<div> <div>Those loans typically contain covenants allowing the bank to demand immediate</div> <div>repayment when liabilities grow unusually quickly, upsetting, for instance, the ratio of the</div> <div>company’s debttoequity agreed upon at the time of the loan. Because the new</div> <div>accounting rules would fabricate trillions in new debt, they would trigger widespread</div> <div>violations of these covenants. Banks could then pull the loan, demand higher interest, or</div> <div>require new collateral and guarantees.</div> <div>Some have proposed a fiveyear transition to the new rules. But this won’t solve the</div> <div>problem, because many business loans are for much longer terms. Pushing the effective</div> <div>date of the rules into the future merely delays the impact.</div> <div>The additional burdens associated with constantly tracking and remeasuring the “fair</div> <div>value” of leases of every kind, from a business’s office space to the photocopier down</div> <div>the hall, will hit businesses, and their employees and consumers, directly in the</div> <div>pocketbook. According to some critics, the accountingrule change would distort the</div> <div>financial condition of businesses by accelerating expenses over a short timeline rather</div> <div>than reflect expenses over the life of a lease.</div> <div>Many private parties have sent public comment letters to the FASB urging it and the</div> <div>IASB to conduct field tests to see how much it would really cost lessees and tenants to</div> <div>do all the work the new leasing rules would require. Congress has asked the FASB for a</div> <div>rigorous costbenefit analysis and field testing to objectively assess the risks of the</div> <div>accounting changes. Neither has been undertaken. Yet all indications are that the U.S.</div> <div>and international accountingstandards boards are going ahead with only minor revisions</div> <div>to their proposal, which may be finalized next year.</div> <div>In 1973 the Securities and Exchange Commission formally outsourced the job of writing</div> <div>accounting rules to the FASB. While the SEC is authorized to seek help from private</div> <div>standardsetting bodies on this issue, the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 explicitly</div> <div>reminded the SEC that these quasigovernment agencies can only “assist the</div> <div>Commission” in fulfilling the SEC’s own responsibility to establish accounting standards</div> <div>for publicly held companies.</div> <div>If the SEC insists on relying so heavily on the FASB, then the FASB must adhere to the</div> <div>same requirements of transparency, public input, and costbenefit analysis the SEC is</div> <div>required to meet. By law the SEC must analyze whether proposed rules will enhance</div> <div>efficiency, competition and capital formation, or whether the costs outweigh the benefits.</div> <div>The lease accounting proposal needs this analysis, but thus far the FASB and SEC have</div> <div>not even begun it. The SEC must increase its oversight of the FASB on this vital matter</div> <div>—or Congress will.</div></div> <div><br></div> <div>내용이 너무 어려워서 그런데 fasb랑 sec의 역할이 뭐라는건가요?</div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div>
댓글 분란 또는 분쟁 때문에 전체 댓글이 블라인드 처리되었습니다.