Translate

31 maio 2013

Rir é o melhor remédio

Clima

Vale Presente

Quando você compra um vale presente para uma brincadeira de amigo oculto, isto poderá gerar um problema contábil para a loja. Existe um grau de incerteza na determinação do momento em que o presenteado irá trocar o vale por um produto e até mesmo se ele irá efetuar a troca. A loja recebe o dinheiro antes de entregar o produto e isto cria uma obrigação sob a forma de receita antecipada.
Mas a empresa não pode reconhecer o valor da venda total de vales presentes, pois muitos deles não serão trocados. Reconhecer toda venda de vales como passivo irá superestimar as obrigações da empresa. Algumas empresas usam os dados históricos para determinar quanto dos vales vendidos serão objeto de troca.

Quando o cliente aparece para trocar o vale presente, o passivo será reduzido, sendo reconhecida a receita, ao mesmo tempo em que baixa o estoque correspondente. Mas e quando o cliente não troca o vale? Isto corresponde a uma receita, sem a necessidade de contraprestação de serviço; em outras palavras, a empresa comercial tem uma receita sem a baixa da mercadoria. É o “melhor dos mundos” para qualquer empresa: você recebe para não fazer nada.

Existem duas maneiras de reconhecer a receita dos vales que não serão trocados. A primeira é através do histórico da empresa, que permite estimar a percentagem da receita antecipada que representa efetivamente uma obrigação. Outra técnica é somente reconhecer quando existir segurança que o vale não será mais trocado: só seria dada baixa no passivo quando o prazo de validade do vale estaria esgotado. A segunda forma é menos trabalhosa e poderia ser usada por pequenas empresas. Mas tende a superestimar o passivo.

Leia mais em
BLAKE, Tori; ROUSE, Phillip. Revenue recognition´s effect on gift card accounting. Journal of Accountancy. 28 de maio de 2013.

NIYAMA, Jorge K; SILVA, César A. T. Teoria da Contabilidade. São Paulo: Atlas, 2011

30 maio 2013

2000 Amigos

Queridos amigos, temos uma emocionante notícia para compartilhar: chegamos a 2.000 "likes" na nossa página no Facebook. Não foi algo fácil, acredito que vocês imaginem que não. Talvez para outros sites foi algo mais "viral", mas não para o nosso. Ainda é difícil levar a contabilidade da forma correta para cada tipo diferente de mídia, de usuário.

Hoje foi um dia muito querido: observamos atentamente o marcado e comemoramos emocionados a conquista deste número: 2.000 amigos. Obrigado a todos. A cada um de vocês. Imensamente: obrigado.

Estamos aqui, partindo do princípio que os 2.000 likes são uma proxy para a qualidade do blog, das nossas mídias sociais. Entretanto, pedimos que continuem atentos, participando, dando palpite, criticando, nos ajudando a crescer e entender sempre mais o que irá ajudar e acrescentar conteúdo aos nossos pares. Se estivermos enganados, nos ajudem.

Mais uma vez agradecemos a quem sempre nos acompanha, envia dicas, sugestões, indica o Blog para amigos, colegas e até a desconhecidos. Rs. Um clique faz muita diferença. "Curtir" hoje se tornou um termo certas vezes banal, mas em outras imensamente rico e cheio de poder.

De modo geral ficamos contentes com várias movimentações que surgem por nossa causa. Uma postagem bem aceita, um e-mail carinhoso, novos comentários, números crescentes de acesso e de participação: cada evento traz uma emoção única e indescritível. Ser blogueiro nesse mar cibernético não é fácil, mas, como tantas coisas na vida, quando menos esperamos surgem estes momentos mágicos que nos restabelecem a energia e renovam o propósito.

César, Isabel e Pedro,
Equipe do Blog Contabilidade Financeira

Pesquisa: Tese em Finanças Comportamentais

Indicado por João Marcelo

"Quer ganhar um TABLET SAMSUNG? Responda ao questionário de uma Tese de Doutorado sobre Finanças Comportamentais. Podem responder estudantes de graduação ou que já tem curso superior em qualquer área. Requer poucos minutos."

Aqui: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1pusRdUz9CvziE3OlFc4Nae6w4ht8-3Se6_se5gz63LM/viewform

Para participar do sorteio você deve informar o seu e-mail e telefone para contato com código de área E RESPONDER TODAS AS QUESTÕES desta pesquisa. O sorteio será realizado após a finalização do processo de coleta de dados, através de uma comparação entre o bilhete sorteado para o 1º prêmio da loteria federal do dia 02/10/2013 e o telefone de contato do respondente. O respondente premiado receberá em sua residência sem nenhum custo adicional o Tablet sorteado. Os 5 números do bilhete sorteado para o 1º prêmio serão comparados, na sequência, com os 5 últimos números dos telefones dos respondentes. Será considerado vencedor do sorteio o respondente que possuir os 5 últimos números do telefone iguais aos 5 números do sorteio (considerando a sequencia do bilhete e do telefone), ou, caso não haja vencedor, o que guardar maior paridade. Neste caso, a comparação será realizada do último número para o primeiro dos telefones. O que obtiver uma maior sequência igual ao do sorteio da loteria federal será considerado vencedor. Em caso de empate será considerado vencedor o que obtiver o próximo número da sequência mais próximo do sorteado. Em caso de empate por números de telefones iguais (com códigos de área diferentes) será considerado vencedor o que respondeu o questionário primeiro.

Mãe: Feliz Aniversário

Por Isabel Sales

Hoje é aniversário de uma das pessoas mais lindas do universo: a minha querida mãe. Peço antecipadas desculpas a todos que não podem fazer uma homenagem assim, direta. Mas não só ela tenta ser uma leitora assídua do blog (apesar de ser médica), como sempre me apoiou em tudo, especialmente aqui.

Como outras família, como é comum à vida, nós passamos por muitas coisas. Perdas, doenças, maldade natural ou humanamente intencional. E a minha mãe ficou: sempre linda, amável, guerreira e leoa. Com lágrimas sim, porque que vida seria esta sem um coração partido e uma saudade incurável?

Mãe, eu queria poder fazer muita coisa por você. Queria te ajudar sempre a ir em viagens dos sonhos, controlar o mundo e a vida para que pequenas e agradáveis surpresas sempre alegrassem o seu dia, fazer com que a doença fosse algo que só ouvimos falar, mas não conhecemos. Ter amores-perfeitos em todos os jardins, girassóis em todas as janelas, orquídeas nos centros de mesas. Ter a família completa, no mesmo lugar, quietinha, aconchegada, para brindar à vida e rir das anedotas que os tios contam.

Mas a doença vem.... pra nos fazer aprender. Aprender a valorizar a saúde, aprender que a família é uma benção mais poderosa do que sequer imaginávamos, aprender que os momentos difíceis são sim importantes e poderosos (mesmo que doa admitir) para que as conquistas tenham sabor verdadeiro. Para que um abraço tenha poesia e um aniversário não seja só "envelhecer", ou "um ano a mais".


No seu dia o que eu mais te desejo é saúde. Saúde para conquistar mais sonhos, para mudar mais vidas, para conhecer mais castelos, mais jardins. Saúde para sempre falar para o Paulo se alimentar melhor, para a Renata gastar dinheiro com ela - e não com os outros, para a Jaqueline e eu ficarmos quietinhas "só um pouquinho". Saúde para os seus "ahhans" meio a tagarelice infindável desses seus quatro filhos que tanto te amam. E do neto que, quis Deus, nascesse puxando as tias e falando até com as paredes. Saúde para conhecer e ser ídolo de mais pequenos Henriques.

"Mãe" é uma palavra doce. E você nos ensinou muita doçura. Com seu exemplo humanitário, trabalhando pacientemente em plantões infindáveis em hospitais públicos, tratando bem quem quer que fosse, como quer que ele se apresentasse. Tendo três empregos e ainda assim nos ajudando com dever de casa. Sendo estudiosa desde cedo, deixando de fazer muita coisa, muita, muita coisa, para chegar onde chegou. Estudando mesmo já com os filhos "criados".

Feliz aniversário mamãe. E parabéns vovó, não só por criar a melhor mãe do mundo, como por sua braveza transmontana ser o ingrediente principal para uma família única, imensa e incomparável! O mundo precisa de mais exemplos femininos tão belos e fortes.

Rir é o melhor remédio

Fonte> Aqui

Entrevista com Barry Eichengreen

Excelente entrevista retirada do site do Fed de Cleveland com o professor Barry Eichengreen.

To some, the term “economic historian” conjures up images of an academic whose only interests lie deep in the past; an armchair scholar who holds forth on days long ago but has no insights about the present. Barry Eichengreen provides a useful corrective to that stereotype. For, as much as Eichengreen has studied episodes in economic history, he seems more attuned to connecting the past to the present. At the same time, he is mindful that “lessons” have a way of taking on lives of their own. What’s taken as given among economic historians today may be wholly rejected in the future.
Barry Eichengreen is the George C. Pardee and Helen N. Pardee Professor of Economics and Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, his hometown. He is known as an expert on monetary systems and global finance. He has authored more than a dozen books and many more academic papers on topics from the Great Depression to the recent financial crisis.
Eichengreen was a keynote speaker at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland’s research conference, Current Policy under the Lens of Economic History, in December 2012. Mark Sniderman, the Cleveland Fed’s executive vice president and chief policy officer, interviewed Eichengreen during his visit. An edited transcript follows.
Sniderman: It’s an honor to talk with you. You’re here at this conference to discuss the uses and misuses of economic history. Can you give us an example of how people inaccurately apply lessons from the past to the recent financial crisis?
Eichengreen: The honor is mine.
Whenever I say “lessons,” please understand the word to be surrounded by quotation marks. My point is that “lessons” when drawn mechanically have considerable capacity to mislead. For example, one “lesson” from the literature on the Great Depression was how disruptive serious banking crises can be. That, in a nutshell, is why the Fed and its fellow regulators paid such close attention to the banking system in the run-up to the recent crisis. But that “lesson” of history was, in part, what allowed them to overlook what was happening in the shadow banking system, as our system of lightly regulated near-banks is known.
What did they miss it? One answer is that there was effectively no shadow banking system to speak of in the 1930s. We learned to pay close attention to what was going on in the banking system, narrowly defined. That bias may have been part of what led policymakers to miss what was going on in other parts of the financial system.
Another example, this one from Europe, is the “lesson” that there is necessarily such a thing as expansionary fiscal consolidation. Europeans, when arguing that such a thing exists, look to the experience of the Netherlands and Ireland in the 1980s, when those countries cut their budget deficits without experiencing extended recessions. Both countries were able to consolidate but continue to grow, leading contemporary observers to argue that the same should be true in Europe today. But reasoning from that historical case to today misleads because the circumstances at both the country and global level were very different. Ireland and the Netherlands were small. They were consolidating in a period when the world economy was growing. These facts allowed them to substitute external demand for domestic demand. In addition, unlike European countries today they had their own monetary policies, allowing them step down the exchange rate, enhancing the competitiveness of their exports at one fell swoop, and avoid extended recessions. But it does not follow from their experience that the same is necessarily possible today. Everyone in Europe is consolidating simultaneously. Most nations lack their own independent exchange rate and monetary policies. And the world economy is not growing robustly.


A third “lesson” of history capable equally of informing and misinforming policy would be the belief in Germany that hyperinflation is always and everywhere just around the corner. Whenever the European Central Bank does something unconventional, like its program of Outright Monetary Transactions, there are warnings in German press that this is about to unleash the hounds of inflation. This presumption reflects from the “lesson” of history, taught in German schools, that there is no such thing as a little inflation. It reflects the searing impact of the hyperinflation of the 1920s, in other words. From a distance, it’s interesting and more than a little peculiar that those textbooks fail to mention the high unemployment rate in the 1930s and how that also had highly damaging political and social consequences.
The larger question is whether it is productive to think in terms of “history lessons.” Economic theory has no lessons; instead, it simply offers a way of systematically structuring how we think about the world. The same is true of history.
Sniderman: Let’s pick up on a couple of your comments about the Great Depression and hyperinflation in Germany. Today, some people in the United States have the same concerns. They look at the expansion of the monetary base and worry about inflation. Do you find it surprising that people are still fighting about whether big inflation is just around the corner because of US monetary policy, and is it appropriate to think about that in the context of the unemployment situation as well?
Eichengreen: I don’t find it surprising that the conduct of monetary policy is contested. Debate and disagreement are healthy. Fiat money is a complicated concept; not everyone trusts it. But while it’s important to think about inflation risks, it’s also important to worry about the permanent damage to potential output that might result from an extended period subpar growth. To be sure, reasonable people can question whether the Fed possesses tools suitable for addressing this problem. But it’s important to have that conversation.
Sniderman: Maybe just one more question in this direction because so much of your research has centered on the Great Depression. Surely you’ve been thinking about some of the similarities and differences between that period and this one. Have you come to any conclusions about that? Where are the congruencies and incongruences?
Eichengreen: My work on the Depression highlighted its international dimension. It emphasized the role of the gold standard and other international linkages in the onset of the Depression, and it emphasized the role that abandoning the gold standard and changing the international monetary regime played in bringing it to an end.
As a student, I was struck by the tendency in much of the literature on the Depression to treat the US essentially as a closed economy. Not surprisingly, perhaps, I was then struck by the tendency in 2007 to think about what was happening then as a US subprime crisis. Eventually, we came to realize that we were facing not just a US crisis but a global crisis. But there was an extended period during when many observers, in Europe in particular, thought that their economies were immune. They viewed what was happening as an exclusively American problem. They didn’t realize that what happened in the United States doesn’t stay in the United States. They didn’t realize that European banks, which rely heavily on dollar funding, were tightly linked to US economic and financial conditions. One of the first bits of research I did when comparing the Great Depression with the global credit crisis, together with Kevin O’Rourke, was to construct indicators of GDP, industrial production, trade, and stock market valuations worldwide and to show that, when viewed globally, the current crisis was every bit as severe as that of the 1930s.
Eventually, we came to realize that we were facing not just a US crisis but a global crisis. But there was an extended period during when many observers, in Europe in particular, thought that their economies were immune.
Sniderman: Given that many European countries are sharing our financial distress, what changes in the international monetary regime, if any, would be helpful? Could that avenue for thinking of solutions be as important this time around as it was the last time?
Eichengreen: One of the few constants in the historical record is dissatisfaction with the status quo. When exchange rates were fixed, Milton Friedman wrote that flexible rates would be better. When rates became flexible, others like Ron McKinnon argued that it would be better if we returned to pegs. The truth is that there are tradeoffs between fixed and flexible rates and, more generally, in the design of any international monetary system. Exchange rate commitments limit the autonomy of national monetary policymakers, which can be a good thing if that autonomy is being misused. But it can be a bad thing if that autonomy is needed to address pressing economic problems. The reality is that there is no such thing as the perfect exchange rate regime. Or, as Jeffrey Frankel put it, no one exchange rate regime is suitable for all times and places.
That said, there has tended to be movement over time in the direction of greater flexibility and greater discretion for policymakers. This reflects the fact that the mandate for central banks has grown more complex – necessarily, I would argue, given the growing complexity of the economy. An implication of that more complex mandate is the need for more discretion and judgment in the conduct of monetary policy—and a more flexible exchange rate to allow that discretion to be exercised.
Sniderman: I’d be interested in knowing whether you thought this crisis would have played out differently in the European Union if the individual countries still had their own currencies. Has the euro, per se, been an element in the problems that Europe is having, much as a regime fixed to gold was a problem during the Great Depression?
Eichengreen: Europe is a special case, as your question acknowledges. Europeans have their own distinctive history and they have drawn their own distinctive “lessons” from it. They looked at the experience of the 1930s and concluded that what we would now call currency warfare, that is, beggar-thy-neighbor exchange-rate policies, were part of what created tensions leading to World War II. The desire to make Europe a more peaceful place led to the creation of the European Union. And integral to that initiative was the effort was to stabilize exchange rates, first on an ad hoc basis and then by moving to the euro.
Whether things will play out as anticipated is, as always, an open question. We now know that the move to monetary union was premature. Monetary union requires at least limited banking union. Banking union requires at least limited fiscal union. And fiscal union requires at least limited political union. The members of the euro zone are now moving as fast as they can, which admittedly is not all that fast, to retrofit their monetary union to include a banking union, a fiscal union, and some form of political union. Time will tell whether or not they succeed.
But even if hindsight tells us that moving to a monetary union in 1999 was premature, it is important to understand that history doesn’t always run in reverse. The Europeans now will have to make their monetary union work. If they don’t, they’ll pay a high price.
I didn’t anticipate the severity and intractability of the euro crisis. All I can say in my defense is that no one did.
Sniderman: Let me pose a very speculative question. Would you say that if the Europeans had understood from the beginning what might be required to make all this work, they might not have embarked on the experiment; but because they did it as they did, there’s a greater likelihood that they’ll do what’s necessary to make the euro system endure? Is that how you’re conjecturing things will play out?
Eichengreen: If I may, allow me to refer back to the early literature on the euro. In 1992, in adopting theMaastricht Treaty, the members of the European Union committed to forming a monetary union. That elicited a flurry of scholarship. An article I wrote about that time with Tamim Bayoumi looked at whether a large euro area or a small euro area was better. We concluded that a small euro area centered on France, Germany, and the Benelux countries made more sense. So one mistake the Europeans made, which was predictable perhaps on political grounds, though no more excusable, was to opt for a large euro area.
I had another article in the Journal of Economic Literature in which I devoted several pages to the need for a banking union; on the importance, if you’re going to have a single currency, single financial market and integrated banking system, of also having common bank supervision, regulation, and resolution. European leaders, in their wisdom, thought that they could force the pace. They thought that by moving to monetary union they could force their members to agree to banking union more quickly. More quickly didn’t necessarily mean overnight; they thought that they would have a couple of decades to complete the process. Unfortunately, they were side-swiped by the 2007-08 crisis. What they thought would be a few decades turned out to be one, and they’ve now grappling with the consequences.
Sniderman: You’ve written about the dollar’s role as a global currency and a reserve currency, and you have some thoughts on where that’s all headed. Maybe you could elaborate on that.
Eichengreen: A first point, frequently overlooked, is that there has regularly been more than one consequential international currency. In the late nineteenth century, there was not only the pound sterling but also the French franc and the German mark. In the 1920s there was both the dollar and the pound sterling. The second half of the twentieth century is the historical anomaly, the one period when was only one global currency because there was only one large country with liquid financial markets open to the rest of the world—the United States. The dollar dominated in this period simply because there were no alternatives.
But this cannot remain the case forever. The US will not be able to provide safe and liquid assets in the quantity required by the rest of the world for an indefinite period. Emerging markets will continue to emerge. Other countries will continue to catch up to the technological leader, which is still, happily, the United States. The US currently accounts for about 25 percent of the global economy. Ten years from now, that fraction might be 20 percent, and 20 years from now it is apt to be less. The US Treasury’s ability to stand behind a stock of Treasury bonds, which currently constitute the single largest share of foreign central banks’ reserves and international liquidity generally, will grow more limited relative to the scale of the world economy. There will have to be alternatives.
In the book I wrote on this subject a couple of years ago, Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System, I pointed to the euro and the Chinese renminbi as the plausible alternatives. I argued that both could conceivably be significant rivals to the dollar by 2020. The dollar might well remain number one as invoicing currency and currency for trade settlements, and as a vehicle for private investment in central bank reserves, but the euro and renminbi could be nipping at its heels.
In the fullness of time I’ve grown more pessimistic about the prospects of those rivals. Back in 2010, when my book went off to the publisher, I didn’t anticipate the severity and intractability of the euro crisis. All I can say in my defense is that no one did. And I underestimated how much work the Chinese will have to do in order to successfully internationalize their currency. They are still moving in that direction; they’ve taken steps to encourage firms to use the renminbi for trade invoicing and settlements, and now they are liberalizing access to their financial markets, if gradually. But they have a deeper problem. Every reserve currency in history has been the currency of a political democracy or a republic of one sort or another. Admittedly the US and Britain are only two observations, which doesn’t exactly leave many degrees of freedom for testing this hypothesis. But if you go back before the dollar and sterling, the leading international currencies were those of Dutch Republic, the Republic of Venice, and the Republic of Genoa. These cases are similarly consistent with the hypothesis.
The question is why. The answer is that international investors, including central banks, are willing to hold the assets only of governments that are subject to checks and balances that limit the likelihood of their acting opportunistically. Political democracy and republican forms of governance are two obvious sources of such checks and balances. In other words, China will have to demonstrate that its central government is subject to limits on arbitrary action – that political decentralization, the greater power of nongovernmental organizations, or some other mechanism – that place limits on arbitrary action before foreign investors, both official and private, are fully comfortable about holding its currency.
I therefore worry not so much about these rivals dethroning the dollar as I do about the US losing the capacity to provide safe, liquid assets on the requisite scale before adequate alternatives emerge. Switzerland is not big enough to provide safe and liquid assets on the requisite scale; neither is Norway, nor Canada, nor Australia. Currently we may be swimming in a world awash with liquidity, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the danger that, say, 10 years from now there won’t be enough international liquidity to grease the wheels of twenty-first-century globalization.
Sniderman: It sounds to me as though you’re also trying to say that the United States should actually become comfortable with, perhaps even welcome, this development, because its absence creates some risks for us.
Eichengreen: I am. The United States benefits from the existence of a robust, integrated global economy. But globalization, in turn, requires liquidity. And the US, by itself, can’t all by itself satisfy the global economy’s international liquidity needs. So the shift toward a multipolar global monetary and financial system is something that we should welcome. It will be good for us, and it will be good for the global economy. To the extent that we have to pay a couple more basis points when we sell Treasury debt because we don’t have a captive market in the form of foreign central banks, that’s not a prohibitive cost.
Sniderman: And how has the financial crisis itself affected the timetable and the movement? It sounds like in some sense it’s retarding it.
Eichengreen: The crisis is clearly slowing the shift away from dollar dominance. When the subprime crisis broke, a lot of people thought the dollar would fall dramatically and that the People’s Bank of China might liquidate its dollar security holdings. What we discovered is that, in a crisis, there’s nothing that individuals, governments and central banks value more than liquidity. And the single most liquid market in the world is the market for US Treasury bonds. When Lehman Bros. failed, as a result of U.S. policy, everybody rushed toward the dollar rather than away. When Congress had its peculiar debate in August 2011 over raising the debt ceiling, everybody rushed toward the dollar rather than away. That fact may be ironic, but it’s true.
And a second effect of the crisis was to retard the emergence of the euro on the global stage. That too supports the continuing dominance of the dollar.
Sniderman: Economists and policymakers have always “missed” things. Are there ways in which economic historians can help current policymakers not to be satisfied with the “lessons” of history and get them to think more generally about these issues?
Eichengreen: It’s important to make the distinction between two questions – between “Could we have done better at anticipating the crisis?” and the question “Could we have done better at responding to it?” On the first question, I would insist that it’s too much to expect economists or economic historians to accurately forecast complex contingent events like financial crises. In the 1990s, I did some work on currency crises, instances when exchange rates collapse, with Charles Wyplosz and Andrew Rose. We found that what works on historical data, in other words what works in sample doesn’t also work out of sample. We were out-of-consensus skeptics about the usefulness of leading indicators of currency crises, and I think subsequent experience has borne out our view. Paul Samuelson made the comment that economists have predicted 13 out of the last seven crises. In other words, there’s type 1 error as well as type 2 error [the problem of false positives as well as false negatives].
Coming to the recent crisis, it’s apparent with hindsight that many economists – and here I by no means exonerate economic historians – were too quick to buy into the idea that there was such a thing as the Great Moderation. That was the idea that through better regulation, improved monetary policy and the development of automatic fiscal stabilizers we had learned to limit the volatility of the business cycle. If we’d paid more attention to history, we would have recalled an earlier period when people made the same argument: They attributed the financial crises of the 19th century to the volatility of credit markets; they believed that the founding of the Fed had eliminated that problem and that the business cycle had been tamed. They concluded that the higher level of asset prices observed in the late 1920s was fully justified by the advent of a more stable economy. They may have called it the New Age rather than the Great Moderation, but the underlying idea, not to say the underlying fallacy, was the same.
A further observation relevant to understanding the role of the discipline in the recent crisis is that we haven’t done a great job as a profession of integrating macroeconomics and finance. There have been heroic efforts to do so over the years, starting with the pioneering work of Franco Modigliani and James Tobin. But neither scholarly work nor the models used by the Federal Reserve System adequately capture, even today, how financial developments and the real economy interact. When things started to go wrong financially in 2007-08, the consequences were not fully anticipated by policymakers and those who advised them – to put an understated gloss on the point. I can think of at least two prominent policy makers, who I will resist the temptation to name, who famously asserted in 2007 that the impact of declining home prices would be “contained.” It turned out that we didn’t understand how declining housing prices were linked to the financial system through collateralized debt obligations and other financial derivatives, or how those instruments were, in turn, linked to important financial institutions. So much for containment.
Sniderman: I suppose one of the challenges that the use of economic history presents is the selectivity of adoption. And here I have in mind things like going back to the Great Depression to learn “lessons.” It’s often been said, based on some of the scholarship of the Great Depression and the role of the Fed, that the “lesson” the Fed should learn is to act aggressively, to act early, and not to withdraw accommodation prematurely. And that is the framework the Fed has chosen to adopt. At the same time, others draw “lessons” from other parts of US economic history and say, “You can’t imagine that this amount of liquidity creation, balance sheet expansion, etc. would not lead to a great inflation.” If people of different viewpoints choose places in history where they say, “History teaches us X,” and use them to buttress their view of the appropriate response, I suppose there’s no way around that other than to trying, as you said earlier, to point out whether these comparisons are truly apt or not.
Eichengreen: A considerable literature in political science and foreign policy addresses this question. Famous examples would be President Truman and Korea on the one hand, and President Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis on the other. Earnest May, the Harvard political scientist, argued that Truman thought only in terms of Munich, Munich having been the searing political event of his generation. Given the perspective this created, Truman was predisposed to see the North Koreans and Chinese as crossing a red line and to react aggressively. Kennedy, on the other hand, was less preoccupied by Munich. He had historians like Arthur Schlesinger advising him. Those advisors encouraged him to develop and consider a portfolio of analogies and test their aptness – in other words, their “fitness” to the circumstances. One should look not only at Munich, Schlesinger and others suggested, but also to Sarajevo. It is important to look at a variety of other precedents for current circumstances, to think which conforms best to the current situation, and to take that fit into account when you’re using history to frame a response.
I think there was a tendency, when things were falling down around our ears in 2008, to refer instinctively to the Great Depression. What Munich was for Truman, the Great Depression is for monetary economists. It’s at least possible that the tendency to compare the two events and to frame the response to the current crisis in terms of the need “to avoid another Great Depression” was conducive to overreaction. In fairness, economic historians did point to other analogies. There was the 1907 financial crisis. There was the 1873 crisis. It would have been better, in any case, to have developed a fuller and more rounded portfolio of precedents and analogies and to have used it to inform the policy response. Of course, that would have required policy makers to have some training in economic history.
Sniderman: This probably brings us back full circle. We started with the uses and misuses of economic history and we’ve been talking about economic history throughout the conversation. I think it might be helpful to hear your perspective on what economic history and economic historians are. Why not just an economist who works in history or a historian who works on topics of economics? What does the term “economic history” mean, and what does the professional discipline of economic historian connote to you?
Eichengreen: As the name suggests, one is neither fish nor fowl; neither economist nor historian. This makes the economic historian a trespasser in other people’s disciplines, to invoke the phrase coined by the late Albert Hirschman. Historians reason by induction while economists are deductive. Economists reason from theory while historians reason from a mass of facts. Economic historians do both. Economists are in the business of simplifying; their strategic instrument is the simplifying assumption. The role of the economic historian is to say “Not so fast, there’s context here. Your model leaves out important aspects of the problem, not only economic but social, political, and institutional aspects – creating the danger of providing a misleading guide to policy.”
Economists reason from theory while historians reason from a mass of facts. Economic historians do both.
Sniderman: Do you think that, in training PhD economists, there’s a missed opportunity to stress the value and usefulness of economic history? Over the years, economics has become increasingly quantitative and math-focused. From the nature of the discussion we’ve had, it is clear that you don’t approach economic history as sort of a side interest of “Let’s study the history of things,” but rather a disciplined way of integrating economic theory into the context of historical episodes. Is that way of thinking about economic history appreciated as much as it could be?
Eichengreen: I should emphasize that the opportunity is not entirely missed. Some top PhD programs require an economic history course of their PhD students, the University of California, Berkeley, being one.
The best way of demonstrating the value of economic history to an economist, I would argue, is by doing economic history. So when we teach economic history to PhD students in economics in Berkeley, we don’t spend much time talking about the value of history. Instead, we teach articles and address problems, and leave it to the students, as it were, to figure how this style of work might be applied to this own research. For every self-identifying economic historian we produce, we have several PhD students with have a historical chapter, or a historical essay, or an historical aspect to their dissertations. That’s a measure of success.
Sniderman: Well, thank you very much. I’ve enjoyed it.
Eichengreen: Thank you. So have I.

5 princípios de finanças


I own one finance textbook, and I occasionally open it to remind myself how little I know about finance. It's packed with formulas on complex option pricing, the Gaussian copula function, and a chapter titled, "Assessment of Confidence Limits of Selected Values of Complex-Valued Models." I have literally no idea what that means.
Should it bother me that there's so much about finance I don't know? I don't think so. As John Reed writes in his book Succeeding:
When you first start to study a field, it seems like you have to memorize a zillion things. You don't. What you need is to identify the core principles -- generally three to twelve of them -- that govern the field. The million things you thought you had to memorize are simply various combinations of the core principles.
Evolution tells you a lot about biology. A handful of cognitive biases explain most of psychology. Likewise, there are a few core principles that explain most of what we need to know about investing.
Here are five that come to mind.
1. Compound interest is what will make you rich. And it takes time.Warren Buffett is a great investor, but what makes him rich is that he's been a great investor for two thirds of a century. Of his current $60 billion net worth, $59.7 billion was added after his 50th birthday, and $57 billion came after his 60th. If Buffett started saving in his 30s and retired in his 60s, you would have never heard of him. His secret is time.
Most people don't start saving in meaningful amounts until a decade or two before retirement, which severely limits the power of compounding. That's unfortunate, and there's no way to fix it retroactively. It's a good reminder of how important it is to teach young people to start saving as soon as possible.
2. The single largest variable that affects returns is valuations -- and you have no idea what they'll doFuture market returns will equal the dividend yield + earnings growth +/- change in the earnings multiple (valuations). That's really all there is to it.
The dividend yield we know: It's currently 2%. A reasonable guess of future earnings growth is 5% per year.
What about the change in earnings multiples? That's totally unknowable.
Earnings multiples reflect people's feelings about the future. And there's just no way to know what people are going to think about the future in the future. How could you?
If someone said, "I think most people will be in a 10% better mood in the year 2023," we'd call them delusional. When someone does the same thing by projecting 10-year market returns, we call them analysts.
3. Simple is usually better than smartSomeone who bought a low-cost S&P 500 index fund in 2003 earned a 97% return by the end of 2012. That's great! And they didn't need to know a thing about portfolio management, technical analysis, or suffer through a single segment of "The Lighting Round."
Meanwhile, the average equity market neutral fancy-pants hedge fund lost 4.7% of its value over the same period, according to data from Dow Jones Credit Suisse Hedge Fund Indices. The average long-short equity hedge fund produced a 96% total return -- still short of an index fund.
Investing is not like a computer: Simple and basic can be more powerful than complex and cutting-edge. And it's not like golf: The spectators have a pretty good chance of humbling the pros.
4. The odds of the stock market experiencing high volatility are 100%Most investors understand that stocks produce superior long-term returns, but at the cost of higher volatility.
Yet every time -- every single time -- there's even a hint of volatility, the same cry is heard from the investing public: "What is going on?!"
Nine times out of ten, the correct answer is the same: Nothing is going on. This is just what stocks do.
Since 1900 the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC  ) has returned about 6% per year, but the average difference between any year's highest close and lowest close is 23%. Remember this the next time someone tries to explain why the market is up or down by a few percentage points. They are basically trying to explain why summer came after spring.
Someone once asked J.P. Morgan what the market will do. "It will fluctuate," he allegedly said. Truer words have never been spoken.
5. The industry is dominated by cranks, charlatans, and salesman.
  • The vast majority of financial products are sold by people whose only interest in your wealth is the amount of fees they can sucker you out of.
  • You need no experience, credentials, or even common sense to be a financial pundit. Sadly, the louder and more bombastic a pundit is, the more attention he'll receive, even though it makes him more likely to be wrong.
This is perhaps the most important theory in finance. Until it is understood you stand a high chance of being bamboozled and misled at every corner.
"Everything else is cream cheese."
Fonte: aqui

Dança do contador


Via aqui

Suborno no Irã

A maior empresa de petróleo da França, a Total, pagou a um funcionário do governo do Irã 60 milhões dólares. O pagamento estaria disfarçada na contabilidade como "despesa de desenvolvimento de negócios". Com isto, a empresa viola o Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) que inibe subornos. Esta denúncia foi realizada pela SEC, que afirmou que a empresa lucrou mais de 150 milhões de dólares com a corrupção.

O pagamento ocorreu sob a forma de um contrato de consultoria para um intermediário indicado pelo funcionário iraniano.

Auditoria na Viavarejo

Contratada pela Via Varejo para levantar possíveis inconsistências na contabilidade, a auditoria KPMG descobriu diferenças de avaliação de valores que superestimaram o patrimônio da empresa em R$ 230 milhões.

A maior parte desse valor é uma diferença na avaliação do patrimônio da Casas Bahia e do Ponto Frio, empresas que se juntaram em 2010 para formar a Via Varejo.

A Folha apurou que R$ 170 milhões são resultado de uma diferença na avaliação dos ativos da Casas Bahia e da fabricante de móveis Bartira.

A cifra também inclui R$ 50 milhões em vendas supostamente realizadas pela Casas Bahia. As cerca de 73 mil notas fiscais dessas vendas desapareceram.

O relatório aponta ainda o não recolhimento do Imposto de Renda, PIS e Cofins e ICMS dessas vendas.

No Ponto Frio, a diferença patrimonial foi inicialmente de R$ 35 milhões.

Mas a Folha apurou que esse número pode chegar a R$ 60 milhões.

Além desses valores, a KMPG apontou novas inconsistências que não puderam ser mensuradas. Isso significa que o valor pode extrapolar os R$ 230 milhões.

Oficialmente, as empresas dizem que os números apontados pela KPMG não são definitivos, mas se negam a comentar o relatório, que é sigiloso e não pode ser usado em processos judiciais.

O assunto está sendo conduzido pelo comitê financeiro da Via Varejo com apoio técnico dos executivos.

Solução 

Segundo apurou a reportagem, a solução que deverá ser aprovada é o pagamento das diferenças pelas partes para que o assunto seja encerrado.

Acerto semelhante foi feito no ano passado por outras diferenças.

Resolvida essa controvérsia entre os sócios, a empresa fica livre para seguir adiante com o plano da família Klein, que detém 47% da Via Varejo, de vender parte de suas ações por meio de abertura de capital da companhia.

A empresa foi avaliada em até R$ 12 bilhões -quase o triplo do valor na época da fusão. A abertura de capital agrada ao Casino, grupo francês que controla o Pão de Açúcar, dono dos outros 53%.

Procurada, a KPMG preferiu não comentar.

Auditoria vê diferença milionária na contabilidade da Via Varejo - JULIO WIZIACK e TONI SCIARRETTA, Folha de S Paulo, 29 de maio de 2013 (Dica de Alexandre Alcântara)

Auditoria e Regulador

O The Telegraph, ao analisar as empresas de auditoria, chama a atenção para um aspecto curioso da entidade reguladora da contabilidade do Reino Unido, o Financial Reporting Council. O FRC supervisiona o Accounting Standards Board (ASB), entidade responsável pelas normas contábeis do Reino Unido:

é uma entidade composta predominantemente por ex-funcionários das Big Four - Paul George, diretor-executivo de Conduta (...) é ex-sócio da KPMG, por exemplo, e também é financiado por empresas de contabilidade

Claramente o FRC necessita de maior independência.

29 maio 2013

Rir é o melhor remédio

Adaptado daqui

Pesquisa

Prezado(a) Leitor(a),

O doutorando João Marcelo Alves Macêdo, do Programa Multi Institucional e Inter-Regional de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Contábeis UnB/UFPB/UFRN, precisa da sua colaboração. Primeiramente, solicitamos que participe de um questionário, através do link abaixo:

http://bit.ly/1azY57G 

A pesquisa é desenvolvida na plataforma Google Docs e contém um vídeo com menos de dois minutos (disponibilizado por meio de um link do Youtube) para ser assistido durante a participação. Estimamos que sua resposta demore aproximadamente 10 min.


Em tempo: Não se esqueçam de clicar em ENVIAR no fim do questionário, mesmo que não queiram completar o campo que se refere ao e-mail (para os interessados nos resultados da pesquisa).



Auditores

(...) O levantamento, feito com 1.700 auditores, revela resultados polêmicos como o dado que aponta que 13% dos executivos-chefes de auditoria interna que atuam no Brasil (5% na América do Norte), já sofreram algum tipo de influência para alterar, indevidamente, os resultados de seus trabalhos. Sendo que 21,5% (7% na América do Norte) destas pressões vieram de diretores financeiros.

Além disso, 16% dos executivos-chefes de auditoria interna do Brasil relatam que já tiveram, em algum momento, prejudicada a objetividade de seus departamentos ou foram afetados (influenciados) negativamente, por parte hierárquica superior dentro da organização. Em contrapartida, 43% afirmam que melhoraram a independência e a objetividade da auditoria interna quando alteraram a linha de reporte de seu departamento para um nível hierárquico mais alto dentro da estrutura de governança na organização.(...)

Fonte: Canal Executivo - 23-05-2013 via Alexandre Alcantara

Iasb e o dinheiro dos Estados Unidos

Isto já foi notícia no blog.

Empresas e entidades dos Estados Unidos reduziram em 30% as doações para a Fundação IFRS em 2012. Em termos absolutos, a contribuição de 1,22 milhão de libras no ano passado foi a menor desde 2007, quando a divulgação passou a ser feita pela entidade responsável por manter financeiramente o Iasb, órgão que elabora as normas contábeis internacionais.

Os donativos americanos representaram no ano passado apenas 5% da receita total da Fundação IFRS, em comparação com um percentual que chegou a ser de 12% em 2007 e vem caindo ano a ano desde então.

A redução das doações dos EUA parece um reflexo da falta de engajamento do país em relação ao processo de convergência para um único padrão contábil global, que está cada vez mais próximo de ficar só no mundo das ideias. (...)

Nesse caso, a redução da verba doada por empresas e entidades dos EUA apenas acompanha a mudança no discurso de autoridades que ocorreu principalmente ao longo de 2012.

Atarefada com a implantação de inúmeras novas regras decorrentes da crise financeira de 2008 e envolta em disputas políticas, a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), órgão regulador do mercado de capitais americano, não toca mais no assunto IFRS, embora sua ex-presidente Mary Schapiro tivese prometido uma decisão sobre convergência ou não até 2011 e depois até 2012.

(...) Enquanto isso, escasseiam os recursos para manter o Iasb. O que evitou que o órgão apresentasse déficit em 2012 foi um forte corte de despesas, especialmente com viagens, e também a doação de € 4 milhões da Comissão Europeia. Uma quantia semelhante está aprovada para 2013, mas não para os anos seguintes. CPC e Banco Central doaram 229 mil libras, mesma quantia de 2011.

EUA reduzem apoio financeiro ao IFRS - Fernando Torres | De São Paulo - Valor Econômica, via aqui

As maiores loterias

Fonte: Aqui

Livros Digitais

O Tribunal Regional Federal (TRF) da 3ª Região entendeu que a imunidade fiscal garantida pela Constituição Federal a livros, periódicos e papel não alcança os leitores de livros digitais (e-readers). Em um dos poucos processos sobre o tema, os desembargadores deram provimento a um recurso contra liminar obtida pela Livraria Cultura, que isentava de impostos a importação do e-reader Kobo. (Leitores de livros digitais não têm imunidade fiscal, Bárbara Mengardo, Valor Econômico - 28/05/2013)

Em outro texto descobri que existe diferença entre e-readers e e-books:

Ao contrário dos leitores eletrônicos (e-readers), os livros digitais (e-books) estão conseguindo obter no Judiciário a isenção de impostos. A discussão está mais adiantada e já chegou ao Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), que deu repercussão geral a um recurso sobre o tema.(Supremo discute isenção de e-books, Valor Econômico - 28/05/2013)

Alquimista

O jornal Valor Econômico traz um perfil de um funcionário do Tesouro Nacional (Marcus Aucélio, o 'alquimista' do Tesouro, Edna Simão, 28/05/2013). O tom é elogioso, mas o texto mostra que sua principal função no governo é garantir o cumprimento das metas do governo, a qualquer custo:

Foi a criatividade desse grupo comandado por Aucélio que permitiu ao governo alcançar a meta fiscal fixada para 2012, mesmo sem ter de fato ocorrido uma redução de gastos ou um aumento de receitas.

Ele tem sido o operador ideal para que Arno possa atender às demandas da presidente. Enquanto o ex-secretário-executivo do ministério, Nelson Barbosa, defendia que não haveria problemas se o governo não atingisse a meta num ano de crise e baixo crescimento, como 2012, Arno sustentou, junto à Dilma, de quem é amigo desde os tempos de Porto Alegre, que era possível cumprir a meta. Mesmo quando ninguém mais, dentro e fora do governo, acreditava, Arno prosseguiu no discurso fiscalista até que, no dia 29 de dezembro, admitiu que não dava. Era preciso fazer algo para não cair na ilegalidade. A Lei de Diretrizes Orçamentárias (LDO) determina que a União compense, com um superávit maior, a frustração da meta que caberia aos Estados e municípios.

Para superar o problema colocado às vésperas do feriado de fim de ano, foi elaborado todo um malabarismo financeiro que envolveu antecipação de pagamento de dividendos de empresas estatais federais, principalmente do Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES) e da Caixa Econômica Federal, e capitalizações por meio de troca de ações entre as empresas públicas, sem contar o uso dos recursos do Fundo Soberano do Brasil.

Arte

Reprodução de quadros famosos em comida... Você consegue lembrar o nome da pintura e seu autor?





Respostas: Magritte, Munch, Picasso, Van Gogh, Dali e Vermeer 

Marcas mais valiosas


BRANDS are basically a promise. They tell consumers what quality to expect from a product and show off its personality. Firms invest a lot on the image of their brands to foster sales and loyalty. But measuring their value is hard. Millward Brown, a market-research company, is one of several that takes a stab at it. It has just published its annual ranking of the world's "most powerful" brands based on consumers' perceptions and the performance of the companies that own them.
The top 100 are collectively worth $2.6 trillion, the firm reckons. Apple remains the world's most valuable brand, worth $185 billion, at the head of a trio of technology companies. None has increased much in value, however, since 2012 perhaps because they have been refining their products rather than being startlingly innovative. Microsoft, which tried to be startling by launching a radical new operating system, has seen its brand value fall. Apple's big rival, Samsung, jumped 25 places, partly by out-innovating Apple and partly by boosting its advertising expenditure by $1.6 billion.
Visa was one of the main brand sponsors for the 2012 Olympic games in London. But many of the big gainers profited from growth in emerging markets. That helps explain the jump in the value of beer brands like Brazil's Brahma, which is worth 61% more than last year. Tencent, an internet services portal, benefited from being innovative and Chinese. As sales slowed in Europe, Zara, a high-street fashion retailer launched online shopping for customers in China.
Luxury goods companies groom their brands even more carefully than most. Gucci, whose brand value increased by almost 50%, has invested in technology to support its online and mobile presence. The biggest riser this year, though, is Prada, whose brand value surged 63% as it boosted sales in both old markets and new. But even in Western Europe its most avid customers were Asian tourists.

Polêmica

Esta peça de cozinha está provocando polêmica, pois lembra alguém. Você saberia dizer quem?

28 maio 2013

Rir é o melhor remédio


Partidas Dobradas

Gleeson-White escreveu um livro fascinante sobre a história do método das partidas dobradas (Double entry. New York: W W Norton, 2012). O livro possui o subtítulo de Como os Mercadores de Veneza Criaram as Finanças Modernas e isto indica a profunda admiração do autor pelo método de Veneza.

O livro possui dez capítulos sendo a metade sobre a gênese do método e sua difusão. Os demais se referem da contabilidade no mundo moderno, incluindo aí as contas nacionais. Como a maioria do livro refere-se a Summa, a obra é uma fonte profunda para aqueles que se interessam sobre a história da contabilidade.  Eis uma amostra:

ð  Os primeiros livros contábeis datam em torno de 1300: livros dos mercadores Rinieri Fini e irmãos (entre 1296 a 1305) e de Giovanni Farolfi (entre 1299 a 1300). Nestas obras já se considera o lucro como um incremento do patrimônio líquido, mensurado para um período contábil claramente definido.
ð  A matemática na idade média não era uma matéria específica. Na realidade era ensinada como “astrologia”. O próprio Pacioli se referiu como “astrólogo” para o Papa Leão X
ð  No século XIV era comum que os comerciantes mandassem seus filhos para algumas cidades onde poderiam aprender sobre o comércio, especialmente a operar o ábaco, aprender sobre câmbio e o sistema de escrituração.
ð  Pacioli tornou-se um frei talvez mais por interesse da carreira do que por crença. Durante sua vida ele deixou de cumprir uma série de regras da sua irmandade, tendo inclusive falecido como um homem rico.
ð  Durante a época de Pacioli existiam treze universidades na Itália e em cada uma dela só existia emprego para um ou dois matemáticos. E Pacioli foi considerado matemático para duas delas.
ð  Após a invenção da imprensa, os humanistas pretendiam que a primeira obra fossem os livros de Euclides, mas o primeiro livro foi um livro para mercadores.
ð  A obra de Pacioli foi escrita em italiano, ao contrário da tradição de uso do latim, e encorajada o uso dos números hindus-arábicos e não romanos. Pacioli também criou símbolos para “mais” e “menos”, que são diferentes daqueles que usamos hoje.
ð  A tiragem inicial da Summa tinha uma tiragem de dois mil exemplares, levou de nove a doze meses para ser produzido e tinha 615 páginas. Sobreviveram 99 cópias da edição de 1494 e 36 da edição de 1523. Parte do livro era uma “reprodução” do livro de Fibonacci, que estava “esquecido”.
ð  A Summa media 25 centímetros por 30 e corresponde a um livro de 1500 páginas se fosse impresso hoje.
ð  O livro foi a obra matemática mais lida na Itália por um século e treinou muitos estudantes em matemática e contabilidade.
ð  Pacioli ajudou o pintor Leonado da Vinci na criação da Última Ceia. E o livro De Divina proportione contou com 60 figuras geométricas desenhadas por Da Vinci.
ð  Pacioli escreveu um livro, denominado De ludo Scacchorum que seria o primeiro de livro xadrez. Muitos duvidavam da existência do livro, pois nenhuma cópia foi encontrada. Até 2006, quando uma cópia foi descoberta no norte da Itália.
ð  Parte do Summa foi traduzido para diversas línguas, como inglês, holandês, alemão, francês e russo.
ð  O sistema de Pacioli de lançamento incluía duas palavras básicas: per que significa “de” e a, que indica a conta a ser creditada. Um lançamento típico seria: “Per Banco // A Caixa”.
ð  Todos os livros de contabilidade publicados no século XVI estavam diretamente baseados no trabalho de Pacioli e influenciou, inclusive, obras em língua portuguesa, em 1758. Alguns deles eram cópias, sem a devida referência, como é o caso da obra de Manzoni. O livro de Manzoni teve entre seis e sete edições em quarenta anos.
ð  Uma tentativa de combater o método de PAcioli foi lançado na Inglaterra em 1796 cujo autor propunha um método infalível por partidas simples que causou sensação.

O final do livro não é tão animador. O autor tentar abranger uma série de assuntos, sendo superficial na análise moderna da contabilidade.

Vale a pena? Se você gosta de história ou quer conhecer um pouco mais sobre isto, este livro é altamente recomendado.

(Imagem: Allegory of Commerce and a Debtor's Prison)

Parceiros do blog:
Amazon Brasil
Americanas
Submarino

CEOs não sabem administrar


A new study shows that CEOs are doing a lousy job when it comes to people management. The study, a joint project by the Center for Leadership Development and Research at Stanford’s Graduate School of  Business, Stanford’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance and The Miles Group, a consulting firm in New York that focuses on C-suites and corporate boards, found that both CEOs and boards are overly focused on the bottom line, at the expense of mentoring and engaging their boards. The survey polled 160 CEOs and directors of North American public and private companies.
One of the questions to boards of directors: Rank the top weakness of your CEO. “Mentoring skills” and “board engagement” tied for first place. “This signals that directors are clearly concerned about their CEOs’ ability to mentor top talent,” said Stephen Miles, CEO of The Miles Group, in a statement. “Focusing on drivers such as developing the next generation of leadership is essential to planning beyond the next quarter and avoiding the short-term thinking that inhibits growth.”
It makes sense to me that boards are preoccupied with financial measurements. But the study found that the attention given to talent development and mentoring was at rock bottom. The survey asked boards and CEOs about the weighting they give to various aspects of CEO performance. The most important thing, rated at 41%, was “accounting, operating or stock price performance.” The weighting given to people performance was incredibly low, with “succession planning” getting just a 5% rating and and “workplace safety” just 2%.
The researchers say that CEOs need to reach beyond numbers and care about people management. Two other statistics from the survey that underline how disengaged CEOs are from concern about employees: When asked about their CEOs’ greatest strengths, 70% rated “decision-making skills” at the top. At the bottom: 27% said “compassion/empathy,” 23% said “mentoring skills/developing internal talent” and just 23% said “listening skills.” The lowest-rated skill was “conflict management.” Likewise, when asked about CEOs’ biggest weaknesses, 24% said “mentoring skills” and 22% said “sharing leadership/delegation skills.”
Also striking is the fact that a sizable majority of directors (83%) and boards (64%) agree that the CEO evaluation process should rely on a balanced approach between financial performance and nonfinancial measurements. “Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that the CEO evaluation process is not that balanced,” said Stanford’s David Larcker, co-director of the Center for Leadership Development in a statement. “Amid growing calls for integrating reporting and corporate social responsibility, companies are still behind the times when it comes to developing reliable and valid measures of nonfinancial performance metrics.”
More results from the study:
-          Directors don’t rate their CEOs highly. Only 41% of directors say their CEO is in the top 20% of their peers and 17% say their CEO is below the 60th percentile.
-          A sizable minority, 10%, say they have never evaluated their CEO.
-          CEOs who are evaluated, agree with the marks they get.“Shareholders have to wonder at the objectivity of the evaluation process,” said Larcker. “It’s hard to believe that boards are pushing CEOs on their evaluations if they pretty much agree with their evaluation.”
-          Many directors forgive CEOs for legal and regulatory violations. This is one of the most striking results of the study. When asked about unexpected litigation against the company, a significant minority of directors, 27%, said that it would have no impact on a CEO’s performance evaluation, while 24% said that regulatory problems would have no impact. Shouldn’t CEOs be held accountable for legal and regulatory lapses? At least directors were unforgiving about ethical violations and a failure to be transparent with the board. A full 100% said their CEOs would get worse performance evaluations in the face of ethical problems.
I agree with the study’s authors that in the ideal world, CEOs would care about people management and they would be grooming successors to step in should something go awry. But I also understand boards’ and bosses’ preoccupation with the bottom line.
Also I can think of two recent examples of companies where the CEOs left abruptly under unexpected circumstances and the companies reached outside for replacements who, thus far, have arguably done a good job—better, perhaps, than someone from inside would have done. At Yahoo last year, Scott Thompson had been CEO for just four months when activist investor Daniel Loeb, who opposed Thompson’s appointment, sent a letter to the board revealing that Thompson had lied about his credentials. Thompson, who was an outside hire from PayPayl, had zero time to groom a successor, so Yahoo reached outside again and hired Marissa Mayer from Google. Though she’s been in the post for just a year and may still hit roadblocks in her efforts to revive the struggling company, Yahoo’s stock has risen from $15 when she took the helm to $26.
Another example: Struggling big box retailer Best Buy lost its CEO, Brian Dunn, suddenly last April after his inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate came to light. An insider, director G. Mike Mikan, served as interim CEO for four months. Then the company hired Frenchman Hubert Joly, who had been running a Minneapolis travel company called Carlson. Though Best Buy’s stock fell from $20 when Joly came on board to $11 in January, he has managed to revive the company’s fortunes and bring the share price back up to $26. It’s not clear that an insider could have done a better job.
Maybe I’m guilty, like directors and CEOS, of focusing too much on the bottom line here, but in the end, that’s what shareholders value. Though I agree with the Stanford study authors that in an ideal world, CEOs would channel more of their energy toward listening to the people inside their companies and developing talent from within.
NEW YORK, NY - MAY 20:  Yahoo CEO Marissa Maye...

Fonte: aqui