Information In The Subject

Information In The Subject Line Is What We Want To See Notice How This Makes

Subject: Glover, J. 2014, Have Academic Accountants and Financial Accounting Standard Setters Traded Places, Accounting, Economics, and Law, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 17-26 Post Author: de-identified Posted Date: 17 November 2016 08:26 Edited Date: 22 November 2016 13:38 Some feedback for everyone in the context of the instructions. Information in the Subject line is what we want to see notice how this makes it clear, at a glance, what the article is, who wrote it, what journal (source) and it is in the relevanttime period. It is OK if you DO NOT include the title(name) of the article. Not a difficult requirement to fulfil thank you!This url and copy at the end of the post makes it easy to access the article and even a quick look at the abstract indicates the relevance to Topic 1. It is good how you have interwoven into your structure both sections asked for and not felt the need to simply have two sections which can often disrupt the flow of the points you want to make. Either approach(the nature of the unit!) is acceptable but this way is less common, so good to see in action. Now, I appreciate my feedback inserted below has made a bit of a mess of theoriginal post but that is because there is a LOT in the post worthy of closer consideration. It should be clear from thefeedback there are a few editorial things to tidy up and a couple of things to be clarified or consideredfor inclusion; MOST of the feedback does not require anything more than thought. The improved version shown later should highlight how the feedback might be actioned (of course, each individual would interpret things differently!) the improved version would earn full or very close to full marks. I found this paper to be a very clear explanation of the history and timeline of accounting theories. How ideas have changed over the years and why they have changed and who the players have been. The discussion is based on the two main groups of contributors to thevarying accounting theories(try to name the range even it is either end of a range that way you are more likely to make the connection to the theories you speak of more explicit)being the accounting academics and the standard setters. This is something I had not focused on while studying topic one and understanding how the theories came about and why they had transformed over the years. It seems to me that neither can agree on best practice accounting and the conceptual framework is open to interpretation or manipulation.VERY GOOD expression of a key theme from the unit being illustrated by the article. In this paper JonathanGlove(always make sure you get the author name accurate & used consistently it is one reason why having the full reference provided is useful it is quick to check)suggests that a big issue is that the history and theory of accounting has been almost forgotten and accounting academics these days have become increasingly a-theoretical. It has made me see the importance of understanding how the industry has got to where it is today by understanding the history of the research and the establishment of the committees and associations (standard setters), and the many agendas along the way. One of the recommendations he makes at the end of the paperis for accounting academics should consider(does that make sense when you read it out loud?)being better students of accounting history and thought.Maybe learning from the past will improve the future, it seems to be the logical answer. To suggest the board (FASB) adopt a more positive view of accounting standard setting and academics renew their interest in normative research, it seems JonathanGlovecontemplates a more unified way of building and setting standards for the industry. It seems improving interactions between the two groups would only serve to be a more practical approach to a better outcome than what has been produced in the past. And again from my point of view the logical answer.I appreciate it needs to be brief (given the word limit) I wonder at some point if you might indicate what this positive and normative dichotomy (distinction) means in terms of the different approaches each group seem to be taking? This would provide an explicit illustration from the article back to the main theoretical approaches used throughout the unit. I feel the different reporting approaches take the credibility from the whole purpose which is presenting a(what is the phrase used in law and accountingstandards that encapsulates what you are longing for here the accounts present a[insert themissingphrase] view of ; the point being if you add that phrase it connects your point here back to earlier units of financial reporting, company law and auditing just with one phrase)snapshot of the company or a story of the period within a set of financials. In my opinion it is almost as if the whole process can be manipulated to present what is needed for the user or purpose in question.Ah, yes, this will be explored in the remainder of the Topics.Why cant there be a more practical combination of theories? From studying this topic, it seems that it is the lack of people working together for the best outcome comes second to status or recognition.This is an interesting point for everyone to think about the challenges are about deciding what the purposes are and who the users are; practice and theory offer many alternatives (as you will see throughout the unit) despite the illusion of general acceptance the international harmonisation of accounting and auditing standards offers; there remains MUCH to resolve within the general part of general acceptance. It is fantastic that the first post about the first article chosen is offering such a valuable insight trulycommendable.I have certainly learnt a lot about my impression or view of the role of the accountant. This article points out the subjectivity in this role that I thought was quite technical and clear cut. But in saying that I do currently work with a few accountants and must say they all do things differently. A certain expense will be allowed by one and justified but not by another and justified. Interpretation is the key and I believe the least amount of information left up to interpretation the more uniform or symmetrical the output will be.Really nice articulation of real life practice that you undoubtedly had not thought of much day-to-day well done.I have seen the accounting world in a whole new light from this topic and article.I think you will enjoy the remainder ofthe unit! Improved contribution (slightly over the limit) I found this paper to be a very clear explanation of the history and timeline of accounting theories. How ideas have changed over the years and why they have changed and who the players have been. The discussion is based on the two main groups of contributors to the normative and positive accounting theories and how the pioneers of these theories have changed their view. These groups being accounting academics and the standard setters. This is something I had not focused on while studying topic one and understanding how the theories came about and why they had transformed over the years. It seems to me that neither can agree on best practice accounting and the conceptual framework is open to interpretation or manipulation. In this paper Jonathan Glover suggests that a big issue is that the history and theory of accounting has been almost forgotten and accounting academics these days have become increasingly a-theoretical. It has made me see the importance of understanding how the industry has got to where it is today by understanding the history of the research and the establishment of the committees and associations (standard setters), and the many agendas along the way. One of the recommendations he makes at the end of the paper is that accounting academics should consider being better students of accounting history and thought. Maybe learning from the past will improve the future, it seems to be the logical answer. To suggest the board (FASB) adopt a more positive view (basing developments on evidence of what is actually happening empirical evidence) of accounting standard setting and academics renew their interest in normative research (the way things should be done), it seems Jonathan Glover contemplates a more unified way of building and setting standards for the industry. It seems improving interactions between the two groups would only serve to be a more practical approach to a better outcome than what has been produced in the past. Standard setting is inherently a normative exercise. Nevertheless, there is a choice to be made about whether or not to have a positive orientation. Jonathan Glover sums it up perfectly within this quote. I feel the different reporting approaches take the credibility from the whole purpose which is presenting a reliable, useful and relevant snapshot of the truth and fairness of the company financial results and position or a story of the period covered by a set of financials. In my opinion it is almost as if the whole process can be manipulated to present what is needed for the user or purpose in question. Why cant there be a more practical combination of theories? From studying this topic, it seems that it is the lack of people working together for the best outcome comes second to status or recognition I have certainly learnt a lot about my impression or view of the role of the accountant. This article points out the subjectivity in this role that I thought was quite technical and clear cut. But in saying that I do currently work with a few accountants and must say they all do things differently. A certain expense will be allowed by one and justified but not by another and justified. Interpretation is the key and I believe the least amount of information left up to interpretation the more uniform or symmetrical the output will be. I have seen the accounting world in a whole new light from this topic and article. References: Glover, J. 2014, Have Academic Accountants and Financial Accounting Standard Setters Traded Places, Accounting, Economics, and Law, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 17-26 http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.scu.edu.au/central/docview/1703953220/fulltextPDF/5189601555994EEBPQ/2?accountid=16926 Attachment:J Glover 2014.pdf(91.062 KB) OK The post Information in the Subject line is what we want to see notice how this makes Subject: Glover, J. 2014, Have Academic Accountants and Financial Accounting Standard Setters Traded Places, Accounting, Economics, and Law, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 17-26 Post Author: de-identified Posted Date: 17 November 2016 08:26 Edited Date: 22 November 2016 13:38 Some feedback for everyone in the context of the instructions. Information in the Subject line is what we want to see notice how this makes it clear, at a glance, what the article is, who wrote it, what journal (source) and it is in the relevanttime period. It is OK if you DO NOT include the title(name) of the article. Not a difficult requirement to fulfil thank you!This url and copy at the end of the post makes it easy to access the article and even a quick look at the abstract indicates the relevance to Topic 1. It is good how you have interwoven into your structure both sections asked for and not felt the need to simply have two sections which can often disrupt the flow of the points you want to make. Either approach(the nature of the unit!) is acceptable but this way is less common, so good to see in action. Now, I appreciate my feedback inserted below has made a bit of a mess of theoriginal post but that is because there is a LOT in the post worthy of closer consideration. It should be clear from thefeedback there are a few editorial things to tidy up and a couple of things to be clarified or consideredfor inclusion; MOST of the feedback does not require anything more than thought. The improved version shown later should highlight how the feedback might be actioned (of course, each individual would interpret things differently!) the improved version would earn full or very close to full marks. I found this paper to be a very clear explanation of the history and timeline of accounting theories. How ideas have changed over the years and why they have changed and who the players have been. The discussion is based on the two main groups of contributors to thevarying accounting theories(try to name the range even it is either end of a range that way you are more likely to make the connection to the theories you speak of more explicit)being the accounting academics and the standard setters. This is something I had not focused on while studying topic one and understanding how the theories came about and why they had transformed over the years. It seems to me that neither can agree on best practice accounting and the conceptual framework is open to interpretation or manipulation.VERY GOOD expression of a key theme from the unit being illustrated by the article. In this paper JonathanGlove(always make sure you get the author name accurate & used consistently it is one reason why having the full reference provided is useful it is quick to check)suggests that a big issue is that the history and theory of accounting has been almost forgotten and accounting academics these days have become increasingly a-theoretical. It has made me see the importance of understanding how the industry has got to where it is today by understanding the history of the research and the establishment of the committees and associations (standard setters), and the many agendas along the way. One of the recommendations he makes at the end of the paperis for accounting academics should consider(does that make sense when you read it out loud?)being better students of accounting history and thought.Maybe learning from the past will improve the future, it seems to be the logical answer. To suggest the board (FASB) adopt a more positive view of accounting standard setting and academics renew their interest in normative research, it seems JonathanGlovecontemplates a more unified way of building and setting standards for the industry. It seems improving interactions between the two groups would only serve to be a more practical approach to a better outcome than what has been produced in the past. And again from my point of view the logical answer.I appreciate it needs to be brief (given the word limit) I wonder at some point if you might indicate what this positive and normative dichotomy (distinction) means in terms of the different approaches each group seem to be taking? This would provide an explicit illustration from the article back to the main theoretical approaches used throughout the unit. I feel the different reporting approaches take the credibility from the whole purpose which is presenting a(what is the phrase used in law and accountingstandards that encapsulates what you are longing for here the accounts present a[insert themissingphrase] view of ; the point being if you add that phrase it connects your point here back to earlier units of financial reporting, company law and auditing just with one phrase)snapshot of the company or a story of the period within a set of financials. In my opinion it is almost as if the whole process can be manipulated to present what is needed for the user or purpose in question.Ah, yes, this will be explored in the remainder of the Topics.Why cant there be a more practical combination of theories? From studying this topic, it seems that it is the lack of people working together for the best outcome comes second to status or recognition.This is an interesting point for everyone to think about the challenges are about deciding what the purposes are and who the users are; practice and theory offer many alternatives (as you will see throughout the unit) despite the illusion of general acceptance the international harmonisation of accounting and auditing standards offers; there remains MUCH to resolve within the general part of general acceptance. It is fantastic that the first post about the first article chosen is offering such a valuable insight trulycommendable.I have certainly learnt a lot about my impression or view of the role of the accountant. This article points out the subjectivity in this role that I thought was quite technical and clear cut. But in saying that I do currently work with a few accountants and must say they all do things differently. A certain expense will be allowed by one and justified but not by another and justified. Interpretation is the key and I believe the least amount of information left up to interpretation the more uniform or symmetrical the output will be.Really nice articulation of real life practice that you undoubtedly had not thought of much day-to-day well done.I have seen the accounting world in a whole new light from this topic and article.I think you will enjoy the remainder ofthe unit! Improved contribution (slightly over the limit) I found this paper to be a very clear explanation of the history and timeline of accounting theories. How ideas have changed over the years and why they have changed and who the players have been. The discussion is based on the two main groups of contributors to the normative and positive accounting theories and how the pioneers of these theories have changed their view. These groups being accounting academics and the standard setters. This is something I had not focused on while studying topic one and understanding how the theories came about and why they had transformed over the years. It seems to me that neither can agree on best practice accounting and the conceptual framework is open to interpretation or manipulation. In this paper Jonathan Glover suggests that a big issue is that the history and theory of accounting has been almost forgotten and accounting academics these days have become increasingly a-theoretical. It has made me see the importance of understanding how the industry has got to where it is today by understanding the history of the research and the establishment of the committees and associations (standard setters), and the many agendas along the way. One of the recommendations he makes at the end of the paper is that accounting academics should consider being better students of accounting history and thought. Maybe learning from the past will improve the future, it seems to be the logical answer. To suggest the board (FASB) adopt a more positive view (basing developments on evidence of what is actually happening empirical evidence) of accounting standard setting and academics renew their interest in normative research (the way things should be done), it seems Jonathan Glover contemplates a more unified way of building and setting standards for the industry. It seems improving interactions between the two groups would only serve to be a more practical approach to a better outcome than what has been produced in the past. Standard setting is inherently a normative exercise. Nevertheless, there is a choice to be made about whether or not to have a positive orientation. Jonathan Glover sums it up perfectly within this quote. I feel the different reporting approaches take the credibility from the whole purpose which is presenting a reliable, useful and relevant snapshot of the truth and fairness of the company financial results and position or a story of the period covered by a set of financials. In my opinion it is almost as if the whole process can be manipulated to present what is needed for the user or purpose in question. Why cant there be a more practical combination of theories? From studying this topic, it seems that it is the lack of people working together for the best outcome comes second to status or recognition I have certainly learnt a lot about my impression or view of the role of the accountant. This article points out the subjectivity in this role that I thought was quite technical and clear cut. But in saying that I do currently work with a few accountants and must say they all do things differently. A certain expense will be allowed by one and justified but not by another and justified. Interpretation is the key and I believe the least amount of information left up to interpretation the more uniform or symmetrical the output will be. I have seen the accounting world in a whole new light from this topic and article. References: Glover, J. 2014, Have Academic Accountants and Financial Accounting Standard Setters Traded Places, Accounting, Economics, and Law, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 17-26 http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.scu.edu.au/central/docview/1703953220/fulltextPDF/5189601555994EEBPQ/2?accountid=16926 Attachment:J Glover 2014.pdf(91.062 KB) OK The post Information in the Subject line is what we want to see notice how this makes

Pssst…Are you looking for assignment help?

We have experienced native experts to complete any assignment you may have. Plagiarism Free & Great Quality. (Full Refund Provided)

<< SAVE15 >>

Place your first order with code to get 15% discount right away!

Impressive sample results