Essay from the year 2003 in the subject Business economics - Accounting and Taxes, grade: 1,5 (A), Oxford Brookes University (Business School), course: International Financial Accounting, language: English, abstract: This essay will compare and contrast the accounting systems of Germany and the United States of Amerika. First the single systems, their core concepts and purposes will be introduced. Second, the two core concepts of conservatism and true and vair value will be presented. Both systems will be examined in order to show how they incorporate these concepts and how this might affect the calculation of profits. Where data is available, selected examples from published company accounts will be shown. Finally some short comments on how the systems come closer to each other since several german companies aim for crosslistings in both countries. A conclusion will summarize the main facts. Different accounting systems might come to different results in their calculations of profits. This can be shown by drawing an example from the Siemens AG’s annual report 2000. In their report based on German GAAP (General Accepted Accounting Principles) the net income in 2000 was 7,901 million €. The same calculation based on U.S. GAAP amounts in the F-20 report for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to 8,860 million € (see figure 1). Now the Question is how come this difference of nearly 14%? Is one system more exact? [...] As we have seen in assignment 1, accounting is not a science. It has been developed to serve a purpose. Accounting systems are influenced by several social and economic factors (Radebaugh and Gray, 1997). [...] It seems that German GAAP and US GAAP have different objectives. Therefore we will analyze the two systems in their national contexts now.

Seminar paper from the year 2004 in the subject Business economics - Accounting and Taxes, grade: 1,7, University of Bayreuth, 52 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: Although accounting for company pension schemes is one of the most controversial topics of discussion in the international accounting trade, many investors do not pay it due attention. In future, even more so than now, annual results will be influenced by latent reserves and obligations, resulting from different ways of accounting for pension benefit schemes. German financial statements and those following either IAS or US-GAAP often differ significantly on this point. The International Accounting Standards and the German Commercial Code are based on different principles. Whereas German regulations are dominated by the imperative of the protection of creditors, IAS lay the focus of accounting on a true and fair view of financial statements in order to provide a suitable basis for investment decisions. These divergent priorities are reflected in the accounting for pensions as well. The two main problems in accounting for pensions are the recognition and the appraisal of pension provisions. Eventually both accounting systems face the same problems and each one has a different way of resolving them. On the other hand, HGB and IAS unanimously agree on the fact that company pension schemes that do not require pension provisions, do not represent an accounting problem. The objective of the treatise on hand is the depiction of the difference between IAS and HGB regarding the recognition and accounting for pension as well as the resulting accounting-effects on the balance-sheet. The paper will first try to give an overview of the term 'pensions' as it is used in German law and in the IAS, and then - in the second part of the bases- explain the underlying problematic nature of accounting for pensions. In the third and fourth part the respective regulations, first according to German law an

Written by a team of scholars, predominantly from the Centre for Financial Studies in Frankfurt, this volume provides a descriptive survey of the present state of the German financial system and a new analytical framework to explain its workings.

Europe has known very different systems of company laws for a long time. These differences do not only pertain to the board structures of public companies, where single-tier and two-tier structures can be distinguished, they also pertain to the principles of fixed legal capital. Fixed legal capital is not a traditional ingredient of English and Irish company law and had to be incorpo-rated into these legal systems (only) for public limited companies according to the Second European Company Law Directive of 1976. Both jurisdictions have never really embraced these rules. Against this background, the British Accounting Standards Board (ASB) and the Company Law Centre at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) have initiated and supported a study of the benefits of this legal system by a group of experts led by Jonathan Rickford. The report of this group has been published in 2004. Its result was that legal capital was costly and superfluous; hence, the Second Directive should be repealed. The British government has adopted this view and wants the European Commission to act accordingly. Against this background a group of German and European company law experts, academics as well as practitioners, have come together to scrutinise sense and benefits of fixed legal capital and all its specific elements guided by the following questions: What is the relevant legal concept supposed to achieve? What does it achieve in reality? What criticisms are there? Which proposals or alternatives are available? From the outset the group of experts has endeavoured to cooperate with foreign colleagues, which resulted in very fruitful and pleasant exchanges. This volume contains, besides an executive summary of the results, 16 essays on specific aspects of legal capital in Germany covering also neighbouring fields of law (e.g. accounting, insolvency);7 reports on fixed legal capital in other jurisdictions (France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the U.S.A.) addressing the same questions as the essays on German law. The British initiative disapproves of the Second Directive. The Directive does only deal with public limited companies in Europe, which is reflected in the analysis presented here. It is only concerned with the fixed legal capital of public limited companies, not with capital issues of private companies. The study has arrived at a result that differs completely from that of the Rickford group. It verifies the usefulness of the concept of fixed legal capital and wishes to convince the European Commission of the benefits of the Second Company Law Directive.

The authors argue that the basic premise of capitalism - that companies must be managed in the sole interest of their shareholders - is incongruent with the current situation of liquid markets, profit-hungry investors and chronic financial instability.

Applying the new economics of organisation and relational theories of the firm to the problem of understanding cross-national variation in the political economy, this volume elaborates a new understanding of the institutional differences that characterise the 'varieties of capitalism' worldwide.

In this book, Jayne Godfrey and Keryn Chalmers explore the intricacies of the globalisation of accounting standards - arguably one of the most significant business developments of the wider globalisation process during the past two decades. They examine the key issues and implications of this harmonization of accounting standards from the perspectives of a diverse range of worldwide stakeholders. "Globalisation of Accounting Standards" shows that globalisation approaches differ significantly because countries seek to maintain varying degrees of sovereignty over their regulations. International differences in economic, political, legal, religious and social characteristics also affect globalisation approaches and, in turn, influence national accounting standard-setting agendas. The book explores why countries relinquish their existing national accounting standard-setting regimes to join the global movement. It also seeks to resolve questions such as: To what extent are national incentives altruistic, economic, political or social? Who are the winners and losers in the process? This authoritative book is thoroughly researched and expertly informed. Written by both academics and regulators, it tackles a critical and controversial issue in the globalisation movement. As such, it will be of great interest to a wide-ranging audience including: international, national, private and public sector standard-setters, economic regulators, accounting academics and political economists and strategists.