I sought to find a copy of the original Ernst & Young report so that accountants might analyze it, but without success. About one hour ago, however, I was provided with a copy of what certainly appears to be the original Ernst NPL report, including the section on China that has drawn so much controversy found on the net and provided to us by the Byzantine Ruins Blog. Thanks BR. 問題になったE&Yのオリジナルの報告書を探して、何処がそれほど誤りなのか、そでないのか を分析したいと思っていたが、なかなか見つからなかった。でもByzantine Ruinsのブログが其の 場所を教えてくれた
All you accountants out there, please review this and let us know what you think. Is there double counting? Is it internally inconsistent? Is it inherently inaccurate? 会計士は、このオリジナルを分析してみるべきだと思ふ。これは不正確で誤っているのか?
<China> China has invested heavily in recapitalizing its state banks in preparation for 2007, when foreign investors will be allowed unrestricted access into China’s banking industry. After a slow start, China’s NPL disposition process has accelerated in response to the plans of some banks to go public and the entrance of foreign investors into the banking sector. But China’s banks still have a substantial backlog of legacy NPLs on their books. In addition, there is the question of whether another wave of NPLs may hit China’s banks, the result of aggressive lending in a superheated property market.
<Japan> For more than a decade, Japan’s economy and NPL market stagnated. But in the past few years, Japanese banks have reduced their NPLs by 50%. And with Japan’s economy finally recovering, more global investors plan to enter the Japanese market. In a sign that the market has matured, investors are shifting their focus from NPLs to other assets.