critical analysis of ias 2 „stocks”, version of 2005

Clicks: 11
ID: 150406
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #40 of 41 articles by views in case reports in endocrinology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
This research paper aims to achieving a comparative analysis of the two versions of IAS 2 „Stocks” (variants of 1993 and 2005). The research is part of a larger study regarding the accounting processes carried out for the acknowledgement and assessment of the company stock, and the purpose of the study is to develop a new framework methodology for the acknowledgement and assessment of stocks. The research is based on a series of work hypotheses: (I1) IAS 2 variant of 1993 needs to be reviewed according to the regulations and normatives in force; (I2) the necessity to review IAS variant of 1993 derives from the critics raised by the regulating authorities for stock and shares, by the professional accountants and by other interested parties, with regard to the reduction or elimination of alternatives, redundancies and conflicts from standards, and the solving of convergence issues; (I3) the 2005 variant of IAS 2 is the result of a limited reviewing of the 1993 variant of IAS 2, and needs to be further modified.
Reference Key
untaru2016annalscritical Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Mircea UNTARU
Journal case reports in endocrinology
Year 2016
DOI
10.26458/1446
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.