推行全球會計準則﹐美國邁出重要一步
美
國證券交易委員會(Securities and Exchange Commission﹐簡稱SEC)週四取消了在美上市的外國企業所提交財務報告必須符合美國公認會計準則(GAAP)的規定﹐許多人希望此舉能為全球會計準則的最終形成帶來重要推動。在做出這一決定後﹐SEC還將權衡美國公司是否可以在本國會計準則和國際會計準則之間二選一。若果真如此﹐則可能為美國公認會計準則退出舞台鋪平道路﹐而該準則正是美國財務報告體系的基礎。
採用全球統一會計準則的目的是簡化投資者和公司的操作。公司不必再花重金來為世界各地業務編制會計報表﹐同時投資者也能更方便地對全球公司進行業績比較。
然而﹐儘管推動制定全球標準的力量有所增強﹐但潛在問題也已浮出水面。雖然市場已形成了全球化的格局﹐但是不同國家和地區的企業在為誰謀利這一點各不相同﹕有些為了投資者﹐有些是為了公司﹐還有的著眼於國家利益。
如果不同國家和地區用不同方法制定和實施會計準則﹐那麼最終可能會使編制統一準則的計劃以失敗收場。在投資者看來﹐針對該準則的各種不同解釋將使其可靠性降低。正因如此﹐一些批評人士表示現在就試圖制定統一會計標準為時過早。
美 國一些大型投資機構對SEC這一決定表示了擔憂。擁有2,400億美元資金的加州公務員退休基金(California Public Employees' Retirement System)就是其中之一。該基金在一份信函中表示﹐它對審計的連貫性以及實行該準則能否保證財務報告的可信度感到擔心。
雖 然SEC委員承認統一國際會計準則面臨反對意見以及包括培訓審計人員和投資者在內的巨大障礙﹐但還是以4票對0票通過了取消對外國公司的財務報告限制規 定。SEC主席克里斯托弗•考克斯(Christopher Cox)稱這一步意義重大﹐並表示SEC對國際準則的接受表明美國公認會計準則正與國際標準不斷融合。對於那些本財年截止在2007年的 外國公司來說﹐如果其會計報告符合國際會計準則理事會(International Accounting Standards Board﹐簡稱IASB)制定的標準﹐那麼它們現在就可以不再按照美國公認會計準則編制他們的財務報表了。SEC的舉措也為美國公司提供了另一種可能﹐ 即它們日後或許可以從國際準則和美國準則中選擇其一﹐但SEC並未正式提議允許這種做法﹐目前該問題仍處在研究階段。
另外﹐SEC還提議 修改共同基金公司的募股說明書。如果該議案被採納的話﹐那麼基金公司將必須用簡單的英語撰寫一份關於基金投資目標、成本以及風險的概要﹐並要在文件開頭簡 要說明基金的十大投資項目。基金業的美國投資公司協會Investment Company Institute對SEC此舉表示歡迎。
SEC還確定了有關小企業集資的規定﹐使這一過程更為容易。
一些SEC委員仍擔心現在就向國際標準完全靠攏為時過早。SEC委員安奈特•納扎雷斯(Annette Nazareth)指出﹐如果範圍太廣的話﹐投資者不但會對財務報告的可靠性喪失信心﹐財務報告也會失去美國公認會計準則所提供的連貫性。
儘管國際市場之間的聯繫日益增強﹐但各個國家和地區仍然在市場的優先服務對象上有所不同。在美國和英國﹐市場通常是由投資者推動的。財務報告的編制和相關準則的制定都是為了服務於投資者﹐他們的需求通常比公司和審計人員得到優先考慮。
在歐洲﹐投資者的需求通常會讓位於公司和政治目標。而在中國﹐公司、市場和投資者都要為中國共產黨的需求讓路。
印地安那大學 (Indiana University)會計學副教授特里•永(Teri Lombardi Yohn)上個月在參議院下屬委員會召開的關於國際會計準則的聽證會上作證稱﹕“我認為你可以採用一套標準﹐但是不同國家的制度、理解以及觀念各異﹐所以 執行起來也會不同。”
全球統一會計體系的擁護者則表示﹐若採取充分的保護措施就可以減少國際會計準則的制定機構、即IASB所受到的政治干預。
David Reilly / Kara Scannell
Global Accounting Effort Gains A Step
The Securities and Exchange Commission took an important step toward what many hope will eventually lead to a global accounting standard, dropping a requirement that non-U.S. companies with U.S. listings reconcile their results to U.S. rules.
That sets the stage for the SEC to consider whether U.S. companies should be able to choose between U.S. and international rules, as well. If that were to happen it could potentially pave the way for the abandonment of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, the foundation of the U.S. financial reporting system.
The idea is that a single set of global accounting rules would make life simpler for investors and companies alike. Companies wouldn't have to spend as much to compile accounts for their operations around the world, while investors would find it easier to compare corporate results for companies on a global basis.
But even as the drive toward a global standard gains steam, potential problems loom. While markets are global, individual countries and regions differ on whether they should operate to benefit investors, companies or in some cases governments.
That could ultimately undermine a single set of standards if countries and regions take different approaches to formulating and applying the rules. A thicket of different interpretations could make a single set of rules unreliable for investors. That is why some critics say it is too early to move in this direction.
Concerns over dropping the reconciliation requirement were raised by some large U.S. investors, including the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which manages $240 billion. In a letter, Calpers expressed concern about consistent auditing and enforcement of international rules to ensure credible financial statements.
While acknowledging the opposition and 'tremendous' hurdles -- including educating auditors and investors -- to reaching a global accounting standard, the SEC's commissioners voted 4-0 to drop the reconciliation requirement. Chairman Christopher Cox called the step 'significant' and said the agency's acceptance of international rules signaled the continued convergence between these standards and U.S. GAAP.
Non-U.S. companies with financial years ending in 2007 will now be able to stop reconciling their results with U.S. GAAP immediately, if their results comply with rules set by the International Accounting Standards Board. While the SEC's move opens the possibility that U.S. companies could choose between international and U.S. standards, the commission hasn't formally proposed a rule to allow this. The agency is still studying the issue.
Separately, the SEC voted to propose overhauling offering documents, or prospectuses, issued by mutual-fund companies. The proposal, if adopted, would require fund companies to state in plain English a summary of the fund's investment objectives, costs and risks, as well as briefly detail the fund's top 10 holdings at the front of the document. The fund industry's Investment Company Institute applauded the SEC's move.
The SEC also finalized rules to make it easier for small businesses to raise money.
When it comes to accounting standards, some commissioners still worry it's too soon for a complete embrace of international rules. 'If there is wide latitude . . . investors will not only lose confidence in the reliability of financial statements but also will lose the consistency that U.S. GAAP provides,' Commissioner Annette Nazareth said.
Despite the growing connections between international markets, countries and regions still differ sharply in who those markets are intended to serve first. In the U.S. and the United Kingdom, markets are generally investor-driven. Financial statements, and the rules that govern them, are designed with investors' needs generally taking priority over those of companies and auditors.
Elsewhere in Europe, investors' needs often take a back seat to corporate or political goals. In China, meanwhile, companies, markets and investors are all subservient to the needs of the ruling Communist Party.
'I think you could have one set of standards, but given the differences in countries' institutions and perceptions and views the implementation is going to be different and the enforcement is going to be different,' said Teri Lombardi Yohn, an associate professor of accounting at Indiana University who testified last month at a Senate subcommittee hearing on international standards.
Proponents of a single, global accounting system say sufficient protections could assure that the body that crafts international rules, the IASB, is buffered from political interference.
David Reilly / Kara Scannell
That sets the stage for the SEC to consider whether U.S. companies should be able to choose between U.S. and international rules, as well. If that were to happen it could potentially pave the way for the abandonment of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, the foundation of the U.S. financial reporting system.
The idea is that a single set of global accounting rules would make life simpler for investors and companies alike. Companies wouldn't have to spend as much to compile accounts for their operations around the world, while investors would find it easier to compare corporate results for companies on a global basis.
But even as the drive toward a global standard gains steam, potential problems loom. While markets are global, individual countries and regions differ on whether they should operate to benefit investors, companies or in some cases governments.
That could ultimately undermine a single set of standards if countries and regions take different approaches to formulating and applying the rules. A thicket of different interpretations could make a single set of rules unreliable for investors. That is why some critics say it is too early to move in this direction.
Concerns over dropping the reconciliation requirement were raised by some large U.S. investors, including the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which manages $240 billion. In a letter, Calpers expressed concern about consistent auditing and enforcement of international rules to ensure credible financial statements.
While acknowledging the opposition and 'tremendous' hurdles -- including educating auditors and investors -- to reaching a global accounting standard, the SEC's commissioners voted 4-0 to drop the reconciliation requirement. Chairman Christopher Cox called the step 'significant' and said the agency's acceptance of international rules signaled the continued convergence between these standards and U.S. GAAP.
Non-U.S. companies with financial years ending in 2007 will now be able to stop reconciling their results with U.S. GAAP immediately, if their results comply with rules set by the International Accounting Standards Board. While the SEC's move opens the possibility that U.S. companies could choose between international and U.S. standards, the commission hasn't formally proposed a rule to allow this. The agency is still studying the issue.
Separately, the SEC voted to propose overhauling offering documents, or prospectuses, issued by mutual-fund companies. The proposal, if adopted, would require fund companies to state in plain English a summary of the fund's investment objectives, costs and risks, as well as briefly detail the fund's top 10 holdings at the front of the document. The fund industry's Investment Company Institute applauded the SEC's move.
The SEC also finalized rules to make it easier for small businesses to raise money.
When it comes to accounting standards, some commissioners still worry it's too soon for a complete embrace of international rules. 'If there is wide latitude . . . investors will not only lose confidence in the reliability of financial statements but also will lose the consistency that U.S. GAAP provides,' Commissioner Annette Nazareth said.
Despite the growing connections between international markets, countries and regions still differ sharply in who those markets are intended to serve first. In the U.S. and the United Kingdom, markets are generally investor-driven. Financial statements, and the rules that govern them, are designed with investors' needs generally taking priority over those of companies and auditors.
Elsewhere in Europe, investors' needs often take a back seat to corporate or political goals. In China, meanwhile, companies, markets and investors are all subservient to the needs of the ruling Communist Party.
'I think you could have one set of standards, but given the differences in countries' institutions and perceptions and views the implementation is going to be different and the enforcement is going to be different,' said Teri Lombardi Yohn, an associate professor of accounting at Indiana University who testified last month at a Senate subcommittee hearing on international standards.
Proponents of a single, global accounting system say sufficient protections could assure that the body that crafts international rules, the IASB, is buffered from political interference.
David Reilly / Kara Scannell
沒有留言:
張貼留言