Banking Essay Sample-GAAP、IAS与美国与欧盟双边贸易。本文是一篇银行学专业Essay范文，主要内容是讲述国际会计准则（IAS）本应是一个统一的概念框架，将不同公司和行业的会计实践纳入一个单一的标准框架。无论是希腊的航运巨头还是意大利的鱼类加工厂，欧盟都设想他们将在一个标准内工作，以更好地促进各国之间的贸易。实际上Essay Sample中提到，欧盟试图通过指令实现这一目标，但指令很快被放弃。指令，旨在强制遵守欧盟会计标准和惯例的做法被放弃，原因是2003年关于捷克共和国遵守标准和规范的报告中提出的投诉“一级和二级立法的措辞表明，捷克共和国真正的优先事项是遵守欧盟指令，而不是采用国际会计准则。”事实上Essay Sample中也提到，这两个似乎不仅是不同的目标，而且是相互排斥的目标——公司要么满足发布的指令，要么满足国际会计准则的要求，但很少同时满足两者，尤其是在东部区块国家，这两个概念都相当新。下面是这篇Banking Essay Sample的全部内容，供参考。
Bridging the GAAP 跨越公认会计原则
The International Accounting Standards (IAS) was supposed to be a unifying conceptual framework which would bring accounting practices of various firms and industries under a single umbrella of standards. No matter if it is a Greek shipping magnate or an Italian fish processing plant, the EU envisioned that they would work within a single standard to better facilitate trade amongst various nations. Indeed, the EU attempted to achieve this through the means of directives, which were soon abandoned. Directives, aimed at forcing compliance with EU accounting standards and practices were discarded because of complaints such as those voiced by the 2003 Report on the Observance of Standards and Codes with regards to the Czech Republic that “The wording of primary and secondary legislation suggests that the Czech Republic’s real priority is compliance with EU directives, rather than adoption of IAS.” Indeed, these two seemed to be not only different goals, but mutually exclusive ones- companies could either sate the directives issued or the requirements of the IAS, but rarely both, especially in Eastern Block nations where both concepts were fairly new.
Now, however, a new complication is on the horizon in the form of bilateral trade with the U.S. and U.S.-E.U. joint ventures. Obviously the directives, which have been scrapped in any case, would have no force of law in U.S. courts. But nevertheless, there has been considerable movement on this issue as of late. In 2006, the IASB issued a paper called “A Roadmap for Convergence between IFRSs and US GAAP- 2006-2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the FASB and the IASB”. The memorandum, based upon work done during a 2002 meeting between the FASB (U.S.) and the IASB, as well as subsequent meetings in 2005, stated that “the FASB and the IASB reaffirmed their commitment to the convergence of US generally accepted accounting principles (US GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs).” Nevertheless, this is bound to be a complicated venture because it can not be resolved by boards or government agencies. As the memorandum itself recognized, “the ability to meet the objective set out by the roadmap depends upon the efforts and actions of many parties—including companies, auditors, investors, standard-setters and regulators.” In other words, bridging the gaap is not merely a matter of ironing out a combined framework of accounting practices. It is a matter of a company in Los Angeles following the same accounting standards and practices that a company in London would. It is also a question of training assessors and auditors in this new standard so that they can ensure compliance with it. For these reasons, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently put forth a proposal which would allow U.S. listed companies to choose between IFRS and the U.S. GAAP. While some in Europe and the U.S. fear that allowing companies to make this choice would hinder the process of converging the two systems (Johnson, 2007) it is nevertheless a practical solution which should be given serious thought and consideration. The European Union, an offspring of NATO, was fifty years in the making. The idea that uniform standards can be achieved on both sides of the pond between thousands of individual companies is fanciful. As a pragmatic matter as well, people are often leery of change- especially change that is being forced upon them, which was another reason the Directives approach previously discussed failed. While the ultimate goal of uniformly adopting the IFRS may well be desirable, it is certainly not something that can or will happen overnight. Allowing a choice between GAAP and IFRS for U.S. companies should not be viewed as an effort to “halt or slow the convergence process” (Johnson, 2007) but rather as an acknowledgement of the real world difficulties inherent to any large-scale transitions.
然而，现在，一个新的复杂问题正在以与美国的双边贸易和美欧合资企业的形式出现。显然，这些指令在任何情况下都已被废除，在美国法院将不具有法律效力。但尽管如此，最近在这个问题上已经有了相当大的进展。2006年，国际会计准则理事会发布了一份名为《国际财务报告准则与美国公认会计准则趋同的路线图——2006-2008年FASB与国际会计准则理事会之间的谅解备忘录》的文件。该备忘录基于美国财务会计准则委员会（FASB）和国际会计准则委员会（IASB）在2002年的一次会议上以及随后在2005年的会议上所做的工作，指出“FASB和IASB重申了他们对美国公认会计原则（US GAAP）和国际财务报告准则（IFRS）趋同的承诺。”然而，这肯定是一项复杂的工作，因为董事会或政府机构无法解决这一问题。正如备忘录本身所承认的那样，“实现路线图设定的目标的能力取决于许多方面的努力和行动，包括公司、审计师、投资者、标准制定者和监管机构。”换句话说，衔接gaap不仅仅是一个整合会计实践框架的问题。这是洛杉矶一家公司遵循与伦敦一家公司相同的会计准则和惯例的问题。这也是一个在新标准中培训评估员和审计员的问题，以便他们能够确保遵守该标准。出于这些原因，美国证券交易委员会（U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission）最近提出了一项提案，允许美国上市公司在IFRS和美国公认会计原则之间进行选择。尽管欧洲和美国的一些人担心，允许公司做出这种选择会阻碍两个系统的融合过程，但这是一个实际的解决方案，应该认真考虑。作为北约的产物，欧盟成立了50年。数千家独立公司之间可以在池塘两岸实现统一标准的想法是幻想。作为一个务实的问题，人们往往对变革持怀疑态度，尤其是被迫进行的变革，这也是之前讨论的指令方法失败的另一个原因。虽然统一采用《国际财务报告准则》的最终目标可能是可取的，但这肯定不是一夜之间就能实现的。允许美国公司在公认会计原则和国际财务报告准则之间做出选择，不应被视为“阻止或减缓趋同过程”的努力，而应被视为承认任何大规模转型所固有的现实困难。
To understand the scope of the proposed transition, it would be helpful to recall why and how the EU adopted the IAS. As mentioned before, the IAS replaced Brussels-originated Directives which were spottily enforced and which were perceived to unduly burden companies and nations less equipped to handle said requirements. Thus, it can fairly be said that the success of the IAS was born of the failure of the Directives-based approach. However, as with all births, it was hounded by complications and proved to be not an easy task. A 2004 ROSC/World Bank report mentioned that not only were there problems with having individual companies follow the requirements of International Auditing Standards, but even government enterprises and governments themselves were struggling. In reporting this, the Board noted another issue- the fact that IAS standards are not appropriate under all circumstances and that regulators ought to specify when IAS should be implemented and when it is not appropriate or expected.
If even individual governments do not know or can not discern which events merit IAS use and which do not and how to properly use IAS in order to meet the goal of financial transparency, it may well be too much to ask of individual businesses, especially smaller ones or those in less-fully developed countries. None of this is meant to say that the IAS is a bad idea- after all, it is based on sound accounting practices and principles and has proven easier to follow than Directives, due to its more cohesive and simplified nature. Nevertheless, it is an idea which has taken time to implement. It is the recognition of this transitional time that drove the SEC proposal to allow GAAP filings alongside IFRS ones- and on those grounds, the proposal should be accepted.
The IAS sprung from the 1957 Treaty of Rome and the 1970 EU Common Industrial Policy initiative, both of which had harmonization of accounting practices as the goal. The implementation of IFRS continues this trend with the goal of having all companies within the EU report under the IFRS standards by 2007.To be sure, the foregoing is a quest for the harmonization of details. The essential accounting methods are the same, whether they concern a potato farm in Boise or a windmill operator in Rotterdam. For instance, the most basic and fundamental accounting rule- that Assets-Liabilities=Capital, is unchanged by new rules. The same can be said for the calculation of net assets or the definitions of income and capital and the distinctions between the two including the fundamental relationship that capital is an asset which generates income. In a sense, these competing views of filing standards are really about the rules which govern that most fundamental of all business necessities- an accurate and honest appraisal of a company’s worth- in other words, their asset valuation. This is not a simple task- not merely a question of adding up the profit and loss sides of the ledger- rather, it involves considerations of what to designate as capital maintenance, which amounts can be heralded as operating profits- and why all this is so. In that sense, asset valuation is really a series of judgment calls. If I own a shoe store and I purchase shoe leather, could that be an operational expense? Can it be justified? Is it a personal expense instead? What will I use it for? How will I account for its use? All of these are questions which need to be answered for an asset valuation to be prepared. At times, the answer is obvious- if I own a bookshop and decide to splurge on a Bentley, I can hardly claim that the Bentley is a business-related expense. After all, what use would my bookshop have for it? But many times, indeed most times, it is a more complicated line of enquiry, such as the one regarding the shoe leather. It could be for my personal use but could also be used on the inventory. Perhaps I have overstock that is merely collecting dust and need to be cleaned.
As mentioned, the FASB and the IASB are working on a conceptual framework for uniting these two accounting standards. In closing of this paper, it would be prudent to discuss some of the sticking points at this juncture, having just reviewed and emphasized that the nature of asset valuation- indeed of accounting itself- is the use of independent, though guided judgment calls. One example of the conflict is one of expectations- should the entity in question report what the entity expects to occur or what the contract requires? As a pragmatic example, let’s return to our shoe store. Imagine that the shoe store enters a contract with a supplier and as part of the contract, the shoe store must prepare a table showing how many shoes it purchased each month and how many it expects to sell. The goal would be to show that the store is a viable enterprise. And yet, what if the store has purchased 100 pairs of shoes and is required to report the sales for the quarter in the middle of the third month? The store knows how many shoes it has sold in month one and month two- but does not have the complete figure for month three even though a deadline looms. Should the store estimate the number of sales through the use of current figures? Or should the store be prudent and delay reporting, even though the contract is violated through the stores’ untimeliness? Consider the below sales figures:
Week One: 23 pairs Week Two: 23 pairs Week Three: 23 pairs Week Four: 27 pairs
Week Five: 23 pairs Week Six: 23 pairs Week Seven: 21 pairs Week Eight: 23 pairs
Week Nine: 19 pairs Week Ten: 18 pairs
The store can reasonably expect to sell twenty-three pairs of shoes in week eleven and twenty-three in week twelve, since six of the ten weeks show twenty-three shoes sold. On the other hand, weeks nine and ten have seen a slump and that slump may well continue. Thus, estimating the sales figures for weeks eleven and twelve are tricky at best. Perhaps weeks nine and ten are the start of the summer season and sales will be sluggish throughout. But perhaps weeks nine and ten are anomalies. This is one of the real world difficulties presented by the attempt to reconcile standards and expectations.
Another of the many issues on which FASB and IASB differ is whether conservatism conflicts with neutrality in financial reports. The goal of all financial reporting is to be neutral. An asset valuation is not an advertisement- it is an honest statement of your inventory. It may make your company look good or look bad, but it can not be altered in content for the sake of appearances. At the same time, auditors and governments encourage companies to practice conservatism in their estimations. The reasoning for this is that it is always better to err on the side of safety. How do these two goals- conservatism and neutrality- mesh in the real world?
Lets return to our shoe store, whose sales figures are above. Weeks nine and ten show declines with fewer shoes sold in week nine than in week eight and fewer shoes sold in week ten than in week nine. These figures hardly lend an air of optimism to the auditing process. If we combine that with conservative accounting principles, we would be well advised to project that sales in week eleven will decline. After all, they have been declining for two straight weeks, something that is unique to this quarter. Additionally, there has been a decline that is steeper than anything encountered this quarter. As such, if we were conservative, we would surely predict further, possibly steep declines. However, notice that there was a strong decline from week four to week five as well, yet figures stabilized. Based on that limited history, is conservatism really pessimism? Thus, does conservatism in this instance 让我们回到我们的鞋店，它的销售数字在上面。第九周和第十周的鞋类销量下降，第九周的鞋类销量低于第八周，第十周的鞋类销量低于第九周。这些数字很难给审计过程带来乐观的气氛。如果我们将其与保守的会计原则相结合，我们最好预测第11周的销售额将下降。毕竟，它们已经连续两周下降，这是本季度所独有的。此外，这一季度的降幅比任何时候都要大。因此，如果我们是保守派，我们肯定会预测进一步的、可能急剧的下降。然而，请注意，从第四周到第五周也出现了强劲的下降，但数据稳定下来。基于有限的历史，保守主义真的是悲观主义吗？因此，在这种情况下，保守主义是否偏离了中立？deviate from neutrality?
The goal of achieving uniformity in accounting practices is a worthy one. In an integrated world where economies and businesses have come to depend on one another, it makes sense that expectations be harmonized. Moreover, it is not as difficult a task as it may seem, given that the basics of sound business and accounting practices are fairly uniform throughout the world. The principles governing accounting also have a high degree of uniformity. However, this is still a matter of aligning different businesses, cultures and even continents along a single fiscal path. The goal is a worthy one and may well be achieved. But, like Rome, it wont be done in a day. Or even a year.
Hegarty, J. and Gielen F. and Barros A.C.H. (2004) “Implementation of International Accounting and Auditing Standards: Lessons Learned from the World Bank’s Accounting and Auditing ROSC Program,” September 2004
IASB (2006) “A Roadmap for Convergence Between IFRSs and U.S. GAAP— 2006-2008 Memorandum of Understanding Between the FASB and the IASB” 27 February 2006
IFA (2003) “Report on the Observance of Standards and Codes (ROSC): Czech Republic,” accessed via http://www.worldbank.org/ifa/czerosc_aa.pdf on 16 November 2007.
Johnson S. (2007) “What if IFRS Replaced GAAP?”
Banking Essay Sample在作业结论中总结在会计实践中实现统一的目标是有价值的。在一个经济和企业相互依赖的一体化世界中，协调预期是有道理的。此外，考虑到健全的商业和会计实践的基础在全世界相当统一，这项任务并不像看上去那么困难。会计准则也具有高度的一致性。然而，这仍然是一个将不同的企业、文化，甚至是各大洲按照一条财政路径进行协调的问题。这是一个有价值的目标，很有可能实现。但是，就像罗马一样，这不是一天就能完成的。甚至一年。