????注3:第(2)段定義里的“并表資產(chǎn)或營收的20%或以上”，應(yīng)在發(fā)行人財年之初用上年數(shù)據(jù)先行確定,，財年內(nèi)只能確定一次,。

????如果我們將這些規(guī)定套用于一家在華有業(yè)務(wù)的典型跨國公司，我們首先要問的問題是,，中國會計師事務(wù)所的服務(wù)小時數(shù)或服務(wù)費(fèi)在總量中的占比是否超過了20%,。總服務(wù)小時數(shù)和總服務(wù)費(fèi)用是指在全球范圍內(nèi)為這家公司提供的服務(wù)小時數(shù)和服務(wù)費(fèi)用,，包括母國團(tuán)隊的服務(wù)小時數(shù)和服務(wù)費(fèi)用,。如果中國會計師事務(wù)所的這些比率超過了20%，就必須具有美國上市公司會計監(jiān)管委員會登記注冊資格,。

????如果規(guī)定沒有要求這些比率低于20%的會計師事務(wù)所在美國上市公司會計監(jiān)管委員會登記注冊,，接下來要看的是中國會計師事務(wù)所是否為占發(fā)行人并表資產(chǎn)或營收20%或更多的子公司、部門,、分支機(jī)構(gòu)或其他業(yè)務(wù)提供主要審計服務(wù),。由于大多數(shù)跨國公司在中國有很多子公司，這項(xiàng)測試可能很容易通過,。即便中國的總資產(chǎn)或營收超過了跨國公司總量的20%,，沒有一家單獨(dú)的子公司會觸限,。第一項(xiàng)測試可能是關(guān)鍵，不管中國會計師事務(wù)所是否占到全球服務(wù)小時數(shù)或服務(wù)費(fèi)的20%以上,。

????我相信即便跨國公司的中國會計師事務(wù)所被取消美國上市公司會計監(jiān)管委員會注冊資格,，也很少會有跨國公司(如果還有)會對這條規(guī)定提出異議?？鐕镜姆?wù)小時數(shù)和服務(wù)費(fèi)總是向總部傾斜,。即便跨國公司的中國資產(chǎn)和營收占比可能超過20%，服務(wù)小時數(shù)和服務(wù)費(fèi)占比可能仍不到20%,。如果美國上市公司會計監(jiān)管委員會提議取消這些事務(wù)所的注冊資格,，美國證券交易委員會應(yīng)該會立即要求披露對跨國公司的影響，以便投資者能獲得必要的信息,。

????一項(xiàng)建議稱,，可以讓香港成員所在報告上簽字，繞過美國上市公司會計監(jiān)管委員會限制,。這個辦法行不通,。由于中國監(jiān)管部門禁止美國上市公司會計監(jiān)管委員會檢查香港會計師事務(wù)所與中國相關(guān)的審計工作，承擔(dān)中國業(yè)務(wù)的事務(wù)所可能會和內(nèi)地事務(wù)所一樣喪失注冊登記資格,。在中國經(jīng)營的外資會計師事務(wù)所（包括香港會計師事務(wù)所）面臨很多問題,，可能導(dǎo)致其他外資會計師事務(wù)所也無法從事這項(xiàng)業(yè)務(wù)。

????截至今日,，有45家中國內(nèi)地的會計師事務(wù)所已在美國上市公司會計監(jiān)管委員會注冊登記,。這些公司中只有8家發(fā)布過審計報告，7家報告稱他們曾在發(fā)行人審計中承擔(dān)關(guān)鍵角色,，2家審計過一家交易經(jīng)紀(jì)商,，25家已經(jīng)注冊，但原因并不明顯,，4家沒有報告,。鑒于上述規(guī)定，我想7家聲稱承擔(dān)關(guān)鍵角色的事務(wù)所需要再仔細(xì)看看是否真地承擔(dān)了關(guān)鍵決策,。那25家在美國上市公司會計監(jiān)管委員會注冊登記又是為了什么?如果他們沒有一定的必要這么做,，為什么非要接受這樣的監(jiān)管？我猜這些事務(wù)所可能是主動注冊,，相信這能提高他們的可信度,，更容易推銷服務(wù)。中國人喜歡積累文憑和證書,，但在美國上市公司會計監(jiān)管委員會注冊登記與榮耀無關(guān),。

????Note 3: For purposes of determining "20% or more of the consolidated assets or revenues" under paragraph (2) of this Rule, this determination should be made at the beginning of the issuer's fiscal year using prior year information and should be made only once during the issuer's fiscal year.

????If we apply those rules to a typical MNC with operations in China, we first ask if the China auditor performs more than 20% of the total engagement hours or fees. The total engagement hours and fees would include all fees and hours around the world to audit the company, including the hours and fees of the home country team. If the China firm does more than 20% of those totals, it must be registered with the PCAOB.

????If it is not required to be registered under the 20% of total hours and fees rule, then we look to whether the China firm is performing the majority of audit procedures with respect to a subsidiary, division, branch or component that makes up 20% or more of the consolidated assets or revenues of such issuer. Because most MNCs have many subsidiaries in China, this test may be easy to pass since even when total China assets or revenue are over 20% of the MNC, no single subsidiary may trip the wire. The first test, whether the China accounting firm has more than 20% of the total worldwide fees or hours, is probably the key test.

????It is my belief that few, if any, MNCs will have a problem with this rule should their China accounting firm be deregistered. MNC fees and hours tend to be heavily weighted to the headquarters, so even where the MNC's China assets and revenues may be higher than 20%, the hours and fees are likely to be less than 20%. Should the PCAOB propose deregistering the firms, disclosure of the impact on MNCs should be required by the SEC immediately so that investors are properly informed.

????A suggestion has been made that the Hong Kong member firm could simply sign the reports to avoid the PCAOB issue. That won't work. Chinese regulators have forbid the PCAOB from inspecting Hong Kong firms with respect to China work, so those that do China work will likely be deregistered along with the mainland firms. There are a host of problems related to a foreign accounting firm (including Hong Kong firms) practicing in China that probably make it impossible for any other foreign accounting firm to do it either.

????As of today, there are 45 accounting firms from mainland China that have registered with the PCAOB. Only eight of these firms have issued reports, seven firms report that they played a substantial role in an audit, two firms audited a broker-dealer, 25 registered for no apparent reason, and 4 firms did not report. Based on the rules above, I think the seven who claim to play a substantial role ought to take another look as to whether they really do. Why are the 25 registered with the PCAOB? Why subject themselves to regulation if they are not required to do so? My guess is that these firms voluntarily registered because they thought it would give them more credibility, and make it easier to sell services. Chinese like to collect diplomas and certificates, but PCAOB registrations are poor wall ornaments.