|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
69.228.195.226
| '); } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } // End --> |
In Reply to: RE: How the Democrats want to change accounting rules... posted by Jim Pearce on November 06, 2009 at 17:08:25
"Since 1973, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has been the designated organization in the private sector for establishing standards of financial accounting. Those standards govern the preparation of financial statements. They are officially recognized as authoritative by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (Financial Reporting Release No. 1, Section 101, and reaffirmed in its April 2003 Policy Statement) and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (Rule 203, Rules of Professional Conduct, as amended May 1973 and May 1979). Such standards are important to the efficient functioning of the economy because investors, creditors, auditors, and others rely on credible, transparent, and comparable financial information."
"The SEC has statutory authority to establish financial accounting and reporting standards for publicly held companies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout its history, however, the Commission’s policy has been to rely on the private sector for this function to the extent that the private sector demonstrates ability to fulfill the responsibility in the public interest."
Granted some political pressure was put on FASB by congress a year or so ago, in order to change the way asserts on the banks books were to be valued (IIRC this helped the banks by making them look solvent when they clearly were not.)
Link below:
Boats and Fish!
(quote) "Washington isn't thinking straight," said Josh Rosner, managing director of Graham, Fischer & Co, a New York-based financial analyst who advises regulators and institutional investors. "Financial statements are for the benefit of investors."
Indeed, allowing banks to alter accounting standards when they run into trouble is incentive to take more risk and, in essence, institutionalizes fraud. The regulators would now be under enormous political pressure -- and sometimes under direct orders -- to allow banks to remain in business long after they've become insolvent, in the hopes that things will turn around and they'll grow again.
And rather than stabilize the system, removing accounting independence destabilizes it in the long run, as investors and other banks have little confidence in the veracity of financial statements. (end quote)
I couldn't say it any better.
.
Share a bowl of grits with someone you love tonight.
Seem to recall that FASB, under pressure form congress, already changed the way bank valued their assets.
Remember the controversy a year and a half ago on "mark-to-market" vs. "hold-to-maturity" accounting?
I really don't care what formula they use to value bank assets, they can do whatever the decide, but they must not be allowed to change the method just because of changes in market conditions.
Boats and Fish!
![]()
If it makes you feel any better, the French want to fiddle their books too.
Post a Followup: