Accounting professor is dead wrong - Part 2

Continuing from yesterday’s blog:
The Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements Par. 104 (a) was approved by the International Accounting Standards Board’s predecessor body, the International Accounting Standards Committee Board, in April 1989 for publication in July 1989 and adopted by the IASB in April 2001.

SA accountants who prepare their companies´ accounts based on International Financial Reporting Standards during low inflation have to choose between Historical Cost Accounting and Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting in terms of Par. 104 (a) which states:

“Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power.”

SA accountants have to choose between implementing the constant purchasing power financial capital concept of invested purchasing power measured in units of constant purchasing power, the constant purchasing power financial capital maintenance concept and determining profit or loss in terms of units of constant purchasing power during non-hyperinflationary periods, on the one hand, or the traditional Historical Cost financial capital concept of invested money in nominal monetary units, the HC financial capital maintenance concept in nominal monetary units and the HC profit or loss determination concept in nominal monetary units during non-hyperinflationary periods.

SA accountants generally choose the real value destroying Historical Cost Accounting model when they implement the very destructive stable measuring unit assumption.

We all know that measuring an economic item in units of constant purchasing power maintains its real value constant as compared to measuring it in nominal monetary unit which results in its real value being destroyed at a rate equal to the rate of inflation.

The accounting professor states: “the choice of the measuring unit does not affect their fundamental value”

He is dead wrong in the case of constant items never updated.

He states: “ So its fine to represent value in terms of constant purchasing power and to argue that that would be a better method than using historic cost and maintaining a fiction as to the stability of the measuring unit - but that doesn't affect the nature of the underlying resources.”

He is dead wrong in the case of constant items never updated.

He states: “The choices accountants won't change that value & won't affect the economy (except indirectly insofar as investment decisions are based on the figures we present).”

He is dead wrong in the case of constant items never updated.

SA accountants unknowingly destroy about R200 billion PER ANNUM in the real value of constant items, for example, Retained Profits of all SA companies never updated during low inflation because they implement the very destructive stable measuring unit assumption as part of the real value destroying Historical Cost Accounting model.

They will boost the SA real economy by about R200 billion PER ANNUM for an unlimited period of time – ceteris paribus – when they reject the stable measuring unit assumption and freely choose to measure financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as authorized by the IASB 20 years ago.

They simply have to ignore that the accounting professor states that “to represent value in terms of constant purchasing power doesn't affect the nature of the underlying resources.”

He is dead wrong in the case of constant items never updated.

© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved

No reproduction without permission

Financial reporting does NOT simply report on what took place

There is a debate whether accountants simply record what happened in the past or whether they value economic items.


There are three different categories of basic economic items in a financial report:

I. Monetary items

We all report monetary items at their original nominal monetary amounts during the current financial period.

Let us assume the following: Telkom placed R100 million in a savings account in the bank on 2nd Jan 2008.

Their accountants left this item as posted on 02-01-2008. Telkom´s auditors checked this entry and stated that Telkom´s accounts fairly presented their business at their year end.

Monetary items are also VALUED by accountants at their original nominal monetary values because it is impossible to update or inflation-adjust money and other monetary items. Their real values are continuously being destroyed by inflation which means they are always VALUED at their current inflation-destroyed real values.

Simply reporting them as they took place originally and VALUING them are thus one and the same thing.


II. Constant items

Let us assume: In Jan 1981 one of the late honourable Anton Rupert´s original companies had R100 million in Retained Profits. That amount stayed in retained profits till today. It was part of the Remgro Retained Earnings value at 31st March 2009.

Remgro´s auditors verified the amount and stated that Remgro´s accounts fairly present their business.
The fact that that R100 million is only worth R6.8 million in real value today is absolutely no concern to anyone.

Well, to me it is.

The fact that SA accountants valued in the past and now value Retained Profits at Historical Cost with their silly stable measuring unit assumption thus transforming hundreds (thousands?) of billions of Rands of constant real value non-monetary items currently into simple old CASH (you know, like Rand notes and coins) means that Retained Profits, just like Monetary Items above, are simply being reported as they took place originally and that VALUING them and stating them at their original nominal monetary values are one and the same thing.
The simple undeniable fact that by valuing (simply reporting what took place in some people´s view) Retained Profits at Historical Cost by implementing that silly stable measuring unit assumption, SA accountants are destroying hundreds of billions of Rand (about R200 billion) PER ANNUM in the SA real economy apparently has not been realized yet. Luckily the IASB realized something 20 years ago when they approved the Framework, Par. 104 (a) as follows:

"Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units OR IN UNITS OF CONSTANT PURCHASING POWER."
III. Variable Items

Let us assume: A company bought stock on Jan 1 2008 at R100 million. At its year end on 31.12.2008 the net realizable value of that stock was R10 million.

Their auditors said: No. The stock has to be shown at the lower of cost or net realizable value.

So:

Financial reporting does NOT simply report on what took place.

Let us assume: Big bucks bankers on Wall Street securitized USD 10 trillion in sub-prime mortages and sold it off all over the world.

.

Their auditors forced them to value those items at fair value.

So: 

Financial reporting does NOT simply report on what took place.

We can state a million examples of variable items not reported as they took place originally but VALUED in terms of IFRS or SA GAAP.

Copyright 2005-2010 by Nicolaas Smith

SA accountants only fail in one instance - but it costs us a fortune

There are three economic items in the economy:

1. Monetary items

2. Variable items

3. Constant items


1. Monetary Items

Monetary items are the easiest to value. Accountants do not have to do any calculations or follow any complicated rules in IFRS. They simply state the original nominal values during low inflation and during hyperinflation. That´s it.

Inflation destroys the real value of money and all other monetary items. Inflation keeps all monetary real values current at today´s rate. Very simple.

No-one can update any nominal monetary value during the current financial year.

So, it is the easiest thing in the world for accounants to value monetary items. They are automatically valued by inflation. They just state them at their original nominal values.

So, it is a fact: Accountants VALUE monetary items.

2. Variable Items

Accountants value variable items in terms of International Financial Reporting Standards at, for example, market value, fair value, recoverable value, present value and net realizable value during low inflation.

During hyperinflation, accountants have to value all variable items in units of constant purchasing power by inflation-adjusting them by means of the CPI. This is a requirement of the IASB in IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies.

No problems here either. Well, fair value mark-to-market procedures still have some way to go. But, the accounting authorities are working very hard to get this sorted out as soon as possible.

So, it is a fact: Accountants VALUE all variable items.

3. Constant items

Constant items are divided in two sub-groups:

a) Income statement items
b) Balance sheet constant items


Income statement items

Accountants value some (not all) income statement constant items, eg. salaries, wages, rents, etc in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and thus maintain their real values constant - ceteris paribus.

The income statement items that are not inflation-adjusted during low inflation, accounants value at historical cost implementing the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation.

During hyperinflation IAS 29 requires accountants to inflation-adjust not just some, but, all income statement items in units of constant purchasing power by means of the CPI. They thus maintain their real values constant - ceteris paribus.

So, it is a fact: Accountants VALUE income statement items either in units of constant purchasing power or at historical cost during low inflation. During hyperinflation all income statement items are VALUED in units of constant purchasing power.

Balance sheet constant items

Accountants have to value all balance sheet constant items in units of constant purchasing power during hyperinflation. Accountant thus maintain their real values constant during hyperinflation - ceteris paribus.

Accountants value all balance sheet constant items, eg. issued share capital, retained profits, all other items in shareholders´ equity, etc at historical cost during low inflation thus unknowingly and unintentionally destroying their real values at a rate equal to the inflation rate because these items are constant real value non-monetary items. Accountants thus value these items the same as simple old cash - in nominal monetary values at historical cost implementing their very destructive stable measuring unit assumption and unknowingly destroy their real values at a rate equal to the rate of inflation to the tune of about R200 billion per year in the SA real economy for an unlimited period of time as long as they carry on implementing the very destructive stable measuring unit assumption during indefinite inflation.

So, it is a fact: accountants VALUE all income statement and all balance sheet constant items.

Summary: SA accountants VALUE all items they account in a business.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

PS When SA accountants choose to value all constant items during low inflation in units of constant purchasing power as they have been authorized by the IASB 20 years ago in the Framework, Par. 104 (a), they will boost the SA real economy by about R200 billion per annum forever - ceteris paribus

SA accountants value economic items - they do not simply report on what took place

There are three basic items in the economy:

1. Monetary items

2. Variable items

3. Constant items.


SA accountants value economic items when they account them and prepare financial reports.

Inflation destroys the real value of the Rand and all other Rand monetary items. Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items. Monetary items cannot be updated or inflation adjusted. SA accountants value monetary items at their original nominal monetary values during the accounting period.
Inflation is the enemy in the SA monetary economy. Tito Mboweni and soon Gill Marcus are inflation´s enemies.

SA accountants value variable items, e.g. property, plant, equipment, quoted and unquoted shares, foreign exchange, inventories, finished goods, etc. in terms of International Financial Reporting Standards at for example market value, fair value, recoverable value, present value and net realizable value.

There is no enemy in the SA variable item non-monetary economy.

Constant items are real value non-monetary items with constant real values over time. Examples are salaries, wages, rentals, issued share capital, retained profits, etc. SA accountant unfortunately value them at historical cost implementing the stable measuring unit assumption. SA accountants unknowingly destroy the real value of constant items never or not fully updated at a rate equal to the inflation rate. This amounts to about R200 billion in the SA real economy.

The stable measuring unit assumption is the enemy in the SA constant item economy.


SA accountants unknowingly and unintentionally destroy the real value of constant items never or not fully updated when they implement the very destructive stable measuring unit assumption as part of the real value destroying traditional Historical Cost Accounting model for an unlimited period of time during indefinite inflation.

SA accountant will boost the SA real economy by about R200 billion for an unlimited period of time - ceteris paribus - when they freely reject the stable measuring unit assumption and measure financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as the IASB authorized them to do 20 years ago in the Framework, Par. 104 (a).


© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission

The second systemic economy-wide process of real value destruction

There was only one systemic economy-wide process of real value destruction operating in the economy before double entry accounting was invented.

The economic process of inflation destroyed the real value of money and other monetary items equally throughout the monetary economy at that time as it does today in economies subject to inflation.

There was no simultaneous second systemic economy-wide process as we experience today whereby accountants unknowingly and unintentionally destroy the real value of constant items never or not fully updated during indefinite inflation.

This includes the unknowing destruction by accountants of the real value of Shareholders´ Equity in companies without sufficient variable items that are or can be revalued via the Revaluation Reserve or without sufficient hidden and unrecognised holding gains to compensate for the real value shortfall in Shareholders´ Equity as we experience today because now accountants choose to maintain the very destructive stable measuring unit assumption for an unlimited period of time while they assume indefinite inflation – all else being equal.

The reason was that the real value destroying traditional Historical Cost Accounting model was not yet invented at that time.

We will go back to only one systemic economy-wide process of real value destruction operating in the economy, namely the economic process of inflation destroying the real value of money and other monetary items, when SA accountants reject the stable measuring unit assumption and freely choose to measure financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as authorized by the International Accounting Standards Board in the Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements, Par. 104 (a) in 1989 which states:

"Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power."

All constant items´ real values will be maintained for an indefinite period of time - ceteris paribus.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

Trust me, I´m a SA accountant

Trust me, I am a SA accountant.

I will - unknowingly and unintentionally - destroy your Retained Profits at a rate equal to the rate of inflation (currently 6.9% - you can make your own calculations) as well as all your other constant real value non-monetary items never updated that I and all my fellow accountants (except Nicolaas Smith) - many of whom are CA(SA)s - value in nominal monetary units, i.e. at Historical Cost, implementing our very destructive stable measuring unit assumption as part of the traditional generally accepted real value destroying Historical Cost Accounting model as authorized by the IASB in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) which states:

"Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units OR IN UNITS OF CONSTANT PURCHASING POWER."

In this way we unknowingly and unintentionally destroy at least R200 billion in the SA real economy each and every year as we did last year and as we will do for ever more as long as we implement our very destructive stable measuring unit assumption during indefinite inflation.

Signed: SA accountant

CAs are variable item value custodians and constant item value destroyers

Tito Mboweni is the custodian or guardian of the real value of the Rand. 

Accountants value all economic items in a business.

How they value those economic items is very important. Ultimately, there is only one correct value for any economic item.

They are thus all custodians or guardians of the real values in a business.

That is why they are paid such high salaries. They are paid for financial integrity.

It does not mean they are little value-gods.

There are some items still to be sorted out.

They do look after value very well (variable items that they value in terms of IFRS) - with the one exception of the real value of balance sheet constant items, eg. issued share capital of companies with no fixed assets and retained profits of all companies. These they unknowingly destroy at a rate equal to the inflation rate to the tune of about R200 billion per annum in the SA real economy.

CA´s unintentionally do this with their implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption.

In fact International Financial Reporting Standards reject the stable measuring unit assumption on two occasions:

1. In IAS 29 Financial Reporting In Hyperinflationary Economies.

2. In The Framework, Par. 104 (a) which states: "Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power."

When CAs start thinkging for themselves about what they are - unknowingly - doing to the SA real economy they will realize that by freely choosing to measure financial capital maitnenance in units of constant purchasing power as authorized by the IASB 20 years ago, they will boost the SA real economy by at least R200 billion per annum for an unlimited period of time instead of unknowingly and unintentionally destroying about R200 billion PER ANNUM for an unlimited period of time - each and every year - in the SA real economy (ceteris paribus) as they are unknowingly and unintentionally doing this year.

© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission

Why don´t SA accountants follow the IASB then?

The reasons SA accountants do not follow the IASB are the same reasons the rest of the world´s accountants don´t follow the IASB:

Some examples:

1. Historical Cost Accounting has been around for 500 years.

2. Everybody uses Historical Cost Accounting.

3. Hardly anyone (this includes the IASB) understands that when accountants use the stable measuring unit assumption as part of Historical Cost Accounting they unknowingly destroy the real value of their company´s retained profits, for example.

When they get to realize it, they say it makes no difference in the real world - like Market Monkey says.

In fact, it costs SA about R200 billion in real value unknowingly destroyed by our accountants each and every year in this way.

4. Hardly anyone (this includes the IASB) understands that when they stop the stable measuring unit assumption they will maintain the real value of all constant items.

5. Hardly any accountants even know that they in fact choose between two basic accounting models when they do their accounts in terms of International Financial Reporting Standards. They do not even know there is a choice and that they in fact make that choice. Ask any accountant you know.

You see, the IASB made the mistake of giving them a choice between measuring financial capital maintenance in either nominal monetary units (the traditional Historical Cost Accounting model) or units of constant purchasing power.

No-one chooses constant purchasing power units. The reason for this is that during the high-inflation 1970´s companies unsuccessfully tried inflation accounting in units of constant purchasing power whereunder they inflation-adjusted all non-monetary items by means of the Consumer Price Index.

Most companies correctly complained that you cannot just inflation-adjust all non-monetary items (cars, phones, groceries, etc) during high inflation.

The IASB correctly formulated IAS 29 for the use of Constant Purchasing Power inflation accounting only during hyperinflation.

Now, whenever any accountant or accounting authority sees anything about units of constant purchasing power, they immediately think inflation accounting.
Before the IASB came about, accounting was based on Generally Accepted Accounting Practice. The IASB did not have the guts (tomates is what we say in Portuguese) to change the 500 year old Historical Cost Paradigm. If they remove the words "nominal monetary units" from the Framework, Par 104 (a) that states: "Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either NOMINAL MONETARY UNITS or in units of constant purchasing power." then they will cause a paradigm change: out with the Historical Cost paradigm and in with the Constant Purchasing Power paradigm.

But, that is a very big step. It will not happen overnight. I accept that.

Those are the main reasons.

Accounting authorities are doing a good job at the moment with fair value accounting: mark-to-market accounting.

After that they should tackle the stable measuring unit assumption - if South Africa has not yet taken the lead in getting it rejected by then.

But, we have to start somewhere and go one step at a time. Eventually we´ll get there. When, I don´t know.


© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission

Fool proof accounting

Hi Motley Fool,

[Warning to Market Monkey: Do not read the following. If you do, you will turn into stone.]

As I was saying my dear Motley Fool,

I will teach you Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting as defined by no other than our well known

The Motley Fool

Here we go: (this is what you call a liberal translation of the Motley Fool´s teachings about accounting. This translation is from The Motley Fool´s impeccible English to GobblyGook as sputtered by The Deluded Monkey.)

Accounting is double entry: For every debit there is a corresponding credit.

According to the Motley Fool

any particular entry

"should be worth more the next year due to the currency being worth less."

The Motley Fool´s exact words in inverted commas.

Since accounting is double entry the Motley Fool´s words hold true for BOTH sides of each set of debit and credit entries.

That´s it.

That, in broad principle, is the IASB´s Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting.

"Due to the currency being worth less" all accounting items (entries) "should be worth more the next year" as per the Motley Fool.

There are three types of items in the economy:

1. Variable items. Cups etc. Their values are generally set in the market where inflation is taken into account in the price.

2. Monetary items: money, loans, etc. They cannot be inflation-adjusted. Thus you have a net monetary loss or gain.

3. Constant items: eg. salaries, capital, retained profits, etc.

As you know the real value of your salary is destroyed if it is not inflation-adjusted every year.

The same is true with capital and retained profits.

There you are: Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting as per The Motley Fool.

Motley Fool, you are a genius!

Long live The Motley Fool!!

Kindest regards,

Deluded Monkey

PS: The Motley Fool´s famous statement:

"should be worth more the next year due to the currency being worth less."

signalled the end of the 5 century old Historical Cost paradigm.


© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission

One very deluded Historical Cost Market Monkey

Market Monkey said:

"The problem with your capital "raising" is that it doesn't raise any REAL money. You know. The stuff you use to actually buy things and services with. If you don't get the distinction between the funds raised via preference shares and an increase in funds due to an accounting change I'm gonna have to stop visiting and conclude you are one very deluded monkey. MM."
Real Value Accountant said:
"Hi Market Monkey,

I was getting worried. You have been very quiet lately. Thought you went off to meditate units of constant purchasing power in Tibet? :-)

You must believe me that I am not actually a snake oil salesman. I am just finishing off something I got involved in – by chance - 15 years ago trying to sort (and actually sorted out) out what was going on in the hyperinflationary Angolan economy. But, that´s another story.

What I state is actually correct and true. I did not invent this. The International Accounting Standards Board did. Read Paragraph 104 (a). It states: "Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power." It is NOT of my making. I am just the messenger. I got involved by chance. I am simply the office messenger delivering the letters from the big bosses in London.

You are not up against me: you are taking on the IASB – Sir David and the boys in London – including Geoffrey Whittington, amongst others.

Why do you think the IASB approved financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power if they had not subjected it to due process first? This is not of my making.

The IASB approved Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting model (my name for it: the IASB formulated it in April, 1989. But, no-one has been using it for the last 20 years: so, there was no need for it to have a name; so, now I named it CIPPA) is not just an accounting change with no real world effect.

“A picture is worth a thousand words.”

So, I will try and show you some account “pictures”:

Your way of doing accounting: The Historical Cost Accounting model – used by all SA accountants:

Year One

Assets: Debit: Trade debtors R100 million
Liabilities: Credit: Capital R100 million

Your complete balance sheet.

After a year at 6.9% inflation and no activity for a year your auditors audit your accounts and give you an unqualified audit report in Year Two stating that the following FAIRLY reflects your business and your accounting is compliant with IFRS:

Year Two

Assets: Debit: Trade debtors R100 million
Liabilities: Credit: Capital R 100 million

Remember: this is after one year of no activity with inflation at 6.9%

Here are the IASB (not my) Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting balance sheet which is also complaint with IFRS:

Year One

Assets: Debit: Trade Debtors R100 million (we assume today is 31.12 Year One)
Liabilities: Credit: Capital R100 million (we assume today is 31.12 Year One)

One year later with no activity and inflation at 6.9%:

Year Two

Assets: Debit: Trade Debtors R106.9 million (we assume today is 31.12 Year Two)
Liabilities: Credit: Capital R106.9 million (we assume today is 31.12 Year Two)

On 1st January Year Three you go and collect your R100 million from your debtors. We assume we are using the Historical Cost paradigm.
On 1st January Year Three the IASB go and collect their R106.9 million from their debtors. We assume we are using he Constant Purchasing Power paradigm.

The IASB collected ACTUAL Rands – the same as “funds raised via preference shares. REAL money. You know. The stuff you use to actually buy things and services with.”

Sir David from the IASB likes rugby. He was in Cape Town at the time and the Boks were playing he All Blacks at Newlands. He took some of that R106.9 million of REAL Rands he collected from his trade debtors and bought a ticket to watch the Boks live at Newlands.

You only collected your miserable R100 million – destroyed in real value by 6.9% inflation. YOU did not have the extra Rands like “funds raised via preference shares. REAL money. You know. The stuff you use to actually buy things and services with”, so you watched the game on TV at home.

YOU did not collect those REAL extra Rands. YOU collected you nominal monetary unit Historical Cost Rands destroyed at 6.9% by SA inflation.

Now, you want to tell me that under the IASB approved – not the Nicolaas Smith invented – Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting model there is no “REAL money. You know. The stuff you use to actually buy things and services with.”

So, what I am promoting generates REAL FUNDS like “funds raised via preference shares. REAL money. You know. The stuff you use to actually buy things and services with”.

Market Monkey, I´m sure you get it now.

As you can see: it is DOUBLE ENTRY ACCOUNTING. Real funds are generated because it is DOUBLE ENTRY ACCOUNTING. It is not just a one-sided accounting entry.

So, Market Monkey: who is deluded? You with your nominal historical cost monetary units destroyed at the rate of inflation (YOU may think they are worth the same as a year ago - I don´t know) or the IASB with their hands full of inflation adjusted constant real value non-monetary items in REAL Rands?
It is a complete paradigm change - as you may realize by now. This is also "by chance". When I got involved in 1994 I had no idea where this logical journey would lead me. I just take one logical step at a time.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

Nedbank you will be real dummies not to accept my offer

Hi Nebank Board of Directors,

I see you intend to issue R1 billion non-core Tier 1 perpetual, non-cumulative, non-redeemable, non-participating Nedbank preference shares on which you will pay a dividend of 75% of the prime interest rate or .75 times 10.5% times R1 billion = R 78.75 million per annum - ceteris paribus.

Well, here is my deal for you:

I will show you how to increase your equity by R2.285 billion in perpetuity - AT NO COST.

Here it is: Simply measure your financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as authorized by the IASB in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) twenty years ago. It is compliant with IFRS. Your auditors will still sign your accounts as normal.

Your total equity at June 2008 was R33.127 billion. Updating that at 6.9% to June 2009 will add R2.285 immediately to your equity.

Nice and easy, isn´t it. AT NO COST. (Your accountants are very bright people and will pick up Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting very quickly.)

[Well, there is a small cost involved: you have to promise to buy a copy of my soon to be finished book for every member of your staff in South Africa.]

Nedbank, you will be real dummies not to accept my offer.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

Capital maintenance for dummies - like the IASB :-)

Capital maintenance for dummies - like the IASB

Capital is required to start a company. A company has an indefinite life - it is supposed to exist forever.

Capital is really saved-up wealth or saved-up real value.

Luckily double entry accounting makes capital into a constant item. It is like your salary or wage: its real value is a constant item.

But, if your salary is paid in ever-more-worthless-Rands (inflation or value-destruction at 6.9%) then your salary has to be inflation-adjusted to keep its real value the same.

This is what trade unions do. They make sure your salary is inflation adjusted every year.

This is very easy to understand. Everybody does it - world wide. That is, for salaries and wages and rentals and so on.

Enter the IASB. The International Accounting Standards Board.

Well, they are the world´s top accounants.

They are very responsible people.

They realize that money loses its real value at such a rapid rate during hyperinflation that all items that are not monetary items have to be inflation-adjusted by means of the Consumer Price Index. That is during hyperinflation.

However, during low inflation, the IASB change their story completely: now they suddenly come up with the story that you can maintain your capital in NOMINAL monetary units during low inflation.

Imagine that!

That is only possible when you invest 100% of your company´s capital in revaluable fixed assets. Companies normally don´t do that.

We all know that you cannot maintain the real value of your salary by keeping it the same during inflation.

Well, the same is true for companies´ capital and retained profits.

Not so, according to our friends at the IASB. According to them you can MAINTAIN your company´s retained profits in NOMINAL MONETARY UNITS.

They are nuts! :-)

That is completely impossible during inflation.

Well, they are not as dof as they appear to be. lol

They authorized our accountants in SA 20 years ago to maintain our companies´ capital and retained profits in units of constant purchasing power.

Fantastic! That is 100% correct!

Well. That is where the capital maintenance stops. :-(

Not a single SA accountant selects capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power.

What a sad story. Instead they unknowingly destroy about R200 billion per year in real value in constant items never updated - each and every year!!)

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting as a financial capital maintenance concept

Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting, despite being approved by the IASB in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) twenty years ago, is almost completely ignored by most accountants in non-hyperinflationary economies even though it would maintain instead of destroy the real values of not only all income statement constant items but also all balance sheet constant real value non-monetary items for an unlimited period of time.

This is because any price-level accounting is generally viewed by almost all accountants and accounting authorities, but excluding the IASB, as a 1970-style failed and discredited inflation accounting model that requires all non-monetary items - variable real value non-monetary items and constant real value non-monetary items - to be inflation-adjusted by means of the CPI.

They – including the IASB - forego the opportunity to promote the substantial real value maintaining benefits of measuring financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power in companies and the economy in general.

This results in the unknowing destruction by SA accountants of billions of Rand in real value in the SA real economy – in companies´ and banks´ Retained Earnings (to name just one item unknowingly destroyed by SA accountants like this) - year in year out because they choose to measure financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units and implement the very destructive stable measuring unit assumption as part of the real value destroying Historical Cost Accounting model in SA when the stable measuring unit assumption is maintained for an unlimited period of time during indefinite inflation.

© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission

Normal and inflation accounting - for dummies

Inflation accounting is used during very high inflation and hyperinflation.

Hyperinflation is at least 100% cumulative inflation after 3 years: i.e. 26% annual inflation for 3 years in a row.

The International Accounting Standards Board requires companies in a hyperinflationary economy to implement their Constant Purchasing Power inflation accounting (CPPA) model formulated in International Accounting Standard IAS 29.

It is quite a simple process.

All non-monetary items are inflation-adjusted by means of the CPI.

The IASB also authorized SA accountants 20 years ago to use Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting (CIPPA) during low inflation.

With CIPPA companies inflation-adjust ONLY constant items, eg. salaries, wages, rentals, companies capital, retained profits, trade debtors, trade creditors, taxes payable, taxes receivable, etc during low inflation.

In this way companies maintain these items´ constant real values during low inflation.

But, SA accountants have to actually CHOOSE this Constant ITEM Purchasing Accounting model instead of the traditional Historical Cost Accounting model.

All SA accountants pick the traditional HCA model. They at least inflation-adjust salaries, wages, rentals and some other income statement items. They value all other constant items at historical cost and thus unknowingly destroy their real values at a rate equal to the rate of inflation.

Not a single SA accountant picks the CIPPA model because hardly any one of them even know that there is a choice.

Do you know an accountant? Ask him or her about the two choices in basic accounting during low inflation approved by the IASB. I don´t think you will find many who even know about the choice they make when they use International Financial Reporting Standards.

SA accountants unknowingly destroy about R200 billion PER ANNUM in this way.

When they pick the CIPPA model as authorized by the IASB 20 years ago, they will maintain that R200 billion PER ANNUM forever.

SA accountants  refuse point blank to do this.

They will rather unknowingly (?) destroy about R200 billion PER ANNUM in the SA real economy.

They are really unknowingly (??) doing us all in quite a bit.

Do you know any accountants?

© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved

No reproduction without permission.

Constant Purchasing Power INFLATION ACCOUNTING

Constant Purchasing Power INFLATION ACCOUNTING

Geoffrey Whittington in his definitive work on inflation accounting in the beginning of the 1980´s, Inflation Accounting - An Introduction to the Debate, published in 1983, clearly indicated that with 1970-style Constant Purchasing Power inflation accounting ALL non-monetary accounts (with no distinction being made between variable and constant real value non-monetary item accounts) were updated by means of the CPI.

He stated that Constant Purchasing Power inflation accounting (CPP) was a method of inflation-adjusting all non-monetary accounts consistently by means of the Consumer Price Index which reflected changes in money’s purchasing power.

1970-style CPP inflation accounting tried to deal with the problem of inflation in the popularly understood sense, as a decrease in the real value of money. According to Whittington, CPP inflation accounting tried to solve this problem by inflation-adjusting all non-monetary items at the reporting date by means of the CPI.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

SA accountant value destroyers - for dummies

Your company´s capital and Retained Profits are the same as your salaries and wages: constant real value non-monetary items. If your accountant refuses to update them at the inflation rate, then he or she destoys their real values at a rate equal to the inflation rate

It takes SA accountants currently just 11 years to unknowingly destroy 50% of the real value of all Retained Profits SA companies and SA banks hold back to supposedly "grow" their businesses as well as 50% of the real value of capital of companies with no fixed assets.

Accountants use their unbelievably destructive and unbelievably silly stable measuring unit assumption to do this.

This amounts to about R85 billion per annum just in the Retained Profits of JSE listed companies - each and every year: it will never stop during inflation with Historical Cost Accounting.

This will carry on forever if we (or the SA government) cannot get them to do what the International Accounting Standard Board authorized them to do 20 years ago: to reject their very silly stable measuring unit assumption and to maintain companies´ and banks´ investment capital and Retained Profits in units of constant purchasing power.

Basically SA accountants do everything perfectly right in accounting till they get to valuing companies´ capital and retained profits.

Then they suddenly pretend that they are very dumb. They pretend that there is no such thing as inflation. They pretend that the Rand is perfectly stable - that inflation is always zero percent. Can you believe that!?

Then they value companies capital and Retained Profits at historical cost thus unknowingly destroying these items´ real values at a rate equal to the rate of inflation.

It is not inflation destroying companies´ capital and Retained Profits. It is our accountants implementing their silly stable measuring unit assumption.

They can freely stop that any time they want and start boosting the SA real economy by about R200 billion PER ANNUM for an unlimited period of time: forever.

All they have to do is do what the IASB approved TWENTY YEARS AGO.

Do you know any accountants?

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

SA accountants´ most destructive weapon

I will have a chart about SA inflation in my second book that I am currently working on.

I show different aspects of inflation.

I have the chart on normal charting paper, at the moment, so I cannot show the chart here.

The one chart shows cumulative inflation of 162% since April 1994.


The other two charts are

(1) Percentage Real Value Destroyed since April 1994 and
(2) Percentage Real Value Left since April 1994 - the inverse of (1).

These two charts cross after 11 years at 50% with average annual inflation of 6% (Mboweni at the SARB).

It took SA accountants implementing the stable measuring unit assumption 11 years to destroy 50% of the real value of all the retained earnings SA companies had in April 1994 and that remained in those companies for those 11 years as well as 50% of the issued share capital of all SA companies with no fixed assets during those 11 years.

62% of the real value of all the retained earnings SA companies had on April 1994 and that remained in those companies till May 2009 and 62% of real value of the issued share capital of all SA companies with no fixed assets during the period April 1994 to May 2009 have been destroyed by SA accountants implementing the stable measuring unit assumption.

During the last 12 years of white apartheid rule with averge annual inflation at 12% it took only 5 years to destroy 50% of a company´s equity that remained in the company for that those 5 years. A much worse situation under apartheid.

SA accountants destroy the myth that companies have infinite life times under the Historical Cost paradigm with their very destructive stable measuring unit assumption.

The concept of companies´ infinite lives will be restored under the Constant Purchasing Power paradigm.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

Accountants are clueless (for dummies :-)

During the high-inflation period in the 1970´s accountants also did not really know what was going on.

They had and still have no clue about what constant real value non-monetary items or simply constant items are.

Constant items is a new concept for them although they always deal with them.

They are not taught to think for themselves as far as accounting matters are concerned.

For example: most of them do not know why they implement the stable measuring unit assumption and what its effect is on constant items. Many accountants do not even know that they implement the stable measuring unit assumption. They just do Historical Cost Accounting because the whole world does it and it has always been done like that.

Geoffrey Whittington is considered to be one of the world´s leading experts on inflation accounting. He did not even mention the stable measuring unit assumption once in his book "Inflation Accounting" published in 1983. That is astonishing.

They are taught that the only correct way of doing accounting is what appears in International Financial Reporting Standards.

If something is compliant with IFRS - then it is correct. They don´t really know why, and they do not really care to know.

If something is not compliant with IFRS - then it is not correct. They don´t really know why, and they do not really care to know.

Even if something is in IFRS and no-one is doing it, they do not care to know why no-one does it. That applies to the fact that the IASB authorized financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation 20 years ago, but no-one uses it.

They are not taught to think for themselves about matters of accounting.

They are taught to do what is generally accepted and to implement IFRS. That is all that matters.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

SA accountants are clueless about price-level accounting during low inflation

As a result of this lack of appreciating the destructive nature of their implementation of the very destructive stable measuring unit assumption, 1970-style Constant Purchasing Power inflation accounting was also not an accounting system implemented by accountants to correct or eliminate the destruction of the real value of constant items by the use of the stable measuring unit assumption, but, a failed attempt to simply make financial reports more understandable and more comparable with previous year statements during periods of high inflation by inflation-adjusting all non-monetary items equally in terms of the CPI.

Accountants simply do not appreciate that they unknowingly destroy real value on a massive scale in all constant real value non-monetary items never or not fully updated when they choose to implement the very destructive stable measuring unit assumption for an unlimited period of time during indefinite inflation.

They also do not appreciate that they make that choice.

Neither do they appreciate that they will stop that destruction by freely choosing to measure financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power, as approved in the IASB Framework, Par. 104 (a) in 1989.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

Don´t shoot the messenger - again

Bertie quotes on his blog:

"They mention research by Arie de Geus, ex Shell, that shows the life expectancy of new firms in Europe or Japan to be less than 13yrs, down from 20 in the late 70s and early 80s."

Yes, and Historical Cost Accounting helps to destroy them.

We all learn as first year accounting students doing company law that a company has an infinite life-time - which it suppose to have.

However, that is not true under the current 500 year old Historical Cost paradigm.

Historical cost accountants implementing the stable measuring unit assumption unknowingly destroy all companies´ that do not have revaluable fixed assets with original updated real value equal to the updated original real value of all contributions to shareholders´ equity - at the rate of inflation.

Imagine 3M started 200 years ago. Imagine the USD 100 000 200 year old original issued share capital. Update that for inflation over the last 200 years in the USA and how many millions do you get?

But, that original USD 100 000 (for example) are still there in 3M´s books today at - what value do you think? Yes!! USD 100 000. It´s real value has been destroyed by all the 3M historical cost accountants over the last 200 years implementing the stable measuring unit assumption destroying 3M´s issued share capital, retained earnings and all other items in shareholders´ equity at the annual rate of inflation as they are doing right this moment.

I plan to stop that.

But, I am only the messenger.

The IASB has already approved real value maintain ing financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation 20 years ago in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) that states: "Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units OR IN UNITS OF CONSTANT PURCHASING POWER."

Not a single accountant does that world wide - for various reasons that happened over the last 500 years.

© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission

Net monetary gain or loss conundrum (for dummies :-)

The world´s top accounting authority (the International Accounting Standards Board or just the IASB) orders you to calculate what you lose or gain in real value from actually keeping cash or loans in your business during hyperinflation.

During normal low inflation they pretend that they are very dumb and just ignore the fact that you ALSO gain or lose real value from keeping cash or loans in your business - during low inflation.

But, they give you a choice of doing your accounting properly and not destroying the profits you make simply by the way you do normal traditional historical cost accounting.

If you pick this alternative, they tell you again - correctly - to calculate the gain or loss from keeping cash or loans in your business - now during actual normal low inflation.

They are thus a bit of a joke.

Under hyperinflation you MUST calculate this loss or gain from cash and loans.

But, during low inflation, you don'´t have to (and no-one does) - unless you pick the other, much better and correct way of doing your accounts (which NO-ONE picks).

Huh??

So, what is their story?

Are there losses and gains from keeping cash and loans in your business?

If yes, as it actually is, why are we only allowed to calculate and show this during hyperinflation and not with normal historical cost accounting during low inflation?

But, if we pick their much better and correct alternative, then we suddenly can calulate these monetary losses and gains - during low inflation?

It is one helluva big puzzle.

So you ask, what is the correct thing to do?

Pick the other better and correct way of doing your accounts (they - the BIG ACCOUNTING BOSSES approved it 20 years ago) with which you do not AUTOMATICALLY destroy your capital and profits you keep in your company as your accountant does right now with traditional Historical Cost Accounting during low inflation.

Here is the link for more info.

(New book coming soon - watch this space :-) [This time you´ll have to pay for it.]

If you want to email me (I´m available :-) realvalueaccounting@yahoo.com

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

Net monetary gain or loss conundrum

Accountants have to calculate the net monetary gain or loss from holding monetary items when they choose the Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting model and measure financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power in the same way as the IASB currently requires its calculation and accounting only during hyperinflation in IAS 29.

There are net monetary losses and net monetary gains during low inflation too, but they are not required to be calculated when accountants choose the traditional Historical Cost Accounting model.

It is an inexplicable contradiction that net monetary gains and losses are required by the IASB to be calculated and accounted during hyperinflation but not during non-hyperinflationary periods, especially when the IASB approved alternative to Historical Cost Accounting, namely Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting does require their calculation and accounting during low inflation.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

The Market Monkey and the Real Value Accountant - Part 2

Market Monkey said:

heh heh.

You miss understand my disagreement NS.

I agree that the current accounting mis-states the true value of the firm's capital.

I just don't agree it has any relevance to the real world. I must be in the top 1.0% of the population who uses accounts to make real world decisions and value ... and I really don't care that the capital is stated at historic cost.

... and

I think that I would actually complain if units of constant purchasing power were used.

Why?

Well. I like having the raw data. I can then adjust it for inflation myself. If the accountants had to do the calculations for me then I wouldn't know what I'm dealing with? I might disagree with the inflation rate they have used ... the global CPI numbers are all already a load of hog wash with them being adjusted for "heuristics", leaving out key consumtion items etc.

Do you get my point and why I prefer the current system?

Keep a swinging,

MM.

P.s. Also just so there is no confusion; I'm not an accountant (i.e. CA), I just use accounts to make decisions and money.

Real Value Accountant said:

Hi Market Monkey,

We have to be professional here:

I never stated that historical cost accounting “misstates” the true value of the firm´s capital.

I state that historical cost accounting accountants unknowingly DESTROY the real value of constant items never updated. This includes the real value of firms´ issued share capital and retained earnings.

Your agreement that current accounting misstates the true value of the firm´s capital is the same as the hackneyed “historical cost accounting erodes the firm´s capital.”

I understand.

It is a very, very, very big step to agree that historical cost accountants unknowingly destroy real value on a massive scale in the real economy.

It is agreeing that the 500 year old Historical Cost paradigm is over.

It is similar to agreeing that the world is round when you have always believed it is flat.

I understand.

This is not going to happen overnight. I accept that.

I already proved to you in a previous comment on another post that historical cost accountants unknowingly destroy the real value of retained profits.

You simply refuse to accept that it makes any difference in the real world.

That is also fine with me.

You accept the mainstream, generally accepted view of things.

That is fine.

Let me show you where your mainstream approach will take you:

If SA trade unions manage to increase wages at rates of 26% and above and this is taken up generally in SA and SA enters into hyperinflation (26% annual inflation for three years in a row totalling 100% cumulative inflation) you will receive all your annual financial statements that you use in your work done in terms of IAS 29. That is, in terms of the IASB´s Constant Purchasing Power inflation accounting model under which ALL non-monetary items, variable and constant items, are inflation adjusted. These financial statements will have new items that you do not deal with during low inflation: net monetary losses and net monetary gains.

You will accept all that as will all accountants in SA because it is required by the IASB and IFRS. Like Turkey did recently.

Then, when SA gets out of hyperinflation back into low inflation again, then you and all SA accountants will suddenly again receive/produce financial statements devoid of net monetary gains and net monetary losses and no units of constant purchasing power for all constant items. As Turkey did recently.

[I do not promote IAS 29 Constant Purchasing Power inflation accounting during low inflation in SA by which ALL non-monetary items are inflation adjusted. I promote the IASB´s Constant ITEM Purchasing Power basic accounting model under which ONLY constant items are inflation-adjusted and variable items are valued in terms of IFRS.]

Then you and all SA accountants will suddenly state again that there is no such thing as net monetary gains and net monetary losses and that the Rand is perfectly stable, as you, Market Monkey, and all SA accountants state right now, as far as the valuation of Issued Share Capital, Retained Profits, Capital Reserves, Share Issue Premiums, Share Issue Discounts, all other items in Shareholders Equity, trade debtors, trade creditors, taxes payable, taxes receivable, etc are concerned.

Horses for courses for you and SA accountants.

See what I mean?

How can investors and people in general have great faith in accounting when the above takes place. And it does – as you well know. It happened in the case of Turkey.

Below 26% annual inflation for 3 years in a row (the current low inflation situation): no net monetary gains and losses and the Rand is perfectly stable for the valuation of balance sheet constant items – i.e. implementing the stable measuring unit assumption as you and all SA accountants do at the moment.

At and above 26% annual inflation for 3 years in a row (recent Turkey-style hyperinflation of about 100 to 150%): net monetary gains and losses and no stable measuring unit assumption at all – just units of constant purchasing power.

It makes no sense at all.

The critical factor is to get to the point when you accept that historical cost accountants unknowingly destroy real value on a massive scale in the real economy.

Market Monkey, I do not know when you will be ready to accept that.

Most probably you will only accept it when the majority of companies in SA measure financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as approved by the IASB 20 years ago in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) which states: "Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power."

I understand and accept that. You are a mainstream person - not a doubter and searcher like me.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

PS: Yes, Market Monkey, I can see why you prefer the current system. The problem is you do not understand that SA accountants unknowingly destroy about R200 billion in the SA real economy last year and this year and next year again if they carry on with their stable measuring unit assumption.

That is a helluva lot of real value to destroy each and every year. It will make a big difference to the SA real economy when that is not destroyed but maintained forever - year after year after year.

That is what you do not understand.

This is what Dr. Cemal KÜÇÜKSÖZEN, Head of the Accounting Standards Department of the
Capital Markets Board of Turkey stated in public in 2005 after he read the manuscript of my first book:

"I totally agree with you."

NS

Julius, why are you not proud of Tito Mboweni?

Julius, Tito Mboweni is black.

He halved to 5.9% (REDUCE BY 50%) the average inflation in SA during 10 years compared to the last 12 years of white apartheid rule.

What better proof is there of black intelligence and excellence of unquestionable quality?

Julius, you have a short memory.

SA is proud of Tito Mboweni.

Why are you not?

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

The Investor and the Real Value Accountant

Port Elizabeth Coat of Arms


Investor said:

"They will not create new real value out of nothing by just passing some accounting entries. They will boost the SA real economy BY NOT DESTROYING EXISTING REAL VALUE"
I don't get it? how do book keeping entries not destroy wealth. I ddon't get the connection at all. Please explain in lay man's terms so I can follow the mechanics.

Real Value Accountant said:

Hi Investor,

How is my beloved PE? Still windy? I see on Google Earth that Sardinia Bay is still the same. Theesecombe (where I grew up) and Kragga Kamma have changed a bit. So has Lorraine. Where do you stay in PE? Did you go to UPE? Which schools did you attend?

Your questions:

Let me start off by saying that I did not invent financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power. The International Accounting Standards Board formulated it in 1989 in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) and other paragraphs in the Framework.

How do bookkeeping entries not destroy value – in lay man’s terms?

As follows:

Let´s start with your salary. Your salary is an income statement constant item as opposed to a balance sheet constant item.

Bookkeeping is double entry; that is, for every debit there is a credit.

Dr Salaries R20 000
Cr Salaries payable R20 000

Your salary in Year 1.

Inflation 6.9%

Entries for Year 2

Dr Salaries (R20 000 X 1.069) R21 380
Cr Salaries payable R21 380

Your salary was updated at 6.9% from R20 000 to R21 380. In real value it is exactly the same thing. You got no increase. Simply an inflation-adjustment of your basic salary.

Your salary was inflation-adjusted because it´s real value was measured in units of constant purchasing power as all salaries are world wide.

Bookkeeping entries in Year 2 – the inflation-adjusted values – means the real value of your salary was NOT destroyed.

If your salary was NOT updated in Year 2 and you were still paid R20 000 you will agree that the real value of your salary would have been destroyed by 6.9%.

Not because of inflation, but because your accountant measured the real value of your salary in nominal monetary units or at historical cost. Your accountant applied the stable measuring unit assumption and assumed, just for the purpose of valuing your salary, that there was no such thing as inflation. He or she assumed that the Rand was perfectly stable. So it is his or her selection of the historical cost measurement basis that destroyed the real value of your salary.

Your accountant can also, as they all actually do, measure the real value of your salary in units of constant purchasing power and maintain its real value no matter what the rate of inflation is. So it is not inflation that is destroying your salary when it is not updated, but the measuring basis your accountant chooses.

World wide all accountants select the historical cost accounting model, BUT, they value salaries, NOT at historical cost, but in units of constant purchasing power.

However, they do NOT value retained profits, which is also a constant item, in units of constant purchasing power, like they do with your salary. All of them value retained profits during low inflation at historical cost.

So, you know that they destroy retained profits´ real value at a rate equal to the inflation rate exactly as they would have done with your salary if they had not inflation-adjusted it in Year 2.

Bookkeeping for Retained Profits

Year 1

Retained Profits R 40.665 billion (ABSA´s balance at 31.12.08)

Year 2

Retained Profits R40.665 billion (That 31.12.08 value in ABSA´s books carried forward to 31.12.09) under historical cost accounting.

Real value destroyed by ABSA´s board of director´s decision to implement the historical cost accounting model:

R40.665 x 0.069 (if inflation stays at 6.9 % for the whole of 2009) = R 2.806 billion

So, when ABSA´s board decides to select financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as the IASB authorized them to do in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) twenty year ago, the entries will be as follows:

ABSA 31.12.2008

Retained Profits R40.665 billion

ABSA 31.12.2009

Retained Profits R43.471 billion

You will ask: where does that value come from. It is not new value. It is simple existing real value maintained by inflation-adjusting the real value.

But, you will say: accounting is double entry.

Yes, you are right.

Let us assume ABSA´s balance sheet is as follows:

ABSA at 31.12.2008 under their current Historical Cost Accounting model as selected by their current board of directors.

Assets Liabilities

Trade Debtors R40.665 billion Retained Profits R40.665 billion

Nothing changes during the whole of 2009

ABSA at 31.12.2009 under their current Historical Cost Accounting model as selected by their current board of directors.

Assets Liabilities

Trade Debtors R40.665 billion Retained Profits R40.665 billion

Everything stays exactly the same.

We all know that everything did not stay exactly the same. We all know that that R40.665 billion in Retained profits and R40.665 billion in Trade Debtors are not the same in real value after a year of 6.9% inflation.

But, that is how things are done. So, that´s it then. SA accountants destroy R200 billion per annum in this way.

Their auditors will sign the above accounts off as fairly representing the ABSA business with accounts drawn up on the historical cost basis and compliant with IFRS.

If ABSA´s board of directors suddenly wakes up to the billions of real value they are destroying year after year (or if the SA government forces them to stop the real value destruction), they will select to measure financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power in terms of the Framework, Par. 104 (a) which is fully complaint with IFRS.

Their accounts will then be as follows:


ABSA at 31.12.2008 under Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting

Assets Liabilities

Trade Debtors R40.665 billion Retained Profits R40.665 billion

Nothing changes during the whole of 2009 except that inflation for the whole year was 6.9%.


ABSA at 31.12.2008 under Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting

Assets Liabilities

Trade Debtors R43.471 billion Retained Profits R43.471 billion


Their auditors will sign the above accounts off as fairly representing the ABSA business with accounts drawn up on the Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting basis and compliant with IFRS.

So, you can see that ABSA under current historical cost accounting lost R2.806 billion by not updating their Trade Debtors and their Retained Profits as they should have.

This loss is not stated anywhere. It just happens - like the loss in the real value of the Rand.

Under historical cost accounting during low inflation, the net monetary loss caused by inflation in the real value of the Rand is not stated anywhere.

But, lo and behold: let SA get into hyperinflation which is 26% inflation for 3 years in a row, and suddenly: hey presto: net monetary loss will appear in all financial reports and constant purchasing power accounting everywhere.



But, only during hyperinflation. Out of hyperinflation and all SA accountants will state that there is no such thing as a net monetary loss.

What a joke accounting seems to be. Anything goes, as long as everyone is doing it.

Nobody has much faith in economists after the last financial crisis.

Imagine what this is going to do to the image of accountants. They are killing the real economy left, right and centre. All of them, everywhere. The least damage would be done if accountants admit the Historical Cost Mistake quickly and then ban Historical Cost Accounting.

If the SA government can grasp the amount of real value destroyed by SA accountants in the SA real economy each and every year, they should ban Historical Cost Accounting in SA.

Their auditors will sign the above accounts off as fairly representing the ABSA business with accounts drawn up on the Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting basis and compliant with IFRS.



Investor, I hope you understand the above.

Give my regards to all in PE,

Nicolaas Smith

Capital maintenance for dummies

Companies´ capital and retained profits are like salaries: constant items.

When your salary is not inflation-adjusted, its real vlaue is destroyed at the rate of inflation. We all know that. No-one disagrees. Not even Market Monkey :-)

Exactly the same is true for companies´ capital and retained profits.

No-one inflation adjusts companies´ capital and retained profits during low inflation.

Result: SA accountants unknowingly destroy the real value of companies´ capital and retained profits by not inflation-adjusting them.

This amounts to about R200 billion for SA per annum.

When SA accountants inflation-adjust companies´ capital and retained profits they will boost the SA real economy by at least R200 billion PER ANNUM forever - year after year after year.

They will not create new real value out of nothing by just passing some accounting entries. They will boost the SA real economy BY NOT DESTROYING EXISTING REAL VALUE as they unknowingly do at the moment in all SA banks and companies with their stable measuring unit assumption. They value capital and retained profits at historical cost. They refuse point blank to inflation-adjust them.

You all work so hard to create that capital and retained profits and make SA grow. SA accountants unknowingly and unintentionally quietly simply destroy their real values at the rate of inflation right under your noses - year after year after year.

Inflation-adjusting capital and retained profits during low inflation was authorized by the International Accounting Standards Board 20 years ago. It is compliant with International Financial Reporting Standards.

That would be wonderful for everybody in SA, wouldn´t it?

Stronger banks and companies meaning a stonger economy with more investment capital available meaning more jobs and more growth.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

1.1% Drop in inflation lowers ABSAs 6 monthly real value destruction to R1.910 bn from R2.348 bn

Inflation can only destroy the real value of the Rand and other monetary items in the SA monetary economy.

Inflation can not destroy the real value of ABSA´s Retained Earnings.

ABSA´s board of directors selecting the historical cost accounting model unknowinly destroys the real value of the bank´s existing Retained Earnings at a rate equal to the rate of inflation by implementing the stable measuring unit assumption.

When ABSA´s board of directors choose to measure financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as the International Accounting Standard Board authorized them to do 20 years ago in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) which states: "Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power", which is compliant with International Financial Reporting Standards (see IAS8.11), they will knowingly maintain the real value of the bank´s Retained Earnings no matter what the rate of inflation in SA instead of destroying the real value of the existing Retained Earnings at a rate equal to the rate of inflation as they are unknowingly doing right now.

ABSA had R40.665 billion in Retained Earnings at 31.12.08. ABSA´s board of directors selected the historical cost model to do the bank´s accounting. The group financial director, Jacques Schindehütte, continue to implement the stable measuring unit assumption and continue to unknowingly destroy group retained earnings at a rate equal to the rate of inflation.

Luckily for him and the board, inflation is down to 6.9% in June and he and they unknowingly only destroyed R1.910 billion in retained earnings in the 6 months to June 2009, instead of R2.438 billion if the inflation rate had stayed at 8.0% to June, 2009.

The 1.1% drop in the inflation rate means they unknowingly maintain R438 million in the existing real value of the bank´s Retained Earnings. That can now be paid out in a higher dividend or can be kept in the bank to grow the bank´s business.

Unfortunately, as long as the board of directors select the historical cost model to do the bank´s accounts, they will unkowingly keep on destroying even the value they now unknowingly maintain because of the drop in inflation.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

The Market Monkey and the Real Value Accountant

Market Monkey said:

Sorry NS but I'm kinda in the other camp.

I don't believe historic cost accounting destroys any real world value.

The people using the accounts to either [a] determine the company's market value, [b] determine the dividend or [c] determine next years salaries all adjust the figures to take inflation into account.

For me the accounts are just records and I much prefer them to be historic cost because then I know what I'm dealing with and I can make my own adjustments. I use accounts on a daily basis and I am 100% sure which method I prefer ... and constant purchasing power accounting ain't it.

Best luck with ya crusade though.

MM.

The Real Value Accountant said:

Hi Market Monkey,

First of all: you use constant ITEM purchasing power accounting – not constant purchasing power accounting - every day and you do not even know it. We’ll come to that later.

You are 100% correct in (a) that inflation is taken into account by investors on the JSE in determining the real value of a company’s market value - a variable real value non-monetary item. The function of financial accounting as presented in the financial statements is not to value the business as a whole, but to convey value information about the economic resources of a business. This distinction recognizes the need to segregate the accounting function from the investor function. Thus, a company’s market value can be higher or lower than the company’s net book value.

You are also 100% correct that inflation is taken into account to determine next year´s salaries. Salaries are constant real value non-monetary items. Salaries, wages, rentals and many other Income Statement constant real value non-monetary items are valued in terms of units of constant purchasing power by all companies in all economies world wide – generally speaking. You do not seem to realize that measurement in units of constant purchasing power has been used for this purpose for ages.

You are 100% wrong as far as (b) is concerned in the non-hyperinflationary world: the fact that inflation destroys the real value of the Rand is not taken into account by anyone in SA for determining the dividend. They simply use what is in the Retained Earnings account. They value Retained Earnings as you agree they should value it: at historical cost although the IASB authorized them 20 years ago to value it in real value maintaining units of constant purchasing power. You and SA accountants refuse to do that.

You will agree with me that R100 000 kept at home for a year in brand new notes will have lost 6.9% of their real value one year from now – ceteris paribus. You will agree with me that not accounting but inflation destroys the real value of the Rand.

You will also agree with me that if you close your company’s accounts today and you have R100 000 in net after tax profits and you decide not to declare the R100 000 in dividend to yourself as sole-owner of the company but rather keep it in the company as retained earnings and you then pay that dividend to yourself in a year’s time you will receive R100 000 in nominal value but 6.9% less in real value – all else being equal. You will agree with me that your decision to use historical cost accounting – more exactly the stable measuring unit assumption whereby you do not update retained earnings in your books – resulted in historical cost accounting – and not inflation - destroying 6.9% of the real value of your retained earnings over the next year – as it is doing to all companies´ retained earnings in SA.

Why? Because you could have chosen in terms of the IASB´s Framework, Par. 104 (a) – approved 20 years ago – to measure your financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power. Par. 104 (a) states: “Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power.”

You can inflation-adjust all constant items in your business – no matter what the rate of inflation. So, it is not inflation that is destroying the real value of your retained earnings. It is your selection of the historical cost accounting model. When you choose constant ITEM purchasing power accounting you maintain the real value of your retained earnings forever – ceteris paribus.

This is not 1970-style Constant Purchasing Power INFLATION accounting whereby ALL non-monetary items are inflation adjusted.

This is Constant ITEM Purchasing Power BASIC accounting whereby ONLY constant items are inflation adjusted – as approved by the IASB 20 year ago and which is compliant with IFRS.

So, there you have it Market Monkey: you agree with me that historical cost accounting destroys value. Easy, isn’t it?

Btw: the total real value destroyed in this fashion by SA accountants implementing historical cost accounting for SA as a whole is conservatively estimated at about R200 billion PER ANNUM.

When they switch over to constant ITEM purchasing power accounting they will maintain R200 billion PER ANNUM in the SA real economy FOREVER – ceteris paribus.

I am sure you will agree with me that maintaining existing R200 billion PER ANNUM instead of each and every year destroying that value - as SA accountant are unknowingly doing right now - will make quite a difference to the SA real economy.

So, now I have proved to you - without any doubt - that

"historic cost accounting destroys real world value."

We all live and learn.

I´m sure you will be able to teach me many things about the market that I previously did not understand.

Kindest regards

Nicolaas Smith

Trust me, I´m an accountant: I will destroy your retained profits at a rate equal to the inflation rate.

AccountingWeb has a headline on the web at the moment:

Trust me. I am an accountant.

Well, that is the historical cost accounting fantasy story.

Here is the real value real story:

Trust me. I am an accountant. I will destroy all your constant items never updated at a rate equal to the rate of inflation.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

6.1 percent real increase in salaries is good for internal demand. Hope it is not inflationary.

A 13% nominal increase for municipal workers is a 6.1% real increase with annual inflation at 6.9%.

That is good for internal demand in the SA economy. Workers will have 6.9% more real value to spend in the internal economy.

It would be wonderful if the trade unions and workers could find a way to force SA accountants to abandon their silly stable measuring unit assumption.

That would boost the SA real economy by R200 billion each and every year forever.

Just imagine how many extra jobs would be created with a R200 billion boost in the real economy each and every year for an unlimited period of time.

It must be remembered that if shops now push up all prices by 13% then workers will have a zero increase in real value. The real value of their salaries will stay exactly the same. They will have no increase at all.

Let´s see how the battle between shops and Gill Marcus turn out eventually.

It will obviously be a disaster if inflation increases to 13 % again.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

A 1% drop in inflation

A 1% drop in inflation means that R19.5 billion will be maintained in the real value of the SA money supply (real value of the Rand) over the next year - if nothing else changes.

It also means that SA accountants will unknowingly destroy 1% or about R850 million less in the real value of the existing retained profits of JSE listed companies with their stable measuring unit assumption.

They will unknowingly only destroy about R84.15 billion in existing JSE retained profits over the next year - ceteris paribus.


© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission

Salaries and wages under Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting

Under Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting (CIPPA) all constant items´ - including salaries and wages - real values are maintained constant by updating or inflation-adjusting them in terms of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) on a monthly basis.

As the CPI changes month by month, so are salaries and wages adjusted - on a monthly basis. They thus remain at the same real value from month to month all year long.

When annual salary and wage increases have to be negotiated, all that have to be discussed are real increases of one or two or three or more per cent for real increases in productivity as a result of technology improvements, efficiency, etc, or social upliftment or other adjustments for whatever reasons.

What is important to understand is that CIPPA is a double entry accounting model like all accounting models: the books have to balance - in real value, or, the books always do actually balance - in real value - when there is no stable measuring unit assumption whereby SA accountants simply assume that ONLY for the purpose of valuing constant items, there is suppose to be no such thing as inflation, or, inflation is permanentely zero percent, or, the Rand is perfectly stable all the time. Note: they ONLY apply this rule to some constant items, namely issued share capital, retained profits, all other items in shareholders equity - basically all balance sheet constant items. SA accountants are forced by the trade unions to inflation-adjust salaries and wages, for example. The trade unions do not get involved with the valuing of the other items in the income statement, so, accountants value them at historical cost.

Maintaining the real values of salaries and wages as well as all other constant real value non-monetary items (issued share capital, retained profits, all other items in shareholders´ equity, trade debtors, trade creditors, taxes payable, taxes receivable, all other non-monetary payables and all other non-monetary receivables, etc) constant does not mean paying more real value.

It simply means rejecting SA accountants´ stable measuring unit assumption. ALL constant items are maintained constant by means of computerized monthly CPI adjustments well as maintaining all variable real value non-monetary items at their up-to-date market values, fair values, net realizable values, recoverable values or present values as they are valued in terms of International Financial Reporting Standards or SA Generally Accepted Accounting Practice.

All that have to be calculated correctly thereafter to make the books balance, is the net monetary loss or net monetary gain depending on the level of inflation and the average monetary value balance in a company month by month.

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

Anglo Plats destroyed R848 million over the last 6 months

Anglo Plats had Accumulated Profits of R 19.045 billion on 31 Dec 2007. Their Board of Directors selected the Historical Cost basis to do their accounting in 2008. They thus do not update the real value of their Accumulated Profits. By not updating it, they destroy its real value at a rate equal to the rate of inflation - the same as you lose real value in Rands you keep at home.

The CPI was 93.3 on 31 Dec 2007 and 102.2 on 31 Dec 2008. If they had applied the IASB´s Framework, Par. 104 (a) [approved 20 years ago] and measured financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power which is compliant with IFRS, they would have maintained that existing R19.045 billion real value on 31.12.07 to the amount of 19.045 X (102.2/93.3) } R20.862 billion on 31.12.2008. They did not. So, they destroyed R20.862 - R19.045 billion = R1.817 billion in the real value of their Accumulated Profits.

On 31.12.2008 they had R19.691 billion (CPI 102.2) of Accumulated Profits. The CPI at the end of May, 2009 was 106.6. They destroyed a further R848 million in the real value of their Accumulated profits over the last 6 months (June CPI not yet available).

The estimated total destroyed like this ANNUALLY for all JSE listed companies in the real value of their Accumulated Profits is about R85 billion.

The conservatively estimated total for SA is about R200 billion PER ANNUM.

Makes you think? Or does it not?

Kindest regards,

Nicolaas Smith

The unknown enemy

Everybody must be very happy to hear that Gill Marcus will be an enemy of inflation.

Milton Friedman stated correctly that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Inflation only destroys the real value of the Rand and other monetary items in the SA monetary economy. Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items.

The economy consists of three parts:

1. The monetary economy - the Rand money supply and other monetary items like bank loans, credit card loans, home loans, student loans, etc.

2. The variable item economy - everything you see around you except actual money and bank/loan accounts: items with variable prices over time (cars, houses, products, etc)

3. The constant item economy - salaries, wages, rents, company issued share capital, retained profits in companies, trade debtors, trade creditors, taxes payable, taxes receivable, etc: items with constant real values over time (you know your salary or wage has a constant real value over time).

We all know that inflation is the enemy in the monetary economy. Inflation can only destroy the real value of the Rand and other monetary items - at 8% per annum at the moment. It has destroyed 93.2% of the real value of the Rand since January 1981. Cumulative inflation since then now runs at 1 354%. Taking it from another date: inflation has destroyed 61.9% of the real value of the Rand since April, 1994 because we have had 162% cumulative inflation since the start of the current government.

There are no enemies in the variable item economy because the market eventually kills all enemies to its proper working: variable items are mostly exchanged at market prices determined by supply and demand.

The enemy in the constant item economy has been killed off by COSATU and other trade unions in the past and in the present in salaries and wages. Trade unions ensured in the past and ensure in the present that the enemy of constant wages and salaries, accountants´ stable measuring unit assumption, is dead and stays dead. COSATU and other trade unions see to it that the real values of salaries and wages are measured in units of constant purchasing power. COSATU and other trade unions reject SA accountants´ stable measuring unit assumption: i.e. they see to it that salaries and wages are inflation-adjusted in a low inflation environment.
SA accountants´ stable measuring unit assumption whereby they simply assume there is no such thing as inflation (accountants simply assume the Rand is PERFECTLY stable for this purpose) is so ingrained in accountants´ minds that it has become a completely unknown enemy to the constant item economy as far as the valuation of SA companies´ issued share capital, retained profits, debtors, creditors, taxes payable, taxes receivable, etc are concerned.

Accountants - after very many years of pressure from trade unions - inflation-adjust salaries and wages in low inflation environments but they refuse point blank to measure financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power although the International Accounting Standards Board authorized them to do exactly that 20 years ago in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) which states: "Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power."

SA accountants simply refuse to reject their stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation.
So, what is the result of SA accountants´ stable measuring unit assumption: they refuse point blank to update the existing real values of SA banks´ and companies´ existing retained profits, for example. This means they unknowingly destroy the existing real value of all SA banks´ and companies´ existing retained profits at a rate equal to the annual rate of inflation because they value these items in Rands. This amounts to them unknowingly destroying about R85 billion PER ANNUM just in the existing real value of existing retained profits of companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. They are unknowingly doing it right now.

It is conservatively estimated that they unknowingly destroy about R200 billion PER ANNUM in the existing real value of existing constant items never updated in the SA constant item economy. They are unknowingly doing it this year as they unknowingly did last year and as they unknowingly will do next year if they carry on with their stable measuring unit assumption.

What will happen when SA accountants follow the IASB´s advice given 20 years ago and stop their stable measuring unit assumption?

They will knowingly boost the existing SA constant item economy with at least R200 billion PER ANNUM for an unlimited period of time in the future - ceteris paribus - by simply maintaining instead of destroying existing real values in existing constant items. Now they destroy them with their stable measuring unit assumption. When they stop their stable measuring unit assumption they will maintain them.

SA accountants can not and do not create real value out of nothing by simply passing some accounting entries. They will boost the existing SA constant item economy by about R200 billion PER ANNUM for an unlimited period of time by not destroying existing real value in existing constant items as they did in the past and as they are doing right now whenever they stop their stable measuring unit assumption.


© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission

The stable measuring unit assumption is the enemy in the real economy

Fin24.com today reported that:

"Head of research at the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb), Dr Johan van den Heever, said Governor-elect Gill Marcus will be an enemy of inflation when she takes over on November 9. "

I am very happy to hear that.

I am sure that Gill Marcus and the SARB know that inflation is a uniquely monetary phenomenon and only destroys the real value of the Rand - currently at 8% per annum - and other monetary items in the SA monetary economy.

Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items.

"Purchasing power of non monetary items does not change in spite of variation in national currency value."

Prof. Dr. Ümit GUCENME, Dr. Aylin Poroy ARSOY, Changes in financial reporting in Turkey, Historical Development of Inflation Accounting 1960 - 2005, Page 9.

http://www.mufad.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=9&Itemid=100

Inflation has no effect on the SA real or non-monetary economy. The Historical Cost Accounting model SA accountants and boards of directors of SA banks and companies choose has a devastating effect on the real value of constant real value non-monetary items never updated in the SA real economy, for example, the Retained Earnings of all SA banks and companies.

SA accountants unknowingly destroy a massive amount - conservatively estimated at about R200 billion per annum - in the real value of non-monetary items never updated in the SA real economy with their very destructive stable measuring unit assumption each and every year.

The stable measuring unit assumption is the enemy in the real economy.
When SA accountants measure financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as the International Accounting Standard Boards authorized them to do 20 years ago in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) which state that:


"Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power."

which is compliant with International Finanicial Reporting Standards, they will reject the stable measuring unit assumption and maintain instead of destroy about R200 billion in the real value of constant real value non-monetary items in the SA real economy for an unlimited period of time.


© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission

Constant items

Geoffrey Whittington in his definitive work on inflation accounting in the beginning of the 1980´s, Inflation Accounting - An Introduction to the Debate, published in 1983, clearly indicated that with 1970-style CPP accounting all non-monetary accounts (with no distinction being made between variable and constant real value non-monetary item accounts) were updated by means of the CPI.

He stated that Constant Purchasing Power inflation accounting (CPP) was a method of inflation-adjusting all non-monetary accounts consistently by means of the Consumer Price Index which reflected changes in money’s purchasing power. 1970-style CPP inflation accounting tried to deal with the problem of inflation in the popularly understood sense, as a decrease in the real value of money. According to Whittington, CPP inflation accounting tried to solve this problem by inflation-adjusting all non-monetary items at the reporting date by means of the CPI.

This eventually led to the failure of 1970-style CPP accounting as an inflation accounting model.
SA accountants freely destroy real value in the real economy with their assumption that the rand is perfectly stable only for the purpose of accounting constant value items, and have absolutely no concern about the negative impact this has on sustainable economic growth.

The destruction of real value in the real economy by SA accountants will stop when they stop their assumption that the rand is perfectly stable only for the purpose of accounting constant items never or not fully updated.


Salaries, wages, rentals, etc are normally inflation-adjusted in South Africa and generally too in most economies.
Inflation-adjusted income statement constant real value non-monetary items, for example, salaries and wages, are – right this very moment - a blessing to users in SA – and all around the world - because they maintain the real value or purchasing power of salaries and wages during inflation as long as the inflation-adjustment is at least equal to inflation over the period in question. Millions of SA workers, their trade unions, the SA government, SA accountants and South Africans in general would agree that the practice of inflation-adjusting accounts in a low inflation environment is a blessing to users and does not insult them.

Inflation-adjusted balance sheet constant real value non-monetary items, e.g. Issued Share capital, Retained Earnings, etc in SA´s low inflation environment will be a blessing to everyone in SA when our accountants simply choose to change from their current implementation of the real value destroying traditional HCA model and freely choose to implement the real value maintaining Constant Item Purchasing Power Accounting model as approved in the IASB´s Framework, Par. 104 (a) twenty years ago. They would maintain - instead of currently destroy as they also did last year and all the years before - at least R200 billion annually in constant item real value in the SA real economy for an unlimited period – all else being equal.


© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission

Generally accepted inflation concepts

It is generally accepted and a fact that inflation destroys the real value of money (the internal functional currency) and other monetary items over time.

It is also generally accepted and a fact that hyperinflation can destroy the real value of a country’s entire monetary base as happened in Zimbabwe recently. That was the result of a massive increase in the volume and nominal value of bank notes in the country by Gideon Gono, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, with an equivalent extreme rate of destruction of the real value of the Zimbabwe Dollar since the massive nominal increase in ZimDollar money supply was not the result of a concomitant increase in real value in the real or non-monetary economy of Zimbabwe.

It is generally accepted and a fact that inflation destroys the real value of the capital amounts of monetary savings and money lent over time.

It is generally accepted, but not a fact, that inflation erodes, which is the same as destroys, the real value of constant real value non-monetary items with fixed nominal payments over time, e.g. fixed salary, wage, rental payments, etc.

The constant real value non-monetary values of salaries, wages, rentals, etc are generally maintained, i.e. not destroyed, when accountants choose to measure the real value of these constant real value non-monetary items in units of constant purchasing power in terms of the CPI in most economies with payment in depreciating money during inflation.

It is not generally accepted, but a fact, that SA accountants unknowingly destroy the real value of Retained Earnings of all SA companies and banks over time when they choose to measure financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units in terms of the real value destroying traditional HCA model during inflation when they maintain the stable measuring unit assumption for an unlimited period of time during indefinite inflation and these companies and banks have no revaluable variable items or insufficient revaluable variable items to maintain 100% of the updated original real value of all contributions to their Shareholders´ equity.

© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved

No reproduction without permission.