瑞典大学论文代写：会计
现在，考虑到范围和限制的背景，可以将“国际会计准则第37号”中对谨慎性的理解纳入考虑范围。与传统会计模型的比较受到审查，因为研究人员如何认为37并非有意向保守主义。传统的会计模式固有地被认为是保守的。内在的保守主义意味着传统会计模式在应用和理解书籍和经济价值方面更加中立。首先，理解传统会计模式中的结果有概念和实际的原因，鼓励进行风险分析和更多的意图。这种计算中不包括不对称或偏差。书的价值和经济价值有时在上下文中一起考虑。但是，他们必须被理解为天生不同。
瑞典大学论文代写：会计
它们在概念上是不同的，经济学中的保守主义只能从这种差异中获得。但是，IAS 37被研究人员批评为错过了这种保守的观点。国际会计准则的抽象方式是从它的框架中消除了审慎的倾向。会计制定本身实际上已经不再考虑应该是会计的基石。批评者指出，基于许多因素，谨慎性被删除。他们认为，这种谨慎的排除是造成基于机构和合同问题的原因。在这项工作中，这种谨慎的声明实际上是否会导致问题的解决不在分析中，只有那些导致研究人员声称IAS 37不够谨慎的问题才在此处介绍。
瑞典大学论文代写：会计
Now, given the background on scope and limitations, an understanding of prudence as exercised in the IAS 37 can be brought into the picture. A comparison to the traditional accounting model comes into scrutiny because of how researchers believe the 37 does not by intention tend towards conservatism. The traditional accounting model is considered to be conservative inherently. By inherent conservatism, what is meant is that the traditional accounting model is more neutral in its applications and understanding of book and economic values. Firstly, there are conceptual and practical reasons for understanding outcomes in the traditional accounting model that encourages risk analysis and more by intentions. No asymmetry or bias is included in such calculations. Book value and economic value are sometimes considered together in context. However, they have to be understood as being inherently different.
瑞典大学论文代写：会计
They are conceptually different and conservatism in economics is understood to draw from this difference only. However, the IAS 37 is critiqued by researchers as having missed this conservative viewpoint. The IAS is drawn in a way that it has removed this tendency toward prudence from its very framework. What should have been the cornerstone of accounting is in fact no longer considered in the accounting formulations itself. Critics state that prudence is removed based on a number of factors. They believe this removal of prudence is what contributes towards agency based and contracting issues. Whether this avowal of prudence will actually result in the removal of problems is not being analyzed in this work, only those issues that cause researchers to allege that the IAS 37 is not prudent enough is only presented here.
