Общие требования к проекту ВКР на английском языке
1.
Общий объем работы 10-12 страниц (2500 – 3 000 слов), объем аннотации (abstract) – 150-250слов, шрифт 12, Times New Roman, через полтора интервала. Поля: левое - 35 мм, правое - 10 мм, верхнее и нижнее - 20 мм.
2.
Библиографический список составлен по формату APA
(см. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/10/ )
3.
Нумерация сквозная, первый лист - титульный, после него - оглавление с указанием страниц.
4. Последняя страница подписывается автором.
Примерное соотношение основных разделов работы по объему
4 -6 sentences
2-3 pages
Abstract
Introduction
Main body 6-7pages
Literature review – 2-3 pages
Methodology – 1-2 pages
Results anticipated – 1-2
Two-three paragraphs pages
Conclusion
References 1-2 pages
Содержание основных разделов проекта
Abstract
1.methods
2.results
Introduction
1.Problem statement/thesis statement
The main body
1. Literature review
Discussion of theoretical literature
Conclusion
1.thesis statement
2.implications

3.purpose and aim
4.background
2.Professional significance /justification
3.Background study of the
Review empirical research
2.Methodology of
3.Report on the results anticipated
Summary
Discussion of the topic
3.proposals for future research

Образец титульного листа проекта ВКР
National Research University
Higher School of Economics
Faculty
Department
Research Proposal
for Bachelor’s Thesis
“ _____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________”
Student:_________________________________
Group:__________________________________
Argument consultant ________________________
Language consultant ________________________
Submitted _____ February 20…
Nizhny Novgorod

Представленный ниже образец в целом соответствует требованиям, предъявляемым к проектам ВКР. Вместе с тем, он не свободен от недостатков и содержит некоторые ошибки, касающиеся словоупотребления и соответствия формату APA.
Еvaluation of Non-Current Assets according to Russian and International Standards
Abstract
The comparative studies linked with fixed assets evaluation according to the national and international principles are intended to facilitate understanding the approaches to measurement in accounting and aid Russian practitioners in making a decision whether it seems reasonable to prepare financial reports under
IAS/IFRS. The general purpose of this paper is to compare features of fixed assets evaluation under IAS and Russian Principles and also to examine the impact of applied Standards on the figures in financial reports and the financial ratios. Tо obtain comparable financial information on the fixed assets value and the financial ratios we will use consolidated financial reports of Russian firms. It is expected that the value of intangible and long–term financial assets will be significantly higher under Russian Accounting Principles than under IAS/IFRS while the value of property and plants will be noticeably lower. The conclusion can also be drawn that transferring reports to IAS Russian companies will face deterioration in their financial positions because they seem to be less liquid and profitable and this, in turn, will result in disinvestment.
Introduction
Within a long historical time scale evaluation has been one of the most essential elements of the accounting system. It should also be admitted that one of the fatal difficulties of any study of measurement in accounting is almost insurmountable confusion of the meanings related to the term “evaluation”.
However, in Russia accountants face not only conceptual problems but also the additional challenges caused by the fundamental changes in the Russian accounting system. Since the Government Decree №283 has been passed, the number of differences between National Accounting Principles and International
Accounting Standards (IAS) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) have decreased. Furthermore, some experts assume that in the future all Russian
Standards would be replaced by IAS.

To date transition to IAS is still not completed and Russia remains one of the countries where the law does not force all firms to submit their reports under IAS, and therefore companies have a choice. It poses a great interest that some of them do this at will. Apparently a host of reasons results in such behavior. The main one is that when a firm provides financial reports prepared under IAS it has more chances for making a long-term loan, attracting foreign investors. Furthermore, it is obligatorily if a company starts trading on the world stock exchange.
It is evidently that the transition to the new principles could not but affect the measurement (evaluation), one of the most important elements of an accounting method which influences the quality of the information provided by firms for external and internal users. In particular, if firms start preparing their financial reports not only under Russian, but also under International Accounting Standards the evaluation of fixed assets will undergo some noticeable changes. And this, in turn, will have a significant impact on the calculation results of the financial ratios such as return on financial assets, liquidity, current assets to equity ratio and profitability. Because all these parameters affect the perception of the firm’s performance it is extremely important for firms to measure the effects related to
IAS adoption.
Despite the sufficient amount of studies on IAS implementation in Russia, researchers mostly concentrate on comparison of International and Russian
Accounting Principles and little advance has been achieved in development of the empirical models which enable firms to foresee the changes in the value of fixed assets if they maintain accounting records under IAS.
The primary aim of the present study is to advance the term “evaluation”, systemize the approaches to the evaluation, compares features of fixed assets measurement according to IAS and Russian Principles and, basing on identified differences between local and international Standards, determines how the value of non-current assets and the financial ratios vary when companies apply IAS.
Within this broad purpose the research questions are following:

What is the evaluation (appraisement) in accounting?

What types of non-current assets evaluation are applied when accountants prepare reports under IAS and Russian Standards?

Is there any significant impact on the value of fixed assets when transition to
IAS occurs?

Do the financial ratios of companies change in the moment of IAS application?

This study facilitates understanding of the evaluation process in accounting and reveals the principles, which accountants should follow to prepare reports both under International and National Standards. The research paper also makes a contribution to the existing knowledge about the quantitative impact of IAS application on the value of fixed assets and sheds the light on the extent to which the accounting differences could change their firms’ performance. Hence, it could be helpful to chief executives when they decide to compile reports under IAS. In addition, this work will enable the Government to assess how the transition to the new Standards would affect the value of companies’ fixed assets and as a result
Russian business investment attractiveness.
There is a variety of constraints which should be taken into account when evaluating the effects of applying IAS. The sample would be restricted by large and medium Russian companies because they disclose the financial information.
Thus the extent to which the results can be applied will be limited to these firms and the conclusions about small business may differ greatly.
The further limitations will be provided by the method of data collection. The usage of financial reports, which may contain deceptive information, will also constrict the bounds of the research.
Literature Review
The basis for the present study is provided by a large body of literature on evaluation of non-current assets. The vast majority of authors indicate the importance of the problem related to the explanation of the term evaluation
(appraisment) in accounting. Within a long historical time scale all researchers have concurred that this is one of the most important elements of the accounting system, but there has been a lot of debate among scholars about the most appropriate definition.
According to the Big Economic Vocabulary evaluation is “the process of determining the value of facilities for taxation, insurance, inheritance, leasing, purchasing or accounting” (A. B. Borisov, 2003, p. 487). So primarily, evaluation is considered as a specific procedure. Apparently this definition does not embrace all the peculiarities of the measurement and consequently does not explain its nature.
Researchers M. D. Akatyeva and I. L. Malshakova claim that “the evaluation is an element of an accounting method and a way due to which resources can be valued in monetary terms” (M. D. Akatyeva, I. L.Malshakova, 2002, p. 56). So they indicate the importance of the unified meter, which enables to match the results of measurement. Scientists Iu. A. Babaev, A. M. Petrov and L. G. Makarova share

their view on this problem and the definition made by them does not appear to add any new knowledge to the above mentioned one (Iu. A. Babaev, A. M. Petrov, L.
G. Makarova, 2011).
To formulate the most suitable definition it seems reasonable to analyze whether evaluation is applicable to an object. Thus, it is necessary to acknowledge the extraordinary importance of M. I. Kuter’s study in this field, because he succeeded in identifying the most significant criteria of applicability. These criteria include the objects or the events under the accounting observation, the attribute which can be a subject to qualitative assessment and the measurement scale (M. I. Kuter,
2003).
The next issue linked with this theme is a variety of types of appraisement. A considerable amount of work to identify all of them has been done by scientists and it is difficult to overestimate the contribution of Ia.V. Sokolov and V. Ia.
Sokolov who analyze the accounting evolution from ancient times to current days.
They highlight the main periods of the accounting development and characterize each of them in detail. In particular, the authors of “History of accounting” got accurate theoretical knowledge on various kinds of assets appraisal applied in different countries and periods of time.
According to their book before the 7 𝑡ℎ century BC there was evaluation in natural terms only. From the 7 𝑡ℎ century BC to the middle of 𝑡ℎ𝑒 20 𝑡ℎ century assets were appraised in monetary terms. After that period companies have started not only determining value in monetary terms but also correcting it for a price index (Ia.V.
Sokolov, V. Ia. Sokolov, 2004).
The second and the third periods of the accounting development are characterized by the emergence of new kinds of assets’ appraisement. The authors claim that from the beginning of the 7 𝑡ℎ
century BC to the end of the 8 𝑡ℎ
century assets were measured at market value, at ideal price based on sales and costs or at cost less any accumulated depreciation. After that prime cost, cost, price of purchasing, market value and cost less any accumulated depreciation were used for evaluating assets.
Since the end of the 19 𝑡ℎ
century to the middle of the 20 𝑡ℎ
century measurement at prime cost, cost less any accumulated depreciation and the average price were widespread. Furthermore, in some cases such as liquidation of a company accountants used market value. During the second half of the 20 𝑡ℎ
the number of appraisement types have almost doubled and as a result currently assets can be carried at fair value, replacement value, replacement costs, market value, cost, present (discounted) value, cost less any accumulated depreciation. To date it is

also possible to determine the value of some assets employing LIFO, FIFO and sales comparison methods (Ia.V Sokolov, V.Ia. Sokolov, 2004).
Evidently accountants have to deal with the variety of appraisement types and the choice of the most suitable one depends on the legislation of the country where a company operates. The main reason is that each country states its own accounting
Standards and actions of bookkeepers must comply with them.
Currently accountants in both developed and developing countries encounter the serious problem tired with the fundamental changes in litigation. Having appeared in 1971 International Accounting Standards have not yet replaced the National
Principles of accounting in all countries, so a lot of companies continue preparing their financial reports under the local Standards.
Because the theme of our work linked to an application of the accounting
Standards in Russia it is worthwhile to restrict the focus of the investigation when analyzing the process of implementation of IAS and their interaction with Russian
Accounting Principles.
The distinctions between International and Russian Standards related to the intangible assets value were revealed by E. A. Mizikovskiy and S. Titova. They claim that the differences are caused by the fact that IAS make companies test these assets for devaluation and recognize impairment losses. In addition, there are also some restrictions tired with costs which can be capitalized (E. A. Mizikovskiy,
2008; S. Titova, 2010). Hence, intangible assets value becomes lower when a company submits financial report under IAS.
Both these requirements also concern property, plant and equipment but the value, disclosed in the balance sheet according to IAS is higher versus the value in the financial report prepared under Russian Principles because leased property is recognized as an asset only under IAS.
These inferences have their basis in theoretical evidence and to make them less alleged it seems reasonable to measure the qualitative effects. Regrettably, to date there is a lack of the empirical studies, analyzing the influence of IAS on financial statement of Russian companies deciding to transform their reports. In contrast, some scholars in other countries make an attempt to assess the impact of the new
Standards on the figures in balance sheets and income statements.
To test the hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the value of fixed assets and the financial ratios under the local and international Standards S. C.
Caston and C. F. Garsia use the data from financial statements of companies traded on the Madrid and Financial Time Stock Exchanges They apply Wilcoxon test to

get valid results and determine that long-term liabilities, solvency and indebtedness ratios of Spanish companies and fixed assets, long-term liabilities, net income and return on equity of British firms deviate noticeably due to the changes in the accounting Standards (S. C. Caston, C. F. Garsia, 2010).
Another method which could be employed when assess the quantitative effect of transition to IAS was suggested by M. Hung and K. R. Subramanyam. Thus, the researchers employ Heckman two-stage regression to test the hypothesis that there are no noticeable differences in the value of equity and assets taking by accounting figures under IAS and German Standards (M. Hung, K. R. Subramanyam, 2007).
Methodology
To solve the problems arising in the study the variety of methods will be applied.
Firstly to develop and put forward the most appropriate definition we will have to use a linguistic method. Secondly employing a comparative approach we would match IAS and Russian Accounting principles to infer about reasons for the changes in the value of assets, when the transition to IAS occurs.
Furthermore, to check the hypothesis that figures in financial reports of Russian companies, prepared under Russian Standards and International Standards are different and assess the quantitative impact of the transition to IAS we ought to collect the data on the firms’ financial statement, submitted under IAS and Russian
Standards. Our sample will consist of 20 firms operating in Russia and providing the financial reports both under Russian and International Standards in 2010-2011.
The information about long-term investments, intangible assets and property, plant and equipment value will be obtained from the balance sheets and the income statements posted in FIRA and Spark data bases. Basing on the data we will calculate the financial ratios referred to non-current assets such as liquidity, return on long-term investments, profitability and current assets to equity ratio. Then applying Wilcoxon signed-rank test we will identify the significance of deviation of the figures in the international reports from the figures in the reports, prepared under Russian Principles.
Reports on the Results Anticipated
Literature review enables us to identify that some scientists in accounting, considering term ’evaluation’ concentrate on the procedure of identifying the value, whereas others focus on the value of objects or events and thereunder we can presuppose that there are two main approaches to the term. On the one hand, evaluation in accounting is a specific procedure of determining the value of objects and events, which are able to generate economic benefits, in monetary terms

carried out for such purposes as taxation, insurance, inheritance, leasing, purchasing or accounting. On the other hand, it is the precise value of subjects under the accounting observation on which companies and individuals can capitalize.
In the present study we will also employ the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and argue that there is the significant impact of IFRS/IAS implementation referred to the fixed assets value in the balance sheets and the key financial ratios such as liquidity, return on long-term investments, profitability and current assets to equity ratio.
Basing our judgment on the sum of positive and negative ranks provided by the
Wilcoxon test, we will determine that the figures related to long-term investments and intangible assets become lower because of transition to IAS. Furthermore, both liquidity and profitability also suffer considerably whereas return on investment will be on increase.
Presumably, annual tests for devaluation, the restrictions tired with costs which can be capitalized, the strict requirements linked with reserves in IAS cause these consequences.
Simultaneously the value of plants and equipment will be higher under IAS because according to International Standards in contrast to Russian Standards property in financial leasing should be included in the balance sheet.
It is also expected that there will be no noticeable deviation in the current assets to equity ratio, because both the numerator and the denominator vary to the same extent.
Conclusion
The present study demonstrates the quantitative impact of IAS/IFRS application in
Russia on the accounting figures and the financial ratios of Russian companies. We expect that on average the perception of firm’s business performance will suffer significantly because liquidity and profitability calculated on the basis of the new principles become lower. The results obtained in this study will facilitate understanding of the consequences of preparing financial reports under IAS/IFRS.
This research examines the influence of IAS adoption on big and medium-size companies and it seems reasonable to conduct a similar analysis for all Russian companies and compare the results for firms of different sizes. It would be also essential to analyze reasons for these consequences and yield useful predictions about the quantitative impact of transition to IAS in depth in future studies.
References

1.
IAS 16. (2005). Property, Plant and Equipment.
2.
IAS 38. (2004). Intangible Assets.
3.
IAS 39. (2005). Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement.
4.
IFRS 9. (2009). Financial Instruments.
5.
PBU 6. (2001). Osnovnyye sredstva.
6.
PBU 14. (2007). Nematerialnye aktivy.
7.
PBU 19. (2002). Finansovye vlozheniya.
8.
Akatyeva, M. D., & Malshakova, I. L. (2002). Teoriya bukhgalterskogo ucheta . Moscow, M: IPK MGUP.
9.
Babayev, Iu. A., Petrov, A. M., & Makarova, L. G. (2011). Bukhgalterskiy finansovyy uchet.
Moscow, M: INFA-M.
10.
Borisov, A. B. (2003). Evaluation. In Bolshoy ekonomicheskiy slovar. (p.
487). Moscow, M: Bolshoy ekonomicheskiy slovar.
11.
Caston, S. C., & Garcia, C. F. (2010). IFRS adoption in Spain and the United
Kingdom: Effects on accounting numbers and relevance. Journal of
International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 2, 304-313.
12.
Hung, M., & Subramanyam, K. R. (2007). Financial statement effects of adopting international accounting standards: the case of Germany. Springer
Science+Business Media, 623-657.
13.
Kuter, M. I. (2003). Teoriya bukhgalterskogo ucheta.
Moscow, M: Finansy i statistika.
14.
Mizikovskiy, E. A. (2008). PBU 14/07: Novoye v uchete nematerialnykh aktivov. Auditorskiye vedomosti, 4, 38-46.
15.
Sokolov, Ia. V., & Sokolov, V. Ia. (2004). Istoriya bukhgalterskogo ucheta.
Moscow, M: Finansy i statistika.
16.
Titova, S. (2010). Transformatsiya otchetnosti: nematerialnyye aktivy.
Novaya bukhgalteriya, 3, 45-52.