Abstract Reviews the book "Disclosure of Forecasts."

Abstract This article presents an analysis of Accounting Principles Board Statement 4. The statement attempts to provide a structure that can be used in approaching some of the vexing practical problems that have been plaguing the profession in recent years. The objectives set forth in the statement are interesting, aspire to completeness and could lead to considerable change in financial accounting in the future. And the description of present generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) is the first description of our present situation that is both systematic and authoritative. Because of these and other features and because it is ambitious in scope theorist should find much in Statement to analyze and discuss. The developmental purpose is to pro vide a basis for guiding the future development of financial accounting. The statement has implicit purposes as well as explicit ones. It sets out a frame work that the Board wants to test in the marketplace of ideas. The statement also sets out a tentative list of objectives of financial accounting that needs testing and development in the crucible of heated discussion. Finally, the statement serves the important function of calling the Board it- self back to a more fundamental approach.

Abstract The article examines the way in which antitrust matters are handled in financial reporting. The reports of two major companies, General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Corp., are chosen. Examination is limited to the published annual reports of the companies. Since disclosures were similar up until the time that losses were actually recorded, both companies are treated together in 1939, 1960, and 1961. After that, reporting diverged so both companies are dealt with separately in 1962, 1963, and 1964. In 1960 both companies had already pleaded guilty on the various actions in the antitrust suits. The record of their approach to the problem should lead one to certain conclusions as to the adequacy of their response to this reporting challenge. The differences in treatment are considerable and indicate clearly the possible diversity in present accounting practice. The way in which the reporting challenge was met by these two companies indicates a wide diversity in accounting practice and suggests a lack of imagination in dealing with a problem that involves some complex questions of disclosure and reporting.

Abstract The article criticizes a work of R. J. Chambers that provides an outstanding and provocative contribution to the development of accounting theory. The criticism involves a brief review of the relevant parts of Chambers' system, a technical discussion of the requirement of additivity in measurement, a discussion of whether Chambers' chosen property fits this technical requirement, and a more general discussion of the implications of the criticism. The authors conclude, for two reasons, that current cash equivalent is a nonadditive property. First, it is nonadditive because summation of the realizable prices of individual assets presumes independent sales of those assets and therefore does not involve a mode of combination. Second, it allows the independent sale of assets as a mode of combination and proceeds to question its possible artificiality

Abstract Presents a reply to Vickrey's comment on the study on the additivity of current cash equivalent. Rejection of the possibility that CCE could be defined as numerosity; Argument that purchasing power is nonadditive; Recommendations for future research.

Reviews the book "Theory of the Measurement of Enterprise Income," by Robert R. Sterling.