0

Chinese and American Accounting Differences and its impact on the Performance of Chinese Companies Abroad / 中美会计差异对中国公司海外表现的影响


Author: Zhao Quanmei
Date: March 2, 2014

Chinese and American Accounting Differences and its impact on the Performance of Chinese Companies Abroad

In light of the poor performance of Chinese overseas companies in recent years, it has been found that existing accounting differences between the United States and China have played an important role in this process. This article hopes to provide some insight and advice regarding Chinese companies overseas adapting to a foreign regulatory environments as well as make a few policy recommendations as to how China can improve its own accounting system.

Poor performance of Chinese Stocks

In recent years, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have investigated a series of fraudulent accounting performed by Chinese companies overseas. According to these reports, the U.S. Department of Justice has begun to investigate financial irregularities in U.S.-listed Chinese companies. On May 9th, 2012, a Chinese company was prosecuted by the SEC and faced with the risk of its business license removal in the United States, due to Deloitte Shanghai’s refusal to provide audit files. At the same time, there was a wave of Chinese companies delisting in the United States, with many companies choosing to leave the American market while the amount of Chinese companies entering the American market has slowed considerably. In 2011 alone, the number of Chinese stocks in the US facing long-term suspension and delisting was 46, while for the first time the total market value of Chinese companies delisted surpassed the amount of funds raised through IPO’s of Chinese companies.

The Main Reasons Behind Poor Stock Performance: Undervaluation and Illegal Accounting

The poor performance of Chinese stocks exists for two main reasons. The first is the undervaluation of Chinese stocks on the U.S. stock market. In 2011, of 61 Chinese enterprises listed overseas, issue prices on average declined by 6%, while the Morgan Stanley World Index in 2011 increased by 2%. The Morgan Stanley World Index covers different countries and industries to display the performance of capital markets. Many Chinese companies listed on the U.S. Stock exchange generally have lower price-earnings ratios than similar American companies; this however has not stopped ambitious Chinese companies from listing on the U.S. stock exchange. Those companies hoping to expand the scale of their financing often face many challenges in this situation. Among these difficulties include the difference between the Chinese and American accounting systems.

If Chinese companies covert their previous accounting into the American form of accounting, this process is likely to have some form of systematic bias. In terms of revenue recognition, Chinese accounting standards require four basic forms of revenue recognition: 1) The significant risks and rewards of ownership of the goods have been transferred to the buyer by the enterprise. 2) The enterprise retains neither continuous management rights to maintain relations with ownership nor effective control over goods sold 3) The significant risks and rewards related to the ownership of goods have been transferred to the buyer by the enterprise 4) Related costs and revenues can be measured reliability. In the United States, GAAP not only stipulates the four basic principles of revenue recognition, which include receivables guarantees, shipped goods, providing convincing evidence of the transaction and price has been determined or is determinable, but also separates different forms of revenue recognition. Furthermore, the form of revenue recognition is assessed based on specific situations. In terms of the delivery of assets, the GAAP method, unlike the Chinese method of emphasizing risks and the transfer of rights, stresses the importance customer approval. In terms of receivables, GAAP applies a method of “reasonable assurance”, whereas the Chinese applies a method of “high probability”. Thus, when Chinese companies enter the American market, the conversion of accounting systems causes a large reduction in value, directly affecting the company’s stock price.

Regardless of these factors, the most important factor is still the frequency with which accounting irregularities occur, while fraud has increased the doubts of many investors. In order to satisfy the conditions of the market, many Chinese companies continue to commit accounting fraud and alter actual income.

First of all, in contrasting Chinese and American accounting standards, the most important difference between the two comes from the representation of profit or loss. Thus, fraudulent reports of revenue recognition are an obvious occurrence, as previously described. Although entering the U.S. market requires accounting adjustments to adjust to the U.S. regulatory system, it is inevitable that some companies still try to inflate revenue. To make matters worse, auditing firms will often cooperate with companies in order to roundabout the SEC’s examination process.

Secondly, US GAAP focuses more on the concept on fair value. The concept of fair value means that assets can be exchanged for the amount at which the account or its liabilities need to be settled between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. Although new accounting standards were introduced in China in 2006 to promote the concept of fair value, innate problems of actual implementation and operation still exist.

Finally, the phenomenon of exaggerating income through related-party transactions among Chinese companies is also a very visible and significant problem. Related party transactions involve a transfer of resources or obligations between parties, regardless of whether a price has been charged. The United States stresses that regardless of whether a transaction takes place or not, there has to be full disclosure of information. On the other hand, Chinese regulations provide that in the existence of common control or significant influence, if there is no transaction that occurs, there can exist non-disclosure between the two parties. Only under circumstances of transactions occurring is disclosure required under Chinese regulations. To complicate matters more, China and the United States have differing views on state-controlled enterprises, in terms of whether they should be regarded as related parties and whether or not they should disclose related party transactions.

Does a conflict between the United States and China exist?

All along, disclosure in the Chinese auditing system has not been very transparent, with more emphasis being placed on form rather than substance. In order to effectively regulate the American securities market and protect the interests of investors, the SEC has increased operations aimed at investigating violations of Chinese overseas companies, requiring those accounting companies who provide services to companies accused of fraudulent accounting to offer audit files, and filing an administrative lawsuit to Deloitte Shanghai who refused to provide appropriate auditing documentation. Accordingly, Deloitte Shanghai’s explanation is that China and the United States have conflicts and differences inherent in their legal systems, which has become a long-standing dispute between the two countries.

In addition, on May 10th, 2012, China introduced new regulations, indicating that by the end of the year, the big four accounting firms must transfer control of Chinese business services to a local Chinese partner, and within three years must appoint a Chinese national as a senior partner. In the localization process, China has attempted to give the big four accounting firms sufficient time to implement these changes, in order to minimize negative impacts that come with low quality audits, but also with the goal of allowing domestic accountants to learn from the foreign system and create a fair and competitive arena. In the context of the big four firms, this also makes them conform more to international standards and be more consistent when dealing with businesses. However, it is undeniable that this implies that more experienced foreign accountants will be required to withdraw from China while increasing investors’ doubts about transparency in the auditing process involving Chinese companies.

The Urgent Need for China to Reform

With the aim of targeting the recent performance of Chinese overseas companies, in order to allow Chinese companies to better adapt to foreign regulatory environments and international standards, establishment of an improved accounting system is necessary. On May 3rd, 2012, at the fourth conference held in Beijing with regards to Sino-U.S. strategic and economic dialogue, China for the first time agreed to U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) investigating officers to start work in China as observers, a major first step towards Sino-U.S. co-operation regarding auditor supervision.

In addition, China should speed up its reform of its accounting system. China should try to establish its accounting regulatory system in accord with its national conditions. Furthermore, it is essential that China establish a trinity of regulatory framework for governmental supervision, industry self-discipline and social supervision in a three-dimensional, multi-layered framework, with multiple channels of information disclosure. Expedient development of China’s auditing system and implementation of accounting firm partnerships are also necessary in order, to increase awareness of associated risks and have an increased sense of responsibility.

Writer: Zhao Quanmei, Hopkins Nanjing Center Certificate ’12
Translator: Tyler Ehler, Hopkins Nanjing Center MA ’13

作者:赵全妹
2014年03月02号

中美会计差异对中国公司海外表现的影响

笔者通过对近年来中国海外公司表现不佳的现象进行分析,发现中美间的会计差异在这个过程中起着很重要的作用。本文希望能借此对中国海外公司在适应国外的会计监管环境方面提供一定的帮助,也对中国如何改善自己的会计系统提出了一些政策建议。

中国概念股表现不佳

近年来美国SEC接连调查中国海外公司的会计欺诈问题。据悉,美国司法部已开始对在美上市的中国公司的财务违规问题展开调查。当地时间5月9日,由于德勤上海拒绝提供一家在美国注册的中国公司的审计文件,受到了美国证监会的行政起诉,面临着被剥夺在美执业资格的风险。与此同时,在美国国内出现了一股“退市潮(Wave of China delistings)”,众多中国公司纷纷选择从美国市场退市,或者放慢了赴美上市的步伐。仅2011年一年的时间,在美国股市被长期停牌和已经退市的中国概念股总数达46家,退市的中国企业的市值总额首次超过了中国企业通过在美首次公开发行(IPO)筹集的资金总额。

估值过低与会计违规是主因

该现象的背后主要有两方面的原因。首先,是因为中国股票在美股市场上的估值过低。2011年,在海外上市的61家中资企业中,相对于发行价来说,其平均股价跌幅为6%,而摩根史丹利世界指数在2011年的平均涨幅则为2%。许多在美国上市的中国企业市盈率倍数普遍低于同行业的美国公司,这不免使那些雄心勃勃赴美上市,希望借此扩大融资规模的中国公司很沮丧。这其中一个很重要的因素就是中美之间会计制度的差异。
如果中国公司将它们之前所采用的中国会计体系转换为美国所要求的会计体系的话,这个过程中有可能会产生一定的系统偏差。在收入确认方面,中国的会计准则只规定了收入确认的四个基本原则:(一)企业已将商品所有权上的主要风险和报酬转移给购货方;(二)企业既没有保留通常与所有权相联系的继续管理权,也没有对已售出的商品实施控制;(三)与交易相关的经济利益能够流入企业;(四)相关的收入和成本能够可靠地计量。美国会计准则中不仅规定了收入确认的四个基本原则,即收款保证、已发货、令人信服的证据和价格已确定或可以确定,而且还分列了多种形式的收入确认方法,在评价收入确认时,还会根据具体的情况来判定收入的确认方法。就资产的交付而言,美国会计准则强调客户认可而非中国所强调的风险与权利的转移。在收款方面,美国会计准则采用的是“合理保证”,中国则是“很可能”。这样中国公司在进行会计转换时收入方面便会有一个很大的降低,进而直接影响了公司的股价。
当然最主要的还是因为频发的会计违规、欺诈行为加深了投资者们的疑虑。为了达到上市的条件,许多中国公司会虚设收入,会计造假。
首先,通过对比中美间的会计准则我们会发现,两者间的最主要的差别来自于收入损益表。其中在收入确认环节,造假比较明显。这一点前面已经阐述。尽管在美国上市需要对会计科目进行调整以适应美国的会计监管体系,但是不可避免的是一些公司仍试图能够借此虚增收入,而且在这个转换过程中的监督很困难,一些公司甚至会联合审计公司来逃避SEC的检查。
其次,美国会计准则更注重公允价值的概念。即在公平交易中,熟悉情况的交易双方自愿进行资产交换或者债务清偿的金额。虽然在中国2006年颁布的新会计准则中引入了公允价值,并给出了公允价值的具体概念,但是在公允价值的实际操作以及协调等方面还存在着一定的问题。
再次,中国公司通过关联方交易来夸大收入的现象也十分显著。关联方交易是指关联方之间发生转移资源或义务的事项,而不论是否收取价款。美国强调关联方之间不管有无交易,都应披露关联方关系,中国则规定当存在共同控制、重大影响时,在没有发生交易的情况下,可以不披露关联方关系,只有在发生交易时才应当披露关联方关系的性质。而且两国间对于同受国家控制的企业应否成为关联方以及是否披露对关联方交易定价政策的规定也存在着差异。

中美博弈?

一直以来,中国的审计披露制度很不透明,而且多注重形式而非实质。为了规范美国证券市场秩序,保护投资者的利益,美国SEC加大了对中国海外公司违规行为的调查,要求那些为涉嫌会计违规、欺诈的企业提供审计服务的会计师事务所提供审计文件,并对拒绝提供审计文件的德勤上海公司提起了行政诉讼。德勤上海据此给出的解释是中美两国之间法律存在着冲突与差异,这也因此成为中美之间的长期分歧所在。
此外,2012年5月10日,中国出台新规,指示四大会计师事务所在年底前将中国业务的控制权移交给中国本土合伙人,并在三年内任命一位中国籍人士担任首席合伙人。在这个本土化的过程中,中国给了四大会计师事务所足够的时间来改革,目的就是将负面影响降到最低,而且也希望借此举来帮助国内会计师事务所学习国外先进的经验,创造一个公平竞争的舞台。对四大来说,这也使它们能够与国际接轨,开展业务时更具有一致性。但不可否认的是这意味着更多的富有经验的外籍会计师会撤出中国,更增加了投资者对中国审计业务不透明的疑虑。

中国急需改革

针对近期中国海外公司近期的表现,为了使中国企业更好地适应国外的监管环境,也为了更好地与国际接轨,建立一个良好完善的会计体系,在5月3日于北京召开的第四轮中美战略与经济对话上,中国首次同意美国上市公司会计监管委员会(PCAOB)的调查人员以观察员的身份在华展开工作,向着中美间的联合审计监管迈出了一大步。
此外中国也应该加快对会计体系的改革。我国应尝试建立符合我国国情的会计监管体系,建立以政府监管、行业自律和社会监督三位一体的立体监管框架,多层次、多渠道的信息披露方式也必不可少。还应该尽快完善我国的独立审计制度,推行会计师事务所合伙制,增强其风险、责任意识。

作者:赵全妹,中美中心证书班2012

Author: Zhao Quanmei
Date: March 2, 2014

Chinese and American Accounting Differences and its impact on the Performance of Chinese Companies Abroad

In light of the poor performance of Chinese overseas companies in recent years, it has been found that existing accounting differences between the United States and China have played an important role in this process. This article hopes to provide some insight and advice regarding Chinese companies overseas adapting to a foreign regulatory environments as well as make a few policy recommendations as to how China can improve its own accounting system.

Poor performance of Chinese Stocks

In recent years, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have investigated a series of fraudulent accounting performed by Chinese companies overseas. According to these reports, the U.S. Department of Justice has begun to investigate financial irregularities in U.S.-listed Chinese companies. On May 9th, 2012, a Chinese company was prosecuted by the SEC and faced with the risk of its business license removal in the United States, due to Deloitte Shanghai’s refusal to provide audit files. At the same time, there was a wave of Chinese companies delisting in the United States, with many companies choosing to leave the American market while the amount of Chinese companies entering the American market has slowed considerably. In 2011 alone, the number of Chinese stocks in the US facing long-term suspension and delisting was 46, while for the first time the total market value of Chinese companies delisted surpassed the amount of funds raised through IPO’s of Chinese companies.

The Main Reasons Behind Poor Stock Performance: Undervaluation and Illegal Accounting

The poor performance of Chinese stocks exists for two main reasons. The first is the undervaluation of Chinese stocks on the U.S. stock market. In 2011, of 61 Chinese enterprises listed overseas, issue prices on average declined by 6%, while the Morgan Stanley World Index in 2011 increased by 2%. The Morgan Stanley World Index covers different countries and industries to display the performance of capital markets. Many Chinese companies listed on the U.S. Stock exchange generally have lower price-earnings ratios than similar American companies; this however has not stopped ambitious Chinese companies from listing on the U.S. stock exchange. Those companies hoping to expand the scale of their financing often face many challenges in this situation. Among these difficulties include the difference between the Chinese and American accounting systems.

If Chinese companies covert their previous accounting into the American form of accounting, this process is likely to have some form of systematic bias. In terms of revenue recognition, Chinese accounting standards require four basic forms of revenue recognition: 1) The significant risks and rewards of ownership of the goods have been transferred to the buyer by the enterprise. 2) The enterprise retains neither continuous management rights to maintain relations with ownership nor effective control over goods sold 3) The significant risks and rewards related to the ownership of goods have been transferred to the buyer by the enterprise 4) Related costs and revenues can be measured reliability. In the United States, GAAP not only stipulates the four basic principles of revenue recognition, which include receivables guarantees, shipped goods, providing convincing evidence of the transaction and price has been determined or is determinable, but also separates different forms of revenue recognition. Furthermore, the form of revenue recognition is assessed based on specific situations. In terms of the delivery of assets, the GAAP method, unlike the Chinese method of emphasizing risks and the transfer of rights, stresses the importance customer approval. In terms of receivables, GAAP applies a method of “reasonable assurance”, whereas the Chinese applies a method of “high probability”. Thus, when Chinese companies enter the American market, the conversion of accounting systems causes a large reduction in value, directly affecting the company’s stock price.

Regardless of these factors, the most important factor is still the frequency with which accounting irregularities occur, while fraud has increased the doubts of many investors. In order to satisfy the conditions of the market, many Chinese companies continue to commit accounting fraud and alter actual income.

First of all, in contrasting Chinese and American accounting standards, the most important difference between the two comes from the representation of profit or loss. Thus, fraudulent reports of revenue recognition are an obvious occurrence, as previously described. Although entering the U.S. market requires accounting adjustments to adjust to the U.S. regulatory system, it is inevitable that some companies still try to inflate revenue. To make matters worse, auditing firms will often cooperate with companies in order to roundabout the SEC’s examination process.

Secondly, US GAAP focuses more on the concept on fair value. The concept of fair value means that assets can be exchanged for the amount at which the account or its liabilities need to be settled between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. Although new accounting standards were introduced in China in 2006 to promote the concept of fair value, innate problems of actual implementation and operation still exist.

Finally, the phenomenon of exaggerating income through related-party transactions among Chinese companies is also a very visible and significant problem. Related party transactions involve a transfer of resources or obligations between parties, regardless of whether a price has been charged. The United States stresses that regardless of whether a transaction takes place or not, there has to be full disclosure of information. On the other hand, Chinese regulations provide that in the existence of common control or significant influence, if there is no transaction that occurs, there can exist non-disclosure between the two parties. Only under circumstances of transactions occurring is disclosure required under Chinese regulations. To complicate matters more, China and the United States have differing views on state-controlled enterprises, in terms of whether they should be regarded as related parties and whether or not they should disclose related party transactions.

Does a conflict between the United States and China exist?

All along, disclosure in the Chinese auditing system has not been very transparent, with more emphasis being placed on form rather than substance. In order to effectively regulate the American securities market and protect the interests of investors, the SEC has increased operations aimed at investigating violations of Chinese overseas companies, requiring those accounting companies who provide services to companies accused of fraudulent accounting to offer audit files, and filing an administrative lawsuit to Deloitte Shanghai who refused to provide appropriate auditing documentation. Accordingly, Deloitte Shanghai’s explanation is that China and the United States have conflicts and differences inherent in their legal systems, which has become a long-standing dispute between the two countries.

In addition, on May 10th, 2012, China introduced new regulations, indicating that by the end of the year, the big four accounting firms must transfer control of Chinese business services to a local Chinese partner, and within three years must appoint a Chinese national as a senior partner. In the localization process, China has attempted to give the big four accounting firms sufficient time to implement these changes, in order to minimize negative impacts that come with low quality audits, but also with the goal of allowing domestic accountants to learn from the foreign system and create a fair and competitive arena. In the context of the big four firms, this also makes them conform more to international standards and be more consistent when dealing with businesses. However, it is undeniable that this implies that more experienced foreign accountants will be required to withdraw from China while increasing investors’ doubts about transparency in the auditing process involving Chinese companies.

The Urgent Need for China to Reform

With the aim of targeting the recent performance of Chinese overseas companies, in order to allow Chinese companies to better adapt to foreign regulatory environments and international standards, establishment of an improved accounting system is necessary. On May 3rd, 2012, at the fourth conference held in Beijing with regards to Sino-U.S. strategic and economic dialogue, China for the first time agreed to U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) investigating officers to start work in China as observers, a major first step towards Sino-U.S. co-operation regarding auditor supervision.

In addition, China should speed up its reform of its accounting system. China should try to establish its accounting regulatory system in accord with its national conditions. Furthermore, it is essential that China establish a trinity of regulatory framework for governmental supervision, industry self-discipline and social supervision in a three-dimensional, multi-layered framework, with multiple channels of information disclosure. Expedient development of China’s auditing system and implementation of accounting firm partnerships are also necessary in order, to increase awareness of associated risks and have an increased sense of responsibility.

Writer: Zhao Quanmei, Hopkins Nanjing Center Certificate ’12
Translator: Tyler Ehler, Hopkins Nanjing Center MA ’13


作者:赵全妹
2014年03月02号

中美会计差异对中国公司海外表现的影响

笔者通过对近年来中国海外公司表现不佳的现象进行分析,发现中美间的会计差异在这个过程中起着很重要的作用。本文希望能借此对中国海外公司在适应国外的会计监管环境方面提供一定的帮助,也对中国如何改善自己的会计系统提出了一些政策建议。

中国概念股表现不佳

近年来美国SEC接连调查中国海外公司的会计欺诈问题。据悉,美国司法部已开始对在美上市的中国公司的财务违规问题展开调查。当地时间5月9日,由于德勤上海拒绝提供一家在美国注册的中国公司的审计文件,受到了美国证监会的行政起诉,面临着被剥夺在美执业资格的风险。与此同时,在美国国内出现了一股“退市潮(Wave of China delistings)”,众多中国公司纷纷选择从美国市场退市,或者放慢了赴美上市的步伐。仅2011年一年的时间,在美国股市被长期停牌和已经退市的中国概念股总数达46家,退市的中国企业的市值总额首次超过了中国企业通过在美首次公开发行(IPO)筹集的资金总额。

估值过低与会计违规是主因

该现象的背后主要有两方面的原因。首先,是因为中国股票在美股市场上的估值过低。2011年,在海外上市的61家中资企业中,相对于发行价来说,其平均股价跌幅为6%,而摩根史丹利世界指数在2011年的平均涨幅则为2%。许多在美国上市的中国企业市盈率倍数普遍低于同行业的美国公司,这不免使那些雄心勃勃赴美上市,希望借此扩大融资规模的中国公司很沮丧。这其中一个很重要的因素就是中美之间会计制度的差异。
如果中国公司将它们之前所采用的中国会计体系转换为美国所要求的会计体系的话,这个过程中有可能会产生一定的系统偏差。在收入确认方面,中国的会计准则只规定了收入确认的四个基本原则:(一)企业已将商品所有权上的主要风险和报酬转移给购货方;(二)企业既没有保留通常与所有权相联系的继续管理权,也没有对已售出的商品实施控制;(三)与交易相关的经济利益能够流入企业;(四)相关的收入和成本能够可靠地计量。美国会计准则中不仅规定了收入确认的四个基本原则,即收款保证、已发货、令人信服的证据和价格已确定或可以确定,而且还分列了多种形式的收入确认方法,在评价收入确认时,还会根据具体的情况来判定收入的确认方法。就资产的交付而言,美国会计准则强调客户认可而非中国所强调的风险与权利的转移。在收款方面,美国会计准则采用的是“合理保证”,中国则是“很可能”。这样中国公司在进行会计转换时收入方面便会有一个很大的降低,进而直接影响了公司的股价。
当然最主要的还是因为频发的会计违规、欺诈行为加深了投资者们的疑虑。为了达到上市的条件,许多中国公司会虚设收入,会计造假。
首先,通过对比中美间的会计准则我们会发现,两者间的最主要的差别来自于收入损益表。其中在收入确认环节,造假比较明显。这一点前面已经阐述。尽管在美国上市需要对会计科目进行调整以适应美国的会计监管体系,但是不可避免的是一些公司仍试图能够借此虚增收入,而且在这个转换过程中的监督很困难,一些公司甚至会联合审计公司来逃避SEC的检查。
其次,美国会计准则更注重公允价值的概念。即在公平交易中,熟悉情况的交易双方自愿进行资产交换或者债务清偿的金额。虽然在中国2006年颁布的新会计准则中引入了公允价值,并给出了公允价值的具体概念,但是在公允价值的实际操作以及协调等方面还存在着一定的问题。
再次,中国公司通过关联方交易来夸大收入的现象也十分显著。关联方交易是指关联方之间发生转移资源或义务的事项,而不论是否收取价款。美国强调关联方之间不管有无交易,都应披露关联方关系,中国则规定当存在共同控制、重大影响时,在没有发生交易的情况下,可以不披露关联方关系,只有在发生交易时才应当披露关联方关系的性质。而且两国间对于同受国家控制的企业应否成为关联方以及是否披露对关联方交易定价政策的规定也存在着差异。

中美博弈?

一直以来,中国的审计披露制度很不透明,而且多注重形式而非实质。为了规范美国证券市场秩序,保护投资者的利益,美国SEC加大了对中国海外公司违规行为的调查,要求那些为涉嫌会计违规、欺诈的企业提供审计服务的会计师事务所提供审计文件,并对拒绝提供审计文件的德勤上海公司提起了行政诉讼。德勤上海据此给出的解释是中美两国之间法律存在着冲突与差异,这也因此成为中美之间的长期分歧所在。
此外,2012年5月10日,中国出台新规,指示四大会计师事务所在年底前将中国业务的控制权移交给中国本土合伙人,并在三年内任命一位中国籍人士担任首席合伙人。在这个本土化的过程中,中国给了四大会计师事务所足够的时间来改革,目的就是将负面影响降到最低,而且也希望借此举来帮助国内会计师事务所学习国外先进的经验,创造一个公平竞争的舞台。对四大来说,这也使它们能够与国际接轨,开展业务时更具有一致性。但不可否认的是这意味着更多的富有经验的外籍会计师会撤出中国,更增加了投资者对中国审计业务不透明的疑虑。

中国急需改革

针对近期中国海外公司近期的表现,为了使中国企业更好地适应国外的监管环境,也为了更好地与国际接轨,建立一个良好完善的会计体系,在5月3日于北京召开的第四轮中美战略与经济对话上,中国首次同意美国上市公司会计监管委员会(PCAOB)的调查人员以观察员的身份在华展开工作,向着中美间的联合审计监管迈出了一大步。
此外中国也应该加快对会计体系的改革。我国应尝试建立符合我国国情的会计监管体系,建立以政府监管、行业自律和社会监督三位一体的立体监管框架,多层次、多渠道的信息披露方式也必不可少。还应该尽快完善我国的独立审计制度,推行会计师事务所合伙制,增强其风险、责任意识。

作者:赵全妹,中美中心证书班2012

Leave a reply