[pt] A inclusão da flexibilidade gerencial nas avaliações de projetos vem promovendo análises mais condizentes com a realidade, quando comparadas àquelas geradas pelos métodos tradicionais (VPL e TIR, por exemplo). Isso porque, de acordo com o comportamento do cenário, passa-se a considerar a possibilidade de realizações de mudanças nos planos anteriormente traçados. O estudo desse tema é especialmente importante em cenários que apresentam bastante incerteza associada, pesados investimentos e alto grau de irreversibilidade. A indústria petrolífera encaixa- se perfeitamente no perfil desse cenário, justificando portanto, a consideração da flexibilidade gerencial nas avaliações de seus projetos, feita através da analogia às opções financeiras. Nesse caso, devido a ordem de grandeza do investimento necessário para o desenvolvimento de um campo de petróleo, o estudo das vantagens que possam vir a ser proporcionadas por um investimento anterior em informação, visando reduzir as incertezas presentes, é um tópico que requer atenção especial, sendo então um dos objetivos dessa dissertação. Para tanto, utilizando um caso real da indústria petrolífera, foi considerada a disponibilidade de três diferentes alternativas para o desenvolvimento do campo, cada qual com sua escala. Daí, sempre assumindo cenários com incertezas técnicas e econômicas, foram feitas simulações para diferentes percentuais de revelações das incertezas (proporcionados pela informação anteriormente coletada), para diferentes custos de investimento em informação e para diferentes combinações de alternativas; simulação essa que ilustra o valor agregado pela flexibilidade criada com a adição de mais alternativas para o desenvolvimento do campo e que vem a ser outro objetivo dessa dissertação. / [en] The Real Options Theory approaches the reality in financial analysis better than the traditional methods (NPV and TIR, for example), as it turns possible to change the plans that had already been done, according to the situation (managerial flexibility). This subject is very important, specially for projects that involve huge amount of investment, a lot of uncertainty and low reversibility. Normally, the oil industry s projects have these kind of characteristics; justifying, this way, the application of this theory. In this case, because of the huge capital needed to be invested in order to develop the oilfield, it s worthwhile to analyze the advantages that can be provided by a forward investment in information in order to reduce the technical uncertainty. This is one of the objectives of this work. Therefore, one real case of the oil industry is being used in this work, considering three different available alternatives for the development of the oilfield, which one having its own scales of production, and always adopting situations with technical and economic uncertainties. It was done simulations for different percentage of uncertainties revelations (provided by the information obtained forwardly), for different costs of the investment in information and for different quantities of alternatives available to the manager. This last simulation shows the value added by the flexibility provided with the increasing of alternatives to develop the oilfield. This is the other objective of this work.

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the United States Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) have reaffirmed their commitment to accomplishing the convergence of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and US Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (US GAAP), following their March 2010 progress report. Among the standards subject to this convergence project, is IAS 23 - Borrowing Costs. Taken at face value, the convergence of IAS 23 (IFRS) and SFAS 34 (US GAAP), and looking at convergence in general, the idea is productive and beneficial. It will lead to more comparative information as it eliminates the differences. The downside, however, could very easily be that convergence might just be taking place for the sake of convergence, and that the end result might not necessarily lead to more comparative and cost effective information. When specifically considering the convergence of the two borrowing costs standards (SFAS 34 and IAS 23), it is clear that differences remain even after their convergence, and therefore it does not promote comparability. The revision of IAS 23 might actually have been more costly and less beneficial, rather than the other way around. The first article in this dissertation claims that the mandatory capitalisation of borrowing costs is more costly than not, and that the IASB did not adequately consider the cost implications in their decision to change IAS 23, as well as that the benefits obtained from the capitalisation of borrowing costs are not that noticeable in practice. Participants in this study also seemed to agree that the application of IAS 23 is fairly difficult. Delving deeper into the technical aspects of IAS 23, a number of questions also arise relating to its application. This appears to be substantiated by the findings in the second article where instances were identified where the opinions of the participants relating to, for instance, what would be regarded as a 'substantial period of time', were divided. Differences relating to the above above viii may lead to one person capitalising borrowing costs, while another in the same situation would not. On the upside, a few instances were identified where participants were not as divided in their views. Therefore, although there appear to be some uncertainties within IAS 23, there are fewer than one would have expected. In summary, the revised IAS 23, in other words, the mandatory capitalisation of borrowing costs on qualifying assets, was viewed by participants as being more costly and difficult to apply than not and they felt that some technical uncertainties do exist within IAS 23. Recommendations have been made in this dissertation based on the useful information obtained. / Thesis (M.Com. (Accountancy))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the United States Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) have reaffirmed their commitment to accomplishing the convergence of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and US Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (US GAAP), following their March 2010 progress report. Among the standards subject to this convergence project, is IAS 23 - Borrowing Costs. Taken at face value, the convergence of IAS 23 (IFRS) and SFAS 34 (US GAAP), and looking at convergence in general, the idea is productive and beneficial. It will lead to more comparative information as it eliminates the differences. The downside, however, could very easily be that convergence might just be taking place for the sake of convergence, and that the end result might not necessarily lead to more comparative and cost effective information. When specifically considering the convergence of the two borrowing costs standards (SFAS 34 and IAS 23), it is clear that differences remain even after their convergence, and therefore it does not promote comparability. The revision of IAS 23 might actually have been more costly and less beneficial, rather than the other way around. The first article in this dissertation claims that the mandatory capitalisation of borrowing costs is more costly than not, and that the IASB did not adequately consider the cost implications in their decision to change IAS 23, as well as that the benefits obtained from the capitalisation of borrowing costs are not that noticeable in practice. Participants in this study also seemed to agree that the application of IAS 23 is fairly difficult. Delving deeper into the technical aspects of IAS 23, a number of questions also arise relating to its application. This appears to be substantiated by the findings in the second article where instances were identified where the opinions of the participants relating to, for instance, what would be regarded as a 'substantial period of time', were divided. Differences relating to the above above viii may lead to one person capitalising borrowing costs, while another in the same situation would not. On the upside, a few instances were identified where participants were not as divided in their views. Therefore, although there appear to be some uncertainties within IAS 23, there are fewer than one would have expected. In summary, the revised IAS 23, in other words, the mandatory capitalisation of borrowing costs on qualifying assets, was viewed by participants as being more costly and difficult to apply than not and they felt that some technical uncertainties do exist within IAS 23. Recommendations have been made in this dissertation based on the useful information obtained. / Thesis (M.Com. (Accountancy))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.