06 janeiro 2015
Game do Mês
O professor de contabilidade Edgar Cornacchione está concorrendo ao "Game do Mês", com Deborah. Prestigie e vote aqui.
Finanças Pessoais: Regra dos 70
Quando uma pessoa comum, com conhecimento básico de matemática financeira, faz seus investimentos o ideal seria aplicar as fórmulas da matemática financeira. Mas isto na prática pode ser um obstáculo, mesmo quando temos o auxílio de uma calculadora financeira ou uma planilha.
Na postagem de hoje iremos mostrar uma das regras mais simples pode ajudar a dar uma informação útil para as pessoas: a regra dos 70. Esta regra permite determinar em quanto tempo iremos dobrar o dinheiro que investimos. Para isto, basta dividir 70 pela taxa anual de retorno. Se aplicarmos num CDB que tem uma rentabilidade de 4% ao ano basta dividir 70/4 e o resultado será de 17,5. O que este número significa? Que em 17 anos e meio teremos o capital duplicado.
Observe que isto funciona também para o outro lado. Ou seja, é possível saber em quanto tempo teríamos o dobro da dívida se deixar sem pagar a fatura do cartão de crédito. Suponha que a fatura do cartão mostre uma taxa de juros anual de 35%. Dividindo 70 por 35 temos 2. Isto significa dizer que em dois anos a dívida terá dobrado de tamanho.
Qual o segredo desta fórmula? Se o leitor não gosta de matemática, esqueça a demonstração a seguir (que colocamos, propositalmente em letras pequenas).
A fórmula que determina o valor futuro de um recurso aplicado é dado por:
VF = VP ( 1 + i ) ^n
Como queremos dobrar o capital investido:
2 VP = VP (1 + i ) ^n
Podemos cancelar o termo VP
2 = (1 + i) ^ n
Sabemos o valor da taxa de juros e queremos encontrar o número de tempo (“n”). Então
N = ln 2 / ln 1,04
N = 0,693 / 0,0392
Assim, de uma forma simplificada, seria 70 – um número mais fácil de decorar e dividir – pela taxa, 4%.
Na postagem de hoje iremos mostrar uma das regras mais simples pode ajudar a dar uma informação útil para as pessoas: a regra dos 70. Esta regra permite determinar em quanto tempo iremos dobrar o dinheiro que investimos. Para isto, basta dividir 70 pela taxa anual de retorno. Se aplicarmos num CDB que tem uma rentabilidade de 4% ao ano basta dividir 70/4 e o resultado será de 17,5. O que este número significa? Que em 17 anos e meio teremos o capital duplicado.
Observe que isto funciona também para o outro lado. Ou seja, é possível saber em quanto tempo teríamos o dobro da dívida se deixar sem pagar a fatura do cartão de crédito. Suponha que a fatura do cartão mostre uma taxa de juros anual de 35%. Dividindo 70 por 35 temos 2. Isto significa dizer que em dois anos a dívida terá dobrado de tamanho.
Qual o segredo desta fórmula? Se o leitor não gosta de matemática, esqueça a demonstração a seguir (que colocamos, propositalmente em letras pequenas).
A fórmula que determina o valor futuro de um recurso aplicado é dado por:
VF = VP ( 1 + i ) ^n
Como queremos dobrar o capital investido:
2 VP = VP (1 + i ) ^n
Podemos cancelar o termo VP
2 = (1 + i) ^ n
Sabemos o valor da taxa de juros e queremos encontrar o número de tempo (“n”). Então
N = ln 2 / ln 1,04
N = 0,693 / 0,0392
Assim, de uma forma simplificada, seria 70 – um número mais fácil de decorar e dividir – pela taxa, 4%.
Ilusão da comparabilidade e "auditibilidade" nas Demonstrações Financeiras
Tom Selling, membro do Standing Advisory Group do PCAOB, argumenta que não há comparabilidade e "auditibilidade" das demonstrações financeiras. A argumentação é embasada com um exemplo sobre o teste de impairment. O texto é excelente.
My inspirations for this post are the maiden speech of the SEC’s new chief accountant James Schnurr, and the joy of paying only $2.02/gallon at the pump.
As for Mr. Schnurr, I plan to dissect his remarks more fully in a blog post to come, but for now I’ll confine my review to his mentioning comparability of financial statements no less than seven times, e.g., “Comparability is a hallmark of U.S. financial reporting…”
As to the relevance of my satisfying gas station experience, the financial reporting implications of the 50% decline in oil prices over the past six months make for a timely illustration for why Mr. Schnurr’s statements about comparability are nothing more than hot air.
Why Comparability of Financial Statements is an Illusion
There are many, many reasons why financial reports are not comparable. Tops on my list, though somewhat off topic, is the absence of adjustments for inflation. No respectable economist would ever dream of comparing trends in costs or revenues without adjusting for inflation; so it really irks me that in accounting, we never adjust for inflation.
Truly, by ignoring the necessity for inflation adjustments, it makes the accounting profession (including our august chief accountant) look like a bunch of simpletons. Some will argue over implementation details, but accounting for inflation is no harder or easier than dealing with multiple currencies (yet, see here and here for how the FASB managed to screw that up, too).
Adjustments for inflation are merely a pre-condition for making comparisons. Let’s get back to the drop in O&G prices that have made many of us joyous, but must surely frustrate the managers of companies whose recent investment decisions were predicated on higher and steadier prices. These managers have many hard operational and strategic choices to make; and to make matters worse for them — e.g., the threat to their earnings-based bonus checks — they also have to deal with the accounting question of asset “impairment.”
[...]
But seriously, the above example plainly illustrates that even the most assiduous application of GAAP will not produce comparable information. Impairment is just one of many examples that we can all think of.
Why Financial Statement Audits are an Illusion
Which brings me to the second, and main point that I want to make: the impairment test is not auditable.
[...]
Financial accounting standards like the one for the impairment of long-lived financial assets defeats, instead of promotes, comparability. And, especially when facts and circumstances indicate to any extent that the past is not indicative of the future, not even the most independent and technically competent auditor on the planet could reliably assess the “reasonableness” of management’s estimates of variables like future oil prices.
[...]
Nothing I have written here concerning the lack of comparability of financial statements is something that Mr. Schnurr doesn’t already know. Instead of disingenuously blowing smoke about comparability being a hallmark of U.S. GAAP he should at least be raising real issues and getting the PCAOB and FASB to actually do something about them.
My inspirations for this post are the maiden speech of the SEC’s new chief accountant James Schnurr, and the joy of paying only $2.02/gallon at the pump.
As for Mr. Schnurr, I plan to dissect his remarks more fully in a blog post to come, but for now I’ll confine my review to his mentioning comparability of financial statements no less than seven times, e.g., “Comparability is a hallmark of U.S. financial reporting…”
As to the relevance of my satisfying gas station experience, the financial reporting implications of the 50% decline in oil prices over the past six months make for a timely illustration for why Mr. Schnurr’s statements about comparability are nothing more than hot air.
Why Comparability of Financial Statements is an Illusion
There are many, many reasons why financial reports are not comparable. Tops on my list, though somewhat off topic, is the absence of adjustments for inflation. No respectable economist would ever dream of comparing trends in costs or revenues without adjusting for inflation; so it really irks me that in accounting, we never adjust for inflation.
Truly, by ignoring the necessity for inflation adjustments, it makes the accounting profession (including our august chief accountant) look like a bunch of simpletons. Some will argue over implementation details, but accounting for inflation is no harder or easier than dealing with multiple currencies (yet, see here and here for how the FASB managed to screw that up, too).
Adjustments for inflation are merely a pre-condition for making comparisons. Let’s get back to the drop in O&G prices that have made many of us joyous, but must surely frustrate the managers of companies whose recent investment decisions were predicated on higher and steadier prices. These managers have many hard operational and strategic choices to make; and to make matters worse for them — e.g., the threat to their earnings-based bonus checks — they also have to deal with the accounting question of asset “impairment.”
[...]
But seriously, the above example plainly illustrates that even the most assiduous application of GAAP will not produce comparable information. Impairment is just one of many examples that we can all think of.
Why Financial Statement Audits are an Illusion
Which brings me to the second, and main point that I want to make: the impairment test is not auditable.
[...]
Financial accounting standards like the one for the impairment of long-lived financial assets defeats, instead of promotes, comparability. And, especially when facts and circumstances indicate to any extent that the past is not indicative of the future, not even the most independent and technically competent auditor on the planet could reliably assess the “reasonableness” of management’s estimates of variables like future oil prices.
[...]
Nothing I have written here concerning the lack of comparability of financial statements is something that Mr. Schnurr doesn’t already know. Instead of disingenuously blowing smoke about comparability being a hallmark of U.S. GAAP he should at least be raising real issues and getting the PCAOB and FASB to actually do something about them.
Listas: Línguas com maiores números de artigos
Ontem o número total de artigos. Agora, somente os artigos com mais de 5 mil caracteres:
1. Inglês = 1,5 milhão
2. Alemão
3. Francês
4. Russo
5. Italiano
6. Espanhol
7. Polonês
8. Japonês
9. Português
Fonte: Aqui
1. Inglês = 1,5 milhão
2. Alemão
3. Francês
4. Russo
5. Italiano
6. Espanhol
7. Polonês
8. Japonês
9. Português
Fonte: Aqui
05 janeiro 2015
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
Postagens
