Professional Versus Persona judgement in accounting world Essay

Professional Versus Persona judgement in accounting world - Essay Example Personal judgment emanates from an individual based on personal views, values, and opinions. On the other hand, professional judgment emanates from a set of guidelines stipulated by relevant bodies in the respective profession. In the accounting world, the main accounting bodies that govern professional judgment are; The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and The International Federation of Accountants (IFAs). Personal judgment may be biased due to subjective reasoning from the accountant. Cottone, (2001) states â€Å"accountants need to move from psychologically based ethical decision-making models to socially constructed decision-making models.† Ethical issues that arise in accounting ought to be handled in objective reasoning (professional judgment) as opposed to empathetic and irrational reasoning (personal judgment). There are numerous users of financial information (managers, investors, lenders, employees, and shareholders). It is prudent that accountants apply the accounting guidelines in line with the Code of Professional Conduct stipulated by AICPA to put the interests of all users of financial information into consideration. In a situation whereby an accountant applies personal judgment to solve an ethical concern, he or she may end up favoring one party. Such acts may be considered discriminatory and may lead to legal action being taken against such accountants. All acco untants should bear in mind that â€Å"professional judgment results in wisdom from experiences being applied in ethical decision-making processes† (Lehr and Sumarah

JPMorgan Chase Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 5

JPMorgan Chase - Essay Example The Commission enforces its authority also by bringing â€Å"civil enforcement actions† against those who violate the securities laws (SEC, n.d.). On the other hand, the SEC as an overseer, watches over â€Å"the key participants in the securities world,† which include â€Å"securities exchanges, securities brokers and dealers, investment advisors, and mutual funds† and heads in advancing â€Å"the disclosure of important market-related information, maintaining fair dealing, and protecting against fraud† (SEC, n.d.). The SEC also persistently works with the participants of the major market as well as investors in the securities markets to take note of their concerns and experiences (SEC, n.d.). The primary responsibilities of the Commission include: interpreting and enforcing â€Å"federal securities laws†; issuing â€Å"new rules and amending existing rules†; overseeing the examination of â€Å"securities firms, brokers, investment advisers , and ratings agencies†; overseeing â€Å"private regulatory organizations in the securities, accounting, and auditing fields†; and coordinating â€Å"U.S. securities regulation with federal, state, and foreign authorities† (SEC, n.d.). The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on the other hand, is mandated â€Å"to regulate commodity futures and option markets in the United States† (US CFTC, n.d.). ... 2. Determine the elements of a valid contract, and discuss how consumers and banks each have a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the banking relationship. The elements of a valid contract are â€Å"parties competent to contract, a proper or lawful subject matter, consideration, mutuality of agreement or assent, and mutuality of obligation† (Henke v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 83 F.3d 1445 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Foundation Telecommunications, Inc. v. Moe Studio, Inc., 341 Ark. 231, 16 S.W.3d 531 (2000); Mallory v. City of Detroit, 181 Mich. App. 121, 449 N.W.2d 115 (1989); Rhode Island Five v. Medical Associates of Bristol County, Inc., 668 A.2d 1250 (R.I. 1996). It may also be â€Å"offer, acceptance, and consideration† (Gatlin v. Methodist Medical Center, Inc., 772 So. 2d 1023 (Miss. 2000); Sauner v. Public Service Authority of South Carolina, 354 S.C. 397, 581 S.E.2d 161 (2003); Shaw v. Smith, 964 P.2d 428 (Wyo. 1998). In every contract, there is always â€Å"an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing† (Lloyd Noland Foundation, Inc. v. City of Fairfield Healthcare Authority, 837 So. 2d 253 (Ala. 2002); Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, 201 Ariz. 474, 38 P.3d 12 (2002), as corrected, (Apr. 9, 2002)), where â€Å"neither party shall do anything† which would destroy or injure â€Å"the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract† (Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. v. PBL Consultants, 136 Ariz. 415, 666 P.2d 515 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1983); Okun v. Morton, 203 Cal. App. 3d 805, 250 Cal. Rptr. 220 (2d Dist. 1988); Dunfee v. Baskin-Robbins, Inc., 221 Mont. 447, 720 P.2d 1148 (1986); Spanish Oaks, Inc. v.