People often attribute the current financial crisis to a lack of regulatory engagement and a failure of the financial industry to ask for enough government help. But rather than viewing the crisis from the perspective of those who were hurt, many people have been quick to lecture the financial industry for being greedier and riskier than other industries. But the reality is that the crisis shows that the financial industry is just as big and just as bad as the rest of us.
As the recent international financial crisis has proven, the financial industry is prone to crisis just as much as the rest of us. Many people have been conditioned to believe that the financial industry is inherently bad. But that couldn’t be more wrong. There are plenty of good people working in the financial industry who, as they should be, are trying to do everything they can to make sure that their clients are protected and that they don’t make dangerous financial decisions.
However, because of past over-regulation, the financial industry has a difficult time changing its ways and innovating. Many of the same mistakes are being made over and over again, and the financial industry’s inability to adapt to changing market conditions and changing customer expectations has left them in trouble.
Accounting conservatism is a term used to describe the belief that businesses with large endowments of cash should pay little or no income tax. The standard argument is that since profits are generated by investing money that was borrowed, businesses that don’t pay taxes shouldn’t either.
This is a common mistake among those who see the tax code as a barrier to profit. The reality is that businesses always pay taxes, and the amount paid depends on a number of factors, including the type of business, the income level of its owners, and the amount of revenue it generates. Furthermore, there are a range of taxes that apply to different types of businesses, including corporate income tax, payroll tax, and sales tax.
Accounting conservatism is a reaction to the way that the government taxed businesses in the past. Back in the 1950s, when the country was largely a white-owned, conservative population, the government’s theory was that large profitable businesses should pay relatively little in taxes because they were smart and investing their money efficiently.
In other words, they should be able to pay as little as possible in order to maximize their long-term value. Businesses that didn’t meet the government’s narrow definition of a profitable business were treated as if they were gross income-producing entities and were expected to pay taxes accordingly.
This is why there are provisions in the tax code that tax businesses as if they are individuals and not businesses. This is why the “one-person, one-job” theory of taxation is wrong. When someone works full time, they should be able to pay the same amount in taxes as someone who makes $100,000 per year.
There are a number of things that all businesses can do to overcome accounting conservatism. The first is to present their financial statements in a manner that recognizes the company is a contractor and not a corporation.
Secondly, every year, the owners and key personnel of the business should sit down and identify which strategies and tactics worked and which ones failed. Finally, the owners and key personnel of the business should review their company’s expenses to make sure they are justified by the company’s financial statements. If they aren’t, the business should adjust its strategy or tactics to make sure they don’t waste money.
Many people have misconceptions about the financial world, particularly about large corporations and the tax code. Here are a few of the most common ones: The rich don’t pay taxes. All income is taxed at the time it is earned.
The exception is income from investments, which are treated as if it were income from work. The rich don’t pay taxes on the money they earn from investments. What they do is pay taxes on the earnings from those investments, which are then carried forward and used against future tax payments.
The rich don’t pay taxes on the money they receive from government programs. The government distributes money to people through a wide variety of programs, including food-stamps, welfare, unemployment benefits, and Medicare Part D. The rich don’t pay taxes on that either way.
The best-laid plans often go astray, and the financial industry is no exception. The financial system is risky, and even a small error in one direction can send the entire system into a tailspin. It’s not just the banks that can go under. The subprime mortgage crisis is a good example of how quickly the financial system can fall apart.
And yet, because most people are focused on bank failure rather than the overall health of the financial system, they don’t appreciate just how much of a danger the financial system is. Risk management is the discipline that helps people identify and manage these types of risk.
Because so much of the financial system is still based on the past, it’s important for the financial industry to change. To start, the industry should be more transparent about the risks it takes on. In the past, the financial industry has been reluctant to share data about the kinds of risks it takes or the amount of money it pays out. This reluctance has led to a lot of confusion and misinformation.
Transparency around the types of risks that banks take and how much they are willing to take will go a long way towards reducing those risks and making banks more accountable. Beyond that, the financial industry also needs to develop better ways of dealing with crisis. For example, the financial industry should be more careful with its money management strategies. The industry should also be more careful with the money it wastes.
The biggest problem that confronts all business organizations is the inability to respond effectively to changing conditions and changing customer expectations. In a changing world, a static organization simply cannot keep up with the pace of change. There will always be change, and organizations that are too rigid or inflexible will eventually give way to the demands of the market and be replaced by a more flexible and agile business organization.
There are only a few organizations that can take the long-term approach and adapt to changes in an efficient and effective way. These are the financial industry, educational institutions, and government. The other types of organizations should try to model themselves after the financial industry.
Transparency is another important issue that confronts every business organization. The idea is that if everyone knows what is happening, then people will make different decisions based on the same information. That being said, many financial institutions don’t provide enough transparency to the public. For example, many financial institutions don’t provide detailed annual reports.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has been trying to get the financial services industry to be more transparent for years, and so far it hasn’t had much success. Beyond that, the financial industry also needs to be more prudent in the spending of its money. This can be done by enforcing stricter limits on the amount of debt that can be incurred and by monitoring the profitability of each business segment in the company to make sure it isn’t spending money it doesn’t have.