‘Fair Value’ of Core Deposits in the EU version of IFRS: A Critical Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 312-325
Author(s):  
Josef Jílek
2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 205-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chinmoy Ghosh ◽  
Mingwei Liang ◽  
Milena T Petrova
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (11) ◽  
pp. 1505-1521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Fritsche ◽  
Magdi Elsallab ◽  
Michaela Schaden ◽  
Spencer Phillips Hey ◽  
Mohamed Abou-El-Enein

2019 ◽  
Vol 131 ◽  
pp. 104994 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendi Fang ◽  
Ying Peng ◽  
Derek Muir ◽  
Jun Lin ◽  
Xiaowei Zhang

Oryx ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Wehnelt ◽  
Roger Wilkinson

Rees (2005) states in his critical review of the EC Zoos Directive that ‘zoos have no incentive to undertake conservation research because they can legitimately ignore this requirement providing they carry out an alternative conservation measure. Zoos therefore can comply with the EU Zoos Directive by doing nothing.’ Zoo conservation took a major step forward when the Council of EC Environment Ministers agreed in 1998 to an EC Zoos Directive to strengthen the conservation role of zoos. The Directive came into force in 1999 and requires that all Member States set up national systems for the licensing and inspection of zoos. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 already implements many of the measures in the Directive, including the provision of proper accommodation and care for the animals, keeping up to date records, and taking appropriate measures to prevent escapes. But the requirements that zoos participate in conservation and education activities are new. Although many zoos already participate, the new legislation has made this a statutory requirement. Each European country is now responsible for enforcing the EU Directive with their national zoos. The Directive needs to be general because it applies to animal collections of very different sizes and structures. It cannot be expected that the Directive sets standards higher than is achievable for its smallest members.


2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 747-750
Author(s):  
Collins Ngwakwe

There is a preponderance of criticism in the literature about the EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). This paper adopts a neutral stance to present some of these criticisms. The approach is a critical review that culminates in a suggested research agenda. A deduction from critical literature is critic’s censure of EU-ACP EPA apparent coercive posture, described as not meeting developmental expectations both in previous and current agreement. However, some literature avows that EU-ACP EPA has some benefits to EPA, but opines that institutional problems such as corruption in some ACP countries are a hindrance to the realisation of benefits from EPA. Accordingly, the paper suggests agenda for further research as follows: can it be conclusive that the ACP countries have not benefited from EU-ACP agreements thus far and how has corruption in the ACP countries hindered the realisation of intended benefits from EU-ACP agreements?


2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1and2) ◽  
pp. 20
Author(s):  
Oege Pennin ◽  
Martijn J. Van den Assem ◽  
Remco C.J. Zwinkels

We review the European practice of fair value settlement of stock options after a successful takeover bid. We argue on both fundamental and practical grounds that the inherent complexity, arbitrariness and inaccuracy of fair value calculations call for replacement by intrinsic value settlement. This alternative is simple, transparent, well-defined, and common practice at other exchanges


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document