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  50
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 fourth paragraph, McCreevy objects to the IASB’s attempt to______.
选项 A、keep away from political influences
B、act on their own in rule-setting
C、escape the pressure from their peers
D、take gradual measures in reform
答案B
解析 第四段首句提到，欧洲部长们立刻要求IASB也进行改革；接着第二句讲，在没有总体计划之前，IASB不想采取行动：接着McCreevy警告IASB“不是处在政治真空中”而是“在现实世界里”，而且欧洲仍然可以制定不同的规则。综合以上三处，不难看出IASB想自己独立制定规则，而包括McCreevy在内的欧洲部长显然反对，故答案为[B]。联系第四段前两句话可知，McCreevy的话重点不是在强调“政治影响”，[A]脱离了上下文。原文没有提来自同行的压力，而是说IASB“将在今年后期完成规则重建之后面临很大压力”，故排除[C]。[D]中的gradual measure在文中没有体现。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/cVE7777K
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)