Um, yeah.Vegosiux said:Well your credentials notwithstanding, "qualitative results have to be weighed proportionally against quantitative results" sounds just vague enough to me that it seems like a cop-out that has so much room for interpretation it might as well have not been said at all.Psykoma said:I don't know where the accountants you know were trained, I went through accounting degree at McGill university, and am currently about 3/4 of the way through professional accounting designation program, and since our very first class it's been pounded into our heads that qualitative have to be weighed proportionally against quantitative results.
Non-financial figures do have an excessive amount of interpretation, that's the whole controversy around non-financial figures - there is no objective way to measure them.
The best accountants are doing, and the best that can be expected of any person, is to consider the non-financial factors and use as a basis the company code of values, ethics and conduct to determine their relative value.
The problem isn't quite with accountants, the problem is with
A. There being no objective way to value non-financial factors
B. Accountants being human
C. Human nature meaning each person values and interprets things differently.