Archive for the ‘custo histórico’ Category

Valor Justo

janeiro 29, 2008

O conceito e a aplicação de Valor Justo representam, sem dúvida, uma espetacular, agressiva e, de certo modo, algo arriscada virada no que se refere à avaliação contábil.

(…) Agressiva, pois coloca o Fair Value em lugar de e não em complemento a algo que já existe e que vem há séculos nas demonstrações contábeis como forma principal de avaliação, ou seja, o custo histórico como base de registro inicial (com sua variante custo histórico corrigido).

Sérgio de Iudícibus e Eliseu Martins, Uma Investigação e uma proposição sobre o Conceito e o Uso do Valor Justo, Revista de Contabilidade e Finanças, junho de 2007.

Anúncios

Valor justo em discussão

agosto 31, 2007

Existe uma tendência de adoção do valor justo na contabilidade. Até que ponto esta opção é adequada? Existe uma corrente que defende seu uso pela qualidade da informação em relação ao custo histórico. O valor justo seria mais útil para o usuário da informação.

Entretanto, outra vertente tem preocupação com a volatilidade nos valores dos balanços e seus efeitos. Agora, uma pesquisa parece indicar que o uso do valor justo pode levar a redução na informação devido a flutuação dos preços dos produtos. Isto muda um conceito arraigado de que “quanto mais informação, melhor” (eu não acredito nisto).

O texto da The Economist, que trata deste item e que reproduzo a seguir, finaliza parodiando um famoso general alemão que dizia que a guerra é muito importante para se deixado nas mãos dos generais. A contabilidade também?

A seguir o texto:

Economics focus
A book-keeping error

Aug 30th 2007
The Economist
The accounting principle that is meant to capture fair value might end up distorting it

AS THE old joke goes, there are three types of accountant: those who can count and those who cannot. What and how they count is often contentious. A long-fermenting issue is how far “fair-value” accounting, which uses up-to-the-minute market information to price assets, should be pushed in banking. The bodies that set accountancy standards believe the more accurate disclosures are, the better. Regulators meanwhile have fretted that market-based accounting would increase fluctuations in banks’ earnings and capital, which might increase risks to financial stability. And commercial banks are reluctant to expose the idiosyncrasies of their loan books to the glare of market scrutiny.

The attractions of fair-value accounts are straightforward. By basing values on recent prices (“marking to market”), they paint a truer picture of a firm’s financial health than historical-cost measures. These gauge net worth from the arbitrary dates when assets and liabilities were first booked. In principle, fair-value accounting makes a firm’s viability plainer and enables shareholders and regulators to spot financial trouble more quickly. Proponents say that market-based accounting would have limited the fallout from America’s savings-and-loan crisis and stopped the rot from Japan’s non-performing loans much earlier.
An arbitrary past versus a distorted present

New research suggests that the increasing reach of fair-value accounting might be a mixed blessing. A paper* by Guillaume Plantin of the London Business School, Haresh Sapra of the University of Chicago and Hyun Song Shin of Princeton University concludes that fair-value accounting could sometimes generate fluctuations in asset values that distort the very price information that it puts such store by.

The paper examines the incentives of a bank faced with a choice between selling a loan or keeping it on the balance sheet. Because the bank knows its borrower better than anyone else, it has the best idea of what the loan is really worth. Its managers are rewarded according to the accounting profit of the bank.

If loans are valued at historical cost and market values are rising, the loans are likely to be sold if this is the only way of realising profit, even if the market undervalues them. The banks’ managers take a profit and get paid accordingly, although shareholders would be better off if the loans were kept. Fair-value accounting gets around this agency problem. Loans do not have to be sold to cash in on their rising value: marking the assets to their market value has the same beneficial effect on profits and on managers’ pay.

However, in the wrong circumstances fair-value accounting could also induce wasteful sales—of long-term, illiquid loans. Left on the books and marked to market, a loan will be valued at the price at which others have managed to sell. But when there are only a few potential buyers, that may be especially low. So managers will be tempted to sell in the hope of a better price. Because all banks with similar assets face the same incentives, they will all sell, driving the price down. Their shareholders would have been better off had the loans been kept until they fell due. The temptation to sell is greater for longer-term loans.

In this way, a fair-value regime can itself distort the very prices that are supposed to reflect the true worth of assets. The prospect of lower prices can encourage selling which drives down prices further. The information derived from market prices becomes corrupted, and the result is a growing divergence between reported net worth and true value.

This theoretical model is a challenge to the ideal of fair-value accounting: that more information is always better. Although it is technically feasible to mark to market even idiosyncratic assets such as loans to small businesses, it might not be desirable. The authors point to a well-established principle in economics, that incremental moves towards perfect competition are not always good. Eliminating one market imperfection (such as poor information) need not bring the ideal of a frictionless economy closer, because this may magnify the effect of remaining distortions (such as managerial short-termism or illiquid markets).

The paper also underlines some lessons about market liquidity that have been painfully learned outside of academia in the recent market troubles. There is a fair chance that asset markets will stay liquid (in the sense that willing sellers are matched with willing buyers), as long as the actions of market participants are essentially random. But anything that co-ordinates the actions of sellers—in this case, the disclosure required by fair-value accounting—can easily lead to sharp movements in asset prices.

Is the model of self-defeating co-ordinated selling very realistic? Recently, for example, Bear Stearns, a Wall Street investment bank, held off from selling assets into an illiquid market because the transaction prices would have set a nasty benchmark for its other portfolios. So illiquidity prevented asset sales rather than induced them. Mr Shin replies that in instances like this, where there happens to be a dominant holder of assets, there is less chance of sales into a falling market.

Although more accurate disclosure of balance sheets is desirable, the work of Mr Shin and his colleagues is a reminder that there are always trade-offs to any policy change. These authors put their argument in stark terms: “The choice between these measurement regimes boils down to a dilemma between ignoring price signals, or relying on their degraded versions.” In their advocacy of fair-value accounting, accountants are rightly pursuing the interests of investors. But policymakers have to worry about wider issues. Accountancy may be too important to be left solely to accountants. Even the ones that can count.

* “Marking-to-Market: Panacea or Pandora’s Box?” Forthcoming in the Journal of Accounting Research.

Limite do Valor Justo

agosto 29, 2007

As normas internacionais e norte-americanas exigem tipicamente que ativos fixos seja avaliados pelo custo e sujeitos a testes periódicos de impairment. Ativos financeiros, no entanto, são geralmente avaliados pelo “valor justo” – o preço que uma terceira parte poderia pagar por eles. Existem exceções. (…)

Valor justo funciona bem para títulos que podem ser comercializados a um preço de mercado. Mas quando os ativos são raramente comercializados ou altamente complexos, o valor justo é obscuro. Derivativos são geralmente avaliados usando modelos administrativos, que são algumas vezes “verificados” por terceiros. (…)

Primeiro, o desempenho pode ser “suavizado”, mascarando a volatilidade real (…); segundo, a administração pode resistir em reconhecer as perdas. (…)

The limits of fair value – Financial Times – 28/08/2007 – London Ed1 – Page 12

Valor Justo

agosto 24, 2007

Um artigo do Financial Times de 24/08/2007 discute o problema do valor justo. Um ponto interessante apresentado pelos autores é a existência de uma certa “incoerência” conceitual: quando existe uma bolha no mercado, os números contábeis também serão afetados por esta bolha. Isto pode fazer com que uma empresa apresente números melhores do que são efetivamente. A seguir, o texto completo:

Pursuit of convergence is coming at too high a cost.
By STELLA FEARNLEY and SHYAM SUNDER – Financial Times – London Ed1, Page 19

There are a variety of problems behind the present market turmoil – chiefly reckless lending and inaccurate credit ratings of securitised debt. But one has so far had little attention – the role played by so-called “fair” value accounting.

The gold standard in financial reporting has long been “lower of cost or market”, meaning an asset is on the books at either its purchase cost or its current valuation – whichever was lower. This conservativsm counterbalances the inherent tendency of managers to overstate performance by preventing them from reporting profits before cash is in hand.

But this year, US firms have been encouraged to adopt early SFAS 157 and SFAS 159, new accounting standards. Under these rules, financial instruments (including mortgage-backed securities) are stated on balance sheets at their “fair” values, which are taken from markets where possible, or for more complex securities are estimated from valuation models.

The problem is that this assumes markets have good information from inputs such as financial reports and credit ratings. But there is a circularity built in: if credit raters and investors get their information from accounting numbers, which are themselves based on prices inflated by a market bubble, the accounting numbers support the bubble.

So instead of informing markets through prudent valuation and controlling management excess, “fair” values feed the prices back to the market. For example, a drop in the market value of the borrowings of a troubled company is reported as an increase in its income because the reduced liability flows through the income statement, thus obscuring the problem.

Investment banks, early adopters of SFAS 157, have shown improved performance from the changeover. JP Morgan Chase reported that SFAS 157 increased its first-quarter earnings by Dollars 391m (Pounds 196m, Euros 289m) – 8.2 per cent of its earnings – and Goldman Sachs reported an even larger increase of Dollars 500m – 11.5 per cent of net income. Share prices rose despite the incipient problems in mortgage-backed securities.

There were warnings. In 2006 the US Federal Reserve warned that fair value accounting could make an insolvent company look solvent. The UK’s Financial Services Authority expressed concerns this year that fair value might not fully represent the economic reality of a business. Four months after some banks reported high first-quarter profits using fair value accounting, the Fed has cut interest rates to stabilise markets and keep some highly leveraged investment banks and hedge funds afloat.

The “fair” value accounting edifice is built on sand. Some banks sold subprime loans to reduce risk exposure but reacquired the risk by lending to parties holding the overvalued instruments. Bank directors certified their balance sheets. Did they ask the awkward questions about the real risk, credit controls and security in their loan books? Did the buyers of these derivatives, who packaged them up and sold them on, know how dodgy they were? Someone knew.

This is the second time in seven years that widespread problems have arisen in US accounting, securities’ ratings and governance. Despite the onerous and costly requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley, and stringent audit controls, the system was unable to fix something as basic as the existence and collectibility of loans.

Meanwhile, US and international accounting standard setters are pressing ahead with a global framework which would embed this aggressive accounting. They seek one global system, however defective. They want verifiability, via a market price or a management estimate, rather than reliability of the underlying substance.

Warren Buffett has warned that mark-to-market accounting turns to mark-to-model in illiquid markets and risks becoming “mark-to-myth”. Auditors sign off that accounts comply with the accounting standards. What use is that to investors when it means complying with a bubble-blowing accounting model? The pursuit of convergence in accounting standards needs a radical rethink if this is what it leads to.

Most losses from the subprime debacle may fall to knowledgeable investors but our savings and pensions will not escape entirely.

Stella Fearnley will shortly be Professor of Accounting at Bournemouth University. Shyam Sunder is J. L. Frank Professor of Accounting, Economics and Finance at Yale School of Management.

Valor justo na avaliação contábil

maio 22, 2007

Um artigo publicado num periódico mexicano El Economista (21/05/2007). Aqui um extrato:

Independientemente de lo anterior, debemos considerar que el ajuste a valor razonable de los activos y pasivos de eventos y transacciones y circunstancias no transaccionales tienen el inconveniente, algunas veces, por tratarse de valores volátiles y que, en otras ocasiones, no existen los mercados para obtener dichos valores razonables, lo que termina en cuantificaciones estimativas que resultan o pueden resultar subjetivas; aquí es donde se le puede complicar al auditor.

Lo que es bien cierto, es que las normas contables aceptan cada vez más al valor razonable como método de cuantificación y de que en su determinación se ven inmersos cálculos financieros complejos. Por todo ello, es necesario que los profesionales de la contabilidad incluidos los auditores externos, conozcamos más acerca de las teorías y técnicas de valuación existentes, de lo contrario, como auditores ¿estaremos de acuerdo que el valor razonable es razonablemente correcto?

Clique aqui para ler completo