It is a pleasure to participate in a small way in the effort you are putting forth-towards gaining a greater understanding of the accounting process-all of which will contribute importantly to the development of sound accounting principles. Too many discussions of accounting principles and too many decisions about accounting principles have been made in a vacuum or on the grounds of expediency. They have been made without the benefit of empirical evidence-evidence systematically researched, evidence rigorously interpreted. I know that you would agree with me that we should have no illusions concerning the speed with which measurable progress in accounting principles can be made. But it is nonetheless encouraging to see that beginnings are being made in empirical research in accounting, witnessed by the discussions that are being held here at the University. I am convinced that, in the long run, only by this kind of effort can continued progress in developing accounting principles be accomplished. Although I have had only a brief chance to review some of the papers you are discussing, I have seen enough to want sincerely to encourage you to continue these fine efforts. For the past few years I have been concerned, as some of you have surely been, over the questions and criticisms about accounting principles appearing in the press; about the doubts which such comments must arouse among people outside our profession; and about the possibly divisive influences which could develop within the profession over the issues which seem to be of concern. There is no need to go over again what is familiar ground to all of you. Let me just recall to your minds such a statement as that made by the

Auditor training, England, Wales

On the occasion of a corporate merger or combination, the most important issue which arises is the restatement of assets from historical costs to current values. Whether to make such an adjustment is the primary decision to be made before any other major question is considered.' Thus far, the usual approach to this problem has been to base the decision upon whether the combination qualifies as a or a of interests. The first expression refers to situations in which assets of certain parties to the transaction are deemed, in effect, to have been purchased by the surviving entity or interests, with the implied conclusion that they should be restated to current market figures. In the second case, assets are conceived as being merged, without any inference of a transfer or thereof. The implication in this latter case is, of course, that the merged assets should retain the bases of accountability previously adopted by the constituent firms, and this normally means unamortized historical costs. Thus, the attention of accountants has been given primarily to the development of rational criteria for distinguishing between the purchase and the pooling situation, as those two terms have been defined. The continuity of individual stock ownership, management, business objectives, and the business enterprise have all been postulated as appropriate guidelines, together with such other considerations as the relative sizes

Institutional differences in accounting, Inventories, PPE

Journal Article The Two Sector Growth Model with Fixed Coefficients Get access W. M. Corden W. M. Corden Australian National University, Canberra Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 33, Issue 3, July 1966, Pages 253–262, https://doi.org/10.2307/2974419 Published: 01 July 1966

The control of profit-making corporations long has been the subject of investigation and discussion, and in recent years same of this interest has shifted to the control of corporations by financial institution. Very little attention has been paid to the control of mutually-owned fiduciaries. This article reports a preliminary investigation of the control of associations in the savings and loan industry.