| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 會計學系 === 99 === In accordance with IASB, Taiwan’s FASB announced the second amendment to its Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 34 on October 17th, 2008. Although the amendment is mainly for lessening the impact of the financial tsunami, it provides a legal opportunity of the surplus management to entities. Considering the equal release timing between the national annual reports and the first quarter reports, this research aims to examine the possibilities of the entities which might Take a Bath Charges under the surplus management and evaluate the figures of the surplus on the report of the first quarter of 2009 as a way to decide whether adopting the reclassification rules of financial assets based on the revised SFAS No. 34 in 2008 or not.
This research examines three hypotheses. The first hypothesis adopts that the firms, which reclassify the financial assets, whose first quarter profit before tax in 2009 are greater than the pro forma profit before tax. The second hypothesis adopts that the firms, which classify the financial assets, whose first quarter profit before tax in 2009 are greater than the pro forma profit before tax. The fourth quarter profit before tax in 2008 is greater than the pro forma profit before tax. The former one has a much greater range than the latter one. The third hypothesis adopts that the firms, which reclassify the financial assets, whose effect of the first quarter gain or loss of financial instruments in available-for-sale on profit before tax in 2009 is smaller than the ones, which don’t reclassify the financial assets, whose effect of the first quarter gain or loss of financial instruments in available-for-sale on profit before tax in 2009.
The first and second hypotheses adopt the comparative average method using paired sample t-test. The third hypothesis adopts the comparative average method using independent sample t- test. The result finds three hypotheses are not supported which show the trauma of the financial tsunami in the early 2009 isn’t drastically severing. Although the financial related instruments stop dropping, there is no dramatic increase. Therefore, there is no big difference between the reclassifying firms’ first quarter profit before tax in 2009 and the pro forma profit before tax. Meanwhile, no matter whether the firms adopt reclassification in 2008 or not, there is no big difference between reclassifying and non-reclassifying firms regarding the gain or loss on disposal or valuation of financial instruments in available-for sale in accounting record.
|
|---|
