Not quite on par with to be or not to be

Not quite on par with to be or not to be

Changing the financial year to coincide with the calendar year is likely to receive a lukewarm welcome. It is not a universal standard, nor of immense benefit in terms of gearing for the year ahead, whether for the government or companies. On the flip side, the cost of such a change would be minor. Whether to change the fiscal year or not stands at a plane considerably different from the existential debate on whether to be or not to be.
The US fiscal year runs from October to September, and the budget is presented as early as in February. America's Internal Revenue Service allows companies to have any fiscal year they please, so long as it consists of 12 months. GE's fiscal year coincides with the calendar year. Apple's runs from October to September. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley changed theirs to the calendar year after the financial crisis. Germany's fiscal year is the calendar year, as is the case for Sudan and Zimbabwe. Singapore manages just fine with April-March. China and Hong Kong extend the one-country two-systems philosophy to the fiscal year as well: China's is the calendar year, while Hong Kong persists with April 1to March 31. Britain, meanwhile, puts its fiscal year from April 6 to April 5. GDP estimates, company results and monetary policy decisions go by quarters. The fiscal year matters only to the extent that after its completion, companies have to submit audited returns and pay final tax within a stipulated period of time.
Does agriculture warrant a change in the fiscal year? It accounts for less than 15% of GDP. Budgets have to be forward-looking, so what counts really is the monsoon forecast that is not ready by October, when the Budget for a year beginning January would be made. Which four quarters should comprise the fiscal year is not a particularly vital question.