• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>The 5th International Sympsium for Corporate Governance(第五届公司治理国际研讨会）论文集 >Comparison of Internal Control Between Public Companies of China and U.S.A
【24h】

Comparison of Internal Control Between Public Companies of China and U.S.A

机译：中美上市公司内部控制比较

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Two key elements which resulted in financial fraud of public companies from the U.S: management share and option holding as well as lack of restriction to management are analyzed, followed by comparison between Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 1992 COSO Report, 2004 COSO Report and Internal Control Guidance to Public Companies in Shanghai Securities Exchange, revealing that new theory of integrated framework of internal control has been accepted in China while in the mean time there's absence of legal action against management committing fraud. It is thus conclude as to Chinese financial market and public companies that, i) monitoring of management in public companies is necessary to balance between motivation and restriction; ii) there should be severe supervision; iii) enforcement must be enhanced; iv) effectiveness of internal control regulation need to be verified and integrated framework need to be improved.
机译：分析了导致美国上市公司财务舞弊的两个关键因素：管理股份和期权持有以及对管理的限制，然后比较了2002年的《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》，1992年的COSO报告，2004年的COSO报告和《上海证券交易所上市公司内部控制指引》显示，中国已经接受了内部控制集成框架的新理论，与此同时，也没有针对管理层舞弊行为的法律诉讼。因此，对于中国金融市场和上市公司得出以下结论：i）监督上市公司的管理对于平衡激励与约束之间是必要的; ii）应进行严格的监督; iii）必须加强执法; iv）需要验证内部控制法规的有效性，并需要改善综合框架。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号