German GAAP, US GAAP, 1965 Corporation Law, Accounting standards

This study is a sequel to an earlier computer simulation of foreign accounting principles, the results of which were published in the Autumn, 1966 issue of this journal.' In the present study, the actual transaction data of two U.S. manufacturing firms, the same data that had been used previously for a multinational comparison, were used in a computer model to simulate prevailing U.S. and German Accounting practices. The aim was to obtain some notion of the different effects of U.S. and West German accounting practices on financial statements, assuming the underlying transactions are the same. The study is divided into five parts:

Funds statement, Income, Capital Structure

Standards for evaluating the performance of outlet managers in companies with numerous outlets are difficult to formulate because. of the differences in the profit potentials of the various outlets. Differences in measured contribution margins among outlets may be explained by differences in the characteristics of the locations and facilities of the outlets as well as the differences in the performance of the outlet managers. Since the location and facilities of an outlet are not controllable by the outlet manager, the effects of these environmental factors should be extracted before evaluating the performance of the manager. For a small number of outlets, central marketing officials can be familiar with the potentials of the outlets and can subjectively adjust for the potential differences. However, for a larger number of outlets, subjective adjustments for potential differences are not feasible. The performance measurement and evaluation system proposed here extends responsibility accounting to make objective intraperiod performance standards valid and operational. The extended system incorporates statistical techniques to provide a means for estimating the effects upon an outlet's measured performance' of the nonmanagerial environmental factors associated with an outlet. Since these environmental factors are not controllable by the outlet manager, they can be eliminated and the manager held responsible only for the effects of those factors controllable by him.

Managers are usually responsible for the control of the level of several process variables, such as cost, quality, rate of output, and so on. The levels of these process variables are known as the states of the system, and they may be represented by the values either of a continuous variable or by a discrete variable. It is assumed that these states can be ordered in terms of their desirability. Some processes may move only from a more desirable to a less desirable state while others may shift in either direction. These shifts may occur with or without the intervention of the manager. The control system is a plan formulated by management to indicate when intervention should take place. Three types of control systems are generally possible. The first involves no intervention by the manager until a breakdown of the process occurs. This approach is to be favored when the continued operation of the control system is less costly than the benefits to be derived from intervention. The second type of control system consists of periodic intervention by the manager for purposes of adjusting or otherwise influencing the process. The most compelling reason for this approach lies in its ease of application. The third approach bases the intervention decision on information obtained from the process. This information is typically obtained by sampling. The present paper will concentrate on this third type of control system. Several components are incorporated into any control system. First, the manager must establish the variable or variables to be controlled. He must

Depreciation, Exchange rate, Price-level adjusted accounting, Asset valuation

Journal Article The Enterprise under Central Planning Get access R. D. Portes R. D. Portes Balliol College, Oxford Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 36, Issue 2, April 1969, Pages 197–212, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296837 Published: 01 April 1969 Article history Received: 11 September 1967 Revision received: 22 August 1968 Published: 01 April 1969

Journal Article Intermediate Goods in Production Theory: The Differentiable Case Get access James R. Melvin James R. Melvin University of Western Ontario Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 1969, Pages 124–131, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296351 Published: 01 January 1969 Article history Received: 12 February 1968 Revision received: 12 June 1968 Published: 01 January 1969

Valuation, Depreciation, Asset valuation, Historic costs