Suchergebnisse

"Data Action will offer a model for reading, collecting, visualizing, and putting data to work on civic change. Using arresting graphics and influential case studies, as well as incorporating cultural and historical context, Data Action presents a helpful corrective to standard practice. Historically, data has been used and manipulated to make policy decisions without input from the general public. Data Action asks advocates of big data to rethink how they work by laying out a methodology for more transparent and accountable data analysis. The tools outlined in this book will help anyone, not just government officials, but data scientists, civic activists and hackers, as well as all citizens reaching for more effective civic debates and policy reforms, to shape our environment, economy, public health, and quality of life, with greater transparency and democratic participation"--

Thank you. I would also like to add my thanks to the conference
organizers for the invitation. This is my first time attending ASIL and it
is a real privilege to be here.

In May 2003 the United Nations General Assembly approved an agreement between the United Nations and the Cambodian government (UN Agreement) providing for United Nations assistance in the establishment and operation of 'Extraordinary Chambers' within the domestic court structure of Cambodia.1The UN Agreement is the result of a lengthy process of negotiation between the United Nations and the Cambodian government, with the intervention of several interested states.2The final agreement reflects a compromise between the need to address impunity and the need to preserve Cambodian sovereignty.

The audit profession has repeatedly failed in its obligation to accurately opine on financial statements prepared by companies that trade in U.S. markets. The list of entities that have contributed to the quest for effective regulation of these auditors is long; it includes the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Congress, outside directors of public companies, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), a recent congressional creation. Yet, despite 50 years of effort, the formula for efficacious oversight of the audit profession remains elusive. In 2020, then-president Donald Trump proposed to subsume the PCAOB into the SEC, citing regulatory duplication and budget savings. This proposal could have been summarily dismissed as fodder for a deregulatory political agenda, but reactions to the proposal from those outside the discrete enclave of securities regulators revealed deeper concerns about the state of auditor regulation that beg our attention. This Article is the first in a series of planned articles exploring regulation theory as a path to answering the clamant question: What is the alchemy of effective auditor oversight? This Article begins the discussion by examining the methods by which regulators have determined which auditors would be subject to regulatory oversight, and the extent to which that process furthers the purported goals of more reliable audit reports. This Article establishes that regulatory processes to define the audience of regulated entities have been disinterested at best, and self-interested at worst. This Article articulates the need for a complete departure from the stale, recycled approaches that have been implemented under the guise of improved regulation. A fresh approach with a clear nexus to the objective of promoting fair and accurate audits of public company financial statements is imperative to advancing in the discovery of an efficacious formula for auditor oversight.

While the contemporary view of assets in accounting is of 'future economic benefits', the appropriateness of this definition for financial reporting purposes continues to be questioned. Samuelson [1996, p. 156] argued that assets should be defined as 'property rights' while Schuetze [1993, p. 69] proposed that assets should be defined simply as cash, claims to cash and items that could be sold separately for cash. These notions are not new. Up until the latter part of the 19th century the emphasis in the accounting literature was on the recording of 'property' or 'effects', commonly understood to be things or rights which were exchangeable for cash. The aim of this paper is to trace changes in the definitional concept of assets in an attempt to discover why professional accounting bodies in the major English speaking countries have adopted the problematic abstract 'future benefit' notion, which is so far removed from the simple concept of assets as exchangeable things or rights. It is suggested that in the future financial reporting requirements for business entities include a statement of 'separably exchangeable property' and legal obligations at the reporting date.