. In deliberately ignoring local inflation, this method shares a limitation with the other translation methods discussed. (Of course, historical cost accounting ignores inflation as well!). All four methods just described have been used in the United States at one time or another and can be found today in various countries. In general, they produce noticeably different foreign currency translation results. The first three methods (., the current rate, currentnoncurrent, and moarynonmoary) are predicated on identifying which assets and liabilities are exposed to, or sheltered from, currency exchange risk. The translation methodology is then applied consistent with this distinction. The current rate method presumes that the entire foreign operation is exposed to exchange rate risk since all assets and liabilities are translated at the yearend exchange rate. The currentnoncurrent rate method presumes that only the current assets and liabilities are so exposed, while the moarynonmoary method presumes that moary assets and liabilities are exposed. In contrast, the temporal method is designed to preserve the underlying theoretical basis of accounting measurement used in preparing the financial statements being translated. Which is best? We reject the traditional assumption that a single translation method can be appropriate for all circumstances in which translations occur and for all purposes that translation serves. Circumstances underlying foreign exchange translation differ widely. Translating accounts from a stable to an unstable currency is not the same as translating accounts from an unstable currency to a stable one. Likewise, there is little similarity between translations involving importor exporttype translations and those involving a permanently established affiliate or subsidiary pany in another country that reinvests its local earnings and does not intend to repatriate any funds to the parent pany in the near future. Second, translations are made for different purposes. Translating the accounts of a foreign subsidiary to consolidate those accounts with those of the parent pany has very little in mon with translating the accounts of an independent pany mainly for the convenience of various foreign audiencesof –interest. We therefore pose three questions: 1. Is it reasonable to use more than one translation method? 2. If so, what should be the acceptable methods and under what conditions should they be applied? 3. Are there situations in which translations should not be done at all? As to the first question, it is clear that a single translation method cannot equally serve translations occurring under different conditions and for different purposes. More than one translation method is needed. Regarding the second question, we think that three different translation approaches can be accepted: (1) the historical method, (2) the current method, and (3) no translation at all. Financial accounts of foreign entities can be translated either from a parent pany perspective or from a local perspective. Under the parent pany perspective, foreign operations are extensions of parent pany operations and are, in large measure, sources of domestic currency cash flows. Accordingly, the object of translation is to change the unit of measure for financial statements of foreign subsidiaries to the domestic currency, and to make the foreign statements conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the country of the parent pany. We think these objectives are best achieved by translation methods that use historical rates of exchange. We prefer the temporal principle, as it generally maintains the accounting principles used to measure assets and liabilities originally expressed in foreign currency units. Because foreign statements under a parent pany perspective are first adjusted to reflect parent pany accounting principles (before translation), the temporal principle is appropriate, as it changes a measurement in foreign currency into a measurement in domestic currency without changing the basis of measurement. The temporal translation method is easily adapted to processes that make accounting adjustments during the translation. When this is so, adjustments for differences between two or more sets of accounting concepts and practices are made along with the tra。