証券二法と会計専門職(会計規範の動態分析-会計社会学の定立をめざして-,共同研究)

スポンサーリンク

概要

• 論文の詳細を見る

• In the Securities Act of 1933 for the first time audited financial statements by an independent public or certified accountant were required to be submitted. At the same time the powers of the FTC (and SEC since the enactment of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) to prescribe accounting principles and the civil liabilities of accountants were specified. These liabilities go considerably beyond those in the common law of the day. These provisions in the Securities Act have had a considerable influence on the accounting profession. But what role did the profession play on the legislative process with those provisions? The profession did not participate in the drafting bills. As in the case of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they did not. The bill of the Securities Act was drafted by the Frankfurter Group (Landis, Cohen, Corcoran) whose thought complied with the Brandeis school. At the same time, the Securities Act was passed the skillful strategy in Congress of Rayburn, who had sought federal securities regulation for many years. The opinion of the accounting profession towards the Securities Act is reflected in Carter's public hearing testimony, the A. A. A. opinion paper and May's memorandum. Accountants demanded an mitigation of civil liabilities as outlined in the bill of the Securities Act and an independent audit as regards all financial statements to be submitted at the time of security registration. Their former demands, in fact, were almost never incorporated into the Securities Act. Surprised and disturbed by this state of affairs on the leadership of May the accounting profession worked for the mitigation of civil liabilities and the recovery of "powers to prescribe" accounting principles. This continued during the legislation process of the Securities Exchange Act. As a result, as compared with the Securities Act, the civil liabilities in the Securities Exchange Act were moderated and those in the Securities Act itself were considerably mitigated. However, regarding the "powers to prescribe" accounting principles SEC succeeded FTC, so here the accounting profession could be said to have failed. But during the process of enacting the Securities Exchange Act on the 20th March, 1934, the accounting profession received a letter from Landis stating that in essence the powers of the SEC to prescribe accounting principles could not be put into force. Thus the accounting profession gained their demands sufficiently when the Securities Exchange Act was enacted. Because of this the situation at the time of enactment of the Securities Act was considerably changed. At this juncture one point should be borne in mind. That is the accounting profession did not itself desire the federal securities regulation. A demand was made to require audit by an independent public or certified accountant to counter the proposals for federal auditors in clause 6 of the Thompson bill. They endeavored throughout to evade heavy liabilities as a profession. Thus it is thought that it has been a mistake to directly link the effort to improve financial reporting from the second half of the 1920s by the N. Y. S. E. and the accounting profession with the federal securities regulation.

• 日本大学の論文
• 1984-03-20

著者

• 細田 哲

  城西大学経済学部

関連論文

• 〈研究ノート〉1933年証券法(Securities Act of1933)のインパクト分析 : Chow(1983a)に対するMerino,Koch and MacRitchie(1987)の批判をめぐって
• 〈研究ノート〉アメリカにおける会計士の第三者責任について
• アメリカにおけるインフレーション会計基準をめぐる会計政策論的研究 : 予備的考察
• 学校法人会計基準の諸特徴(研究ノート)
• 学校法人会計基準の問題点について(I): 特に消費収支計算および基本金組入計算に関連して
• 証券二法と会計専門職(会計規範の動態分析-会計社会学の定立をめざして-,共同研究)
• 1933年証券法(Securities Act of1933)と会計専門職
• 1930年代におけるSEC(証券取引委員会)の会計政策について: 特に会計連続通牒第4号を中心として
• APB (会計原則審議会)の投票パターンについて
• 社会的選択理論と会計基準
• アメリカにおける会計政策研究の諸傾向

もっと見る 閉じる

スポンサーリンク