罗宾·贾维斯教授 中小企业事务主管

ACCA 国际研究项目

演讲 银行、中小企业和会计师 监管：英国与澳大利亚的比较 正在开展的工作

银行、中小企业和会计师 1 参与调研的国家或地区有：德国、西班牙、英国、美国和香港 选择这些国家或地区的理由 银行业结构 银行业关系 采用的融资类型 融资成本 会计师的作用

银行、中小企业和会计师 2 方法 与中小企业进行200个电话采访 与会计师建立专门小组 61%的中小企业年营业额不到100万英镑

银行作为融资渠道 受访者被问及在过去3年里是否曾从外部融资 仅有22%的人回答是肯定的 除年营业额在5万—25万英镑之间的中小企业外，银行是企业融资的主要渠道（达53%）。 84%的申请是成功的

合计 英国 德国 西班牙 香港 美国 融资（过去3年中） 22 17 19 28 24 向主要银行 53 37 57 66 54 43 百分比（%） 合计 英国 德国 西班牙 香港 美国 融资（过去3年中） 22 17 19 28 24 向主要银行 53 37 57 66 54 43 其他渠道 29 27 14 23 36 两者皆有 18 9 16 20 21 全额申请成功 84 89 81 87 80 92 部分申请额成功 6 3 5 2 被金融机构拒绝 4 7 被中小企业拒绝 1 未知 8

在与银行磋商中会计师的建议 合计 英国 德国 西班牙 香港 美国 就融资提出建议 % 是 49 36 52 67 47 43 否 40 38   合计 英国 德国 西班牙 香港 美国 就融资提出建议 % 是 49 36 52 67 47 43 否 40 38 28 44 不需要 11 15 10 5 13 回复人数 958 200 188 189 196 185 积极作用 328 32 105 83 41 提供建议的比例 70% 44% 69% 83% 90% 52% 所有抽样的比例 34% 16% 36% 56% 42% 22%

监管 为什么监管问题在澳大利亚 和英国如此突出？

澳大利亚和英国的背景 在最容易“做生意”的地方的排名中，澳大利亚排第9，英国排第6 （世界银行2008年） 英国的行政负担：每年197亿英镑（占GDP的1.6% ） 澳大利亚的行政负担：估计在每年110—170亿澳元之间（占GDP的1.3% ）

方法 对澳大利亚和英国企业主和会计师的调研 两个国家的抽样对象都略偏重于雇员数量在50至249人之间的事务所，而不是10人以下的事务所。 抽样规模： 英国：515家中小企业和273名执业会计师 澳大利亚：250家中小企业和130名执业会计师 两个国家的抽样对象都略偏重于雇员数量在50至249人之间的事务所，而不是10人以下的事务所。 The benefit of our bias towards medium-sized firms is that it includes firms which are more likely to face a greater array of regulatory requirements than the enterprises with no employees or the self employed Researchers have also shown that medium-sized enterprises and small firms that are growing, in particular, tend to face the realities of regulations. For example, in relation to employment rights, medium sized firms are much more likely to have to meet statutory requirements as their labour forces are larger and tend to be more diverse. See Blackburn and Hart (2002).

监管是合理的 不包括“不知道”和“不适用”的回答 Respondents find the regulations that apply to their business as reasonable. But with exceptions: UK: Employment regulations – 41.9% Disagree Australia: Tax filing regulations – 25% Disagree Agree Disagree Tax filing Australia (n = 247) 73.3% 25.5% UK (n = 469) 75.7% 24.3% HR/Payroll Australia (n = 210) 80.5% 18.1% UK (n = 471) 79.8% 20.2% Employment Australia (n = 226) 82.7% 16.4% UK (n = 492) 58.1% 41.9% Environmental Australia (n = 227) 83.7% 13.2% UK (n = 498) 73.5% 26.5% Although a survey of this type cannot fully explore the differences between types of regulations, the results are not surprising. On the one hand, they may reflect the ability of small firms to cope with regulation. On the other they may be a reflection of the areas in which regulation is more prevalent and may change with time. For instance least reasonable in the UK is the area of employment regulation – many changes have occurred in this area of regulation in the past ten years (minimum wage, working time directive, flexible working, etc). The ‘least reasonable rating may reflect the impact of these changes. ‘Reasonableness’ may also be a reflection of the values of the respondent. Indeed, work in the UK undertaken by the UK’s National Audit Office (NAO, 2007) points out that, very often small firms support the aims of specific regulations but are particularly disparaging about the regulatory means used and how it impacts their businesses activities. 不包括“不知道”和“不适用”的回答

正在开展的工作 一项亚太地区的研究表明：会计师对中小企业提供支持和建议 在向中小企业提供外部融资建议时，职业胜任能力、信任和职业道德的作用。 收入和报酬：理解自我雇佣的决定 The benefit of our bias towards medium-sized firms is that it includes firms which are more likely to face a greater array of regulatory requirements than the enterprises with no employees or the self employed Researchers have also shown that medium-sized enterprises and small firms that are growing, in particular, tend to face the realities of regulations. For example, in relation to employment rights, medium sized firms are much more likely to have to meet statutory requirements as their labour forces are larger and tend to be more diverse. See Blackburn and Hart (2002).