单选题 Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it"s just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch.
Unfortunately, banks" lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult.
After a bruising encounter with Congress, America"s Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statement. Bob Herz, the FASB"s chairman, cried out against those who "question our motives." Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobby group politely calls "the use of judgment by management."
European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes its reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did "not live in a political vacuum" but "in the real world" and that Europe could yet develop different rules.
It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But bank"s shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains.
To get the system working again, losses must be recognized and dealt with. America"s new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.
单选题 Bankers complained that they were forced to
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 细节题。根据题干关键词Bankers complained和forced定位到第一段。“Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it"s just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch.”该句关键词为“rules”，四个答案中只有A项包含这个关键词，所以可以很快选出A项。
单选题 According to the author, the rule changes of the FASB may result in
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[解析] 根据题干关键词FASB定位到第二、三段。第二段第一、二句提到，银行对会计准则的批判导致准则制定者的独立性受到威胁。第三段以FASB为例恰好说明了这一点：FASB迫于压力仓促修改准则，它作为会计准则的制定者的独立性已经弱化了，故D项正确。
单选题 According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to the IASB"s attempt to
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 细节题。根据题干中的McCreevy objects to定位到第四段。第四段提到欧洲的各界人士对此的反对十分强烈，他们也立即根据美国的变化做出一样的反应，这里引用McCreevy的话是为了说明这一点：针对这个问题，欧洲应该制定自己的法律法规，所以C项“独自制定规则”为正确答案。
单选题 The author thinks the banks were "on the wrong planet" in that they
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 细节题。根据关键词定位到第五段。第一句讲了作者认为银行on the wrong planet的观点，并补充说明原因(with)是其账户对资产价值的评估过高，因此B项“夸大了自身资产的真正价值”为正确答案，exaggerated the real value相当于原文的vastly overvalued。
单选题 The author"s attitude towards standard-setters is one of
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[解析] 态度题。文章讨论了银行针对政策制定者的敌意行为，而文章最后一段作者写到这些制定者可能面对更大的压力，明确表明了作者对“standard-setters”的同情，所以答案为D项。A项“满意”、B项“怀疑”、C项“客观”均不正确。