作者： bankr

南海公司是一家身份特殊、业务创新的英国海外贸易公司，实际以金融投资为主业，1713年开始在伦敦股市酿出泡沫，1720年春夏南海股价骤升急跌，股市泡沫破裂，触发政坛动荡，同时也催生了市场监管、政府行为约束、潜在风险控制等现代金融市场要素的公共讨论。后人研究还发现假新闻对泡沫兴起和破裂所起的作用。

南海泡沫破裂，当时舆论哗然，各界群情激昂。政客义正词严地要求展开调查挖出元凶；南海公司董事会成员被批叛国、欺诈，被传召到议会出席问讯。文人墨客以诗歌、檄文，讽刺漫画和舞台戏剧抨击市场和那些被认为的始作俑者。英国财相一度被关押在伦敦塔。

风波最终平息之后，南海泡沫成了金融丑闻的同义词，逐渐又成为经济学一个专用名词，指脱离常规的投资狂潮引发的股价暴涨和暴跌，以及之后的大混乱。

战争、股市和贩奴

要了解当年究竟发生了什么，需要先回顾一下现代金融市场的出现和早期的混沌状态。

据史料记载，伦敦金融市场的诞生跟1688-1697年那场欧洲大陆上的战争有直接关系。那场战争被称为九年战争、大同盟战争和其他一些名称。起因是法王路易十四在欧洲大肆扩张版图，遭荷兰、瑞典、神圣罗马帝国哈布斯堡王朝、英国和西班牙等国结盟抵抗。

为了筹集战争资金，英国统治当局从1690年开始在伦敦逐步建立具有现代金融市场元素的证券交易市场，1694年成立了中央银行 — 英格兰银行，发行了有史以来第一批国债，并且开始发行汇票，即一种带有“承诺付款”的代金券。

当时还开始盛行彩票、年金、股份公司、保险公司，以及各式各样的赚钱理财计划。欧洲大陆上，荷兰和法国金融投资业发展迅速，跟伦敦遥相呼应。伦敦金融市场就在这段时间积累了大量财富，不断壮大。

1713年，西班牙王位继承战争结束，根据《乌得勒支条约》，英国获得向西班牙控制的南美洲贩运奴隶的权利，每年一船黑奴，为期33年；作为回报，英国允许西班牙进入英国皇家非洲公司控制的非洲西海岸所有的英国致殖民地。

这时，南海公司已经成立两年。公司全名：大不列颠商人与南海及其他美洲各地通商并促进渔业的公司， 主营业务是海外贸易，股份制。

泡沫兴起、膨胀

泡沫背后的真正原因很复杂。

南海公司跟政府做了一笔交易，从政府手里买断西班牙南海贸易的合同，然后政府发行的国债都打包交给南海公司管理，每年付利息。

买了国债的人可以把票据拿去折换成南海公司的股票，从政府的债主变成南海公司股东，不再拿债务利息，改拿分红股息。国债不能买卖，但南海公司的股票可以交易。政府则把自己的债主从无数公众变成一个，南海公司。

南海公司的创始股东包括财政大臣罗伯特·哈利（Robert Harley）和一位曾经经营彩票的金融家约翰·布朗特（John Blunt）。布朗特因为创办南海公司，后来还封了爵位。

南海公司与老牌奴隶贸易公司“皇家非洲公司”合作，从大西洋向南美运了数千名奴隶，还得到皇家海军护航。这更加深了公众对南海公司得到政府撑腰的猜测，因此对它的股票更放心、更热切。

到1720年夏天，南海公司的股票被高估，带动大市上涨，其他公司的股价也水涨船高。部分原因是许多新手进入股市盲目从众，还有一个原因是当时法国股市崩溃，不少投资资金流入伦敦，助燃了伦敦股市泡沫。

但是，南海公司向股东承诺的南美贸易活动和丰厚利润始终没有真正兑现，而公司的行为也越来越像一家银行，开始借钱给自家股票的潜在投资者，以维持市场需求，推高价格，巩固泡泡。

史学家爱丽丝·马普尔斯（Alice Marples）博士指出，当时卖给投资的股票数量是实际可以交易股票数量的一倍多，从新股东手里得来的钱被用来支付向老股东承诺的高额股息。现在有人形容那就像18世纪的庞兹骗局。

金融泡沫一旦开始膨胀，在一段时间内会迅速吸引更多各式各样的投资者，包括新手和投机者，股价被迅速哄抬到无法持续的高位，然后遇到最后一根稻草，或因为某个偶然契机，开始暴跌。南海公司的股票从1719年到1720年底，股价飙升10倍，于1720年8月触顶，然后断崖式跌落，到年底跌破初始价。

当时的人们没见过这种惊心动魄的跌宕。

狂欢盛宴结束

据一位古物和自然哲学家威廉·斯托克利（William Stukeley）在《艾萨克·牛顿爵士的回忆录》（1752年）所述，1720年9月，南海公司股价第一次垂直下跌后，“世界正处于极大的困扰之中，成千上万的家庭被毁”。这次股市崩溃最令人惊骇之处是社会各个层面几乎无一幸免，投资巨大的精英阶层成员和机构受打击尤其严重，包括皇家学会，曾担任皇家铸币厂厂长的物理学家艾萨克·牛顿（Isaac Newton）。

但是，也有幸运、精明的投资者在这几个月的股市跌宕中找准时机有所斩获，比如文具商托马斯·盖伊（Thomas Guy）在南海公司股价从峰值跌到一半时出售自己的持股，赚了一大笔，1721年用这笔钱在伦敦泰晤士河边建了盖伊医院（Thomas Guy Hospital），载入史册。

牵涉面如此之广的金融灾祸，议会不能不展开调查，然后发现内幕交易和贪污贿赂的证据，公司几个董事受到惩罚，包括位居内阁的高官。他们受到弹劾，私人资产和物业被没收用来补偿投资者，剩下的股份分配给东印度公司和英格兰银行。负责将国债打包给南海公司管理的财相艾斯拉伯（John Aislabe） 被撤职并一度监禁在伦敦塔。

最后，新上任的第一财政大臣罗伯特·沃波勒（Robert Walpole）通过巧妙的政治手段安抚公众，为王室和金融业止损，而南海公司继续运营，一直到1853年。

丑闻、危机和假消息

债务证券化、政府官员假公济私、投资公众盲从和市场的贪婪、变化莫测，似乎在300年前这场金融泡沫中登场。

英国南安普顿大学经济学和经济史讲师海伦·鲍尔（Helen Paul）认为，南海公司泡沫破裂，究其实质应该就是一桩丑闻，虽然社会各阶层都以不同形式和程度卷入其中，但跟1929年和2008年的股市泡沫破裂导致世界经济危机不同，之所以被如此重墨渲染成金融史上第一次重大危机，一个重要原因是假消息横行，引爆了公众集体愤怒和道德恐慌，即使公众对真正发生了什么事并不了解。

鲍尔指出，首先，这件事发生在证券市场早期阶段。这意味着监管、理论和法规都处于萌芽状态或者根本还没影子，财经记者这个概念还没出现。公众最容易获得的相关资讯就是口口相传的信息，包括无稽之谈和阴谋论。

其次，这件事越燃越烈的另一个原因是传闻投资者可以索赔，补回损失。所以，很多人便夸大自己的亏损。民间流传的亏损规模跟史料能够提供证据支持的损失相差极大。

再者，遇到这类影响范围如此之广又涉及钱财、股票投资的公共事件，舆情必然汹汹，必然会出现万夫所指的公敌，而那个年代最容易沦为替罪羊的是外国人和出头露面、参与金融投资的女性，还有不少宗教团体。

最缺乏的是客观冷静的报道和分析，于是丑闻二次发酵。

牛顿项目研究员马普尔斯博士认为，南海公司的业务包含大量政治元素，这是泡沫形成的一个重要因素，因为在公众心目中它的后台几乎就是政府，而且大量社会头面人物都加入了这种全新的理财投资活动。

更重要的是，这家公司似乎提供了一条从王公贵族到市井小民都能站在同一条起跑线上，共同“快速致富”之路。当时，从国王到女仆都买了南海公司的股票，交易盛况空前。

有过这种惨痛经历后，公众开始意识到市场的复杂性和反复无常。

马普尔斯博士指出，南海公司泡沫的破裂，再加上法国和荷兰等地陆续发生类似的市场风波，把金融投机、新金融投资工具的价值及其风险等新问题摆到公众眼前，推动了围绕市场监管的确立、政府行为规范及腐败风险管控机制的建立的公共辩论。

MMT is challenging the orthodoxy

The theory is called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

It is challenging the neoliberal economic orthodoxy that has dominated policymaking in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and many other countries since the mid-1970s.

The reigning orthodoxy assumes a couple of things.

Firstly, it assumes every country has a “natural rate” of unemployment and it’s unwise to try to force the jobless rate below the natural level because inflation (and wages) will rise too quickly. Therefore, it assumes it’s better to accept a certain amount of unemployment to keep prices stable (and to keep wage demands weak).

At the moment, Australia’s natural rate of unemployment is assumed to be somewhere between 4 and 5 per cent.

Secondly, the economic orthodoxy holds that the national government needs to collect taxes, or borrow from savers, before it can spend money.

Politicians repeat this point incessantly.

When you hear a politician saying the government must “live within its means,” what they’re really saying is the government mustn’t spend more than it collects in taxes or borrowings.

However, MMT economists want to turn these orthodoxies on their head, among others.

What is MMT?

MMT is a school of economic thought and a political project (more on this later).

Its proponents are not shy about their intentions to shake up the establishment.

The people who developed it have been working on the body of theory for decades, quietly, in countries such as Australia and the United States, but their ideas have recently burst out into the open as global leaders search for fresh ideas to deal with the unprecedented economic crisis of 2020, and the lingering effects of the global financial crisis in 2008-09.

MMT economists make several claims:

Firstly, they say we’ve been thinking about budget deficits incorrectly.

They say budget deficits are not always bad. In fact, deficits are often necessary and beneficial. A budget deficit is merely evidence of extra government spending, and government spending boosts the wealth of private sector businesses and households.

They say it depends what deficit spending is used for. Increasing the deficit to finance a war is not the same thing as increasing the deficit to build more hospitals and schools.

They argue investments that will enhance productivity through better health, greater knowledge and skills, improved transport and the like are worth funding, even if it results in a budget deficit.

Secondly, MMT economists say we’ve been thinking about government spending incorrectly.

They say the argument (promoted famously by British prime minister Margaret Thatcher) that national governments must tax or borrow before they can spend is wrong.

MMT argues it’s the other way around — national governments have to spend money into the economy before they can tax or borrow. Government spending actually precedes taxation.

Accepting this proposition is key to embracing MMT.

Thirdly, they say taxes are necessary, but not for the reasons you may think.

They say government taxes can be used to keep inflation under control, to control our behaviour (via fees and levies and rates), and to get us to produce things the government needs.

MMT economists draw on the ideas of chartalism to make this last point. They say governments use taxes to create demand for their own currency — that is, if a citizen has to pay tax then they’re going to have to work to earn the currency to pay the tax in that currency.

Essentially, governments use taxes to put everyone to work.

“At the end of the day, a currency-issuing government wants something real, not something monetary,” writes Professor Stephanie Kelton, one of the highest-profile MMT economists and a senior adviser to Bernie Sanders in both his 2016 and 2020 Democratic presidential primary campaigns.

“It’s not our tax money the government wants. It’s our time.

“To get us to produce things for the state, the government invents taxes or other kinds of payment obligations.”

Fourthly, MMT economists say countries that issue their own fiat currency can afford to buy anything that’s available for sale in their own currency, and they can never go bankrupt in their own currency.

“Fiat” money is government-issued currency that isn’t backed by any commodity, such as gold. It’s paper or digital money that has no intrinsic value. We’ll return to this point later too.

Fifthly, MMT economists say “full employment” is not only possible, it’s a moral imperative. Anyone who wants a job should have one.

They say we must prioritise genuine full employment and governments should spend whatever is necessary to achieve it — no matter the debt or deficit.

Sixthly, MMT economists say the national government should run a permanent “Job Guarantee” (JG) program to provide a job to everyone who wants one.

They say it could be linked to other economic and social programs, such as a “Green New Deal” — a policy advocated by MMT proponents linked to the US Democratic senator Bernie Sanders, to create jobs by shifting to zero-emissions technologies.

What’s so special about fiat currencies?

MMT’s theorists say world leaders still haven’t come to terms with the demise of the Bretton Woods monetary system in 1971.

During that era (1945 to 1971), certain currencies were pegged at agreed fixed rates against the US dollar, and the US dollar was supposed to be backed by gold reserves so it could be exchanged on demand for a fixed amount of gold held by the US government.

But that system was abolished by US president Richard Nixon in 1971 when the US admitted it did not have enough gold to back its currency.

After that, the US and other major sovereign currency issuers (including Australia) adopted “fiat” currencies — currencies with no intrinsic value, that aren’t backed by gold — with floating exchange rates.

MMT economists say this is significant because it means those countries (such as Australia, the US, Canada, the UK, Japan) no longer have to fear a shortage of gold, and that leaves them free to print as much money as they need to fully employ their “real” resources — workers, factories, machines, raw materials — within limits.

That insight is not new, nor particularly radical.

In a speech in 1997, then-US federal reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said central banks in the modern era could issue currency without limit.

“When there is confidence in the integrity of government, monetary authorities — the central bank and the finance ministry — can issue unlimited claims denominated in their own currencies and can guarantee, or stand ready to guarantee, the obligations of private issuers as they see fit,” Greenspan said.

“Central banks can issue currency, a non-interest-bearing claim on the government, effectively without limit.”

Criticisms of MMT

There are many criticisms of Modern Monetary Theory.

But at this point, it’s difficult to tell how many mainstream economists are making criticisms in good faith.

MMT has ruffled lots of feathers. It’s clear some orthodox economists don’t want to cede territory to the upstarts. Others won’t have wrapped their heads around the MMT logic yet. And there’d be some professional jealousy and rivalry behind the scenes.

However, some economists have scrutinised MMT seriously. Stephen Grenville, a former deputy governor of the RBA, being one of them.

While open to some of its ideas, he, like many other mainstream economists, argues it has fundamental flaws.

There’s no free lunch: Grenville says the chief vulnerability of the MMT narrative, and where MMT economists “are a little vague, even slippery,” is the MMT assumption, sometimes implicit, that budget deficits can be funded without adding to official debt.

“The government might get the cash to spend in its deficit by giving the central bank a bond in return for the cash,” Grenville wrote in the Eureka Report.

“But the bond is just a government debt which it owes itself, so in the view of many MMT supporters, the bond could be deleted from the central bank balance sheet by offsetting book entries in the accounts of the government and the central bank.

“In spending the cash to implement its deficit, the government shifts the economy to full-employment … GDP has increased without either debt or interest rates rising. This seems to be ‘free money’,” he said.

“It’s hardly surprising that this is an attractive narrative […] [but] this is clearly wrong.”

Human Behaviour: A major criticism of MMT has to do with the assumptions it makes about human behaviour, particularly about the way politicians “should” behave.

Professor Kelton, in her book The Deficit Myth, says unelected central bankers shouldn’t have so much control over the economy, and the responsibility for economic management should rest with elected representatives.

“We must end the cruel and inefficient practice of relying on democratically unaccountable central bankers to target the ‘right mix’ of inflation and unemployment,” Kelton wrote.

“To build an economy for the people, responsibility for maintaining full employment and income security must become the responsibility of elected representatives of the people.

“Congress, with its great power over the federal budget, must play an active and permanent role in stabilising output and employment through time.”

Cynics say handing that type of responsibility to politicians could be a recipe for disaster.

Would politicians have the ability to know when the economy has reached full capacity?

Would they have the backbone to raise taxes, perhaps during an election year, to keep inflationary pressures down? Would they have the discipline to stop spending?

United States authorities fined Citibank US$400 million over deficiencies in risk management practices and required an overhaul of internal controls at the global financial powerhouse, officials announced Wednesday.

The US Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued the fine, in parallel with a related action from the Federal Reserve citing failings at the bank.

The Fed said the crackdown reflected the fact Citi had “not taken prompt and effective actions to correct practices previously identified by the Board in the area of compliance risk management, data quality management and internal controls.”

The Fed said the issues date back to 2013, but had not been adequately addressed. 

Under the settlement with the OCC, Citi promised to appoint a compliance committee that will provide quarterly updates to the company’s board on actions to improve compliance. Other requirements include upgrades to data collection and a staffing assessment to ensure adequate resources for compliance.

Citi said it was committed to righting its standing with regulators and would commit $1 billion in risk management-related programs in 2020. 

“We are disappointed that we have fallen short of our regulators’ expectations, and we are fully committed to thoroughly addressing the issues identified in the Consent Orders,” the bank said.

“The entire management team is committed to achieving operational excellence and a best-in-class risk and control environment.”

The settlement with regulators came about a month after Citi appointed Jane Fraser as chief executive, the first woman from a major Wall Street bank to hold that post. Fraser will succeed outgoing chief Michael Corbat in February. 

社论 2020年9月30日

尽管冠病疫情导致我国陷入经济衰退，但是房地产市场还是相当强劲。今年首八个月，新私宅销售量达6198个单位，比去年同期只下跌4.5%。其中，在8月份，发展商售出的新私宅数量，创下11个月来月销售量的最高水平。房地产分析师认为，今年全年的新私宅销售量有望超越去年的9912个单位。

另一方面，虽然私宅供应量激增，但是发展商并没有削价求售。今年第二季，市区重建局私宅价格指数环比上升0.3%。相比较之下，我国第二季经济环比萎缩42.9%，私宅价格走势比总体经济表现好得多。

房地产市场表现优异，主要原因是利率持续走低。银行存款利率微薄，再加上房贷利率下跌，吸引了不少组屋提升者以及投资者进场。在2014年，建屋局售出超过2万5000个单位的组屋，而隔年再发放超过2万3000个单位。这些组屋的屋主在今年满足了五年最低居住年限的规定，可以在公开市场脱售组屋，并成为新私宅的潜在买家。此外，在经济衰退下，私宅价格不跌反升，也令一些在场外等待多时的潜在买家投入市场。

但从市区重建局前天推出的新措施显示，发展商以及房屋经纪的促销方式，也可能是推动房地产市场的另一个原因。该局在发给发展商和律师等房地产业内人士的通知书中宣布，即日起限制发展商与买家一再延长买家选购权书，以确保买家谨慎购房。这项禁令也有助于防止发展商与房屋经纪炒高私宅销售数据，并减少哄抬房价的现象发生。

市建局在通知书中指出，虽然选购权书的有效期是三个星期，但是它发现到，有发展商在选购权书到期后，重新发出选购权书给同一个单位的同一个买家，以延长选购期的期限。因此，在新的措施下，它禁止发展商在一年内向同一单位的买家重新发出选购权书，并规定他们预先告知买家，以确保买家在选购期到期时有能力完成交易。

据业内人士反映，一般新推出的私宅项目，有三成至五成的买家会提出重新发出选购权书的要求，而有些选购期延长达18个月之久。这导致选购与最后签订买卖合约的数据出现落差，从而夸大了房地产的销售数据。在目前经济萎靡的情况下，这个落差可能扩大，并影响发展商的现金流与融资能力，尤其是小发展商。

另一方面，发展商为锁住买家而重发选购权书，也将鼓励冲动性的购屋与投机行为。那些最终无法如期完成买卖合约的买家，将在选购权书失效后损失相当于1.25%屋价的订金。以售价100万元的私宅为例，买家被没收的订金达1万2500元。

发展商以及房屋经纪若为了推高销售数据而钻法律空子或打擦边球，只会使房地产监管措施越收越紧。此外，通过延长选购权而吸引那些没有负担能力的买家，最终也不符合发展商以及房地产经纪的利益。在这一方面，产业发展商公会以及房地产代理理事会应对会员晓以大义，并监督害群之马，以减除条规进一步收紧的必要。

当然，买者自慎，买家更应该自律，尤其是在这个非常时期。宏观经济前景乌云一片，失业率以及裁员的情况将加剧。不少房贷贷款者，已向银行要求延付房贷本金或利息。因此，买家在买房前，应该做好财务规划，避免过度的承担。此外，房地产潜在供应量相当大，买家可货比三家，避免受哄抬价格的左右。

政府推出多轮的降温措施后，好不容易才驯服了脱缰之马的房地产市场。但健康的房地产市场，有赖于发展商、房屋经纪以及买家发挥自律的精神。当房地产市场走向稳健发展的道路时，相信政府将会逐步解除降温的措施。

金融机构和政府对加密货币的风险深感担忧–调查

周二公布的一项全球重要调查结果显示，金融机构和政府一边倒地认为加密货币存在风险，主要担忧包括比特币等数字货币有可能被用于洗钱和逃避制裁。

这项调查由智库皇家联合军种研究所和反洗钱师协会共同进行，调查中60%的受访金融机构、政府部门和民间部门人士表示，加密货币是一种风险，而非机会。最主要的担心在于非法使用。

这是迄今为止最为详细的调查之一，旨在反映对于加密货币的全球主流看法，揭示公众对于这项新技术的怀疑程度。

调查结果暗示，加密货币要获得普遍接受，还需要付出艰苦努力，目前世界各国都在考虑如何加强对加密货币的监管。上周的文件显示，欧盟将在2024年之前对某些加密货币推出新规则。

调查发现，加密货币作为犯罪使用的观感深植人心。来自金融机构的受访者中有近九成表示，他们担心加密货币被用来洗钱。超过八成的受访者担心遭到制裁的人或机构利用数字货币来绕过正规金融体系。

调查作者表示，“所有受访者都接受加密货币易沦为犯罪工具的看法。”

该研究发现，来自金融机构及其他民营公司的受访者中，只有五分之一认为数字货币是一项商机。他们提到的好处包括加密货币可以扩大金融服务的接触。

调查收到超过550份的回覆，受访者背景来自金融机构、执法单位、金融监管机构、法务及保险业者，也有来自加密货币行业。

The policy consensus that has guided economic decision-making for decades is being challenged like never before. In a new series, the Financial Post explores the opportunities and unknown costs of the Great Rethink.

It’s a source of some homegrown pride that Canada had a better 2008 crisis than the United States.

The U.S. entered the Great Recession with a lower jobless rate — five per cent in January, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, compared with 5.8 per cent in Canada, according to Statistics Canada’s comparable measure of unemployment — but fortunes reversed in June, as the global financial system started to tremble.

Canada then enjoyed an extended run of stronger employment that lasted until the end of 2014, when oil prices collapsed, sending the economy tumbling towards a recession. The U.S. unemployment rate has mostly been lower ever since.

But if you stare at those numbers long enough, you notice something else. Canada’s jobless rate — the one adjusted to match American statistical methods — was 4.8 per cent in autumn of 2008, an impressive number and one it wouldn’t return to for another nine years. The unemployment rate peaked at eight per cent, and then trundled lower for the better part of the decade before it found a new trough.

By comparison, the U.S. unemployment rate peaked at 10 per cent in the autumn of 2009 and hung around that level for a year before beginning a fairly sharp descent that didn’t stop until the coronavirus pandemic swept into North America. The country’s jobless rate was 3.5 per cent in February and tens of thousands of previously marginalized workers were finding jobs.

Canada’s labour market was strong, too, but not that strong. Why did the U.S., once it found its footing after the financial crisis, crush its unemployment rate while Canada merely trundled along?

There are multiple variables, but perhaps monetary policy — specifically, the Bank of Canada’s cherished inflation target — is partly to blame.

Canada’s central bank raised its benchmark interest rate to one per cent from 0.25 per cent between June and September in 2010, while the U.S. Federal Reserve kept borrowing costs pinned to the floor. Congress expects the Fed to achieve “maximum employment” along with price stability, while the Bank of Canada has been asked only to focus on inflation.

Both central banks did their jobs, so maybe the issue lies in the orders.

Canadian experts at the Bank of Canada and elsewhere maintain that price stability and low unemployment are linked: the former brings about the latter, always. But what if an obsession with inflation creates a conservative culture at a central bank, while an employment mandate forces policy-makers to take more risks? That could matter, especially since some economists think the relationship between inflation and employment has weakened.

Chrystia Freeland will be looking for stimulus levers to pull, and monetary policy could be a tempting one

It’s a question that new Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland might want to ask the Bank of Canada in the months ahead. Notwithstanding everything involved with the COVID-19 crisis, the most consequential decision she will make next year will be new five-year marching orders for the central bank governor.

That decision has tended to be a formality. There has been little compelling evidence for the Bank of Canada to deviate from the mandate first adopted in the early 1990s, when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s government signed off on a relatively novel plan for the central bank to use an inflation target — two per cent, the midpoint of a zone of tolerance of one per cent to three per cent — to guide interest rates.

Freeland’s choice won’t be so straightforward, especially since her thinking could be coloured by her government’s pledge this week to create one million jobs. She will be looking for stimulus levers to pull, and monetary policy could be a tempting one.

The Fed last month adjusted its approach to targeting inflation, adopting a policy regime that will likely see it leave interest rates at zero for much longer than it would have previously. The European Central Bank is also considering an update. Change is in the air.

“This is an excellent time to be considering many of these policy options and giving them some serious regard because we’ve seen such dramatic changes in the global economy and fiscal and monetary balance sheets,” Luba Petersen, an associate professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, said at a virtual conference hosted by McGill University’s Max Bell School of Public Policy this week.

A government that just set an ambitious hiring goal is bound to wonder whether the Bank of Canada can be more like the Fed

The Bank of Canada has done an excellent job of containing inflation, but perhaps it’s erred too often on the side of caution. There is reason to wonder, if not yet conclude, that Canada’s approach to monetary policy has become obsolete.

The Fed contributed to a disaster in 2008 by assuming Wall Street could be trusted to manage risk; more recently, it has demonstrated that it is possible to keep interest rates much lower, and for considerably longer, than most thought possible without stoking runaway inflation.

A government that just set for itself an ambitious hiring goal is bound to notice and wonder whether the Bank of Canada can be more like the Fed.

It can be, according to Douglas Laxton, a former Bank of Canada and International Monetary Fund economist who now is an adjunct professor at Portugal’s Nova School of Business and Economics: all it needs to do is adopt an employment objective to go along with its inflation target.

“Unemployment is the real problem,” Laxton said at the McGill conference.

Bank of Canada officials have sniffed at the Fed’s dual mandate over the years, calling it a political more than economic imperative. There’s a rule in economics that states central banks can only realistically achieve one target: the benchmark interest rate works more like a shotgun than a sniper’s rifle.

“Monetary policy has its limitations,” Carolyn Wilkins, the Bank of Canada’s senior deputy governor, said in an interview on Sept. 21. “At the end of the day, all it can do is affect the price level. How we do our job certainly affects the stability of the economy and that wonderful foundation that creates growth, but we can’t target particular sectors, or particular parts of the labour market. We can only create the conditions for that to happen.”

Still, Jerome Powell, the current Fed chair, has boasted that aggressive monetary policy helped lower the unemployment rates of Blacks, Latinos and other disadvantaged groups. New Zealand, the first country to adopt a formal inflation target, last year gave the central bank the additional objective of supporting “maximum sustainable employment.”

There could be a middle way. Two per cent is a target in Canada, not a ceiling; the Bank of Canada’s current mandate allows it to tolerate inflation as high as three per cent. It has room to manoeuvre.

Wilkins told a Bank of Canada conference last month that policy-makers could consider “probing” current theoretical constraints, in case the real world allows for hotter economic growth than mathematical models suggest is possible without losing a grip on prices.

“I would argue that a flexible inflation-targeting regime as we have also allows you to choose how quickly you want to return inflation back to target,” Wilkins said in the interview. “It’s perfectly possible within our current framework that we could take into account some uncertainty about where that sweet spot was in the labour market before you got too much inflation pressure, and by being more patient you could draw more people back into the labour force. We could incorporate that more explicitly in our mandate than we have right now.”

A dual mandate if necessary, but not necessarily a dual mandate. It could work.

Indonesian regulatory bodies and financial technology (fintech) companies are trying to strike a balance that will encourage innovation in the industry while also maintaining a regulation that ensures customers’ security.

Financial Services Authority (OJK) head Triyono said on Friday that the authority was pursuing a “light touch and safe harbor approach” to encourage what he called responsible innovation, which would prioritize security, customer protection and well-managed risks.

“It is very, very important,” Triyono said in a Jakpost Fintech Fest webinar series hosted by The Jakarta Post on Friday. “It means no regulation violation, for example, and also certainly brings good benefits to society, handling customers very well and data protection.”

Triyono said the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic was a game-changer for the fintech industry as it accelerated the speed of innovation. However, the industry is still heavily regulated with 135 prevailing regulations related to payment — although some fintech companies also provide other services such as wealth management.

Erwin Haryono, executive director of the payment system department at Bank Indonesia (BI), said the central bank was planning to come up with one umbrella regulation for payments that would streamline all the regulations to encourage more innovation in the industry.

The planned umbrella regulation is expected to cover, among other issues, licensing, data policy, supervision and cybersecurity framework.

“Hopefully, by the end of the year we will have one single payment regulation that will be principle-based, and from that, we will have branches — but not as many as we have today,” said Erwin. “It will be very supportive of innovation.”

Bank Indonesia is also preparing other initiatives based on its 2025 payment system road map, including creating a data hub and real-time payment system called BI-Fast to boost the fintech industry in particular and the economy in general.

Indonesia’s economy was forecast to grow by 5.75 percent per year between 2020 and 2024 if it adopted technological advances, marking an additional 0.55 percentage point growth rate, said Erwin, quoting data from the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

In the second quarter, the economy contracted by 5.32 percent year-on-year (yoy). The government is expecting an annual contraction of between 0.6 and 1.7 percent this year.

For e-wallet Gopay, the pandemic has accelerated the use of its recent investment feature called GoInvestasi, which allows customers to buy and sell gold, according to managing director Budi Gandasoebrata. GoInvestasi is a collaboration with investment platform Pluang.

“So, what we are seeing today is a lot of shifts in customer behavior, starting from having to move to online transactions. Also, people are more restrained when it comes to spending and they see more on investment,” said Budi.

“Essentially, all the different use cases we try to cover. And I think underneath what we are really trying to do is solve the daily hustle of users when it comes to payments.”

User experience is key to Gopay’s innovations, including its latest investment capability. But more importantly, “we want to make sure that we partner with a platform that is supervised and licensed by OJK as well”.

Investment in gold, traditionally seen as a safe investment in uncertain times, is soaring as people turn to bullions to protect their wealth. Meanwhile, Indonesia’s financial market is seeing a rise in retail investors as more information is available online to better plan individuals’ finances.

Education fintech company Pintek is also taking part in growing the country’s economy with its innovation in the education sector, namely providing a peer-to-peer (P2P) lending platform for students and educational institutions.

Pintek, which was registered with the OJK in 2018, has disbursed more than Rp 100 million (US$6,722.84) in loans to more than 3,000 borrowers in 28 provinces, according to Tommy Yuwono, the founder and president director. More than half are first-time borrowers and women.

“My dream is simple: I don’t want people to be afraid to take loans when it is productive,” said Tomy.

“Productive loans, especially for yourself, will level up your living standards and earnings in the future. I hope the education sector, parents and students will […] invest for themselves in education.”

Tommy also said the company’s ratio of bad loans was around 0.1 percent, well below the overall non-performing loans (NPL) ratio in the fintech industry, which increased to 7.99 percent in July as a result of the decline in income among borrowers.

Westpac has agreed to pay the largest fine in Australian corporate history — a $1.3 billion civil penalty for more than 23 million breaches of anti-money laundering laws.

But what exactly did it do wrong and how does the penalty stack up?

What are the laws Westpac broke?

To help police and security agencies stop international crime and terrorism the Federal Government passed the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act (2006).

This law places many requirements on financial institutions and other key groups that handle large or cross-border money movements to report certain transactions.

According to the Federal Government’s Department of Home Affairs, the five major requirements are for organisations to:

• Register with the regulator if they are captured by the laws
• Set up and maintain adequate systems to monitor for money laundering and terrorism financing risks
• Know their customers by verifying their identity
• Report any suspicious transactions to the regulator within specified time periods
• Keep appropriate records of transactions

AUSTRAC — the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre — is the Government agency charged with enforcing those requirements and analysing the information submitted to detect possible criminal or terrorism activity.

How did the bank break the law?

The biggest breach was Westpac’s failure to properly report more than 19.5 million instructions to transfer money overseas or bring foreign funds into Australia, totalling more than $11 billion.

Financial institutions are required to submit a report to AUSTRAC within 10 days of an instruction to make an international transfer.

In many cases, Westpac also failed to pass on information about the origin of these transfers, or the source of funds to other banks involved in the transactions.

It also failed to keep records about where the money came from in some cases.

Westpac has also admitted it failed to properly assess and monitor the risks associated with some of these foreign transfers, some of which were with banks in “higher risk jurisdictions” including Iraq, Lebanon, Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Democratic Republic of Congo.

The bank also failed to make adequate checks on some customers who were sending regular payments overseas, and also failed to pick up on payment patterns typical of child exploitation activities, despite repeated warnings from AUSTRAC for banks to do this.

Did anyone get hurt?

In its original statement of claim against Westpac, AUSTRAC revealed it had uncovered a dozen customers using the bank’s LitePay service to make suspicious money transfers to the Philippines.

After the regulator launched its action against Westpac, a subsequent review uncovered a further 250 customers who made suspicious transactions to the Philippines, other parts of South-East Asia and Mexico.

All 262 customers exhibited tell-tale signs of engaging in overseas child exploitation.

There were frequent transfers of relatively small amounts to multiple overseas recipients using LitePay and other Westpac services.

In several cases, the customers also travelled to the Philippines, which Westpac should have been aware of due to activity on their accounts.

The clear implication is that these payments were made for child exploitation, such as the live streaming of child sex or procurement of children for sex, while these people were overseas.

The first 12 customers identified alone had transferred almost half a million dollars to the Philippines in more than 3,000 separate transactions.

When AUSTRAC first launched the case, child protection advocate Hetty Johnston from Bravehearts outlined the human effect of the failure to detect and report these transactions earlier.

“Over 3,000 transactions translates to over 3,000 occasions where a child endured unimaginable, yet preventable, sexual and physical trauma while seemingly Westpac didn’t care enough to undertake their regulatory oversight.”

Aside from the likelihood that Westpac services were exploited by paedophiles, the bank’s failure to properly record and report many overseas transactions could have allowed criminals, terrorists and sanctioned individuals or governments to transfer money into or out of Australia without detection.

How does the fine compare?

Westpac’s fine is an Australian record, not only for money laundering breaches, but for corporate misconduct in general.

The previous highest penalty was the Commonwealth Bank’s $700 million fine in 2018, also for money laundering reporting breaches.

The majority of CBA’s roughly 54,000 breaches related to the failure of its “Intelligent Deposit Machines” to record the reports legally required for any transactions of $10,000 or more.

Gambling company Tabcorp was fined $45 million in March 2017 for its own breaches of anti-money laundering requirements by failing to alert AUSTRAC to suspicious behaviour 108 times over a five-year period.

However, Westpac’s fine per breach ($56.52) is relatively modest compared to CBA (around $13,000) and Tabcorp (around $417,000).

UBS bank analyst Jon Mott said, if anything, the fine was a bit smaller than he thought it would be.

“Although all fines are disappointing, this settlement was lower than our expectations for around $1.5 billion.”

AUSTRAC’s concise statement of claim outlined the magnitude of the theoretical maximum fine Westpac could have faced.

“Westpac has contravened the act on over 23 million occasions, each contravention attracting a [maximum] civil penalty between $17 million and $21 million,” the regulator noted.

Assuming 23 million contraventions at the lower end of those maximum penalties, that would have added up to a potential maximum fine of $391 trillion. Westpac’s current share market value is around $60 billion.

What does this mean for Westpac?

While $1.3 billion is a lot of money, it is about the same as the cash profit Westpac reported in its most recent quarterly trading update — so it’s about three months’ worth of the bank’s earnings.

Westpac had already set aside $900 million to cover the potential penalty in this case in its half-year results, so it will have to stump up an extra $400 million out of its full-year profit.

What the penalties for Westpac, CBA and Tabcorp do achieve is making it more expensive for them to be lax on their AUSTRAC reporting obligations than it is to invest the money to do them properly.

AUSTRAC’s chief executive Nicole Rose said she started noticing that effect after the CBA fine.

“Since the Commonwealth Bank action, we’ve had an incredible increase in suspicious matter reporting that’s come in,” she said.

“Businesses have really started to take this very, very seriously.”

More than one-third of U.S. households with children also report serious problems keeping their children’s education going and internet connectivity issues during this time.

For immediate release: September 23, 2020

Boston, MA – According to a new NPR/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health poll, 46% of U.S. households report facing serious financial problems during the coronavirus outbreak. Serious problems are reported across a wide range of areas during this time, including depleting household savings, serious problems paying credit card bills and other debt, and affording medical care.

Many of these problems are concentrated among households experiencing job or wage losses since the start of the coronavirus outbreak, households with annual incomes below $100,000, and Black and Latino households. For example, 46% of households in the U.S. report any adult household members have lost their jobs, been furloughed, or had wages or hours reduced since the start of the outbreak. And among these households with job or wage losses during the coronavirus outbreak, about two-thirds (68%) report facing serious financial problems. This includes nearly half (48%) of households with job or wage losses who have used up all or most of their savings during the coronavirus outbreak, while an additional 11% report not having any household savings prior to the outbreak (see Figure 1).

In addition, there is a steep income gradient in serious problems faced by households, as a majority (54%) of all U.S. households with annual incomes below $100,000 report serious financial problems during the coronavirus outbreak. Serious financial problems during the coronavirus outbreak are also reported by majorities of Latino (72%) and Black (60%) households during this time.

This poll, The Impact of Coronavirus on Households Across America, was conducted July 1 – August 3, 2020, among 3,454 U.S. adults. Adults in this survey were asked to report on serious problems facing both themselves and others living in their households, so measures are reported as a percentage of households for all household-related questions. See the Methodology below for further details.

In healthcare, one in five households in the U.S. (20%) report household members have been unable to get medical care for serious problems when they needed it during the coronavirus outbreak. A majority of these households with anyone who has been unable to get care when needed (57%) report negative health consequences as a result.

“Before federal coronavirus support programs even expired, we find millions of people with very serious problems with their finances, healthcare, and with caring for children,” said Robert J. Blendon, co-director of the survey and Richard L. Menschel Professor of Public Health and Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis Emeritus at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Though we want to believe we are all in this together, findings show problems concentrated in people who earn less than $100,000, people who have lost wages or jobs, and Black and Latino Americans.”

When it comes to caring for children, 59% of households with children in the U.S. report experiencing serious problems during this time. This includes more than one in three (36%) facing serious problems keeping their children’s education going, and among working households, nearly one in five (18%) reporting serious problems getting childcare when adults need to work (see Table 1 for details).  In addition, internet connectivity is also a major issue for some during this time, as about one in three households with children (34%) either do not have a high-speed internet connection at home or report serious problems with their internet connection to do schoolwork or their jobs.

本文一开始曾提及，索特提出事项法时，人们觉得这是空想，或代表了遥远的未来。之所以这样说是因为当时并不具备将其思想变为现实的技术基础及相随的商业范式。但在信息技术划时代发展的今天，这一切正在发生巨变，他的思想已逐步成为已经或即将到来的现实。

（一）技术基础
索特的事项法会计思想能转为会计实务，首先是由于当代包括计算、通讯、网络、展现等在内的信息技术的群体性突破与越来越广泛的应用，代表性的技术包括：移动互联网、大数据（巨量数据的识别、转换、采集、传输、运算、存储等）、云计算、人工智能、物联网、区块链。

（二）商业范式
自古以来，技术一直影响和改变着商业。以上全新一代的信息技术群的出现和在商业上的广泛应用推动商业运行方式发生深刻变革，出现范式级的跃进，使之进入到数字化商业时代，人类经济也进入数字经济的全新时代。这种数字化商业范式与传统商业范式比较，有一系列深刻变革，包括：（1）以客户为导向，产品和服务都受适应、引导、满足和提高客户需求驱动。（2）组织灵动、员工能动。人力资源不再只是建立在传统的组织架构内，各种灵活的自我驱动型组织和平台自治型组织出现，组织和员工得到更多赋能与及时激励，能动性得到更大的发挥。（3）各类商业资源和主体被网络化连接，商业流程全面数字化、自动化，企业运营的重心从流程驱动走向数据驱动，数据成为企业越来越重要的资产形态。（4）全球化资源配置，社会化商业协同。企业内外人、财、物及各类无形资产资源已不再分散孤立，相反，可以便利地连接全球市场，并实现在公司、集团、价值链、价值网各层级的基于共享信任的协同协作，高效利用。（5）企业的运营、管控、决策和创新已不再基于定期报告中的时滞信息，而可以做到实时化、可视化，“实时企业”的构想终于可以成为现实。（6）在数字化基础上，在流程自动化的同时，基于数据和模型、算法的人工智能越来越广泛地应用于企业生产经营与管理的分析、控制、预测、决策和创新活动中，企业走向智能化运营。

（三）会计革命
会计是商业语言，新一代信息技术浪潮下的数字化商业范式对会计带来巨大挑战和深远影响，如一个每天订单100万、甚至1 000万张，高峰日亿张以上的企业，如何进行会计信息处理和支付服务？会计的核心价值、服务特性、组织职能、服务对象、服务层级，以及由此波及的会计教育都会发生巨大变革，汇聚成一轮会计革命。

1．会计的核心价值走向全面商业数据服务。会计不再局限于事后的记录反映和简单的监督，而是提供事后、事中、事前三个时态，展现、分析、控制、决策与创新五个层级，覆盖企业业务与资产经营全过程的更高价值的全面数据服务，包括：账簿、报表、报告、动态显示（如经营透视图表）、即时提示等的展现级服务；比对、审核、检查、诊断和预测（如智能预算）等的分析级服务；监测、预警、监控（如流动性风险管理）等的控制级服务；运营、经营（如智能定价）、投资等决策级服务；以及产品创新（如新产品投入产出测算评估）、客户运营和资本经营等环节的创新级服务。

2．会计数据服务特性走向精细、实时、智能。
一是精细。在技术换代、数据使用者需求、数字化商业环境的共同驱动下，基于索特在1966年提出的事项法和麦卡锡在1982年提出的REA（Resources〈资源〉、Events〈事件〉、Agents〈主体〉的缩写）计算机信息处理模型，和全新一代信息技术构建的会计云服务系统，在企业商业事项发生之时就将相关原始数据以最小颗粒度进行采集，其提供的数据服务具有颗粒度细、准确、多维、多口径的二级特性。数据维度上包括客户、生态伙伴、内部组织、产品、资产、区域、流程等众多维度，数据口径上可以基于多种规则（如会计准则、税法、监管规则等）、多计量属性（既包括按货币计量的财务属性，也包括非财务属性），也即不像过去那样只记录下仅满足单一需求的事项属性，或只记录下用货币计量汇总后的事项属性，舍弃或遗忘掉其他本来可能很有用的事项属性。在这样的信息系统中，货币计量的信息或财务信息与非财务信息、定量信息和定性信息、定期信息和实时信息等的界限正变得越来越模糊，产供销和人财物信息正融合为一体。以事项的数据逻辑模型为基础，统一了数据采集功能，从而解决了满足内部管理需要的管理会计与满足外部投资者和债权人需要的财务会计在手工操作环境下难以整合的传统难题，实现两者“同源分流”的会计模式，实现业务和财务活动的和谐统一。
二是实时。在这样的系统中，企业通过交易平台、业务系统、专业网站、手工等途径采集各种数据，经云计算按多核算目的、多主体等处理，实时核算、结算、支付，实时提供财务会计、管理会计、税务会计、绩效考评等多口径，报告、分析、控制、决策和创新多层级的数据服务。
三是智能。包括通过运用发票、收款、对账、审核、决算、报表报送、报税等各种机器人或内置系统，实现重复性、规则性、跨系统、跨平台会计处理流程的自动化；通过数据、模型和算法实现智能审核、智能分析、智能预算、智能投顾等；还可通过人机对话、图像识别、文本分析等新的感知和交互方式，逐步取代键盘、鼠标、触屏等人机交互与信息处理方式，大幅提升工作效率，革新用户体验。

3．会计部门升级为企业的商业数据服务中心。伴随会计价值向全面商业数据服务的跃升，企业会计部门也对应升级为企业的商业数据服务组织（中心或部门）。企业原来以信息技术部门主导运营的信息中心会与会计部门合并到一起，成为面向企业业务经营与管理的数据服务中心。会计部门内部的岗位设置也会出现变化，一些程序化、标准化的传统会计工作流程、环节越来越多地被流程自动化系统或机器人替代，商业数据分析师等的新岗位在创新领先的企业已经出现，除了平时提供的实时数据服务，这些企业经营会议的前序议程就是会计部门的数据分析师做企业最新经营状况展现与分析。

4．会计服务对象多元化。以前述诸点为前提，会计服务对象正发生一系列革命性的变化。仅就财务会计信息而言，企业可根据会计准则、税法、监管规则等为事项的原始数据贴标签、增加它们的维度，然后按时根据准则法规的要求提供多口径信息。同理，由于信息源的颗粒度足够细、维度也足够多，企业在提供会计准则为依据的财务会计信息的同时，完全可提供其他类型的会计数据服务，以满足资产负债表观和利润观，以及决策有用观和受托责任观的不同信息需求。
鉴上，会计组织提供的数据服务不仅可以服务传统的企业外部投资者（股东）及税收征管机构，以及管理会计发展后所针对的企业内部各级管理人员，而且可进一步扩展到企业内部各级自驱组织和每一位员工，企业外部的价值链乃至价值网成员，包括企业上下游的供应商、销售商、服务商，平台型组织中的生态成员，该类生态成员可能是法人组织也可能是个人（如今天快速壮大的社会化用工中的个人，像出行平台企业的司机、视频网站中的网红）。此外，企业还可能需要向金融监管、产业主管、环境保护、社会治安等公共组织提供会计数据，服务于宏观经济和社会管理，贡献社会公益。
随着会计服务对象的扩展，会计的内涵概念是否会从财务会计、税务会计、管理会计，以及学界此前已经提出的价值链会计、战略管理会计，进一步发展出员工会计、社会会计，也是值得关注和研究的。

5．会计服务层级走向社会级。会计服务的对象层级和边界一直随着技术进步、商业和经济范式演进、企业组织形态发展和会计服务对象范围的扩展而升级与扩大。在信息技术革新浪潮下的数字经济与数字化商业新时代，企业的组织形态继之前的公司化、集团化之后，走向平台化、生态化。与此对应的会计服务层级从远古时期的个人、家庭、部落，后来的农场、工场、工厂，到近代的公司、集团，今天已经扩展到价值链、价值网（如平台型生态），从企业级走向了社会级。随着服务层级的升级，会计为经济和社会创造的价值也不断增大。
6．会计教育走向跨学科化和数智化。随着上述会计革命，会计教育也正进行重大改革。最为明显的几点是：
（1）大幅消减能为企业数智化（数字化、智能化）服务平台或系统替代的计算性、程序性的技能教学和操练方面的课时。这是因为：①在按事项法建立的信息系统环境下，传统的出入库单、对账单、记账凭证等信息处理中间单据，日记账、余额表之类会计信息服务载体正逐渐退出历史舞台；②过去耗时费工的记录、计算、过账、编表、制图、分析之类正被信息系统转瞬即逝地处理完结；③往日核单、多岗位签字等内部控制和稽核制度将绝大多数为系统内置的程序所替代，仅当超出一定标准时，才需人为干预；④计划编制和预算的重点将是对过去业绩的正确评估和对未来发展的恰当预测和判断，而非信息或数据的繁复收集、整理和计算。
（2）整合传统会计核心课程和其他专业课程。传统意义上会计核心课程，甚至相关专业课程间的区分正变得不合时宜，这是因为在飞速发展的信息技术条件下，为适应商业模式的变革而根据事项法设计的会计系统已实现财务会计、管理会计、税务会计、财务管理等的同源分流。同样，由于这样的信息将是多维度的，在设计这样的系统时，必须将各种法律准则的规定考虑进去，这也意味着，财经课程和相关法规课程也应紧密结合。可考虑增加或强化的教学内容包括集团企业财务管控、智能会计、财务共享服务等。
（3）教学应面向未来，更有超前性。这是因为经济社会和商业环境变化的速度远较过去为快。会计除了传统的反映和控制职能外，分析、预测、决策乃至创新的职能将更显重要，以更有利于企业的价值创造。可考虑增加或强化的教学内容包括商业模式创新、战略和风险管理、金融科技等。
（4）加强信息技术方面的教学内容。以上三方面的变化都要求增加未来会计人才在商业场景与数据及流程结构分析、应用模型与算法、应用系统配置与开发等方面的知识，增强这些方面的能力。即使他们不一定要完全替代这方面专业人才的工作，但至少应具备与后者有效沟通，甚至共同参与相关工作的能力。可考虑增加或加强的教学内容包括设计思维与开发、大数据系统及应用、Python在财务大数据中的应用、商业模型与算法、可扩展报告语言与结构化报告等。
以上教学内容有的可以必修课的方式开设，也可以选修或讲座课、模拟或实地考察的方式开设。尽可能多的内容可采用师生共同直接用信息技术平台，在可视化的环境下教学，利用上市公司等的实际数据，假设各种场景下的控制与决策。教改也可采用高校与企业云服务平台企业、软件公司、业财融合等方面领先的企业合作的方式。
以上会计革命的各个方面当然不会只是发生在企业会计领域，政府等社会公共组织的会计也会发生近似的革命，本文不展开赘述。