Understanding IAS 29 per
PricewaterhouseCoopers: Correction 12 and 13: PricewaterhouseCoopers clueless
about Capital Maintenance in Units of Constant Purchasing Power
‘Benefits of purchasing power adjusted financial statements.’
PricewaterhouseCoopers Understanding IAS 29 2006 p4
Correction
What PricewaterhouseCoopers should have stated:
Benefits of Capital Maintenance in Units of Constant
Purchasing Power during hyperinflation.
Correction 13
‘Financial statements that are expressed under IAS 29 in a measuring
unit that is current at the balance sheet date provide several benefits:’
PricewaterhouseCoopers Understanding IAS 29 2006 p4
PricewaterhouseCoopers and the IASB do not understand
that IAS 29 is a failed attempt
at implementing Capital Maintenance in Units of Constant Purchasing Power
during hyperinflation because
(1)
they do not understand the concept of
financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power
(proof: they do not understand
(a) that (and why) a daily index instead of a monthly
published index needs to be used and
(b) they do not understand that the IFRS-authorized
statement in the Conceptual Framework (2010), Par. 4.59 (a) that ‘Financial capital maintenance can be
measured in units of constant purchasing power’ means that non-monetary
items are split in two: variable real value non-monetary items and constant real
value non-monetary items)
(2) they mistakenly believe that by simply “restating”
HC or CC financial statements in a
measuring unit that is current at the balance sheet date will stop making
these financial statements misleading since that is what they believe is the
objective of IAS 29. They are duped by
their blind believe in the meaningless “restatement” dogma. They are clueless
about Capital Maintenance in Units of Constant Purchasing Power authorized in IFRS in 1989.
Nicolaas Smith
Copyright (c) 2005-2013 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment