'Pick and choose' catering for lesser companies.
By ROBERT BRUCE
Financial Times - 10/09/2007
Surveys IAC1
Page 2
In an era of globalisation a common reporting language makes logical and business sense, and this is why an increasing number of listed companies around the world are using IFRS. But that acceptance opens up a gap further down the business scale.
Private companies and small and medium-sized companies around the world see a need for good financial reporting that will be universally understood, but the lesser size of their operations makes IFRS inappropriate.
The financial reporting needs of companies that are tapping the international capital markets are very different from smaller enterprises whose ambitions will be at a great variance.
There is a need for a universal system of financial reporting for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). But the difficulties of creating a one-size-fits-all system that will somehow suit a large private company in Bangkok and a newsagent in the Wiltshire village of Bradford on Avon are obvious. "You could end up with quite strong rules for capital markets," says Allen Blewitt, chief executive of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), "but a hodge-podge of rules for micro and very small businesses".
The debate has been stimulated by the release of an exposure draft detailing a possible standard and guidelines for its use from the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). On October 1, the comment period on that draft will come to an end.
"It has been a really interesting time," says Brian Shearer, senior technical partner at Grant Thornton. "It has had a lot of positive response. The large private company arena is enthusiastic. I hear from all overthe world: 'We will be using it'."
It is not surprising. Initially it was argued that the IASB, which has devoted all of its efforts to the needs of global companies, was not the organisation that ought to be carrying out the exercise. But, in the words of Sir David Tweedie, IASB chairman: "There was an uneasy feeling that the IASB was failing to live up to its obligation as an international organisation."
While economies with a long history of sophisticated financial reporting such as the US and UK could work off existing and long-standing principles and standards, elsewhere around the world it was a different story. "More than 40 participants representing emerging economies in Asia and Latin America called for the IASB to take into account the special needs of SMEs," says Sir David.
So the IASB responded to the call. The most simple route would have been to take the existing 2,500 pages of the IFRS and suggest that SMEs should pluck out the areas that were relevant to them. Instead, the IASB reduced the body of the IFRS by 85 per cent and produced a distilled 254-page draft.
"It is a very important project," says Tom Jones, IASB vice-chairman. "A number of countries have tried to implement full standards for all companies and it just hasn't worked.
"(The challenge) was to produce a set of standards that are adequate for SMEs - relatively simple in style but based on the same format as IFRS and available as people want it or not," he says. It is this last point that is important. Under different jurisdictions financial reporting has different objectives.
In some countries, for example, the rules for private non-listed companies of all sizes are intended to provide information for the tax authorities, rather than to create information and understanding for investors or creditors. So the IASB cannot make the standard mandatory. It will be up to the jurisdictions, country by country, to take up the rules.
In the UK, for example, it would be relatively simple to implement. "But that analysis may not work in other countries", says Peter Holgate, senior technical partner for PwC in the UK. "Where national generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) are there for financial reporting reasons then the answer is yes. But where national GAAP is tied to tax provision then perhaps the answer is no."
In countries where the primary purpose of financial reporting at this level is the figures for tax there will be difficulties. Adjustments are possible but that might cause a greater burden for companies of a size where more reporting complexity would be very unwelcome. And that would defeat the IASB's objectives.
What is likely is that the countries that still see tax calculations - rather than information for investors - as the priority of financial reporting, will find themselves increasingly out of step. Relatively simple legislation could solve their difficulty. Being outside the global consensus would be seen as more damaging.
"It will be a bit like IFRS," says Mr Holgate. "More and more countries have adopted it. In 10 years time people will have shifted and adopted the SME standard in more and more countries."
As for the smallest companies, it may be that in the end, just as legislation to raise audit thresholds have lifted many of them out of audit, either something very simple is provided, or nothing at all. Quite what financial reporting rules have to do with a small newsagent is hard to see.
"Beyond providing tax information to the authorities, which you have to do, why should there be a need for anything?" asks Mr Holgate. The issue is to separate the huge need and demand for a universal standard for SMEs from the complications of trying to fit something more simple to different countries' regimes and business quirks.
"There is a huge cry all around the world for an SME standard, but there are hugely different demands," says Ken Wild, global leader, IFRS, at Deloitte. "We need to compromise, and accept it won't be perfect, but we will learn from it. And we can then build from it."
Perhaps the answer is for the international accountancy profession to place the SME standard on to the wave of change that has been running in the global accounting arena over the past year.
"This year has been a blue-sky year," says Mr Shearer of Grant Thornton.
"The US regulators are thinking of allowing IFRS in the US; Brussels has produced a discussion document on a simplified business environment for SMEs; the IASB has reduced everything in IFRS to a draft SMEs standard.
"All of these people are doing things you wouldn't have expected them to do two years ago."
There is a tide turning. "The SME standard should be, could be, and will be, a very useful standard," says Mr Jones.
"Now is the time for us to seize the day," says Mr Shearer.
12 setembro 2007
Contabilidade internacional 02
FT REPORT - INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTANCY
Fast adoption raises hopes of happy families.
By JENNIFER HUGHES
Financial Times - 10/09/2007
Surveys IAC1
Page 2
Who would have thought it? Just two years ago international financial reporting standards were introduced in Europe. Now the list of countries adopting the standards set out by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is growing at an ever-quicker pace.
Japan, Canada, South Korea and India are committed to moving towards IFRS, joining a list that is now more than 100 members long.
Even the US, by far the largest capital market, is moving towards reconciling IFRS accounts with US GAAP.
"What has taken off faster than any of us realised is the way IFRS has gone round the world - the pace of this is staggering," says Ken Wild, global leader of IFRS at Deloitte. "The US is saying it will accept these accounts and this is a major step forward and a huge credit to the success the IASB has achieved."
Mary Tokar, head of IFRS at KPMG, puts the tipping point for IFRS adoption as some time after 2005. "If adoption in 2005 had created turmoil and disturbance, then the European financial community would have dealt with it and moved forward, but IFRS probably would have become a European standard. IFRS reached a tipping point once it became clear that 2005 adoption had gone well," she says
Ms Tokar says the network's firms have taken to dividing IFRS countries roughly into "Wave One" and "Wave Two" for ease of communication. "Wave One are the anchors - the EU, South Africa and Australia. Wave Two are on their way and they're fuelling the current momentum," she says.
"What has become indisputable is that we've moved past the argument about whether IFRS is the right system or not, it's now all about what should be in the standards," she adds. "Wherever you go in global financial markets and you come across a local accounting system, you now ask how this is different to IFRS because this system has become the global standard."
With the standards seemingly firmly established, much attention is focusing on the US with speculation as to whether, after completing reconciliation, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will then turn its attention towards allowing US companies to adopt IFRS.
"If the SEC is going to allow foreign private issuers not to reconcile, it would seem an entirely logical step, if you're going to create a level playing field, to allow US companies to use IFRS," says Will Rainey, global head of IFRS at Ernst & Young. "US companies have been looking at the opportunity given by IFRS to have just one language with all the cost savings and efficiencies that could involve."
Tom Jones, vice-chairman of the IASB, says interest in his availability for speeches and debates in the US has stepped up noticeably in recent months.
"The disadvantage overseas companies face in keeping two sets of books today - one IFRS and one US GAAP - will become a disadvantage for US companies operating elsewhere," he says. "There's an enormous cost to companies of keeping different accounting systems in different countries and not only that, but there is also the risk of more errors and confusion."
In addition to the growing global use of IFRS, which is beginning to isolate the US system, US companies' interest seems to be a combination of more local factors, including dissatisfaction with the immensely complex US accounting rules and lingering doubts in the system's quality - post-Enron - which were not helped by the more recent share options backdating scandal.
But a US move to IFRS is not without its own problems.
Since the Norwalk Agreement in 2002, the IASB and its US counterpart, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), have been working together on making the two sets of accounts compatible and to co-ordinate work on new standards in the future.
This collaboration is bearing fruit, in the form of standards such as IFRS 8 for the reporting of business segments, which is heavily based on the existing US standard. But this one example has met with a storm of protest in Europe and among the many criticisms is a perennial favourite: the fear that the IASB is unduly influenced by FASB and that the IFRS-using world will end up converging nearer America than the other way round.
"I think the IASB hasn't really created general consensus among stakeholders on the convergence process," says Nicholas Veron, research fellow at the Bruegel Institute. "The Norwalk Agreement was quite consensual, but what has been less solid was the 2006 agreement, which set a very demanding timetable for convergence projects. This has dominated the IASB's agenda since then but has been subject to very little consultation."
The IASB is moving to include a broader range of input from those outside the standard-setting community and says it is actively encouraging more participation in its consultations, particularly from the users of statements. Recently, it appointed Stephen Cooper, analyst at UBS and a member of the corporate reporting users forum, as a part-time board member.
There is certainly a growing sense of momentum behind the adoption of IFRS around the world, but as the ever-heated US debate shows, it is not yet a done deal.
Fast adoption raises hopes of happy families.
By JENNIFER HUGHES
Financial Times - 10/09/2007
Surveys IAC1
Page 2
Who would have thought it? Just two years ago international financial reporting standards were introduced in Europe. Now the list of countries adopting the standards set out by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is growing at an ever-quicker pace.
Japan, Canada, South Korea and India are committed to moving towards IFRS, joining a list that is now more than 100 members long.
Even the US, by far the largest capital market, is moving towards reconciling IFRS accounts with US GAAP.
"What has taken off faster than any of us realised is the way IFRS has gone round the world - the pace of this is staggering," says Ken Wild, global leader of IFRS at Deloitte. "The US is saying it will accept these accounts and this is a major step forward and a huge credit to the success the IASB has achieved."
Mary Tokar, head of IFRS at KPMG, puts the tipping point for IFRS adoption as some time after 2005. "If adoption in 2005 had created turmoil and disturbance, then the European financial community would have dealt with it and moved forward, but IFRS probably would have become a European standard. IFRS reached a tipping point once it became clear that 2005 adoption had gone well," she says
Ms Tokar says the network's firms have taken to dividing IFRS countries roughly into "Wave One" and "Wave Two" for ease of communication. "Wave One are the anchors - the EU, South Africa and Australia. Wave Two are on their way and they're fuelling the current momentum," she says.
"What has become indisputable is that we've moved past the argument about whether IFRS is the right system or not, it's now all about what should be in the standards," she adds. "Wherever you go in global financial markets and you come across a local accounting system, you now ask how this is different to IFRS because this system has become the global standard."
With the standards seemingly firmly established, much attention is focusing on the US with speculation as to whether, after completing reconciliation, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will then turn its attention towards allowing US companies to adopt IFRS.
"If the SEC is going to allow foreign private issuers not to reconcile, it would seem an entirely logical step, if you're going to create a level playing field, to allow US companies to use IFRS," says Will Rainey, global head of IFRS at Ernst & Young. "US companies have been looking at the opportunity given by IFRS to have just one language with all the cost savings and efficiencies that could involve."
Tom Jones, vice-chairman of the IASB, says interest in his availability for speeches and debates in the US has stepped up noticeably in recent months.
"The disadvantage overseas companies face in keeping two sets of books today - one IFRS and one US GAAP - will become a disadvantage for US companies operating elsewhere," he says. "There's an enormous cost to companies of keeping different accounting systems in different countries and not only that, but there is also the risk of more errors and confusion."
In addition to the growing global use of IFRS, which is beginning to isolate the US system, US companies' interest seems to be a combination of more local factors, including dissatisfaction with the immensely complex US accounting rules and lingering doubts in the system's quality - post-Enron - which were not helped by the more recent share options backdating scandal.
But a US move to IFRS is not without its own problems.
Since the Norwalk Agreement in 2002, the IASB and its US counterpart, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), have been working together on making the two sets of accounts compatible and to co-ordinate work on new standards in the future.
This collaboration is bearing fruit, in the form of standards such as IFRS 8 for the reporting of business segments, which is heavily based on the existing US standard. But this one example has met with a storm of protest in Europe and among the many criticisms is a perennial favourite: the fear that the IASB is unduly influenced by FASB and that the IFRS-using world will end up converging nearer America than the other way round.
"I think the IASB hasn't really created general consensus among stakeholders on the convergence process," says Nicholas Veron, research fellow at the Bruegel Institute. "The Norwalk Agreement was quite consensual, but what has been less solid was the 2006 agreement, which set a very demanding timetable for convergence projects. This has dominated the IASB's agenda since then but has been subject to very little consultation."
The IASB is moving to include a broader range of input from those outside the standard-setting community and says it is actively encouraging more participation in its consultations, particularly from the users of statements. Recently, it appointed Stephen Cooper, analyst at UBS and a member of the corporate reporting users forum, as a part-time board member.
There is certainly a growing sense of momentum behind the adoption of IFRS around the world, but as the ever-heated US debate shows, it is not yet a done deal.
Contabilidade Internacional 01
FT REPORT - INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTANCY
Blueprint of change fosters revolution.
By JENNIFER HUGHES
Financial Times - 10/09/2007
Accountants make unlikely revolutionaries. The popular image of the profession has more to do with notions of dry, dusty number-crunching obsessives. But the introduction of international financial reporting standards, or IFRS, was nothing short of a revolution.
Two years have passed since the standards were first applied in Europe, and the impact is still being felt as the system beds down. The revolution is not over yet, but it is now possible to discern its early effects. Like most big changes, it was hardly pain-free.
"There were horror stories about not meeting reporting deadlines but those all vanished," says Will Rainey, global head of IFRS at Ernst & Young. "From the surveys we've done, it's clear that the transition has been a resounding success. The feedback has been very encouraging in terms of the quality of the information and also the timeliness."
It certainly was not easy. Finance teams had to re-jig their systems to provide information they did not necessarily have, or even if they did have it, to present it in different ways.
"There were a lot of issues around interpretation - it all looked clear until it was actually applied to you," says Ken Wild, global leader of IFRS at Deloitte. "That's not completely in the past tense and interpretation is still an issue. There will be a narrowing over time, there's a learning curve, but that's simply change management, really."
The changes did not fall evenly, either. For countries such as the UK, used to a system designed to inform investors, the switch was largely about swapping one set of standards for another, although the actual details proved frustratingly tricky. But elsewhere, it meant a wholescale shift in the focus of reporting and the need to almost create a new way of thinking.
"In the UK, it was about moving across to something not dissimilar to what we had. In other countries in Europe it had to do with changing the whole focus of accountancy and what it was for," says Peter Holgate, senior technical partner at PwC.
Nicholas Veron, research fellow at the Bruegel Institute, agrees: "It was much more a revolution in countries such as France or Germany because they had such a different structure. French accounts, for example, had been enormously impacted by the need of the state in terms of statistics and tax considerations. IFRS is much more investor-orientated."
"A lot of continental Europe was driven from a tax point of view and they're only now getting used to information just because the market feels happier when its got it - that's the biggest difference," adds Mr Wild. "The other big point is that it's a global language, you don't have to speak the local language and almost wherever you go, you know they're largely going to speak the same one as you."
It might be technically the same language, but it comes in a range of dialects and accents - after all, it is not possible to change the bedrock of the financial system overnight and expect it to function seamlessly.
"Compared with what investors expected, the differences are larger than they had thought and that's a bit disappointing," says Mr Veron. "The question is whether these will disappear over time or will they stay."
Allen Blewitt, chief executive of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), believes it is too early to say.
"We've got to go through a couple of iterations of dealing with real live data and saying, 'Here it is, how do we report it?'. National standard setters are still fine tuning and we will get these dialects, it's partly a washing through the system of the div- ersity that was there beforehand."
But experts are careful to warn against assuming IFRS will come out with one voice at the end of the current process.
"There are a lot of forces towards convergence - a lot of people think that with work between companies, auditors and regulators, we will see more stable interpretations," says Mr Veron. "But personally, I doubt we will see real convergence because there's not sufficient authority in the European system - we're still organised on national lines."
Even at the pan-European level, there are concerns. European politicians famously agreed a "carve-out" on the controversial IAS 39 standard for financial instruments.
This means that a handful of European companies use "European IFRS" instead of full IFRS. Further carve-outs could risk derailing the move towards one global language.
"The European parliament can potentially intercede in the adoption of standards," says Mr Blewitt. "Even the accountancy profession and deep technical experts have trouble with standard setting - and to get parliamentarians involved who are neophytes on this, is dangerous."
One much-touted benefit of a single system was the potential for a lower cost of capital for businesses. Investors, it was reasoned, would reward companies using this single global language, making cross-border comparisons, and therefore investing, much simpler.
"This will be fuelled by global investment - if you can't produce accounts under IFRS, you're going to pay more in interest," says Tom Jones, vice-chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board. "For example, you could never have thought about a deep, pan-European equity market, while you had a dozen different accounting systems."
But real evidence on the impact is hard to find so far. "Everyone talks about the cost of capital but it is one of those things that is very difficult to measure," says Mr Rainey. "In talking to clients, there probably is better access to markets because everyone is talking the same language."
Mr Blewitt admits: "There's no substantive evidence yet but we need a longer time horizon before we can really draw conclusions."
A study commissioned by the ACCA ahead of the introduction of IFRS showed UK companies, with their tradition of reliance on equity financing, had enjoyed a lower cost of capital for the 10 years up to 2005 than their continental rivals. It also showed that German and Swiss companies that switched to IFRS ahead of time had already seen slight benefits in terms of lower equity risk premiums.
But it has not been all good news for investors. Accounts are becoming longer under IFRS and famously, in the UK this year, postmen were limited as to how many copies of HSBC's 454-page, 1.5kg tome they could carry at a time.
"Even if you ignore the big banks, since they're at one end of the spectrum, accounts are still typically longer," says Mr Rainey. "You have considerably more complexity and disclosure. You have to ask if this is helping investors focus on what is essential in their decisions. I'm not convinced it is."
"What is becoming more and more important is the front end of the report and narrative reporting. This is because the back end is less intelligible, its a source document for what you want to say, but its not laid out how you'd say it."
But investors are increasingly unhappy with thequality and the contentof the "front end" as it too gets longer and more complex.
It seems that the accounting revolution still has some way to go.
Blueprint of change fosters revolution.
By JENNIFER HUGHES
Financial Times - 10/09/2007
Accountants make unlikely revolutionaries. The popular image of the profession has more to do with notions of dry, dusty number-crunching obsessives. But the introduction of international financial reporting standards, or IFRS, was nothing short of a revolution.
Two years have passed since the standards were first applied in Europe, and the impact is still being felt as the system beds down. The revolution is not over yet, but it is now possible to discern its early effects. Like most big changes, it was hardly pain-free.
"There were horror stories about not meeting reporting deadlines but those all vanished," says Will Rainey, global head of IFRS at Ernst & Young. "From the surveys we've done, it's clear that the transition has been a resounding success. The feedback has been very encouraging in terms of the quality of the information and also the timeliness."
It certainly was not easy. Finance teams had to re-jig their systems to provide information they did not necessarily have, or even if they did have it, to present it in different ways.
"There were a lot of issues around interpretation - it all looked clear until it was actually applied to you," says Ken Wild, global leader of IFRS at Deloitte. "That's not completely in the past tense and interpretation is still an issue. There will be a narrowing over time, there's a learning curve, but that's simply change management, really."
The changes did not fall evenly, either. For countries such as the UK, used to a system designed to inform investors, the switch was largely about swapping one set of standards for another, although the actual details proved frustratingly tricky. But elsewhere, it meant a wholescale shift in the focus of reporting and the need to almost create a new way of thinking.
"In the UK, it was about moving across to something not dissimilar to what we had. In other countries in Europe it had to do with changing the whole focus of accountancy and what it was for," says Peter Holgate, senior technical partner at PwC.
Nicholas Veron, research fellow at the Bruegel Institute, agrees: "It was much more a revolution in countries such as France or Germany because they had such a different structure. French accounts, for example, had been enormously impacted by the need of the state in terms of statistics and tax considerations. IFRS is much more investor-orientated."
"A lot of continental Europe was driven from a tax point of view and they're only now getting used to information just because the market feels happier when its got it - that's the biggest difference," adds Mr Wild. "The other big point is that it's a global language, you don't have to speak the local language and almost wherever you go, you know they're largely going to speak the same one as you."
It might be technically the same language, but it comes in a range of dialects and accents - after all, it is not possible to change the bedrock of the financial system overnight and expect it to function seamlessly.
"Compared with what investors expected, the differences are larger than they had thought and that's a bit disappointing," says Mr Veron. "The question is whether these will disappear over time or will they stay."
Allen Blewitt, chief executive of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), believes it is too early to say.
"We've got to go through a couple of iterations of dealing with real live data and saying, 'Here it is, how do we report it?'. National standard setters are still fine tuning and we will get these dialects, it's partly a washing through the system of the div- ersity that was there beforehand."
But experts are careful to warn against assuming IFRS will come out with one voice at the end of the current process.
"There are a lot of forces towards convergence - a lot of people think that with work between companies, auditors and regulators, we will see more stable interpretations," says Mr Veron. "But personally, I doubt we will see real convergence because there's not sufficient authority in the European system - we're still organised on national lines."
Even at the pan-European level, there are concerns. European politicians famously agreed a "carve-out" on the controversial IAS 39 standard for financial instruments.
This means that a handful of European companies use "European IFRS" instead of full IFRS. Further carve-outs could risk derailing the move towards one global language.
"The European parliament can potentially intercede in the adoption of standards," says Mr Blewitt. "Even the accountancy profession and deep technical experts have trouble with standard setting - and to get parliamentarians involved who are neophytes on this, is dangerous."
One much-touted benefit of a single system was the potential for a lower cost of capital for businesses. Investors, it was reasoned, would reward companies using this single global language, making cross-border comparisons, and therefore investing, much simpler.
"This will be fuelled by global investment - if you can't produce accounts under IFRS, you're going to pay more in interest," says Tom Jones, vice-chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board. "For example, you could never have thought about a deep, pan-European equity market, while you had a dozen different accounting systems."
But real evidence on the impact is hard to find so far. "Everyone talks about the cost of capital but it is one of those things that is very difficult to measure," says Mr Rainey. "In talking to clients, there probably is better access to markets because everyone is talking the same language."
Mr Blewitt admits: "There's no substantive evidence yet but we need a longer time horizon before we can really draw conclusions."
A study commissioned by the ACCA ahead of the introduction of IFRS showed UK companies, with their tradition of reliance on equity financing, had enjoyed a lower cost of capital for the 10 years up to 2005 than their continental rivals. It also showed that German and Swiss companies that switched to IFRS ahead of time had already seen slight benefits in terms of lower equity risk premiums.
But it has not been all good news for investors. Accounts are becoming longer under IFRS and famously, in the UK this year, postmen were limited as to how many copies of HSBC's 454-page, 1.5kg tome they could carry at a time.
"Even if you ignore the big banks, since they're at one end of the spectrum, accounts are still typically longer," says Mr Rainey. "You have considerably more complexity and disclosure. You have to ask if this is helping investors focus on what is essential in their decisions. I'm not convinced it is."
"What is becoming more and more important is the front end of the report and narrative reporting. This is because the back end is less intelligible, its a source document for what you want to say, but its not laid out how you'd say it."
But investors are increasingly unhappy with thequality and the contentof the "front end" as it too gets longer and more complex.
It seems that the accounting revolution still has some way to go.
Iasb e o Poder
Um comunicado do Iasb de 18 de julho de 2007 (Summary of the IASC Foundation Trustees meeting 2 and 3 July 2007 Madrid) mostra quem possui o poder no Iasb. No final do texto, sobre o novo Chairman, informa-se que o foco será num candidato europeu.
Amistosos da Seleção
Firmas de marketing sofisticam promoção de amistosos de seleções
Wilson A. Liévano, 11/09/2007
The Wall Street Journal Americas
Eles percorrem dezenas de cidades, enchem estádios e têm suas apresentações transmitidas por televisão a muitos países ao redor do mundo. Não surpreende, portanto, que despertem o interesse de profissionais de marketing. O que talvez surpreenda é que, embora os times de futebol façam jogos amistosos desde que o esporte surgiu, só recentemente eles tenham começado a receber esse tratamento profissional.
(...) Empresas como a SUM e a suíça Kentaro tentam explorar a essa nova demanda. A Kentaro, divisão de marketing do conglomerado russo Renova, que opera em áreas tão diversas quanto metalurgia, petróleo e finanças, adquiriu os direitos de comercialização, TV e organização dos jogos do Brasil e da Argentina até 2010, em acordos separados. Foi ela que cuidou de toda a logística para a preparação da seleção brasileira na fracassada campanha da Copa do Mundo de 2006.
O exemplo do Brasil em 2006 é um dos que ajudam a alimentar as críticas de que a excessiva comercialização e as viagens dos amistosos desgastam e distraem os jogadores, afetando seu rendimento.
Mas como a Fifa estabelece entre seis e oito datas oficiais por ano para a realização dos amistosos, as empresas de marketing tentam explorar o potencial mercadológico das seleções, especialmente em mercados nos quais o futebol está em ascensão, como os EUA, o Oriente Médio e mesmo a África. A Ásia é outro mercado potencial, mas atrapalhado pela distância para as viagens dos jogadores. A Kentaro e a SUM se associaram para organizar jogos em que times que ambas agenciam se enfrentam esta semana: o de Chicago domingo, quando o Brasil fez 4 a 2 nos EUA, e Brasil e México amanhã em Boston. A SUM tem os direitos de marketing da seleção americana e de organização dos jogos da mexicana nos EUA.
As partes envolvidas não revelam detalhes financeiros de seus contratos. Mas, segundo pessoas do meio, em geral empresas como a Kentaro e a SUM pagam uma taxa a cada federação e ficam com os direitos de marketing, bilheteria e transmissão dos jogos. As firmas também arcam com despesas como o aluguel do estádio.
A organização das partidas começa com seis meses ou mais de antecedência. As empresas normalmente sugerem alguns possíveis rivais e locais às federações, que escolhem seus adversários.
Grothe, como seus rivais, não revela detalhes financeiros de seus contratos. Mas as empresas de marketing informam que o negócio só é rentável quando jogam as seleções de maior prestígio e suas estrelas. "Tanto os clubes como as associações nacionais entendem a importância de sua marca e que esta está inexoravelmente atada a seus jogadores", diz Rodríguez, da SUM.
(...) Ainda assim, os promotores de amistosos garantem que não há nenhuma obrigação contratual para que as federações ponham em campo seus astros, nem pressão para a convocação de determinados jogadores.
No total, Kentaro e SUM calculam empregar de 600 a 700 pessoas por jogo, com um investimento de US$ 500.000 a US$ 2 milhões. A arrecadação na bilheteria representa cerca de 40% da receita por partida da Kentaro, o que exige que o estádio tenha capacidade para pelo menos 50.000 pessoas. Também são vendidos ingressos VIP. Nos jogos do Brasil, há coquetéis, comida brasileira e sambistas no camarote VIP. Patrocínios e direitos esportivos correspondem cada um a 30%.
Grothe calcula que, dependendo da partida, é possível obter lucros de US$ 1 milhão a US$ 3 milhões por jogo. Os amistosos de futebol ainda representam apenas 10% das receitas da Kentaro, que foram de US$ 160 milhões em 2006. A empresa tem como principal atividade a negociação de direitos de transmissão de jogos de futebol e lutas de boxe pela TV.
Pode-se questionar se essa promoção profissional das marcas das seleções não corre o risco de ter o efeito contrário. O ambiente festivo da concentração brasileira na Suíça foi visto como um dos motivos do fracasso na Copa do Mundo.
Grothe admite que a tranqüila Weggis virou uma loucura à época. Ele diz que Brasil e Argentina são casos especiais de seleção, que chamam naturalmente mais atenção. "São como os Backstreet Boys do futebol. Quando Ronaldinho chega a um aeroporto, o pessoal enlouquece." Depois da Copa da Alemanha, a CBF decidiu abandonar a cobrança de ingresso nos treinos, mas continuará permitindo o acesso dos torcedores. "O Brasil ganhou cinco copas do mundo desta maneira, e não vamos mudar agora", diz Rodrigo Paiva, porta-voz da CBF.
"As grandes equipes deveriam saber como administrar esses efeitos", diz Guy Vitkovsky, editor do EuFootball.biz, um website especializado no futebol como negócio. "Ter a imprensa e o público ao redor faz parte da natureza do jogo."
Negrito meu.
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.
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. (...)
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
Postagens
