刷题刷出新高度,偷偷领先!偷偷领先!偷偷领先! 关注我们,悄悄成为最优秀的自己!

单选题

    Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. 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.

    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 recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statements. Bob Herz, the FASB’s chairman, cried out against 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 it reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. 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 bank’s shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. 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 recognized 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.

38. According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to the IASB’s attempt to ________.

A
keep away from political influences
B
evade the pressure from their peers
C
act on their own in rule-setting
D
take gradual measures in reform
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

C

解析:

答案精析:根据关键词McCreevy和IASB可定位到第四段第三句。第四段开头表明了欧洲官员和IASB在会计准则和制定问题的态度:暂时不进行改革,仍保持独立性,但其妥协的压力非常大。最后麦克雷维表示IASB不处在政治真空中,而是在现实中。由此可知,人们不能凭借自己的意志做决定,可见他反对委员会独自做决定。

错项排除:A项对应McCreevy说的not live in a political vacuum,但这是他的观点而非IASB客观正在做的事,所以排除。B项的peer pressure在原文中未提及,pressure指的是来自准则修订而非同行间。D项的“逐步的改革措施”也在原文未提及。

创作类型:
原创

本文链接:38. According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to

版权声明:本站点所有文章除特别声明外,均采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议。转载请注明文章出处。

让学习像火箭一样快速,微信扫码,获取考试解析、体验刷题服务,开启你的学习加速器!

分享考题
share