代写论文：资产审查
例如，考虑到CGU的资产受到了损害的审查。审查是在20X1年12月31日进行的。在减值评估时，评估价值估计在C6,500,000左右。这并不包括任何重组条款。现在管理批准的预算，在这个案例中会包括大约C350,000的费用。计算了一年C100,000的成本。在竞争市场状态下，零增长率假定，根据IAS识别的条款文件中是否包含重组计算，减值计算将会有所不同。假定没有规定承认允许的重组费用，(根据审查的时间是12月31日)，然后根据国际会计准则第37条，重组的费用和收益被剥夺。CGU在这一点上的价值将超过重组前的价值6273,000元。
代写论文：资产审查
这里创建了c227000的减值损失。因此，使用的值不符合标准，因此有必要使用一个非常有效的框架。IASB成员指出，当涉及到风险管理和分析时，IAS37相当陈旧。对敏感分析领域的最佳思考需要包括在内，在这一点上，它是缺失的。然而，IAS 37第43段包含“审慎”一词，但这仅仅是一种参考。它不以任何方式反映对义务和意外事件的规定执行或测量的方式。谨慎行事并不意味着用整体的方式来进行风险评估。这只是意味着两者都是不同的，在这个解释中也有混淆。IASB成员注意到，如果在市场上不了解他们的实施和缺乏必要的谨慎之间的差异，那么在执行IAS 37的条款方面可能会有一些问题。
代写论文：资产审查
For example, consider that the assets of a CGU are reviewed with respect to impairment. The review was conducted during December 31, 20X1. At the time of impairment review, the assessment value is estimated to be around C6,500,000. This does not include any of the restructuring provision. Now the management approved budget as observed in this case would include the costs which is around C350,000. Cost savings in the amount of C100,000 in a year is calculated. With a zero-growth rate assumes in a competitive market state, it could be said that impairment calculations will differ based on whether or not the restructuring calculations have been included in the provisions documentation based on IAS recognition. Assuming that there is no provision for recognizing the permitted restructuring costs, (according to the time of review which is 31 December 20X1), then according to IAS 37, costs and benefits in restructuring are stripped. CGU value at this point C6,500,000 will then exceed the pre-restructuring value by around C6,273,000.
代写论文：资产审查
An impairment loss of around C227,000 is created here. Values in use are hence not complying with the standards and it becomes necessary to make use of a much efficient framework. An IASB member points out that when it comes to risk management and analysis, the IAS37 is quite old. Best thinking in the field with respect to sensitive analysis needs to be included and at this point, it is missing. The paragraph 43 of IAS 37 contained the word “prudence”, however, this was merely a reference. It does not in any way reflect the way the provisions for obligations and contingencies are implemented or measured. Exercising prudence does not mean exercising risk adjudgments in a holistic manner. It only means both are different and there is also confusion here in this interpretation. IASB members note that there could be issues in implementation of provisions of IAS 37 over time, if the differences between their implementations and lack of needed prudence is not understood in the market.
