你可能感興趣的試題

聽力原文： Everyone knows about unemployment. But millions of working Americans are now facing a less familiar and perhaps more troubling problem: shrinking wages. It's a phenomenon that takes many forms. Some workers have had to swallow outright pay cuts. Others have lost their jobs and, in the tough labor market of today, have had to settle for new ones at less pay. Still others—including employees at such giants as AT&T, Boise Cascade and Starwood Hotels—have had to accept pay freezes that, when rising prices are factored in, amount to reduced compensation. To add insult to injury, companies everywhere are reducing bonuses and overtime and eroding health and pension benefits.
The numbers are grim. For the 500,000 workers laid off since January, the average job search has stretched to a 19-year high of nearly five months—about twice the duration of the typical severance package. According to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, 17% of those who do find work—nearly double the historical percentage—are settling for less pay. The net result of the various pressures on pay is in the first three months of 2003, median weekly earnings adjusted for inflation fell 1.5%, according to the U.S. Labor Department. That's the biggest drop since 1991, according to Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a research group based in Washington. Wage erosion partly explains why the Federal Reserve Board openly frets about the threat of deflation, a downward spiral in prices that can cripple an economy by making debt repayment more difficult and encouraging consumers to wait for even lower prices. Adding fuel to the deflation debate, the cost of goods to both consumers and manufacturers fell in April, officials reported last week.
Which of the following is NOT a form. of wage erosion？
A．Pay cuts.
B．Pay freezes.
C．Bonus reduction.
D．Job-hopping.

?For each Question 15-20, mark one letter (A, B, C or D) on your Answer Sheet for the answer you choose.
"Harmonization" is a process of increasing the compatibility of accounting practices by setting limits on how much they vary. Harmonized standards are free of logical conflicts, and should improve the comparability of financial information from different countries.
Efforts to harmonize accounting standards began even before the creation of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) in 1973. International accounting harmonization now is one of the most important issues facing securities regulators, stock exchanges, and those who prepare or use financial statements.
Harmonization and standardization are sometimes used interchangeably. But there is still a difference between them. Standardization normally means the imposition of a rigid and narrow set of rules, and may even apply a single standard or rule to all situations. Besides, standardization does not accommodate national differences and, therefore, is more difficult to implement internationally. Whereas harmonization is much more flexible and open. It does not take a one-size-fits-all approach, but accommodates national differences and has made a great of progress internationally in recent years. However, within accounting, these two words have almost become technical terms, and one cannot rely on the normal difference in their meanings. 'Harmonization' is a word that tends to be associated with the transnational legislation originating from the European Union while 'standardization' is a word that is often associated with the International Accounting Standard Committee.
The reasons that make national accounting standards desirable also apply internationally. Generally speaking, the reasons for harmonization are as follows: (1) It is important and necessary for investors and financial analysts to understand the financial statements of foreign companies whose shares they might wish to buy. They hope to make it quite sure that statements from different countries are reliable and comparable, or at least to be clear about the nature and magnitude of the differences. Besides, they also need confidence in the soundness of the auditing.
(2) The advantages of harmonization are very important for MNEs, because the great effort of financial accountants to prepare and consolidate financial statements would be much simplified if statements from all around the world were prepared according to the same standards. Besides, it would be much easier to prepare comparable internal information for the appraisal of the performance of subsidiaries in different countries. Further, many aspects of investment appraisal, performance evaluation, and other decision making uses of management accounting information would benefit from harmonization. Above all, the cost of capital should be reduced by reducing the risk for investors if accounting can be made more comparable and reliable.
(3) International accountancy firms can benefit from harmonization. They are in favour of harmonization because it is good for their large clients.
(4) Governments in developing countries might find it easier to understand and control the operations of MNEs if financial reporting were harmonized.
The most fundamental of obstacles to harmonization is the size of the present differences between the accounting practices of different countries. In previous Section 8.5 some main differences concerned with international accounting are discussed. Besides, there are several significant differences within the equity class, let alone between that class and the other. These differences go to the root of the reasons for the preparation of accounting information. Further, the dichotomy between shareholder/fair view pr
A．International Accounting Standard
B．International Accounting
C．International Accounting Harmonization
D．International Accounting Standard Committee