Part A: Reading Comprehension
Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)
Text 4
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 statements. Bob Herz, the FASB’s chairman, cried out against those who “question our motives.” Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobbying 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 banks’ 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.
36. Bankers complained that they were forced to
37. According to the author, the rule changes of the FASB may result in
38. According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to the IASB’s attempt to
39. The author thinks the banks were “on the wrong planet” in that they
40. The author’s attitude towards standard-setters is one of
Answers & Explanations (答案与深度解析)
试题精解
36. [A] follow unfavorable asset evaluation rules.
【解析】细节题。第一段指出，银行抱怨会计准则制定者的规则（Their rules）强迫他们报告巨额损失，认为这不公平。规则要求他们按第三方支付的价格（market price）而非管理层希望的价格来评估资产。这对银行来说是“不利的（unfavorable）”评估规则。故选 A。
37. [D] the weakening of its independence.
【解析】推理题。第二段指出，准则制定者的独立性（independence）对于资本市场的正常运作至关重要，但现在这种独立性“正在受到损害（is being compromised）”。第三段描述了 FASB 在国会压力下匆忙修改规则。由此推知，规则改变的结果是其独立性的削弱。故选 D。
38. [C] act on their own in rule-setting.
【解析】细节题。第四段中，McCreevy 警告 IASB 并非生活在“政治真空”中，并威胁说欧洲可以自行制定不同的规则。这说明他反对 IASB 在制定准则时“自行其是（act on their own）”而不考虑政治现实和欧洲的要求。故选 C。
39. [B] exaggerated the real value of their assets.
【解析】词义/细节题。第五段首句提到，银行以前的账目“vastly overvalued assets（极大地高估了资产）”，这正是作者说他们“处于错误星球（on the wrong planet）”的原因。exaggerated（夸大）是 overvalued 的同义替换。故选 B。
40. [D] sympathy.
【解析】态度题。作者认为准则制定者的独立性至关重要（第二段），并称赞他们过去在处理股权期权和养老金规则时表现出的“战斗性（combative）”和独立性（最后一段）。然而，现在他们被迫向银行和政治压力让步，作者用“bruising encounter（激烈的冲突）”和“pressure to fold（屈服的压力）”来描述他们的处境，字里行间流露出对准则制定者被迫妥协的同情（sympathy）。
全文翻译
银行家们在公开场合一直为自己的困境而自责。在幕后，他们却将矛头指向了别人：会计准则制定者。银行抱怨说，他们的规则迫使银行报告巨额亏损，而这根本不公平。这些规则规定他们必须按照第三方愿意支付的价格来评估某些资产，而不是按照管理层和监管机构希望它们卖出的价格。
不幸的是，银行的游说现在似乎正在奏效。细节可能无从知晓，但准则制定者的独立性——这对资本市场的正常运转至关重要——正在受到损害。而且，除非银行以能够吸引买家的价格持有有毒资产，否则重振银行体系将十分困难。
在与国会进行了一次令人心力交瘁的交锋之后，美国财务会计准则委员会（FASB）匆匆通过了规则修改。这些修改给了银行更多自由来使用模型评估非流动资产，并在损益表中确认长期资产损失方面给予了更大的灵活性。FASB主席鲍勃·赫兹对那些"质疑我们动机"的人大声疾呼。然而银行股价上涨了，这些修改也强化了某个游说团体委婉地称之为"管理层判断的运用"。
欧洲各国部长立即要求国际会计准则理事会（IASB）也这样做。IASB表示不想在没有整体规划的情况下采取行动，但在今年晚些时候完成其规则重建时屈从的压力是很大的。欧盟委员查理·麦克里维警告IASB，它"不是生活在政治真空中"，而是"生活在现实世界中"，欧洲仍有可能制定出不同的规则。
是银行站在了错误的星球上，它们的账目极大地高估了资产价值。如今它们辩称，市场价格夸大了损失，因为这些价格主要反映了市场的暂时流动性不足，而不是坏账可能的程度。真相在未来多年内都不会为人所知。但银行的股票交易价格低于其账面价值，表明投资者持怀疑态度。而死气沉沉的市场部分反映了银行的瘫痪——它们因害怕记账损失而不愿出售资产，却又不愿购买所有那些所谓的便宜货。
要让系统重新运转起来，损失必须被承认并处理。美国收购有毒资产的新计划不会奏效，除非银行将资产标记到买家认为有吸引力的水平。成功的市场需要独立的甚至是好斗的准则制定者。FASB和IASB正是这样做的，例如，在清理股票期权和养老金规则方面，他们顶住了特殊利益集团的敌意。但如今他们屈服于批评者，正是在招致做出更多让步的压力。
考研核心句型与词汇
【长难句剖析】
1. 虚拟语气结构：
"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."
【解析】这里使用 would pay 和 would like 表达了一种假设的价格状态，对比了“市场价”与“银行理想价”的矛盾。
"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."
【解析】这里使用 would pay 和 would like 表达了一种假设的价格状态，对比了“市场价”与“银行理想价”的矛盾。
2. 让步与插入语：
"The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised."
【解析】分句之间由 but 连接。中间的形容词短语 essential to... 作插入语，修饰 independence，强调了独立性的重要性。
"The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised."
【解析】分句之间由 but 连接。中间的形容词短语 essential to... 作插入语，修饰 independence，强调了独立性的重要性。