浑水质疑奥兰国际灰色会计做法

Shades-of-gray accounting may not be particularly sexy. But it is what short-seller Muddy Waters thrives on.

虽说灰色会计做法并不是什么值得称道的事，但做空机构浑水公司(Muddy Waters)的发家之道靠的就是这个。

A 133-page report published Tuesday details the alleged accounting shenanigans at Singaporean commodities trader Olam that Muddy Waters founder, Carson Block, raised in a 15-minute speech in London a week ago. Olam denies the allegations and is suing Mr. Block.

该公司周二发布的一份长达133页的报告细述了新加坡大宗商品交易商奥兰(Olam)被指存在的会计花招。一周前，浑水公司创始人布洛克(Carson Block)在伦敦发表演讲时提出了这个问题。演讲持续了15分钟。奥兰对指控予以否认，并拟对布洛克提起诉讼。

In the case of Chinese timber company Sino-Forest -- the short that made Muddy Waters famous -- the core of Mr. Block's analysis poked holes in the way the company valued its forestry assets. With Olam, Mr. Block's line of attack is consistent. He says Olam is being aggressive in two areas.

在中国林业公司嘉汉林业(Sino-Forest)一案中，布洛克的分析核心之处在于对嘉汉林业评估林业资产的方式提出了质疑。做空嘉汉林业令浑水公司名声大噪。布洛克对奥兰的攻击要点也是如此。布洛克说，奥兰在两个方面做得太过分。

Mr. Block rightly says Olam's recent results have been significantly boosted by gains related to the valuation of biological assets and negative goodwill. In both cases, Olam's accounting is consistent with appropriate standards. But in both cases, the accounting treatment is obscure, few companies take gains this way and judgment -- not hard data -- is crucial. Two people applying the same accounting standard could come up with different numbers.

布洛克准确地指出，奥兰最近的收益结果因与生物资产估值及负商誉有关的所得而受到了极大的提振。在这两方面，奥兰的会计做法都符合相关的准则。但会计处理方式都不够光明正大，几乎没有哪家公司会以这种方式处理所得，而且主观判断（而非实实在在的数据）至关重要。两个运用同一会计准则的人可能会得出不同的数字。

A cash balance is, more or less, what the bank statement says it is. But the change in the fair value of biological assets such as coffee plants depends on assumptions on matters such as future productivity or the quality of the beans. Companies book negative goodwill when they say an asset is worth more than they paid for it -- but doing this consistently implies an improbable track record of buying assets for less than market value.

现金余额是银行对账单上明明白白摆在那里的数字。但咖啡种植园等生物资产的合理价值的变化则取决于对未来生产力或咖啡豆质量等情形的假设。当一家公司说一项资产的价值比当初买下它时高，公司会计入负商誉──但总这样做意味着资产的买入价总是比市场价格低，而这是不太可能的。

Mr. Block is on shakier ground when he says such noncash gains are driving Olam's capital spending, with management deliberately buying poor assets to revalue upward, for instance. It isn't clear why the company would do this rather than, say, spend funds on productive assets.

布洛克的指控较为站不住脚的一点是，他说这类非现金所得推动了奥兰的资本支出，比如管理层故意买进不良资产以便重新向上调整估值。不清楚该公司为什么要这样做，而不是将资金花在能创造价值的资产上。

Muddy Waters' blockbusters are typically long on speculation, and short on certainty. The Olam tome is no different. Still, just the possibility Mr. Block is right has been enough to spook investors, customers, suppliers and bondholders of companies targeted in the past.

浑水公司的指控通常是猜测成分多而确定成分少，对奥兰的指控也是如此。尽管如此，布洛克有可能是对的，仅凭这一点可能性就足以令以往遭攻击的公司的投资者、客户、供应商和债券持有者人心惶惶。