美国代写论文研究之英文经济金融学研究-2
代写论文：Financial Crisis of 2008 vs 1931
The crisis for banking was begun in 1931 because there were disastrous losses in Vienna at Creditanstalt. After this due to crisis in Hungary and in Germany created a big problem to the world market.
Take the case of Ramalinga Raju, chairman of Satyam Computer Services, who made an accounting fraud of around INR 8000 crores, which left India paralyzed and the investors questioning the nation’s moral and financial stability. It was all because of that fraud he did that the stock price of Satyam initially touched highs; otherwise you can see its price now. The company was running into losses, but still Raju made the deliberate accounting error just to keep investors happy about the company’s performance.
Now, let us talk about how IASB responded to GFC and let us see the actions it took. In September 2005, the IASB took the initiative to prepare an exposure draft regarding international fair-value accounting standards. The main reason behind it was to cut down the complexity of the advice on measuring fair value. This draft became the single source of guidelines for all fair-value measurements and increased convergence in all International Financial Reporting Standards.
IASB then decided to publish a paper to summarize its preliminary views about fair-value measurement, which would be drafted at a later stage after discussions. The FASB had already developed its own fair-value measurement standard, SFAS 157, which provided the detailed and consistent guidance on that topic. This draft stated about fair-value measurement in inactive markets and also the incorporate guidance published by the FASB on measuring this fair-value in such markets. It got published in May 2009. It contained all the measures to avoid the consequences of the global financial crisis of 2008. The IASB and FASB, in June 2010, together published an exposure draft of amendments that contained methods to capture uncertainty analysis for fair-value measurement.
And the list goes on and on about the efforts AASB put to amend their accounting standards. And again, it did so in order to help the Australian entities go by their own economy’s standards and not face any risk of the unethical use of the fair-value accounting methods used internationally so that their economy won’t have to again face the risk of a crisis arising out of unfair-value accounting means.
Comments on Financial Crisis in 2008 & 1931
This report says that in 2008 the crisis was less fragile and much more resilient than it was in 1931.
The data collected in 2008 were more than in 1931 because of this it was easy to identify the cause of crisis and was easy to trace the propagation of crisis. In 2008 it was easy to know about liquidity and safety which was an important task than in 1931. But in both the crisis the behaviours of the creditors towards debtors and vice versa were all important.
However, there was a very important difference between the two crises, in the range and nature of assets that were regarded as ‘safe havens’ – i.e. which were regarded as liquid and safe. We showed in Moessner and Allen (2011) that central banks provided much more liquidity after the 2008 crisis than they had done in 1931, and argued that they had been inhibited in 1931 by the constraints of the gold standard.
Due to this in gold standard countries the monetary policy was very strict despite the depression, and countries abandoned the gold standard when its effects became intolerable, notably the United Kingdom in 1931 and the United States in 1933. As we see that countries started to left out the Gold standard and the currency of the countries got depreciated and due to this pressure increased. After some time no one of country was on the gold standard.
In 2008, a range of assets was regarded as liquid and safe, even though the relative prices of assets within the group could change. The group included deposits in a wide range of central banks, including those of the countries with the largest banking systems, and a wide range of government securities. Market participants were much more tolerant of budget deficits than they had been in the 1930s.
Conclusion
As we all know how devastating GFC was, the main point of agenda here was to discuss the role of fair-value accounting on GFC. We have seen examples of US, INDIA and measures taken by accounting Standard Boards, International and domestic, to improve and scrutinize Fair-Value Accounting.
Global financial markets require several kinds of trust to operate efficiently. Ethics are at the very core of an accounting professional. If he/she comes out to be a fraud, there is no way that organization can survive with respect to a long term perspective. If they don’t follow fair-value accounting means in their system, it is for sure that at some point of time they will fall. Can the world sustain then? These are some questions which everybody should know the answer to and they do, but when greed comes into play, ethics go away. Customers are crushed and executives only focus on filling their pockets with lots and lots of money by creating fraud here and there. While the ethics of the accountancy profession have not been argued in the current article, we understand the consequences of not following the above mentioned values pretty well. This GFC clearly underlines how high the stakes become when ethics are relegated and the accounting standards are amended for personal use.
In both the crisis we can observe that the deposit outflows were not the important source of liquidity pressure on banks: In 1931 it was a problem of central banks from Europe was to accept the London merchant banks but in year 2008 the commercial banks provided liquidity commitments to the shadow banks.
美国代写论文研究之中文经济金融学研究-2
代写论文题目：2008年经济危机和1931年经济危机对比
银行业的危机开始于1931年，因为在维也纳信贷银行的损失是灾难性的。在此之后，由于在匈牙利和德国的危机创造了世界市场的一个大问题。
的情况下，Satyam计算机服务公司董事长Ramalinga拉朱，谁做的会计欺诈的周围INR 8000亿卢比，使印度瘫痪和投资者质疑国家的道义和财政稳定。这是因为欺诈，他做了萨蒂扬的股价最初触及的高点，否则你可以看到它现在的价格。该公司陷入亏损，但还是拉朱在蓄意会计差错，只是为了让投资者对公司的业绩感到高兴。
现在，让我们来谈谈国际会计准则委员会如何回应全球金融危机，让我们看到了行动。 2005年9月，国际会计准则委员会主动准备一个关于国际公允价值会计准则的征求意见稿。它背后的主要原因是削减计量公允价值的复杂性的意见。该草案成为公平价值计量准则的单一来源，并增加所有国际财务报告准则的趋同。
国际会计准则委员会决定发表一篇论文，总结有关公允价值计量，这将在稍后阶段讨论之后，起草了初步意见。 FASB已经开发了自己的公允价值计量标准，SFAS 157，它提供了有关该主题的详细和一致的指导。该草案还规定在不活跃市场公允价值计量，也包括测量在这样的市场公允价值由美国财务会计准则委员会（FASB）发布的指导。它得到了2009年5月出版。它包含所有的措施，以避免2008年的全球金融危机所带来的后果。国际会计准则理事会和美国财务会计准则委员会，2010年6月，公布征求意见稿的修订包含公允价值计量不确定性分析的方法来捕获。
这样的例子不胜枚举AASB把修改会计准则的努力。再次，它这样做是为了帮助澳大利亚的实体按自己的经济标准，而不是面对任何风险的不道德地使用公允价值的会计处理方法采用国际上，使他们的经济不会再次面临的风险危机所引起的不公平价值会计的意思。
在2008年和1931年金融危机的评论代写论文
这份报告说，在2008年的危机是那么脆弱，更弹性比它是在1931年。
收集到的数据，2008年比1931年更多，因为这很容易识别危机的原因，很容易跟踪危机的传播。在2008年，这是很容易知道这是一个重要的任务，比1931年的流动性和安全性。但在危机中的行为，债权人对债务人，反之亦然是最重要的。
然而，有一个非常重要的区别两者之间的危机，被视为“避风港” – 即视为液体和安全的资产的范围和性质。我们表现出了，在Moessner和Allen（2011），比他们在1931年做了2008年金融危机后，各国央行提供了更多的流动性，并争辩说，他们被禁止在1931年的黄金标准的制约。
由于这在黄金标准的国家的货币政策是非常严格的，尽管抑郁症，和国家变得无法忍受时，它的作用，特别是英国在1931年和1933年美国放弃了金本位。正如我们所看到的国家开始离开了黄金标准，并得到了国家的货币计提折旧，并由于这种压力的增加。一段时间后，没有一个国家的黄金标准。
2008年，一系列资产被视为作为液体和安全，即使本集团内资产的相对价格可能会改变。在很宽的范围内，中央银行的存款，包括那些最大的银行系统的国家，和广泛的政府证券。市场参与者更加宽容的预算赤字比他们曾在20世纪30年代。
结论
我们都知道如何毁灭性的全球金融危机，主要点的议程这里是讨论全球金融危机对公允价值会计的作用。我们已经看到美国，印度和措施所采取的会计标准委员会，国际和国内，以改善和审议公允价值会计。
全球金融市场需要信任的几种有效地运作。道德是非常核心的是会计专业人士。如果他/她是一个骗局，是一个长远的角度来看没有办法，组织才能生存。如果他们不按照公允价值会计是指在他们的系统，它是为确保在某个时间点，他们会下跌。世界能否维持呢？这些都是一些问题，大家应该都知道的答案，他们这样做，但贪婪进场时，道德走开。客户被压碎，管理人员只专注于充实自己的口袋里有很多很多的钱在这里和那里建立欺诈。虽然道德操守会计专业还没有人认为在目前的文章中，我们了解其后果相当不错，不按照上述值。全球金融危机清楚地强调，多高的利害关系成为降级时，道德和会计准则的修订个人使用。
在这两种危机中，我们可以观察到的存款流出银行流动性压力的重要来源，在1931年接受伦敦商人银行从欧洲央行的问题，但在2008年的商业银行提供流动性的承诺影子银行。
代写论文参考文献列表省略
