2. 外语
  3. In public, bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else

In public, bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else

admin2012-05-28  70
问题     In public, bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it’s just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch.
    Unfortunately, banks’ lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult.
    On April 2nd, after a bruising encounter with Congress, America’s Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognising losses on long-term assets in their income statements. Bob Herz, the FASB’s chairman, openly condemned those who "question our motives". Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobbying group politely calls "the use of judgment by management".
    European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes its reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. On April 1st Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did "not live in a political vacuum" but "in the real world" and that Europe could yet develop different rules.
    It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But banks’ shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are sceptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains.
    To get the system working again, losses must be recognised and dealt with. America’s new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.
According to the author, the rule changes of the FASB may result in______.
选项 A、the weakening of its independence
B、the revival of the banking system
C、the banks’ long-term asset losses
D、the diminishing role of management
答案A
解析 从第三段首句可知FASB的规则被改变了；联系第二段首句Unfortunately…的内容可以看出，正是因为银行的游说，FASB的规则才起了变化。第二段第二句but后又提到“…标准设立者的独立性开始妥协…”，这便是FASB规则改变的后果，故答案为[A]。强干扰项[D]与第三段末句不符，该句说的是“这些变化enhance…the use of judgment by management”，[D]中的diminish与enhance矛盾。[B]说FASB的规则变化会带来复苏，与第二段末句提到银行复苏的条件“除非银行所持有的不良资产的价格能够吸引买方”不符。[C]的观点不是作者的，且与银行家的观点也相反。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/SVE7777K
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)