Páginas

12 setembro 2007

Comparabilidade nas normas do Iasb

Artigo no Financial Times mostra a dificuldade de comparação com a adoção das normas internacionais. A comparabilidade tem sido uma das vantagens para a adoção das normas do Iasb. Entretanto, Lawrence Cunningham (Beware the temptation of global standards,
Financial Times - 11/09/2007) acredita que seja difícil considerar este fator atualmente. A visão de Cunningham é pessimista, não acreditando ser possível obter a comparabilidade sequer na União Européia. Ele cita uma série de exemplos para apoiar seu ponto de vista.


(...) Comparability requires uniform standards and uniform application. It would be surprising if people in the 100 countries endorsing international standards achieved uniform application, considering the varying political, economic and cultural environments that exist in the world and absence of any global enforcement authority that could overcome them.

Every important accounting decision requires judgment. People making the judgments do so in local, not global, contexts. Judgments differ between countries to reflect local conditions, such as legal norms; financial market size and scope, ownership concentration, the character and status of the auditing profession and the press, and a government's role in an economy.

The European Union has told members to use international rules. Will companies in those countries do so uniformly? Some of those countries are notorious for ignoring EU directives, especially the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal. Many members - which include such diverse countries as Cyprus, Germany, Hungary and Spain - have already altered the international standards to reflect local needs. Beyond the EU, endorsers of international standards include such assorted countries as Armenia, South Korea and Kuwait. It seems naive to believe that accounting standards will be applied uniformly in all these places.

No government will prize global accounting uniformity over competing priorities. When accounting rules required Japanese banks to record big losses on large loans in the 1990s, Japan's government intervened against doing so to avert a national financial crisis. Also, when the International Accounting Standards Board proposed rules for financial instruments, the French government lobbied for an exception to reduce volatility in reports of French banks. Amid the 1970s' energy crisis, the US Congress directed the SEC to set special accounting rules for US oil companies to manage the fallout. Steps such as these willcontinue and would stealthily destroy global uniformity.

Governments also influence the world's large auditing firms, disabling them from assuring uniformity in accounting practice. Consider how Ernst & Young, pressed by China's four state banks, last year withdrew its report on the banks' non-performing loans. The firm estimated these to be Dollars 358bn while the official figure put them at Dollars 133bn. Similarly, PwC, pressed by the Russian government, recently withdrew audit reports on Yukos, the oil group.

Champions of international standards say that converging global markets make uniform global accounting inevitable. Yet divergent accounting will persist, given enduring local diversity. Some believe that adopting uniform written standards can influence local behaviour. While this is possible, it would require a global enforcement authority that does not exist and is unlikely to appear. So the proposals risk misleading investors into believing that nominal uniformity means real uniformity. (...)

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário