Saiu esta notícia no Jornal de Negócios que considero de extrema importância e, como tal, merecedora de discussão da nossa parte. Que Vos parece?

CitaçãoRegra do "fair value" aligeirada
Bancos americanos com regras de contabilidade mais facilitadas
Muitos consideram que as regras contabilísticas que obrigam as cotadas a contabilizarem os activos ao valor de mercado são parte da explicação da crise financeira. Hoje o regulador norte-americano anunciou alterações a esta regra, conhecida por "fair value", que na prática podem representar uma subida de 20% nos lucros dos bancos americanos.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuno  Carregueiro
[email protected]


Muitos consideram que as regras contabilísticas que obrigam as cotadas a contabilizarem os activos ao valor de mercado são parte da explicação da crise financeira. Hoje o regulador norte-americano anunciou alterações a esta regra, conhecida por "fair value", que na prática podem representar uma subida de 20% nos lucros dos bancos americanos.

O Financial Accounting Standards Board, pressionado pelos legisladores norte-americanos, decidiu hoje aligeirar as regras de contabilização dos activos, que vão beneficiar sobretudo os bancos.

Em certos activos, como os relacionados com o crédito à habitação, os bancos não serão obrigados a contabilizar ao valor de mercado. Uma regra que vai, segundo os especialistas, incrementar os lucros dos bancos em cerca de 20%.

As novas regras aplicam-se já aos resultados do primeiro trimestre e estão a ser bem recebidas em bolsa, com as acções dos bancos em forte alta. O Citigroup aprecia mais de 10%.

Vários especialistas consideram que a regra do "fair value", ou "market to market", estava a empolar os efeitos da crise, pois obrigava os bancos a contabilizar os activos ilíquidos ao valor de mercado, provocando fortes prejuízos e elevadas amortizações.

Se os activos não são contabilizados ao valor de mercado vão ser contabilizados a que valor?

Estas manipulações contabilísticas para melhorar a cotação dos bancos e outras entidades financeiras em bolsa são mais uma farsa made in USA.

Eles também têm andado a fazer manipulação nos métodos de cálculo da inflacção e outros dados estatísticos tal como outros países.

"FASB's change of accounting rules for banks will make financials trade higher

Yesterday FASB changed its accounting rules as to how banks should value their assets on their balance sheet. This could potentially lead to 20% earnings in the upcoming earnings season."

"FASB: Voted to agree on allowing "significant judgment" in pricing illiquid assets. A positive for financials, which in many cases could state earnings 20% higher due to this decision."

"The second factor prompting bullish sentiment came from the US' Financial Accounting Standards Board which agreed to relax mark-to-market rules to give companies more flexibility in determining the fair value of assets. This relaxation allows so-called "toxic assets" not to be treated as distressed until otherwise proven, and hence reduce write-downs on certain investments, including MBS."

"Talk is the measure, which can be applied to Q1 results, may boost banks' net income by 20% or more. It may be interesting to monitor its effect on the Geithner PPIP. Can assets now be regarded as "less-toxic" if they don't have to be marked down as aggressively? In this case, will banks be less willing to offload at fire-sale prices to investors?"

"Banks following international accounting rules will not get the break awarded to their US rivals, the international standard setter announced Thursday. The US Financial Accounting Standards Board agreed on a rushed change to its rules that relaxes "fair value" accounting by allowing banks more freedom to use their own valuation models, rather than current market prices, for assets where markets have become illiquid, reports the FT."

Camafeu,

Nunca ouvi falar dessa manipulação relativamente à inflação e outros dados estatísticos. Podes explicar-me de que se trata? Respondendo à tua questão: Os activos passarão a estar avaliados, parcialmente, com base no seu valor históricos. Esta medida é complicada, confesso que não consigo chegar a uma conclusão. Por um lado temos uma espécie de manipulação contabilistica que, como todos sabemos, se tornou habitual desde os anos 90. Para mim constitui uma das bases desta crise. Por outro lado, compreendo que seja necessário alavancar os lucros dos bancos pois, enquanto estes não se tornarem lucrativos e, como tal, disponíveis para emprestar, não vamos a lado nenhum.


Abraço,
Miguel Costa

Citação de: MikeC em Abril 03, 2009, 15:04
Nunca ouvi falar dessa manipulação relativamente à inflação e outros dados estatísticos. Podes explicar-me de que se trata?

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-16-fuzzy-numbers

Minuto 3:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjF4V238Muo&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afWqKcqntfs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chrismartenson.com%2Fcrashcourse%2Fchapter-10-inflation&feature=player_embedded

Boa noite
Vejam o conceito do "valor intrínseco" de Buffet.
Não é a mesma coisa mas apenas a mesma intenção.
O problema é que tal como o bom senso, cada um tem o seu. E dois entre eles não são iguais, logo.....

Apesar de concordar com a motivação para o problema, não aceito o conceito sem uma metodologia estável de cálculo, logo maior regulação.

Mas pode vir a dar resultados.

Bons negócios
AR

Meus caros,

esta flexibilização, em conjunto com os 1st quarter earnings dos bancos, (que vão supreender o mercado especialmente no Citigroup e no Bank of America) vão ser um grande catalizador para a nivel de mercado bolsista sairmos do bear market.
Dias 17 e 20 de Abril(divulgação resultados) são decisivos para a evolução dos mercados.
Apesar de serem apostas arriscadas, C mais arriscado que o BAC, estes estão muito subavaliados...
Comparando a GM que está em situação de falência eminente ainda está a cotar a 2,...$ , e o Citigroup que não deixa de ser o maior banco do mundo em termos de reconhecimento, cartões..etc..., cujo tier 1 é cerca de 11% demonstra que há correcções a fazer. A minha opiniao é que é uma excelente compra mesmo que perto dos 3 dólares, e a sua venda antes do reverse stock split anunciado que historicamente falando retirará um pouco de valor às acções detidas(não deixa de ser muito arriscado por isso agir com precaução).
Bank of America será uma excelente aposta para o futuro, rapidamente irá para perto dos 20 dolares.
Vantagens: Spread a aumentar, capital mais barato, credito mais apertado,reestruturação com optica de red custos, back to comercial basics
Problemas: incumprimento cartoes, desemprego, incumprimento,falta confiança nos bancos e na economia.
Este ano os bancos vão incrementar lucros...vejo-os como farmacias....as pessoas não vão deixar de ficar doentes e nunca vão deixar de precisar dos bancos, as vantagens de mercado largamente vão ultrapassar os problemas inerentes à crise. A maior parte dos Writedowns já foi feito no final do ano passado, e Bank America e o Citigroup poderão mesmo já apresentar lucros este primeiro trimestre.
Para quem é mais receoso Wells Fargo é uma boa aposta.

Cumprimetos,
Russell Girão

Gov't data fatally flawed!
Real jobless rate hits 19.8%!

Many years ago, when Dad and I used to look at official data and analysis, we knew they were flawed. So we developed our own.

That's how we figured out that the capital of savings and loans was grossly overstated and that thousands of S&Ls were headed for a massive bust.

Our awareness of the flaws was also a key factor in helping us warn consumers prior to the failures of giant insurance companies during the 1990s. (See the review of our work by U.S. Government Accountability Office GAO.)

It was critical to helping us warn you of nearly every major financial failure in the debt crisis that began more than two years ago. (See my blog for our forecast track record.)

Plus, it's one of the main reasons I believe the government's efforts to bail out Citigroup, AIG, and other financial institutions are doomed to failure: Their numbers are wrong, their theories are upside down, and they're fighting the wrong war. (For the full exposé I presented at the National Press Club last month, see my white paper, "Dangerous Unintended Consequences: How Banking Bailouts, Buyouts and Nationalization Can Only Prolong America's Second Great Depression and Weaken Any Subsequent Recovery.")

But we're not the only ones finding fatal flaws in official numbers and conclusions. John Williams of ShadowStats.com has been persistently doing so with the government's official data on inflation and unemployment, among other key measures.

His latest estimate of the true March unemployment rate in the United States: 19.8 percent!

Hard to believe? Then consider the facts:

Broad unemployment rate surges to 15.6%!

Fact #1. Fatally Flawed Official Unemployment Number

The U.S. government's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shocked the world Friday with the release of its official, headline unemployment number: A surge from 8.1 percent to 8.5 percent.

But it's really a lot worse. This number (called "U-3"), although invariably cited by the press in the headlines, is the narrowest, most sugarcoated measure of U.S. joblessness:

    * It excludes workers seeking full-time jobs, failing to find them, and then accepting part-time work that almost invariably pays far less.

    * It excludes discouraged workers who have given up looking for jobs because they can't find any.

    * And, as if that wasn't enough to color the truth, the BLS has been consistently and grossly understating the current unemployment numbers, not revising them until months later when fewer people are paying attention.

Williams points out that:

    "The pattern of impossible biases being built into the headline monthly payroll employment continued with March 2009 reporting. Instead of the headline jobs loss of 663,000, consistent application of seasonal-adjustment factors would have shown a more-severe monthly jobs loss of about 750,000. This upside reporting bias has been seen in 11 of the last 12 months, with a rolling 12-month total upside headline-number bias of 1,345,000."

The proof: In every single one of its six most recent monthly payroll reports, the BLS has announced massive upward revisions in prior months' job loss numbers — with five of those even exceeding its own guidelines for the acceptable margin of error (plus or minus 5 percent).

Fact #2. Government Admits Some of the Flaws

The government also publishes a broader measure of unemployment ("U-6"), which corrects some — but not all — of the above flaws.

This measure includes many discouraged and part-time workers, as it should. And, lo and behold, those adjustments alone add more than seven full percentage points to the unemployment rate!

Instead of 8.5 percent unemployment, suddenly we see that we have 15.6 percent unemployment, according the government's own admission.

Instead of a recession, suddenly we see that we are already in a depression.

Most importantly, rather than a government that recognizes the fundamental failure of its efforts over the years to pump-prime the economy — with abundant cheap money, huge federal deficits, and financial bailouts — we have a government that continues to pursue this same folly with ever greater zeal.

It's the epitome of self-deception, leading to misguided policy and, ultimately, causing extreme hardships for nearly everyone, including unemployed officials themselves.

Fact #3. Government Still Fails to Admit ALL of the Flaws

Not only has the government excluded discouraged workers from its headline number, manipulating the public's perception ... it also distorts the way it measures discouraged workers. It's a manipulation within a manipulation, which Williams explains as follows:

    "During the Clinton Administration, 'discouraged workers' — those who had given up looking for a job because there were no jobs to be had — were redefined so as to be counted only if they had been 'discouraged' for less than a year. This ... defined away the bulk of the discouraged workers."

In other words, if you've been a discouraged worker for less than a year, you are among those counted in the broader 15.6 percent unemployment rate the government revealed on Friday.

But if you've been discouraged for more than a year, suddenly and magically, the government says you're not "discouraged" any more. In BLS newspeak, you're a non-discouraged, non-unemployed non-person. You don't exist. Or maybe you just don't get what the real definition of "is" is.

By Williams' and any reasonable person's definition, though, you're still unemployed. You still need a place to live and food to eat. And for Washington to make reasoned decisions, you still need to be counted.

Result: Even the government's broadest measure of unemployment — now at 15.6 percent — is grossly understated. The real figure, Williams estimates, is 19.8 percent.

Depression-Level Unemployment!
And We're Still Far From the Bottom!

The peak unemployment rate in America's First Great Depression was 25 percent. Trouble is, it's hard to pinpoint how the measurements back then correspond to the various measures today.

My view: Although the tools of official deception may have been less developed, the real unemployment rate in the 1930s was probably higher in those days as well — with many among the unemployed falling through the cracks and simply never counted.

No matter what, the inescapable conclusions for today should be evident:

    * We are already in a depression. Based on the government's own admission, we have high, double-digit unemployment. That clinches it.

    * The economy's decline still has a long way to go.Yes, on the eve of the BLS release last Friday, some people were starting to talk about a "possible bottom" in the economy — "maybe." But that talk ended abruptly as soon as economists took one look at the release and realized the utter speed of the decline. As The New York Times explained on Saturday,

      "The severity and breadth of the job losses in March — which afflicted nearly every industry outside of health care — prompted economists to conclude that an agonizing plunge in employment prospects was still unfolding."

    * The Obama stimulus package is too little, too late for the economy."When drafting plans in January to spend roughly $800 billion to stimulate the deteriorating economy," continues The New York Times, "the Obama administration operated on the assumption that the unemployment rate would reach 8.9 percent by the end of the year — without the extra federal spending. Three months into the year, the unemployment rate has already soared to 8.5 percent, from 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than a quarter-century."

    * The Obama stimulus package is too much, too soon for the bond market. With the economy weaker than expected, you'd think bond investors, who traditionally see a falling economy as the best antidote to inflation, would rejoice. Instead, they're doing precisely the opposite. They know that the stimulus package is driving the federal deficit to an unheard-of $2 trillion. They know the Fed cannot cut rates below zero. And so they're using every opportunity to sell. Result: Even Friday, when the shocking jobless release hit the newswires, bond investors dumped bonds, driving prices lower and yields higher.

    * Government bonds are the next big shoe to fall in this giant debt crisis. I don't mean the government will default on its debt. What I'm referring to is the market prices of medium- and long-term government bonds. They're already falling sharply, driving long-term rates higher. As the Treasury rushes to finance its recent bailout frenzy, expect that trend to accelerate.

My Recommendations

First of all, take official information with a grain of salt ... plus some hot jalapeños, horse radish, and wasabi.

Don't rely on government numbers and Wall Street ratings — let alone pronouncements from on high that "our capital is strong," "the crisis is contained," "the market has turned," or "the recovery is near."

You've heard all that same happy talk once too often. You know what the final outcome was. You also know the dangers of believing it.

Second,it's OK to look at government data, provided you weigh it against objective, independent sources outside of the government.

If you're serious about tracking unemployment, inflation, the money supply, and other critical numbers, subscribe to www.ShadowStats.com. John Williams and I have no business relationship, and he doesn't even know I'm recommending him to you. But every time you get a government release on these critical numbers, you had better also get Williams' monthly issues and flash alerts with his estimates of the real numbers.



This investment news is brought to you by Money and Markets. Money and Markets is a free daily investment newsletter from Martin D. Weiss and Weiss Research analysts offering the latest investing news and financial insights for the stock market, including tips and advice on investing in gold, energy and oil. Dr. Weiss is a leader in the fields of investing, interest rates, financial safety and economic forecasting. To view archives or subscribe, visit http://www.moneyandmarkets.com.