Re: [Lingo] FX

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

CL writes:
 > I wrote:

 > > Note that "Japanese GAAP" is an oxymoron.
 > 
 > Oi!  Lets not wander about indiscriminately breaking rice bowls.

I'm simply pointing out, very discriminately, that this rice bowl is
already (deliberately, I believe) broken.  This is a major headache
for companies like Toyota and Toshiba that follow U.S. GAAP in order
to be listed on U.S. exchanges because they can't cook their books the
way their competitors do (not such a big problem for Toyota now, with
its main competitors in the same boat).

The problem is that while there are a few generally accepted
principles of accounting in Japan, mostly things are a lot more
flexible than in the rest of the OECD.  The "accepted principles" are
nowhere near as comprehensive nor carefully defined as those in the US
GAAP or the EU standard (I forget what it's called, not "GAAP", though).

 > And, there are any number of foreign companies who offer larger
 > starting salaries to US-trained economists who have a heavy
 > grounding in accountancy from their MBA classes if their resume
 > says they have an extensive background in Japanese GAAP

I bet the term "Japanese GAAP" is not used, but rather something more
generic like "common Japanese accounting practices".  The point is
that an American-trained corporate accountant is going to have unscrew
her head and rescrew it back on sideways to deal with Japanese
accounts -- that's why background in Japanese accounting is desired.

Also, please don't put me in the same class with "economists who have
taken MBA classes".  I'm a social scientist, those folks are business
strategists (or, more commonly, consulting staff to the strategists).
While both types are arguably useful to society, their purposes and
methods are just about diametrically opposed.  The attitude toward the
"zero-profit equilibrium" is a litmus test.