Com respeito a ganhadora do Nobel de Física, que não tinha verbete na Wikipedia, além disto ela não era professora titular da sua universidade (Waterloo, Canadá). Ela nunca se candidatou.
Cowen lembra que é trabalhoso candidatar a titular (compilar um dossiê, escrever documentos etc) para obter um aumento de US$1.500 de promoção, sem falar nos impostos. Além de responsabilidades administrativas.
03 outubro 2018
Frase
Um dia poderemos ter androides sofisticados o suficiente para fazer tudo o que os contadores humanos fazem agora; mas então o próprio conceito de “contador” terá mudado para além do reconhecimento. (Tim Harford)
02 outubro 2018
Razão para auditoria não encontrar as fraudes
Here are seven reasons why audits don’t typically find fraud.
1. Auditors are nice. Auditors are rule-followers who hold themselves accountable to high honesty and ethical standards. They wouldn’t dream of doing something the “wrong” way; therefore, they can’t comprehend that seemingly nice people would steal from their employer. If they spot something amiss during a routine audit, and in return were given documents or explanations that resolved the anomaly, it is more likely than not that they will proceed with the explanation without obtaining outside substantive documents or evidence to resolve the aberration. Because they presume honesty, auditors often take the explanations and documents at face value.
auditors
2. The nature of an audit isn’t designed to find fraud. During an audit, auditors look at the financial statements of the company (usually the assets and income figures) and calculate what’s called “materiality.” Materiality is the calculated threshold by which, if the information is withheld or misrepresented in the financial statements, it would impact the decisions of the stakeholders who rely on those documents to make economic decisions. Because of this, auditors look at transactions at or above the materiality level. While this is an effective method of making sure financial statements do not contain material errors, it does not lend itself to detecting fraud. Why? Because taken on an individual basis, fraudulent transactions are not typically at or above the materiality level.
3. A sample doesn’t tell the whole story. During an audit, auditors aren’t looking at everything. They gather random samples of transactions to verify that they were correctly recorded and that the internal controls were in place and working. The odds that a random sampling would include a fraudulent transaction among the thousands of available transactions is extremely small. Put simply: an arbitrary sample doesn’t tell a story or show a pattern. It’s akin to finding a needle in a haystack.
4. Fraudsters are clever. In the remote likelihood the auditor spots a questionable transaction, the oddity can often be easily explained away. That’s because fraudsters are clever: they can produce fake documents or pretend the paperwork has been misplaced, appeasing the busy auditor, who, as was pointed out earlier, assumes best intent, never imagining someone would be dishonest.
5. Fraud often looks like a simple error. Most of the time, fraud doesn’t even look like a “red flag.” It often looks like a regular bookkeeping or accounting error. Humans make mistakes, and it’s certainly not uncommon for a transaction to be entered incorrectly. So long as the number of errors doesn’t trigger the threshold of materiality, those inaccuracies will likely not be further investigated.
6. Auditors are constrained by time and budget. Many people are unaware that, in addition to testing transactions and checking internal controls, auditors are also required to conduct excessive due diligence, file copious paperwork, and conduct peer reviews of their audit processes. With competing deadlines and projects stacked back-to-back, in some cases, an auditor may green-light a company’s books even if something didn’t feel quite “right.” It’s not that the audit wasn’t thorough or inaccurate, but rather it’s the limitation of resources and demanding projects that lead to auditors not being as thorough as they might like to be.
7. The Scarlet A. In an ode to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s masterwork, it can be asserted that auditors unknowingly have an invisible scarlet A (for auditor) under their respective suits. Their status as an auditor creates a barrier between themselves and the very people they need to talk to, the whistleblowers. And, as mentioned earlier, auditors are nice. They view themselves as likable, approachable, and friendly. Unfortunately, people often view them as scary, unapproachable, and “out to get them.” The result is that auditors are rarely successful in gaining the trust of the very people who have information that can help them.
Most importantly, though, is the fact that fraudsters are always a company’s most liked and trusted employee. They’ve earned the respect and admiration of their coworkers and supervisors, and often have special privileges and access to company funds. Couple this dynamic with the fact that auditors assume honesty, and the general misunderstanding of what an audit’s purpose is, and it’s easy to see why audits rarely uncover fraud.
Despite this, CFOs need not feel defenseless against fraud. The fact is, management’s due diligence in identifying and assessing risk, addressing known risks with appropriate internal controls and oversight, implementing a hotline, and promoting a culture of honesty can deter or detect the fraudster in the company. (Por Tiffany Couch, via CFO)
Parece razoável os itens (4) e (7). Os demais, nem tanto.
1. Auditors are nice. Auditors are rule-followers who hold themselves accountable to high honesty and ethical standards. They wouldn’t dream of doing something the “wrong” way; therefore, they can’t comprehend that seemingly nice people would steal from their employer. If they spot something amiss during a routine audit, and in return were given documents or explanations that resolved the anomaly, it is more likely than not that they will proceed with the explanation without obtaining outside substantive documents or evidence to resolve the aberration. Because they presume honesty, auditors often take the explanations and documents at face value.
auditors
2. The nature of an audit isn’t designed to find fraud. During an audit, auditors look at the financial statements of the company (usually the assets and income figures) and calculate what’s called “materiality.” Materiality is the calculated threshold by which, if the information is withheld or misrepresented in the financial statements, it would impact the decisions of the stakeholders who rely on those documents to make economic decisions. Because of this, auditors look at transactions at or above the materiality level. While this is an effective method of making sure financial statements do not contain material errors, it does not lend itself to detecting fraud. Why? Because taken on an individual basis, fraudulent transactions are not typically at or above the materiality level.
3. A sample doesn’t tell the whole story. During an audit, auditors aren’t looking at everything. They gather random samples of transactions to verify that they were correctly recorded and that the internal controls were in place and working. The odds that a random sampling would include a fraudulent transaction among the thousands of available transactions is extremely small. Put simply: an arbitrary sample doesn’t tell a story or show a pattern. It’s akin to finding a needle in a haystack.
4. Fraudsters are clever. In the remote likelihood the auditor spots a questionable transaction, the oddity can often be easily explained away. That’s because fraudsters are clever: they can produce fake documents or pretend the paperwork has been misplaced, appeasing the busy auditor, who, as was pointed out earlier, assumes best intent, never imagining someone would be dishonest.
5. Fraud often looks like a simple error. Most of the time, fraud doesn’t even look like a “red flag.” It often looks like a regular bookkeeping or accounting error. Humans make mistakes, and it’s certainly not uncommon for a transaction to be entered incorrectly. So long as the number of errors doesn’t trigger the threshold of materiality, those inaccuracies will likely not be further investigated.
6. Auditors are constrained by time and budget. Many people are unaware that, in addition to testing transactions and checking internal controls, auditors are also required to conduct excessive due diligence, file copious paperwork, and conduct peer reviews of their audit processes. With competing deadlines and projects stacked back-to-back, in some cases, an auditor may green-light a company’s books even if something didn’t feel quite “right.” It’s not that the audit wasn’t thorough or inaccurate, but rather it’s the limitation of resources and demanding projects that lead to auditors not being as thorough as they might like to be.
7. The Scarlet A. In an ode to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s masterwork, it can be asserted that auditors unknowingly have an invisible scarlet A (for auditor) under their respective suits. Their status as an auditor creates a barrier between themselves and the very people they need to talk to, the whistleblowers. And, as mentioned earlier, auditors are nice. They view themselves as likable, approachable, and friendly. Unfortunately, people often view them as scary, unapproachable, and “out to get them.” The result is that auditors are rarely successful in gaining the trust of the very people who have information that can help them.
Most importantly, though, is the fact that fraudsters are always a company’s most liked and trusted employee. They’ve earned the respect and admiration of their coworkers and supervisors, and often have special privileges and access to company funds. Couple this dynamic with the fact that auditors assume honesty, and the general misunderstanding of what an audit’s purpose is, and it’s easy to see why audits rarely uncover fraud.
Despite this, CFOs need not feel defenseless against fraud. The fact is, management’s due diligence in identifying and assessing risk, addressing known risks with appropriate internal controls and oversight, implementing a hotline, and promoting a culture of honesty can deter or detect the fraudster in the company. (Por Tiffany Couch, via CFO)
Parece razoável os itens (4) e (7). Os demais, nem tanto.
Nobel de Física para uma mulher e a falha da Wikipedia
Donna Strickland ganhou hoje o Nobel de Física por seu trabalho com laser. Trata-se da única mulher viva que recebeu esta honraria. No passado Marie Curie e Maria Goeppert-Mayer também venceram, em um total de 209 premiados.
Mas o surreal é o seguinte: até o dia de hoje, Strickland não tinha um verbete na Wikipedia. Este fato já foi corrigido, mas em maio os gestores da enciclopedia rejeitaram um rascunho de um verbete sobre Donna, já com algumas das suas conquistas.
Mas o surreal é o seguinte: até o dia de hoje, Strickland não tinha um verbete na Wikipedia. Este fato já foi corrigido, mas em maio os gestores da enciclopedia rejeitaram um rascunho de um verbete sobre Donna, já com algumas das suas conquistas.
Big Four
"Eu não sei"
Há um mês, dois pesquisadores dos Estados Unidos publicaram um artigo com o seguinte título: “I don´t Know”. Só isto. O título é suficiente para atrair a atenção. Do que se trata? Do fato de especialistas terem uma reputação a defender ao ter que admitir que eles não sabem. Muitas vezes, em diversas questões que são feitas para um especialista, ele deve reconhecer sua limitação. Isto também ocorre com uma professor, quando um aluno faz uma pergunta que ele não sabem (muitas vezes “testando” o professor).
O problema é que muitos pareceristas são "avessos" a esta inovação. Lembro que há alguns semestres fui convidado para uma comissão de avaliação; o trabalho tinha o título "Mais que mil palavras". Genial. Já gostei do trabalho antes de ler. Outro exemplo: a tese de doutorado da Mariana Bonfim com o título "Honest Individuals, (dis) honest Groups?".
A criatividade de um trabalho deveria começar da primeira linha. Ou seja, do título.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
Postagens
