Constant items under hyperinflation
Accountants are required by the IASB to implement IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies during hyperinflation. The IASB considers hyperinflation to be an exceptional circumstance. Hyperinflation is defined by the IASB as a cumulative inflation rate approaching or exceeding 100% over three years, i.e. 26% annual inflation for three years in a row.
Cagan defined the other popular definition of hyperinflation. Cagan (1951) defined hyperinflation to be present when monthly inflation equals or exceed 50%. The IASB´s definition will be followed in this work.
As per IAS 29, accountants have to restate their Historical Cost or Current Cost financial statements by applying the period-end CPI during hyperinflation to make the HC or CC financial statements more useful. They have to value all non-monetary items (both variable and constant real value non-monetary items) in units of constant purchasing power by applying the CPI at the period-end date. The restated values of HC or CC financial statements in terms of IAS 29 in a hyperinflationary economy are only valid new real values when the tax authorities accept the restated values for the calculation of taxes due.
“Regarding to tax regulation, I want to emphasize that tax regulation required restatement of assets and liabilities according to inflation (in terms of IAS 29) for the date of 31.12.2003 but taxes were not taken according to restated values in 2003. In 2004, financial statements were restated and taxes were taken based on restated values.”
Cemal KÜÇÜKSÖZEN, Ph.D, Head of Accounting Standards Department, Capital Markets Board of Turkey
Difference between CIPPA and CPPA
Constant Purchasing Power Accounting (CPPA) as defined in IAS 29 [not Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting (CIPPA) as authorized in the Framework (1989), Par 104 (a)] is a complete price-level inflation accounting model only to be used during very high and hyperinflation where under all non-monetary items (variable and constant real value non-monetary items) are inflation-adjusted by means of the CPI at the period-end date during hyperinflation to make financial statements more useful. Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting is also a price-level accounting model, but, only constant items (not variable items) are inflation adjusted during low inflation and deflation in terms of the change in the monthly CPI. CIPPA is not an inflation accounting model to be used during very high and hyperinflation. CIPPA is the IASB´s authorized alternative to the traditional Historical Cost Accounting model during low inflation and deflation.
IAS 29 can also be used to maintain the non-monetary economy relatively stable in a hyperinflationary economy. This is only possible when all non-monetary items (variable and constant items) are valued daily at the daily parallel US Dollar (or other hard currency) exchange rate instead of simply restating HC or CC financial statements at the period-end (normally year-end) CPI rate to make them more useful as required by IAS 29. Brazilian accountants did this very successfully from 1964 to 1994 without IAS 29 (IAS 29 was approved in 1989) by valuing all non-monetary items daily in term of a daily non-monetary index based almost entirely on the US Dollar exchange rate with their currency as supplied daily by various governments during those 30 years.
The constant item economy in a hyperinflationary environment would not be completely stable as in the case of financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power applying the CPI during low inflation. Applying the daily USD parallel rate in the valuation of all non-monetary items (constant and variable items) during hyperinflation would still result in real value destruction of constant items, but, only at a rate equal to the inflation rate in the parallel hard currency used, normally the US Dollar. If this was done in the case of Zimbabwe it would have resulted in real value destruction in constant items of about 2% per annum – a rate equal to the USD inflation rate – instead of 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000% in case of the Zimbabwe Dollar hyperinflation rate.
Constant items during low inflation
Only continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as approved by the IASB in the Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements (1989), Par 104 (a) which states the principle which is the basis for the Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting model and which is applicable – by free choice – in all entities applying IFRS since there are no specific IFRS relating to capital maintenance and the valuation of specific constant items, would enable accountants to automatically maintain the real value of all income statement and balance sheet constant items constant in the constant item economy for an indefinite period of time. This would be possible in all entities that at least break even during low inflation and deflation whether they own revaluable fixed assets or not and without requiring extra money for additional capital contributions or additional retained profits just to maintain the constant real value of existing constant items (e.g. shareholders´ equity) constant forever – all else being equal. The Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting model is the only accounting model authorized in IFRS that automatically maintains the real value of all constant items constant forever as qualified above. There is no other way to do this automatically during low inflation and deflation.
The real value of equity (a constant item) is decreased when an entity makes a loss whether it applies financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power or not.
Automatically maintaining the real value of all constant items constant - as stated above - in the economy is not possible, at present, while accountants implement the generally accepted traditional HCA model under which they apply the very erosive stable measuring unit assumption also authorized by the IASB in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989. Implementing the HCA model unnecessarily, unknowingly and unintentionally erodes real value on a significant scale in the constant item economy when accountants measure financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units in entities with insufficient revaluable fixed assets. This unnecessary, unknowing and unintentional erosion in the real value of constant items not fully or never maintained amounts to hundreds of billions of USD per annum in the world economy for as long as accountants choose to implement very erosive financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units during inflation. When they freely choose to measure financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power, also authorized by the IASB in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989, they would knowingly maintain hundreds of billions of USD in existing real value per annum by not eroding existing constant item real value of, for example, retained profits, with their very erosive stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation.
The real value of equity never maintained constant with equivalent real value revaluable fixed assets under HCA can be maintained constant with continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and deflation under IFRS in entities that at least break even, but, not under HCA. The HC model is also authorized under IFRS. Both the erosion and the maintenance of the existing real value of equity never maintained and all other constant items never maintained during low inflation are, paradoxically, authorized under IFRS. Accountants are free to choose the one or the other. Both are compliant with IFRS.
The specific choice of continuously measuring financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power (the Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting model) at all levels of inflation and deflation as contained in 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.
“In the absence of a Standard or an Interpretation that specifically applies to a transaction, management must use its judgement in developing and applying an accounting policy that results in information that is relevant and reliable. In making that judgement, IAS 8.11 requires management to consider the definitions, recognition criteria, and measurement concepts for assets, liabilities, income, and expenses in the Framework. This elevation of the importance of the Framework was added in the 2003 revisions to IAS Plus, Deloitte. Date: 21st March, 2010 http://www.iasplus.com/standard/framewk.htm
There are no applicable IFRS or Interpretations regarding the valuation of the constant real value non-monetary items issued share capital, retained earnings, capital reserves, share premium, share discount, the concepts of capital, the capital maintenance concepts, the determination of profit/loss concept, etc. The measurement concepts and direct and indirect definitions of these items in the Framework are thus applicable as per IAS8.11. There are Standards relating to the constant items trade debtors, trade creditors, other non-monetary payables, other non-monetary receivables, deferred tax assets, deferred tax liabilities, taxes payable and taxes receivable. In terms of IAS 8.11 the Standards take precedence over the Framework in the case of these items.
Nicolaas Smith
Copyright (c) 2005-2011 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 29-3-11
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Friday, 14 January 2011
Constant Real Value Non-monetary Items
Inflation destroys the assumption that money is stable which is the basis of classic accountancy. In such circumstances, historical values registered in accountancy books become heterogeneous amounts measured in different units. The use of such data under traditional accounting methods without previous correction makes no sense and leads to results that are void of meaning. (Massone, 1981a. p.6)
http://books.google.com/books?id=WXwfMDDYOdkC&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=inflation+destroys+historical+cost+values&source=web&ots=YMBICCQr42&sig=lsiPcViCm3RhVQXwrigJK675RC8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
The Taxation of Income from Business and Capital in Colombia: Fiscal Reform in the Developing World, By Charles E. McLure, John Mutti, Victor Thuronyi, George R. Zodrow, Contributor Charles E. McLure, Published by Duke University Press, 1990, ISBN 0822309254, 9780822309253, Page 259
Constant items are non-monetary items with constant real values over time.
The double entry accounting model was first comprehensively codified by the Italian Franciscan monk, Luca Pacioli in his book Summa de arithmetica, geometria, proportioni et proportionalita, published in Venice in 1494.
Accountants use the Consumer Price Index to maintain the real values of certain – not all - income statement constant items, e.g. salaries, wages, rentals, etc stable during low inflationary periods. They value these particular constant items in units of constant purchasing power while they generally implement the Historical Cost Accounting model. The Framework, Par 101 states that the measurement basis most often used by companies in preparing their financial reports is historical cost. This is normally used together with other measurement bases.
Constant items during Hyperinflation
Accountants are required by the IASB to implement IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies during hyperinflation being an exceptional circumstance. Hyperinflation is defined by the IASB as a cumulative inflation rate approaching or exceeding 100% over three years, i.e. 26% annual inflation for three years in a row. Accountants have to restate their HC or Current Cost financial statements by applying the period-end CPI during hyperinflation to make the HC or CC financial statements more useful. They have to value all non-monetary items (both variable real value non-monetary items and constant real value non-monetary items) in units of constant purchasing power by applying the CPI at the period-end date. The restated values of HC or CC financial statements in terms of IAS 29 in a hyperinflationary economy are only valid new real values when the tax authorities accept the restated values for the calculation of taxes due.
“Regarding to tax regulation, I want to emphasize that tax regulation required restatement of assets and liabilities according to inflation (in terms of IAS 29) for the date of 31.12.2003 but taxes were not taken according to restated values in 2003. In 2004, financial statements were restated and taxes were taken based on restated values.”
Cemal KÜÇÜKSÖZEN, Ph.D, Head of Accounting Standards Department, Capital Markets Board of Turkey
Constant Purchasing Power inflation accounting (not Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting) as defined in IAS 29 is a complete price-level inflation accounting model where under all variable and constant real value non-monetary items are inflation-adjusted by means of the CPI at the period-end date during hyperinflation to make financial statements more useful.
IAS 29 can also be used to maintain the non-monetary economy relatively stable in a hyperinflationary economy. This is only possible when all non-monetary items (variable and constant items) are valued daily at the daily parallel US Dollar (or other hard currency) exchange rate instead of simply restating HC or CC financial statements at the period-end (normally year-end) CPI rate to make them more useful as required by IAS 29. Brazilian accountants did this very successfully from 1964 to 1994 without IAS 29 (IAS 29 was approved in 1989) by valuing all non-monetary items daily in term of a daily non-monetary index based almost entirely on the US Dollar exchange rate with their currency as supplied daily by various governments during those 30 years.
The constant item economy in a hyperinflationary environment would not be completely stable as in the case of financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power applying the CPI during low inflation. Applying the daily USD parallel rate in the valuation of all non-monetary items (constant and variable items) during hyperinflation would still result in real value destruction of constant items, but, only at a rate equal to the inflation rate in the parallel hard currency used, normally the US Dollar. If this was done in the case of Zimbabwe it would have resulted in real value destruction in constant items of about 2% per annum – a rate equal to the USD inflation rate – instead of 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000% ( 89.7 sextillion%) in case of the Zimbabwe Dollar hyperinflation rate.
Nicolaas Smith
Copyright (c) 2005 - 2011 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 24-03-11
http://books.google.com/books?id=WXwfMDDYOdkC&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=inflation+destroys+historical+cost+values&source=web&ots=YMBICCQr42&sig=lsiPcViCm3RhVQXwrigJK675RC8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
The Taxation of Income from Business and Capital in Colombia: Fiscal Reform in the Developing World, By Charles E. McLure, John Mutti, Victor Thuronyi, George R. Zodrow, Contributor Charles E. McLure, Published by Duke University Press, 1990, ISBN 0822309254, 9780822309253, Page 259
Constant items are non-monetary items with constant real values over time.
The double entry accounting model was first comprehensively codified by the Italian Franciscan monk, Luca Pacioli in his book Summa de arithmetica, geometria, proportioni et proportionalita, published in Venice in 1494.
Accountants use the Consumer Price Index to maintain the real values of certain – not all - income statement constant items, e.g. salaries, wages, rentals, etc stable during low inflationary periods. They value these particular constant items in units of constant purchasing power while they generally implement the Historical Cost Accounting model. The Framework, Par 101 states that the measurement basis most often used by companies in preparing their financial reports is historical cost. This is normally used together with other measurement bases.
Constant items during Hyperinflation
Accountants are required by the IASB to implement IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies during hyperinflation being an exceptional circumstance. Hyperinflation is defined by the IASB as a cumulative inflation rate approaching or exceeding 100% over three years, i.e. 26% annual inflation for three years in a row. Accountants have to restate their HC or Current Cost financial statements by applying the period-end CPI during hyperinflation to make the HC or CC financial statements more useful. They have to value all non-monetary items (both variable real value non-monetary items and constant real value non-monetary items) in units of constant purchasing power by applying the CPI at the period-end date. The restated values of HC or CC financial statements in terms of IAS 29 in a hyperinflationary economy are only valid new real values when the tax authorities accept the restated values for the calculation of taxes due.
“Regarding to tax regulation, I want to emphasize that tax regulation required restatement of assets and liabilities according to inflation (in terms of IAS 29) for the date of 31.12.2003 but taxes were not taken according to restated values in 2003. In 2004, financial statements were restated and taxes were taken based on restated values.”
Cemal KÜÇÜKSÖZEN, Ph.D, Head of Accounting Standards Department, Capital Markets Board of Turkey
Constant Purchasing Power inflation accounting (not Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting) as defined in IAS 29 is a complete price-level inflation accounting model where under all variable and constant real value non-monetary items are inflation-adjusted by means of the CPI at the period-end date during hyperinflation to make financial statements more useful.
IAS 29 can also be used to maintain the non-monetary economy relatively stable in a hyperinflationary economy. This is only possible when all non-monetary items (variable and constant items) are valued daily at the daily parallel US Dollar (or other hard currency) exchange rate instead of simply restating HC or CC financial statements at the period-end (normally year-end) CPI rate to make them more useful as required by IAS 29. Brazilian accountants did this very successfully from 1964 to 1994 without IAS 29 (IAS 29 was approved in 1989) by valuing all non-monetary items daily in term of a daily non-monetary index based almost entirely on the US Dollar exchange rate with their currency as supplied daily by various governments during those 30 years.
The constant item economy in a hyperinflationary environment would not be completely stable as in the case of financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power applying the CPI during low inflation. Applying the daily USD parallel rate in the valuation of all non-monetary items (constant and variable items) during hyperinflation would still result in real value destruction of constant items, but, only at a rate equal to the inflation rate in the parallel hard currency used, normally the US Dollar. If this was done in the case of Zimbabwe it would have resulted in real value destruction in constant items of about 2% per annum – a rate equal to the USD inflation rate – instead of 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000% ( 89.7 sextillion%) in case of the Zimbabwe Dollar hyperinflation rate.
Nicolaas Smith
Copyright (c) 2005 - 2011 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 24-03-11
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
IFRS should not be based on fallacies
The International Accounting Standards Board is a private, independent accounting standards board based in London. The mission of the IASB is to develop a single set of global accounting standards. The IASB cooperates with national accounting standard boards for international convergence of accounting standards.
The IASB should not authorize and approve International Financial Reporting Standards based on significantly erosive accounting fallacies, e.g. real value eroding financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units per se and the very erosive stable measuring unit assumption during inflation which is based on a fallacy which costs the world economy hundreds of billions of USD per annum in real value unnecessarily, unknowingly and unintentionally eroded by the implementation of the traditional HCA model in the existing real value of constant real value non-monetary items (e.g. shareholders equity) never or not fully maintained. Currently the IASB is doing exactly that in the Framework, Par 104 (a) which states:
“Financial capital maintenance can be measured either in nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power.”
It is impossible to maintain the real value of financial capital constant in nominal monetary units per se during inflation and deflation since money is not perfectly stable in real value during inflationary and deflationary periods. However, accountants and financial statement users have been educated with the Historical Cost Accounting model of financial reporting which includes the stable measuring unit assumption as stated by the FASB in FAS 89. Financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units per se is a fallacy during inflation and deflation while the stable measuring unit assumption is based on the fallacy that changes in the purchasing power of money are not sufficiently important to require continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and deflation.
The real value of existing constant items never maintained constant is unknowingly, unnecessarily and unintentionally eroded as a result of the implementation of the HCA model with the very erosive stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation because accountants generally measure financial capital maintenance in banks and companies in nominal monetary units as part of traditional HC accounting based on those two very popular IASB-approved and authorized accounting fallacies.
Accountants who prepare their financial reports in terms of International Financial Reporting Standards generally choose to measure financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units, the accounting fallacy as approved by the International Accounting Standards Board in the Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements, Par 104 (a) which they apply in the absence of specific IFRS relating to the concept of capital, the concept of capital maintenance, the concept of profit/loss determination and in the absence of specific IFRS for the valuation of specific constants items, e.g. Shareholders´ Equity items, etc.
Astonishingly, the IASB authorized both the HCA model stated in terms of the very popular accounting fallacy that financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units as well as its only and perfect remedy (the remedy is perfect, not the resulting values) during inflation and deflation in one and the same statement in 1989. It is impossible to maintain the real value of financial capital stable by measuring it in nominal monetary units per se during inflation and deflation. The statement in the Framework, Par 104 (a) that financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units is only true – per se – at sustainable zero inflation – a monetary environment never achieved over any significant period in the past and not soon to be achieved over a significant period in the future. The IASB statement that financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units is a fallacy under all other economic environments: low inflation, hyperinflation and deflation. IFRS should not be based on fallacies as they currently are.
Accountants who prepare financial reports in terms of IFRS have to make the choice presented to them in the Framework, Par 104 (a). The boards of directors actually have to make the choice; their accountants being the accounting experts, obviously, advise them about the appropriate choice to make. Financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units is a very popular accounting fallacy authorized by the IASB in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989. It is, certainly, not an appropriate accounting policy for companies during inflation and deflation. Unfortunately most, if not all boards of directors choose financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units as part of the traditional HCA model which includes the very erosive stable measuring unit assumption in the world economy. This results in the unnecessary, unknowing and unintentional eroding of hundreds billions of USD in the real value of existing constant items never or not fully maintained, e.g. retained profits, in the world´s real economy each and every year.
Accountants preparing financial reports of unlisted companies generally also choose to measure financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units and implement the HCA model since it is the generally accepted traditional accounting model.
Copyright (c) 2005 - 2011 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
The IASB should not authorize and approve International Financial Reporting Standards based on significantly erosive accounting fallacies, e.g. real value eroding financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units per se and the very erosive stable measuring unit assumption during inflation which is based on a fallacy which costs the world economy hundreds of billions of USD per annum in real value unnecessarily, unknowingly and unintentionally eroded by the implementation of the traditional HCA model in the existing real value of constant real value non-monetary items (e.g. shareholders equity) never or not fully maintained. Currently the IASB is doing exactly that in the Framework, Par 104 (a) which states:
“Financial capital maintenance can be measured either in nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power.”
It is impossible to maintain the real value of financial capital constant in nominal monetary units per se during inflation and deflation since money is not perfectly stable in real value during inflationary and deflationary periods. However, accountants and financial statement users have been educated with the Historical Cost Accounting model of financial reporting which includes the stable measuring unit assumption as stated by the FASB in FAS 89. Financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units per se is a fallacy during inflation and deflation while the stable measuring unit assumption is based on the fallacy that changes in the purchasing power of money are not sufficiently important to require continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and deflation.
The real value of existing constant items never maintained constant is unknowingly, unnecessarily and unintentionally eroded as a result of the implementation of the HCA model with the very erosive stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation because accountants generally measure financial capital maintenance in banks and companies in nominal monetary units as part of traditional HC accounting based on those two very popular IASB-approved and authorized accounting fallacies.
Accountants who prepare their financial reports in terms of International Financial Reporting Standards generally choose to measure financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units, the accounting fallacy as approved by the International Accounting Standards Board in the Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements, Par 104 (a) which they apply in the absence of specific IFRS relating to the concept of capital, the concept of capital maintenance, the concept of profit/loss determination and in the absence of specific IFRS for the valuation of specific constants items, e.g. Shareholders´ Equity items, etc.
Astonishingly, the IASB authorized both the HCA model stated in terms of the very popular accounting fallacy that financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units as well as its only and perfect remedy (the remedy is perfect, not the resulting values) during inflation and deflation in one and the same statement in 1989. It is impossible to maintain the real value of financial capital stable by measuring it in nominal monetary units per se during inflation and deflation. The statement in the Framework, Par 104 (a) that financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units is only true – per se – at sustainable zero inflation – a monetary environment never achieved over any significant period in the past and not soon to be achieved over a significant period in the future. The IASB statement that financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units is a fallacy under all other economic environments: low inflation, hyperinflation and deflation. IFRS should not be based on fallacies as they currently are.
Accountants who prepare financial reports in terms of IFRS have to make the choice presented to them in the Framework, Par 104 (a). The boards of directors actually have to make the choice; their accountants being the accounting experts, obviously, advise them about the appropriate choice to make. Financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units is a very popular accounting fallacy authorized by the IASB in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989. It is, certainly, not an appropriate accounting policy for companies during inflation and deflation. Unfortunately most, if not all boards of directors choose financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units as part of the traditional HCA model which includes the very erosive stable measuring unit assumption in the world economy. This results in the unnecessary, unknowing and unintentional eroding of hundreds billions of USD in the real value of existing constant items never or not fully maintained, e.g. retained profits, in the world´s real economy each and every year.
Accountants preparing financial reports of unlisted companies generally also choose to measure financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units and implement the HCA model since it is the generally accepted traditional accounting model.
Copyright (c) 2005 - 2011 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Two systemic processes of real value erosion
There was only one systemic process of real value erosion operating only in the monetary economy before the invention of double entry accounting. The economic process of inflation only eroded the real value of depreciating money and other depreciating monetary items equally throughout only the monetary economy at that time as it does today in economies subject to inflation and hyperinflation.
There was no simultaneous second systemic real value erosion process, as we experience it today, whereby the Historical Cost Accounting model unknowingly, unnecessarily and unintentionally erodes significant amounts of real value of existing constant real value non-monetary items never or not fully maintained, e.g. Retained Profits, only in the constant item economy because accountants freely choose to implement their very erosive stable measuring unit assumption during inflation. The reason was that the traditional IFRS authorized Historical Cost Accounting model which includes the very erosive stable measuring unit assumption (based on a fallacy) and which is founded on financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units (another very popular accounting fallacy) was not yet invented at that time.
Nicolaas Smith
Copyright (c) 2005-2011 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 22-3-11
There was no simultaneous second systemic real value erosion process, as we experience it today, whereby the Historical Cost Accounting model unknowingly, unnecessarily and unintentionally erodes significant amounts of real value of existing constant real value non-monetary items never or not fully maintained, e.g. Retained Profits, only in the constant item economy because accountants freely choose to implement their very erosive stable measuring unit assumption during inflation. The reason was that the traditional IFRS authorized Historical Cost Accounting model which includes the very erosive stable measuring unit assumption (based on a fallacy) and which is founded on financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units (another very popular accounting fallacy) was not yet invented at that time.
Nicolaas Smith
Copyright (c) 2005-2011 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 22-3-11
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Accounting fallacies not yet extinct
Economic history is replete with fallacies which became extinct with the development of economic understanding.
Three accounting fallacies not yet extinct are:
1. Financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units authorized in IFRS in the Framework (1989), Par 104 (a) which states: “Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power.”
It is impossible to maintain the real value of financial capital constant in nominal monetary units per se during inflation and deflation.
2. The stable measuring unit assumption is based on the fallacy that changes in the purchasing power of money are not sufficiently important to require continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and deflation.
Changes in the purchasing power of money logically require continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during inflation and deflation.
3. Accountants´ belief that the erosion of companies´ profits and capital is caused by inflation. This is fully supported by the IASB and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board.
Accountants unknowingly, unnecessarily and unintentionally erode the real value of companies´ profits and capital never maintained constant with their free choice of implementing the stable measuring unit assumption during inflation. Inflation can only erode the real value of money and other monetary items. Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items.
The erosion of companies´ capital and profits by inflation is a very popular accounting fallacy stated by, for example, the US Financial Accounting Standards Board:
Mr. Mosso dissents because he believes that the Statement does not bring the basic problem it addresses — measuring the effect of inflation on business operations — into focus. Because of that he doubts that it will effectively communicate the erosive impact of inflation on profits and capital and the significance of that erosion on all who have an investment stake in business enterprises. FAS 33 (superseded by FAS 89), Par 67, P 22, 1979.
The FASB blamed inflation for the erosion of companies´ capital and profits, but, admitted that the traditional HCA model, or, specifically the stable measuring unit assumption, actually does the eroding:
Because most accountants and users of financial statements have been inculcated with a model of financial reporting that assumes stability of the monetary unit, accepting a change of this consequence would take a lengthy period of time under the best of circumstances. FAS 89, Par 4, P6, 1986.
The IASB also blames inflation in IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies:
In most countries, financial statements are prepared on the historical cost basis of accounting without regard either to changes in the general level of prices or to increases in specific prices of assets held, except to the extent that property, plant and equipment and investments may be revalued. IAS 29 Par 6
Both shareholders´ equity being a company’s capital as well as retained profits - as a separate item - are constant real value non-monetary items.
Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items: Milton Friedman famously stated that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.”
This is confirmed by two Turkish academics as follows:
“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
Copyright (c) 2005-2011 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Three accounting fallacies not yet extinct are:
1. Financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units authorized in IFRS in the Framework (1989), Par 104 (a) which states: “Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power.”
It is impossible to maintain the real value of financial capital constant in nominal monetary units per se during inflation and deflation.
2. The stable measuring unit assumption is based on the fallacy that changes in the purchasing power of money are not sufficiently important to require continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and deflation.
Changes in the purchasing power of money logically require continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during inflation and deflation.
3. Accountants´ belief that the erosion of companies´ profits and capital is caused by inflation. This is fully supported by the IASB and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board.
Accountants unknowingly, unnecessarily and unintentionally erode the real value of companies´ profits and capital never maintained constant with their free choice of implementing the stable measuring unit assumption during inflation. Inflation can only erode the real value of money and other monetary items. Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items.
The erosion of companies´ capital and profits by inflation is a very popular accounting fallacy stated by, for example, the US Financial Accounting Standards Board:
Mr. Mosso dissents because he believes that the Statement does not bring the basic problem it addresses — measuring the effect of inflation on business operations — into focus. Because of that he doubts that it will effectively communicate the erosive impact of inflation on profits and capital and the significance of that erosion on all who have an investment stake in business enterprises. FAS 33 (superseded by FAS 89), Par 67, P 22, 1979.
The FASB blamed inflation for the erosion of companies´ capital and profits, but, admitted that the traditional HCA model, or, specifically the stable measuring unit assumption, actually does the eroding:
Because most accountants and users of financial statements have been inculcated with a model of financial reporting that assumes stability of the monetary unit, accepting a change of this consequence would take a lengthy period of time under the best of circumstances. FAS 89, Par 4, P6, 1986.
The IASB also blames inflation in IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies:
In most countries, financial statements are prepared on the historical cost basis of accounting without regard either to changes in the general level of prices or to increases in specific prices of assets held, except to the extent that property, plant and equipment and investments may be revalued. IAS 29 Par 6
Both shareholders´ equity being a company’s capital as well as retained profits - as a separate item - are constant real value non-monetary items.
Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items: Milton Friedman famously stated that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.”
This is confirmed by two Turkish academics as follows:
“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
Copyright (c) 2005-2011 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
Inflation
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon: Milton Friedman.
Inflation is a sustained rise in the general price level of goods and services inside a national economy or monetary union (e.g. the European Monetary Union) over a period of time. Prices are normally expressed in terms of unstable money (the unstable functional currency) which results in the unit of measure or unit of account being an unstable measuring unit in an economy or monetary union. Inflation always and everywhere erodes the real value of the depreciating functional currency (money) and other depreciating monetary items over time. Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items. Disinflation is a decrease in the rate of increase of the general price level; i.e. disinflation is lower inflation. Inflation still erodes the real value of depreciating money and other depreciating monetary items during disinflation - just at a slower rate than before.
Deflation is a sustained absolute decrease in the general price level. Deflation creates real value in appreciating money and other appreciating monetary items over time, recently mainly seen in the Japanese economy.
Inflation reared its ugly head soon after the invention of unstable money. It only eroded the real value of depreciating money and other depreciating monetary items at that time as it does today. Inflation did not and can not erode the real value of non-monetary items – either variable or constant real value non-monetary items.
Nicolaas Smith
Copyright (c) 2005 - 2011 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 18-3-11
Inflation is a sustained rise in the general price level of goods and services inside a national economy or monetary union (e.g. the European Monetary Union) over a period of time. Prices are normally expressed in terms of unstable money (the unstable functional currency) which results in the unit of measure or unit of account being an unstable measuring unit in an economy or monetary union. Inflation always and everywhere erodes the real value of the depreciating functional currency (money) and other depreciating monetary items over time. Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items. Disinflation is a decrease in the rate of increase of the general price level; i.e. disinflation is lower inflation. Inflation still erodes the real value of depreciating money and other depreciating monetary items during disinflation - just at a slower rate than before.
Deflation is a sustained absolute decrease in the general price level. Deflation creates real value in appreciating money and other appreciating monetary items over time, recently mainly seen in the Japanese economy.
Inflation reared its ugly head soon after the invention of unstable money. It only eroded the real value of depreciating money and other depreciating monetary items at that time as it does today. Inflation did not and can not erode the real value of non-monetary items – either variable or constant real value non-monetary items.
Nicolaas Smith
Copyright (c) 2005 - 2011 Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 18-3-11
Monday, 27 December 2010
Monetary items
Money was then invented over a long period of time. Eventually money came to fulfil the following three functions during inflation and deflation:
a. Unstable medium of exchange
b. Unstable store of value
c. Unstable unit of account
Non-monetary items which are all items which are not monetary items were only defined in monetary terms after the invention of money. The economy came to be divided in the monetary economy and the non-monetary or real economy. There were only unstable monetary items and variable real value non-monetary items. There were no constant real value non-monetary items yet. The non-monetary or real economy consisted of only variable real value non-monetary items. Non-monetary items are all items that are not monetary items.
Monetary items are money held and items with an underlying monetary nature.
Examples of monetary items in today’s economy are bank notes and coins, bank loans, bank savings, other monetary savings, other monetary loans, bank account balances, treasury bills, commercial bonds, government bonds, mortgage bonds, student loans, car loans, consumer loans, credit card loans, notes payable, notes receivable, etc.
Unstable money and other unstable monetary items´ real values are continuously being eroded by inflation over time. Inflation only erodes the real value of unstable money and other unstable monetary items. Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items.
Non-monetary items are all items that are not monetary items.
Non-monetary items in today’s economy are divided into two sub-groups:
a) Variable real value non-monetary items
b) Constant real value non-monetary items
There were still no units of constant purchasing power because there was still no CPI at that time. There was still no HCA model, no very destructive stable measuring unit assumption based on a fallacy and no financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units fallacy during inflation and deflation. There was still no price-level accounting, no constant purchasing power (CPPA) inflation accounting model for hyperinflationary economies and no real value maintaining continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power basic accounting model (CIPPA) for low inflationary and deflationary economies. There were still no financial reports.
Copyright (c) 2005-2010 Nicolaas Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 17-3-11
a. Unstable medium of exchange
b. Unstable store of value
c. Unstable unit of account
Non-monetary items which are all items which are not monetary items were only defined in monetary terms after the invention of money. The economy came to be divided in the monetary economy and the non-monetary or real economy. There were only unstable monetary items and variable real value non-monetary items. There were no constant real value non-monetary items yet. The non-monetary or real economy consisted of only variable real value non-monetary items. Non-monetary items are all items that are not monetary items.
Monetary items are money held and items with an underlying monetary nature.
Examples of monetary items in today’s economy are bank notes and coins, bank loans, bank savings, other monetary savings, other monetary loans, bank account balances, treasury bills, commercial bonds, government bonds, mortgage bonds, student loans, car loans, consumer loans, credit card loans, notes payable, notes receivable, etc.
Unstable money and other unstable monetary items´ real values are continuously being eroded by inflation over time. Inflation only erodes the real value of unstable money and other unstable monetary items. Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items.
Non-monetary items are all items that are not monetary items.
Non-monetary items in today’s economy are divided into two sub-groups:
a) Variable real value non-monetary items
b) Constant real value non-monetary items
There were still no units of constant purchasing power because there was still no CPI at that time. There was still no HCA model, no very destructive stable measuring unit assumption based on a fallacy and no financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units fallacy during inflation and deflation. There was still no price-level accounting, no constant purchasing power (CPPA) inflation accounting model for hyperinflationary economies and no real value maintaining continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power basic accounting model (CIPPA) for low inflationary and deflationary economies. There were still no financial reports.
Copyright (c) 2005-2010 Nicolaas Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 17-3-11
Friday, 17 December 2010
Variable Items
Variable items are non-monetary items with variable real values over time.
Examples of variable items in today’s economy are property, plant, equipment, inventories, quoted and unquoted shares, raw material stock, finished goods stock, patents, trademarks, foreign exchange, etc.
The first economic items were variable real value items. Their values were not yet expressed in terms of money because money was not yet invented at that time. There was no inflation because there was no money. Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items. There was no unstable monetary medium of exchange. There was no unstable monetary unit of account. There was no unstable monetary store of value.
There was no double entry accounting model at that time. There were no historical cost items. There was no very destructive stable measuring unit assumption approved by the International Accounting Standards Board whereby accountants assume the unit of measure is stable, i.e., they consider that changes in the general purchasing power of money are not sufficiently important to require financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and deflation. The stable measuring unit assumption is based on a very popular accounting fallacy since the real value of money is never absolutely stable on a sustainable basis during inflation and deflation. There was no Historical Cost Accounting model and no financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units per se (another very popular IFRS-authorized accounting fallacy) during inflation; that is to say: there were no Historical Cost accounting fallacies. There was no value based accounting. There was also no Consumer Price Index at that time. Consequently there were no units of constant purchasing power and no price-level accounting.
There was no International Accounting Standard IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies supplying us with the current definition of inflation accounting. There was thus no Constant Purchasing Power Accounting (CPPA) IFRS-approved inflation accounting model under which all non-monetary items (variable and constant real value non-monetary items) in Historical Cost and Current Cost financial statements were required to be restated by means of the period-end CPI to make these restated HC and CC financial statements more useful during hyperinflation.
There was also no real value maintaining financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power accounting model – Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting (CIPPA) – as an official IFRS-approved alternative basic accounting model to the traditional HCA model during low inflation and deflation. There was no IFRS compliant basic accounting option where under only constant items are continuously measured in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and deflation. There was no option of continuously measuring only constant items in units of constant purchasing power by applying the monthly change in the CPI during low inflation and deflation in order to implement a constant purchasing power financial capital concept of invested purchasing power by continuously measuring financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power and continuously determining profit/loss in units of constant purchasing power.
There were no financial reports: e.g. no income statements, no balance sheets, no cash flow statements, no statements of changes in shareholders´ equity, etc. There were no monetary items and no constant items. There were only variable real value items not yet expressed in monetary terms.
Copyright (c) Nicolaas J Smith 2005-2011. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 16-3-11
Examples of variable items in today’s economy are property, plant, equipment, inventories, quoted and unquoted shares, raw material stock, finished goods stock, patents, trademarks, foreign exchange, etc.
The first economic items were variable real value items. Their values were not yet expressed in terms of money because money was not yet invented at that time. There was no inflation because there was no money. Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items. There was no unstable monetary medium of exchange. There was no unstable monetary unit of account. There was no unstable monetary store of value.
There was no double entry accounting model at that time. There were no historical cost items. There was no very destructive stable measuring unit assumption approved by the International Accounting Standards Board whereby accountants assume the unit of measure is stable, i.e., they consider that changes in the general purchasing power of money are not sufficiently important to require financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and deflation. The stable measuring unit assumption is based on a very popular accounting fallacy since the real value of money is never absolutely stable on a sustainable basis during inflation and deflation. There was no Historical Cost Accounting model and no financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units per se (another very popular IFRS-authorized accounting fallacy) during inflation; that is to say: there were no Historical Cost accounting fallacies. There was no value based accounting. There was also no Consumer Price Index at that time. Consequently there were no units of constant purchasing power and no price-level accounting.
There was no International Accounting Standard IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies supplying us with the current definition of inflation accounting. There was thus no Constant Purchasing Power Accounting (CPPA) IFRS-approved inflation accounting model under which all non-monetary items (variable and constant real value non-monetary items) in Historical Cost and Current Cost financial statements were required to be restated by means of the period-end CPI to make these restated HC and CC financial statements more useful during hyperinflation.
There was also no real value maintaining financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power accounting model – Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting (CIPPA) – as an official IFRS-approved alternative basic accounting model to the traditional HCA model during low inflation and deflation. There was no IFRS compliant basic accounting option where under only constant items are continuously measured in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and deflation. There was no option of continuously measuring only constant items in units of constant purchasing power by applying the monthly change in the CPI during low inflation and deflation in order to implement a constant purchasing power financial capital concept of invested purchasing power by continuously measuring financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power and continuously determining profit/loss in units of constant purchasing power.
There were no financial reports: e.g. no income statements, no balance sheets, no cash flow statements, no statements of changes in shareholders´ equity, etc. There were no monetary items and no constant items. There were only variable real value items not yet expressed in monetary terms.
Copyright (c) Nicolaas J Smith 2005-2011. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 16-3-11
Monday, 6 December 2010
Inflation targeting or price-level targeting?
That is becoming the question.
Here is a very good article on the subject:
Fed Avoiding Deflation May Depend on Canadian CPI Experiments
I will explain the effect of our traditional, globally implemented and IFRS authorized Historical Cost Accounting model, or, more specifically, the stable measuring unit assumption, re-inforcing deflation (making it more difficult to reverse back into inflation) in an update on this post.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Here is a very good article on the subject:
Fed Avoiding Deflation May Depend on Canadian CPI Experiments
I will explain the effect of our traditional, globally implemented and IFRS authorized Historical Cost Accounting model, or, more specifically, the stable measuring unit assumption, re-inforcing deflation (making it more difficult to reverse back into inflation) in an update on this post.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Salaries are not monetary items despite Obama´s temporary decree
Trade debtors and trade creditors are constant real value non-monetary items and not monetary items as incorrectly stated by the US Financial Accounting Standards Board, the International Accounting Standards Board, PricewaterhouseCoopers and most probably all others too.
Under the current Historical Cost paradigm many constant real value non-monetary items, e.g. trade debtors, trade creditors, other non-monetary payables, other non-monetary receivables, equity not maintained with sufficient revaluable fixed assets, fixed salaries and wages (President Obama´s federal workers´ salary freeze), fixed rentals, etc. are incorrectly treated as - unnecessarily made into - monetary items. The real values of these items are currently unnecessarily being eroded by the implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption (traditional HCA) during low and high inflation. Their real values would be increased during deflation. In a hyperinflationary monetary meltdown like in the case of Zimbabwe all these items would be unnecessarily eroded completely – because they are unnecessarily treated as monetary items.
Under financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power (Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting - CIPPA) as authorized in IFRS in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989, these items are correctly treated as constant real value non-monetary items and their real values would not be eroded at the rate of low or high inflation or they would not be completely eroded in a hyperinflationary monetary meltdown like what happened in Zimbabwe. Their real values were not eroded during 30 years of high and hyperinflation in Brazil from 1964 to 1994 because they were treated correctly as constant real value non-monetary items in Brazil and updated daily in terms of a daily index supplied by the government.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Under the current Historical Cost paradigm many constant real value non-monetary items, e.g. trade debtors, trade creditors, other non-monetary payables, other non-monetary receivables, equity not maintained with sufficient revaluable fixed assets, fixed salaries and wages (President Obama´s federal workers´ salary freeze), fixed rentals, etc. are incorrectly treated as - unnecessarily made into - monetary items. The real values of these items are currently unnecessarily being eroded by the implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption (traditional HCA) during low and high inflation. Their real values would be increased during deflation. In a hyperinflationary monetary meltdown like in the case of Zimbabwe all these items would be unnecessarily eroded completely – because they are unnecessarily treated as monetary items.
Under financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power (Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting - CIPPA) as authorized in IFRS in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989, these items are correctly treated as constant real value non-monetary items and their real values would not be eroded at the rate of low or high inflation or they would not be completely eroded in a hyperinflationary monetary meltdown like what happened in Zimbabwe. Their real values were not eroded during 30 years of high and hyperinflation in Brazil from 1964 to 1994 because they were treated correctly as constant real value non-monetary items in Brazil and updated daily in terms of a daily index supplied by the government.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Difference between severe hyperinflation and a monetary meltdown
The monetary economy (the total real value of a fiat money supply) can disappear completely. It can be totally eroded like in the case of the Zimbabwe Dollar, not simply as a result of hyperinflation, but, as a result of a total monetary meltdown after a period of severe hyperinflation. Hyperinflation only erodes the real value of the hyperinflationary currency extremely rapidly. Hyperinflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items. All non-monetary items maintain their real values when they are updated daily in terms of a daily non-monetary index normally based on the daily USDollar exchange rate as Brazil did during 30 years of very high and hyperinflation. The stable measuring unit assumption (Historical Cost Accounting) unnecessarily erodes the real value of constant real value non-monetary items, e.g. salaries and wages not updated daily during hyperinflation, as fast as hyperinflation erodes the real value of the local currency and other monetary items, e.g. all loans stated in the local currency. A monetary meltdown erodes all real value only in the monetary economy; i.e. in the money supply. The stable measuring unit assumption (HCA) unnecessarily erodes the real value of all constant real value non-monetary items never maintained during inflation and hyperinflation.
Hyperinflation is not always stopped with first a period of severe hyperinflation in the final stage and then a complete monetary meltdown. Hyperinflation was successfully overcome by various countries, e.g. Turkey, Brazil and Angola, without dollarization or a monetary meltdown. However, severe hyperinflation would normally lead to a complete monetary meltdown as happened in 2008 in Zimbabwe.
Brazil actually grew their non-monetary economy in real value during 30 years of very high and hyperinflation of up to 2000 per cent per annum from 1964 to 1994 and never had severe hyperinflation followed by a complete monetary meltdown at the end. Brazil managed to have positive GDP growth during 30 years of hyperinflation because the various governments during those three decades supplied the population with a daily non-monetary index based almost entirely on the daily US Dollar exchange rate with their functional currency which was used to update all non-monetary items (variable and constant items), e.g. equity, trade debtors, trade creditors, salaries payable, taxes payable, etc., in the economy daily.
Brazil would not have been able to do that if they had applied the IASB´s IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies simply because IAS 29 does not provide for continuous daily updating of all nonmonetary items during hyperinflation. IAS 29 was published in 1989. IAS 29 does not provide for continuous daily updating in terms of the US Dollar parallel rate. IAS 29 simply requires restatement of Historical Cost and Current Cost Accounting financial statements during hyperinflation applying the monthly Consumer Price Index (generally available a month after the current month) to make these financial statements "more meaningful". It is not the intention of IAS 29 to, and in it´s current form it cannot, stop the continuous daily rapid erosion of the real value of constant real value non-monetary items (e.g. salaries, wages, rentals, etc.) as Brazil did for 30 years of hyperinflation generating positive economic growth because IAS 29 does not provide for the continuous daily updating of constant items in terms of the parallel USDollar reate. This daily very rapid erosion is caused, not by hyperinflation, but, by the implemention of the stable measuring unit assumption (HCA) during hyperinflation. Applying the monthly CPI a month after the current month is very ineffective during hyperinflation as far as salaries, wages, rentals, positive economic growth, economic stability, the maintenance of internal demand and the continuous daily maintenance of the real value of these items are concerned. All non-monetary items have to be updated daily in terms of the parallel USDollar rate during hyperinflation as Brazil did for 30 years. That is financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as authorized in IFRS in the Framework, Par 104 (a) during hyperinflation.
The Framework, Par. 104 (a) states:
"Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power."
The IFRS authorized financial capital maintanence in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and deflation (Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting - CIPPA) under which only constant real value non-monetary items (not variable real value non-monetary items) are updated monthly in terms of the CPI during low inflation and deflation) as well as hyperinflation (Constant Purchasing Power Accounting - CPPA) whereunder all non-monetary items - constant and variable real value non-monetary items - are updated daily in terms of the US Dollar parallel rate). IFRS authorized it at all levels of inflation and deflation.
The stable measuring unit assumption (HCA or finanancial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units, also authorized in IFRS in the Framework, Par 104 a ) assumes there was, is and never ever will be inflation or hyprinflation as far as the valuation of constant real value non-monetary items (e.g. equity, trade debtors, trade creditors, taxes payable, etc) never maintained are concerned. The stable measuring unit assumption (HCA) assumes that money was forever in the past, is and will always be perfectly stable under any level of inflation, hyperinflation and deflation.
Various authoritative commentators in the accounting profession are requesting the IASB for a fundamental revision of IAS 29.
Severe hyperinflation is defined as a period at the end of completely uncontrolled hyperinflation when exchangeability between the hyperinflationary functional currency and most relatively stable foreign currencies does not exist. However, at least one exchangeability has to exist for prices to be established in the hyperinflationary functional currency. Severe hyperinflation is only possible when there is exchangeability with at least one relatively stable foreign currency in order for prices to continue to be set in the hyperinflationary functional currency in terms of this final exchangeability. The one exchange rate that lasted till the end of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was the Old Mutual Implied Rate (OMIR).
“The ratio of the Old Mutual share price in Harare to that in London equals the Zimbabwe dollar/sterling exchange rate." p8 1
Severe hyperinflation stops the moment exchangeability between the currency and all foreign currencies does not exist.
“Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation came to an abrupt halt. The trigger was an intervention by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. On November 20, 2008, the Reserve Bank’s governor, Dr. Gideon Gono, stated that the entire economy was “being priced via the Old Mutual rate whose share price movements had no relationship with economic fundamentals, let alone actual corporate performance of Old Mutual itself” (Gono 2008: 7–8). In consequence, the Reserve Bank issued regulations that forced the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange to shut down. This event rapidly cascaded into a termination of all forms of non-cash foreign exchange trading and an accelerated death spiral for the Zimbabwe dollar. Within weeks the entire economy spontaneously “dollarized” and prices stabilized.” p 9-10 2
There was severe hyperinflation in Zimbabwe while there was exchangeability (prices could still be set in the ZimDollar) with at least one relatively stable foreign currency – the British Pound in this case as made possible via the OMIR. When this last exchangeability stopped it was not possible to set prices in the ZimDollar any more and severe hyperinflation stopped: no exchangeability means no severe hyperinflation. That was a monetary meltdown. The ZimDollar had no value as from that moment.
No exchangeability with all relatively stable foreign currencies means no exchange rates which means no severe hyperinflation (no prices being set in the local currency) and vice versa: no exchange rates with all relatively stable foreign currencies means no exchangeability which means no severe hyperinflation (no prices being set in the local currency).
No prices being set in the local currency means monetary meltdown: the total money supply and all money and other monetary items stated in the local currency have no value.
The real or non-monetary economy (houses, properties, buildings, infrastructure, inventories, finished goods, consumer goods, trademarks, goodwill, logos, copyright, trade debtors, trade creditors, royalties payable, royalties receivable, taxes payable, taxes receivable, all other non-monetary payables, all other non-monetary receivables, etc,) can not be eroded by hyperinflation or a total monetary meltdown: inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Inflation and hyperinflation have no effect on the real value of non-monetary items.
The International Accounting Standards Board is currently requesting comment letters on their Exposure Draft Severe Hyperinflation.
1,2 Hanke, S. H. and Kwok, A. K. F., On the Measurement of Zimbabwe’s Hyperinflation, Cato Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 2009), pp. 353-64
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Hyperinflation is not always stopped with first a period of severe hyperinflation in the final stage and then a complete monetary meltdown. Hyperinflation was successfully overcome by various countries, e.g. Turkey, Brazil and Angola, without dollarization or a monetary meltdown. However, severe hyperinflation would normally lead to a complete monetary meltdown as happened in 2008 in Zimbabwe.
Brazil actually grew their non-monetary economy in real value during 30 years of very high and hyperinflation of up to 2000 per cent per annum from 1964 to 1994 and never had severe hyperinflation followed by a complete monetary meltdown at the end. Brazil managed to have positive GDP growth during 30 years of hyperinflation because the various governments during those three decades supplied the population with a daily non-monetary index based almost entirely on the daily US Dollar exchange rate with their functional currency which was used to update all non-monetary items (variable and constant items), e.g. equity, trade debtors, trade creditors, salaries payable, taxes payable, etc., in the economy daily.
Brazil would not have been able to do that if they had applied the IASB´s IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies simply because IAS 29 does not provide for continuous daily updating of all nonmonetary items during hyperinflation. IAS 29 was published in 1989. IAS 29 does not provide for continuous daily updating in terms of the US Dollar parallel rate. IAS 29 simply requires restatement of Historical Cost and Current Cost Accounting financial statements during hyperinflation applying the monthly Consumer Price Index (generally available a month after the current month) to make these financial statements "more meaningful". It is not the intention of IAS 29 to, and in it´s current form it cannot, stop the continuous daily rapid erosion of the real value of constant real value non-monetary items (e.g. salaries, wages, rentals, etc.) as Brazil did for 30 years of hyperinflation generating positive economic growth because IAS 29 does not provide for the continuous daily updating of constant items in terms of the parallel USDollar reate. This daily very rapid erosion is caused, not by hyperinflation, but, by the implemention of the stable measuring unit assumption (HCA) during hyperinflation. Applying the monthly CPI a month after the current month is very ineffective during hyperinflation as far as salaries, wages, rentals, positive economic growth, economic stability, the maintenance of internal demand and the continuous daily maintenance of the real value of these items are concerned. All non-monetary items have to be updated daily in terms of the parallel USDollar rate during hyperinflation as Brazil did for 30 years. That is financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as authorized in IFRS in the Framework, Par 104 (a) during hyperinflation.
The Framework, Par. 104 (a) states:
"Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power."
The IFRS authorized financial capital maintanence in units of constant purchasing power during low inflation and deflation (Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting - CIPPA) under which only constant real value non-monetary items (not variable real value non-monetary items) are updated monthly in terms of the CPI during low inflation and deflation) as well as hyperinflation (Constant Purchasing Power Accounting - CPPA) whereunder all non-monetary items - constant and variable real value non-monetary items - are updated daily in terms of the US Dollar parallel rate). IFRS authorized it at all levels of inflation and deflation.
The stable measuring unit assumption (HCA or finanancial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units, also authorized in IFRS in the Framework, Par 104 a ) assumes there was, is and never ever will be inflation or hyprinflation as far as the valuation of constant real value non-monetary items (e.g. equity, trade debtors, trade creditors, taxes payable, etc) never maintained are concerned. The stable measuring unit assumption (HCA) assumes that money was forever in the past, is and will always be perfectly stable under any level of inflation, hyperinflation and deflation.
Various authoritative commentators in the accounting profession are requesting the IASB for a fundamental revision of IAS 29.
Severe hyperinflation is defined as a period at the end of completely uncontrolled hyperinflation when exchangeability between the hyperinflationary functional currency and most relatively stable foreign currencies does not exist. However, at least one exchangeability has to exist for prices to be established in the hyperinflationary functional currency. Severe hyperinflation is only possible when there is exchangeability with at least one relatively stable foreign currency in order for prices to continue to be set in the hyperinflationary functional currency in terms of this final exchangeability. The one exchange rate that lasted till the end of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was the Old Mutual Implied Rate (OMIR).
“The ratio of the Old Mutual share price in Harare to that in London equals the Zimbabwe dollar/sterling exchange rate." p8 1
Severe hyperinflation stops the moment exchangeability between the currency and all foreign currencies does not exist.
“Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation came to an abrupt halt. The trigger was an intervention by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. On November 20, 2008, the Reserve Bank’s governor, Dr. Gideon Gono, stated that the entire economy was “being priced via the Old Mutual rate whose share price movements had no relationship with economic fundamentals, let alone actual corporate performance of Old Mutual itself” (Gono 2008: 7–8). In consequence, the Reserve Bank issued regulations that forced the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange to shut down. This event rapidly cascaded into a termination of all forms of non-cash foreign exchange trading and an accelerated death spiral for the Zimbabwe dollar. Within weeks the entire economy spontaneously “dollarized” and prices stabilized.” p 9-10 2
There was severe hyperinflation in Zimbabwe while there was exchangeability (prices could still be set in the ZimDollar) with at least one relatively stable foreign currency – the British Pound in this case as made possible via the OMIR. When this last exchangeability stopped it was not possible to set prices in the ZimDollar any more and severe hyperinflation stopped: no exchangeability means no severe hyperinflation. That was a monetary meltdown. The ZimDollar had no value as from that moment.
No exchangeability with all relatively stable foreign currencies means no exchange rates which means no severe hyperinflation (no prices being set in the local currency) and vice versa: no exchange rates with all relatively stable foreign currencies means no exchangeability which means no severe hyperinflation (no prices being set in the local currency).
No prices being set in the local currency means monetary meltdown: the total money supply and all money and other monetary items stated in the local currency have no value.
The real or non-monetary economy (houses, properties, buildings, infrastructure, inventories, finished goods, consumer goods, trademarks, goodwill, logos, copyright, trade debtors, trade creditors, royalties payable, royalties receivable, taxes payable, taxes receivable, all other non-monetary payables, all other non-monetary receivables, etc,) can not be eroded by hyperinflation or a total monetary meltdown: inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. Inflation and hyperinflation have no effect on the real value of non-monetary items.
The International Accounting Standards Board is currently requesting comment letters on their Exposure Draft Severe Hyperinflation.
1,2 Hanke, S. H. and Kwok, A. K. F., On the Measurement of Zimbabwe’s Hyperinflation, Cato Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 2009), pp. 353-64
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Four accounting models authorized under IFRS
A: Financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units during low inflation and deflation: traditional Historical Cost Accounting (see the Framework, Par 104 (a))
B: Financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power; i.e. Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting (CIPPA) under which ONLY constant real value non-monetary items (NOT variable items) are inflation-adjusted during low inflation and deflation. This is NOT Constant Purchasing Power Accounting which is an inflation-accounting model required ONLY during hyperinflation under which ALL non-monetary items – BOTH variable and constant items – are inflation-adjusted. (see the Framework, Par 104 (a)). This accounting model is unique to IFRS. It is not authorized under US GAAP.
IFRS also specifically require
C: Current Cost Accounting when an entity selects physical capital maintenance in terms of the Framework, Par 102 and 104 (b).
IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies requires
D: Constant Purchasing Power Accounting, i.e. inflation-accounting under which all non-monetary items – both variable and constant items – are inflation-adjusted ONLY during hyperinflation (different from the above Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting authorized in Par 104 (a) during LOW inflation and deflation under which ONLY constant items – NOT variable items – are inflation-adjusted during LOW inflation and deflation).
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
B: Financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power; i.e. Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting (CIPPA) under which ONLY constant real value non-monetary items (NOT variable items) are inflation-adjusted during low inflation and deflation. This is NOT Constant Purchasing Power Accounting which is an inflation-accounting model required ONLY during hyperinflation under which ALL non-monetary items – BOTH variable and constant items – are inflation-adjusted. (see the Framework, Par 104 (a)). This accounting model is unique to IFRS. It is not authorized under US GAAP.
IFRS also specifically require
C: Current Cost Accounting when an entity selects physical capital maintenance in terms of the Framework, Par 102 and 104 (b).
IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies requires
D: Constant Purchasing Power Accounting, i.e. inflation-accounting under which all non-monetary items – both variable and constant items – are inflation-adjusted ONLY during hyperinflation (different from the above Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting authorized in Par 104 (a) during LOW inflation and deflation under which ONLY constant items – NOT variable items – are inflation-adjusted during LOW inflation and deflation).
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Friday, 19 November 2010
Three economic items
Science is simply common sense at its best - that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. Thomas Huxley
The economy consists of economic entities and economic items.
Economic items have economic value. Accountants do not simply record what happened in the past. Accountants are not simply scorekeepers. Accountants value economic items every time they account them. Utility, scarcity and exchangeability are the three basic attributes of an economic item which, in combination, give it economic value.
It is generally accepted that there are only two basic, fundamentally different economic items in the economy; namely, monetary and non-monetary items and that the economy is divided in the monetary and non-monetary or real economy. That is a fallacy.
The three fundamentally different basic economic items in the economy are:
a) Monetary items
b) Variable real value non-monetary items
c) Constant real value non-monetary items
The economy consequently consists of not just two – the monetary and non-monetary economies, but, three parts:
1. Monetary economy
The monetary economy within an economy or monetary union consists of functional currency bank notes and coins (which generally make up about 7% of the overall money supply) and other functional currency monetary items, e.g. bank loans, savings, credit card loans, car loans, home loans, student loans, consumer loans, commercial and government bonds and other functional currency monetary items making up the fiat money supply created in the banking system by means of fractional reserve banking.
2. Variable item non-monetary economy
The variable item economy is made up of non-monetary items with variable real values over time; for example, cars, groceries, houses, factories, property, plant, equipment, inventory, mobile phones, quoted and unquoted shares, foreign exchange, finished goods, raw material, etc.
3. Constant item non-monetary economy
The constant item economy consists of non-monetary items with constant real values over time, e.g. salaries, wages, rentals, all other income statement items, balance sheet constant items, e.g. issued share capital, share premium, share discount, capital reserves, revaluation reserve, retained profits, all other items in shareholders´ equity, provisions, trade debtors, trade creditors, taxes payable, taxes receivable, all other non-monetary payables and all other non-monetary receivables, etc.
The variable and constant item non-monetary economies in combination make up the non-monetary or real economy. The real and monetary economies constitute the economy.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 15-3-11
The economy consists of economic entities and economic items.
Economic items have economic value. Accountants do not simply record what happened in the past. Accountants are not simply scorekeepers. Accountants value economic items every time they account them. Utility, scarcity and exchangeability are the three basic attributes of an economic item which, in combination, give it economic value.
It is generally accepted that there are only two basic, fundamentally different economic items in the economy; namely, monetary and non-monetary items and that the economy is divided in the monetary and non-monetary or real economy. That is a fallacy.
The three fundamentally different basic economic items in the economy are:
a) Monetary items
b) Variable real value non-monetary items
c) Constant real value non-monetary items
The economy consequently consists of not just two – the monetary and non-monetary economies, but, three parts:
1. Monetary economy
The monetary economy within an economy or monetary union consists of functional currency bank notes and coins (which generally make up about 7% of the overall money supply) and other functional currency monetary items, e.g. bank loans, savings, credit card loans, car loans, home loans, student loans, consumer loans, commercial and government bonds and other functional currency monetary items making up the fiat money supply created in the banking system by means of fractional reserve banking.
2. Variable item non-monetary economy
The variable item economy is made up of non-monetary items with variable real values over time; for example, cars, groceries, houses, factories, property, plant, equipment, inventory, mobile phones, quoted and unquoted shares, foreign exchange, finished goods, raw material, etc.
3. Constant item non-monetary economy
The constant item economy consists of non-monetary items with constant real values over time, e.g. salaries, wages, rentals, all other income statement items, balance sheet constant items, e.g. issued share capital, share premium, share discount, capital reserves, revaluation reserve, retained profits, all other items in shareholders´ equity, provisions, trade debtors, trade creditors, taxes payable, taxes receivable, all other non-monetary payables and all other non-monetary receivables, etc.
The variable and constant item non-monetary economies in combination make up the non-monetary or real economy. The real and monetary economies constitute the economy.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fin24 15-3-11
Monday, 15 November 2010
Fiat money has real value and is legally convertible
All fiat money is created out of nothing: out of thin air. It is, however, backed by all - the sum total of - the underlying value systems in an economy, namely sound governance, sound economic policies, sound monetary policies, sound industrial policies, sound commercial policies, etc. Positive annual inflation indicates the excess of fiat money created in the banking system.
Fiat money is used every day by 6 billion people to buy anything and everything in the economy. Fiat money has real value. All monetary units in the world are fiat money. Every person knows exactly what he or she can buy with 1 or 10 or 100 or 1000 units of fiat money in his or her economy – today. Everyone also knows that the real value of fiat money is eroded over time in an inflationary economy and increases over time in a deflationary economy.
Yes, the special bank paper that fiat bank notes is made of and the metals that fiat bank coins are made of have almost no intrinsic value as compared to the real value of the actual gold or actual silver in gold and silver coins of commodity money in the past. That is not a logical reason to state that fiat money has no value. Every fiat monetary unit´s real value is determined by what it can buy today in an average consumer basket of goods and services. That generally changes every month.
Fiat money is money which generally has a monthly changing real value. Only the actual fiat bank notes and coins have insignificant intrinsic values. Fiat bank notes and coins constitute only about 7% of the US money supply.
All fiat monetary units – whether notes and coins or simply electronically represented virtual values - are legal tender in their respective economies.
All fiat functional currencies within economies have international exchange rates with the fiat functional currencies of other economies.
The fact that fiat money is not legally convertible into gold on demand as it was done in the days of the gold standard, is made irrelevant by the indisputable fact that fiat money is legal tender. Fiat money is used to buy gold. The fact that fiat money is not legally convertible into gold - an administrative process - is true: it is a fact. That does not negate the fact that fiat money has real value, the change of which is indicated monthly in the change in the Consumer Price Index.
The fact that fiat money has real value is so mainstream - 6 billion people know it and confirm it daily - 365 days a year - by using fiat money to buy and sell everything in all economies. The fact that fiat money has real value is confirmed once a month by about 155 to 200 economies world wide when monthly inflation indexes are published indicating the change in the real value of fiat money. It is thus misleading to imply that because it is a fact that fiat money can not administratively be converted at the central bank or any other bank into gold, that fiat money has no value.
It is an indisputable mainstream fact that fiat money has real value despite the fact that it is not legally convertible into gold on demand and that the bank paper bank notes are made of and metals bank coins are made of have no intrinsic value whereas historically gold and silver coins had intrinsic values equal to the real value of the gold and silver they were made of.
The numerous publications of CPI values world wide are the absolutely creditable references to the fact that fiat money has real value. Statistics authorities are generally creditable sources.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Fiat money is used every day by 6 billion people to buy anything and everything in the economy. Fiat money has real value. All monetary units in the world are fiat money. Every person knows exactly what he or she can buy with 1 or 10 or 100 or 1000 units of fiat money in his or her economy – today. Everyone also knows that the real value of fiat money is eroded over time in an inflationary economy and increases over time in a deflationary economy.
Yes, the special bank paper that fiat bank notes is made of and the metals that fiat bank coins are made of have almost no intrinsic value as compared to the real value of the actual gold or actual silver in gold and silver coins of commodity money in the past. That is not a logical reason to state that fiat money has no value. Every fiat monetary unit´s real value is determined by what it can buy today in an average consumer basket of goods and services. That generally changes every month.
Fiat money is money which generally has a monthly changing real value. Only the actual fiat bank notes and coins have insignificant intrinsic values. Fiat bank notes and coins constitute only about 7% of the US money supply.
All fiat monetary units – whether notes and coins or simply electronically represented virtual values - are legal tender in their respective economies.
All fiat functional currencies within economies have international exchange rates with the fiat functional currencies of other economies.
The fact that fiat money is not legally convertible into gold on demand as it was done in the days of the gold standard, is made irrelevant by the indisputable fact that fiat money is legal tender. Fiat money is used to buy gold. The fact that fiat money is not legally convertible into gold - an administrative process - is true: it is a fact. That does not negate the fact that fiat money has real value, the change of which is indicated monthly in the change in the Consumer Price Index.
The fact that fiat money has real value is so mainstream - 6 billion people know it and confirm it daily - 365 days a year - by using fiat money to buy and sell everything in all economies. The fact that fiat money has real value is confirmed once a month by about 155 to 200 economies world wide when monthly inflation indexes are published indicating the change in the real value of fiat money. It is thus misleading to imply that because it is a fact that fiat money can not administratively be converted at the central bank or any other bank into gold, that fiat money has no value.
It is an indisputable mainstream fact that fiat money has real value despite the fact that it is not legally convertible into gold on demand and that the bank paper bank notes are made of and metals bank coins are made of have no intrinsic value whereas historically gold and silver coins had intrinsic values equal to the real value of the gold and silver they were made of.
The numerous publications of CPI values world wide are the absolutely creditable references to the fact that fiat money has real value. Statistics authorities are generally creditable sources.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Friday, 12 November 2010
The silliest idea currently going around
The silliest idea currently going around:
Quantitative easing would lead to hyperinflation.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Quantitative easing would lead to hyperinflation.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
No currency wars within the European Monetary Union
What the world needs is one world one currency.
If the world economy was invented today, no-one would have more than one currency for the whole world.
There are no currency wars within the European Monetary Union or among the different states in the United States of America.
The final solution would be one fiat currency with a constant real value, i.e. zero inflation.
For that to happen the eternally elusive universal unit of real value has to be defined.
Whether that is possible is not clear yet.
Interesting times ahead.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
If the world economy was invented today, no-one would have more than one currency for the whole world.
There are no currency wars within the European Monetary Union or among the different states in the United States of America.
The final solution would be one fiat currency with a constant real value, i.e. zero inflation.
For that to happen the eternally elusive universal unit of real value has to be defined.
Whether that is possible is not clear yet.
Interesting times ahead.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Gold is not money
Gold can only be money if it fulfils all three functions of money:
1. Medium of exchange
2. Store of value
3. Unit of account
Gold is an item that is generally accepted as a medium of exchange.
Gold is also a store of variable real value over time.
However, the daily gold price is not a unit of account.
Gold is thus a medium of exchange and a store of variable real value, but, not a unit of account with a constant real value.
Money is also not a unit of account with a constant real value. However, via financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as authorized 21 years ago in International Financial Reporting Standards in the Framework, Par 104 (a) which states:
“Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power.”
we are able to inflation-adjust constant real value non-monetary items by means of the monthly change in the annual CPI during low inflation and deflation (Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting – CIPPA).
During hyperinflation we measure in units of constant purchasing power not only constant real value non-monetary items but also variable real value non-monetary items (all non-monetary items) on a daily basis in term of the US Dollar parallel rate or in terms of a government supplied daily non-monetary index as was done so successfully in Brazil during that country’s period of high and hyperinflation from 1964 to 1994. This is Constant Purchasing Power Accounting – CPPA as authorized and defined in IFRS in IAS 29.
This was not done during Zimbabwe´s hyperinflation although the daily US Dollar parallel rate as well as the Old Mutual Implied Rate (OMIR) were available to the whole country on a daily basis.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission.
1. Medium of exchange
2. Store of value
3. Unit of account
Gold is an item that is generally accepted as a medium of exchange.
Gold is also a store of variable real value over time.
However, the daily gold price is not a unit of account.
Gold is thus a medium of exchange and a store of variable real value, but, not a unit of account with a constant real value.
Money is also not a unit of account with a constant real value. However, via financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power as authorized 21 years ago in International Financial Reporting Standards in the Framework, Par 104 (a) which states:
“Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power.”
we are able to inflation-adjust constant real value non-monetary items by means of the monthly change in the annual CPI during low inflation and deflation (Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting – CIPPA).
During hyperinflation we measure in units of constant purchasing power not only constant real value non-monetary items but also variable real value non-monetary items (all non-monetary items) on a daily basis in term of the US Dollar parallel rate or in terms of a government supplied daily non-monetary index as was done so successfully in Brazil during that country’s period of high and hyperinflation from 1964 to 1994. This is Constant Purchasing Power Accounting – CPPA as authorized and defined in IFRS in IAS 29.
This was not done during Zimbabwe´s hyperinflation although the daily US Dollar parallel rate as well as the Old Mutual Implied Rate (OMIR) were available to the whole country on a daily basis.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission.
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Variable real value of fiat money backed by all underlying value systems
Fiat money is:
* money (functional currency within an economy or monetary union) declared by a government to be legal tender that is not commodity money.
* state-issued money which is a medium of exchange for all other economic items in the economy, a store of depreciating real value during inflation and a store of appreciating real value during deflation as well as the depreciating unit of account during inflation and the appreciating unit of account during deflation in an internal economy. Fiat money bank notes and coins have fixed nominal values but either depreciating or appreciating real values. The depreciating or appreciating real value of fiat money - in its form as the functional currency within an economy or monetary union - is indicated by the annual rate of inflation or deflation. Severe hyperinflation can lead to the total destruction of the real value of the entire money supply and all other monetary items within an economy: see Zimbabwe. Neither low inflation nor hyperinflation have any effect on the real value of non-monetary items. Inflation and hyperinflation can only destroy the real value of money (a functional currency) and other monetary items - nothing else.
* money of which the token bank notes and bank coins have no intrinsic value.
All fiat money is created out of nothing: out of thin air.
It is, however, backed by all - the sum total of - the underlying value systems in an economy, namely sound governance, sound economic policies, sound monetary policies, sound industrial policies, sound commercial policies, sound external policies, sound education, sound legal system, sound law enforcement, sound defence force, sound transport policies, sound health policies, sound agricultural policies, sound banking policies, sound accounting principles, etc.
The annual rate of inflation above the central bank´s target indicates how much fiat money has been created in excess of what is considered by the central bank as required in the economy.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission.
* money (functional currency within an economy or monetary union) declared by a government to be legal tender that is not commodity money.
* state-issued money which is a medium of exchange for all other economic items in the economy, a store of depreciating real value during inflation and a store of appreciating real value during deflation as well as the depreciating unit of account during inflation and the appreciating unit of account during deflation in an internal economy. Fiat money bank notes and coins have fixed nominal values but either depreciating or appreciating real values. The depreciating or appreciating real value of fiat money - in its form as the functional currency within an economy or monetary union - is indicated by the annual rate of inflation or deflation. Severe hyperinflation can lead to the total destruction of the real value of the entire money supply and all other monetary items within an economy: see Zimbabwe. Neither low inflation nor hyperinflation have any effect on the real value of non-monetary items. Inflation and hyperinflation can only destroy the real value of money (a functional currency) and other monetary items - nothing else.
* money of which the token bank notes and bank coins have no intrinsic value.
All fiat money is created out of nothing: out of thin air.
It is, however, backed by all - the sum total of - the underlying value systems in an economy, namely sound governance, sound economic policies, sound monetary policies, sound industrial policies, sound commercial policies, sound external policies, sound education, sound legal system, sound law enforcement, sound defence force, sound transport policies, sound health policies, sound agricultural policies, sound banking policies, sound accounting principles, etc.
The annual rate of inflation above the central bank´s target indicates how much fiat money has been created in excess of what is considered by the central bank as required in the economy.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission.
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Hyperinflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items
A vicious circle is created in which more and more inflation is created with each iteration of the ever increasing money printing cycle. This is not the same as and has nothing to do with, for example, the US Federal Reserve Bank´s and the Bank of Japan´s "Quantitative Easing (QE)" programs. This was, in fact, exactly the same as the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe´s money printing program.
Hyperinflation becomes visible when there is an unchecked increase in the money supply (see hyperinflation in Zimbabwe) usually accompanied by a widespread unwillingness on the part of the local population to hold the hyperinflationary money for more than the time needed to trade it for something non-monetary to avoid further loss of real value. Hyperinflation is often associated with wars (or their aftermath), currency meltdowns like in Zimbabwe, and political or social upheavals.
"Hyperinflations have never occurred when a commodity served as money or when paper money was convertible into a commodity. The curse of hyperinflation has only reared its ugly head when the supply of money had no natural constraints and was governed by a discretionary paper money standard." p1
Hyperinflation normally results in severe economic depressions although that did not happen during the 30 years of very high and hyperinflation in Brazil from 1964 to 1994 because all non-monetary items (such as property, plant, equipment, inventory, finished goods, quoted and unquoted shares, trade marks, issued share capital, retained earnings, capital reserves, all other items in shareholders' equity, trade debtors, trade creditors, provisions, all other non-monetary payables, all other non-monetary receivables, taxes payable, taxes receivable, salaries payable, salaries receivable, etc.) in the entire economy of Brazil were updated daily in terms of a daily non-monetary index supplied by the government which was principally directly related to the change in the daily US dollar exchange rate for the Brazilian currency. This confirmed the fact that hyperinflation like low inflation can only destroy the real value of money and other monetary items. Hyperinflation (like low 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. p9
This was not done during Zimbabwe's hyperinflation although the daily change in the parallel rate for the US dollar as well as the Old Mutual Implied Rate (OMIR) were both available to everyone in Zimbabwe on a daily basis and eventually resulted in the wiping out of the real value of only those non-monetary items (such as salaries, wages, issued share capital, all other items in shareholders´ equity, trade debtors, trade creditors, salaries payable, salaries receivable, taxes payable, taxes receivable, all other non-monetary payables, all other non-monetary receivables, etc.) expressed in terms of the ZimDollar and never or not fully updated (inflation-adjusted) during Zimbabwe's hyperinflation. Zimbabwe's hyperinflationary monetary meltdown, on the other hand, resulted in the wiping out of the real value of all monetary items (actual 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollar bank notes, all other bank notes, all loans payable and all loans receivable and all other monetary items) expressed in terms of the hyperinflationary Zimbabwe Dollar which became completely worthless after severe hyperinflation which stopped abruptly the moment exchangeability between the currency and all foreign currencies did not exist anymore.
"Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation came to an abrupt halt. The trigger was an intervention by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. On November 20, 2008, the Reserve Bank’s governor, Dr. Gideon Gono, stated that the entire economy was “being priced via the Old Mutual rate whose share price movements had no relationship with economic fundamentals, let alone actual corporate performance of Old Mutual itself” (Gono 2008: 7–8). In consequence, the Reserve Bank issued regulations that forced the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange to shut down. This event rapidly cascaded into a termination of all forms of non-cash foreign exchange trading and an accelerated death spiral for the Zimbabwe dollar. Within weeks the entire economy spontaneously “dollarized” and prices stabilized." p9-10.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission
Hyperinflation becomes visible when there is an unchecked increase in the money supply (see hyperinflation in Zimbabwe) usually accompanied by a widespread unwillingness on the part of the local population to hold the hyperinflationary money for more than the time needed to trade it for something non-monetary to avoid further loss of real value. Hyperinflation is often associated with wars (or their aftermath), currency meltdowns like in Zimbabwe, and political or social upheavals.
"Hyperinflations have never occurred when a commodity served as money or when paper money was convertible into a commodity. The curse of hyperinflation has only reared its ugly head when the supply of money had no natural constraints and was governed by a discretionary paper money standard." p1
Hyperinflation normally results in severe economic depressions although that did not happen during the 30 years of very high and hyperinflation in Brazil from 1964 to 1994 because all non-monetary items (such as property, plant, equipment, inventory, finished goods, quoted and unquoted shares, trade marks, issued share capital, retained earnings, capital reserves, all other items in shareholders' equity, trade debtors, trade creditors, provisions, all other non-monetary payables, all other non-monetary receivables, taxes payable, taxes receivable, salaries payable, salaries receivable, etc.) in the entire economy of Brazil were updated daily in terms of a daily non-monetary index supplied by the government which was principally directly related to the change in the daily US dollar exchange rate for the Brazilian currency. This confirmed the fact that hyperinflation like low inflation can only destroy the real value of money and other monetary items. Hyperinflation (like low 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. p9
This was not done during Zimbabwe's hyperinflation although the daily change in the parallel rate for the US dollar as well as the Old Mutual Implied Rate (OMIR) were both available to everyone in Zimbabwe on a daily basis and eventually resulted in the wiping out of the real value of only those non-monetary items (such as salaries, wages, issued share capital, all other items in shareholders´ equity, trade debtors, trade creditors, salaries payable, salaries receivable, taxes payable, taxes receivable, all other non-monetary payables, all other non-monetary receivables, etc.) expressed in terms of the ZimDollar and never or not fully updated (inflation-adjusted) during Zimbabwe's hyperinflation. Zimbabwe's hyperinflationary monetary meltdown, on the other hand, resulted in the wiping out of the real value of all monetary items (actual 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollar bank notes, all other bank notes, all loans payable and all loans receivable and all other monetary items) expressed in terms of the hyperinflationary Zimbabwe Dollar which became completely worthless after severe hyperinflation which stopped abruptly the moment exchangeability between the currency and all foreign currencies did not exist anymore.
"Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation came to an abrupt halt. The trigger was an intervention by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. On November 20, 2008, the Reserve Bank’s governor, Dr. Gideon Gono, stated that the entire economy was “being priced via the Old Mutual rate whose share price movements had no relationship with economic fundamentals, let alone actual corporate performance of Old Mutual itself” (Gono 2008: 7–8). In consequence, the Reserve Bank issued regulations that forced the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange to shut down. This event rapidly cascaded into a termination of all forms of non-cash foreign exchange trading and an accelerated death spiral for the Zimbabwe dollar. Within weeks the entire economy spontaneously “dollarized” and prices stabilized." p9-10.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Severe Hyperinflation: Second submission: Nicolaas Smith Comment Letter: IASB Exposure Draft
My comment letter to the IASB regarding severe hyperinflation is available in the following book.
Buy the ebook for $2.99 or £1.53 or €2.68
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reservedBuy the ebook for $2.99 or £1.53 or €2.68
No reproduction without permission
Monday, 1 November 2010
Valuing monetary items
Valuing monetary items
Measurement of Monetary Items in the Financial Statements
Measurement is the process of determining the monetary amounts at which monetary items are to be recognised and carried in the financial reports. This involves the selection of the particular basis of measurement. The original nominal values of monetary items can only be measured in nominal monetary units during the current accounting period.
During low inflation
The real value of money and other monetary items can not be updated or indexed or inflation-adjusted or maintained during the current financial period under any accounting or economic model during low inflation. Inflation destroys the real value of money and other monetary items evenly throughout the SA monetary economy currently at 4.6% per annum (May 2010) or about R120 billion per annum. Money and other monetary items only maintain their real values perfectly stable under permanently sustainable zero per cent annual inflation. This has never been achieved over an extended period of time of more than a month or two.
"The South African Reserve Bank conducts monetary policy within an inflation targeting framework. The current target is for CPI inflation to be within the target range of 3 to 6 per cent on a continuous basis." SARB
The SARB´s definition of price stability, in practice, is the destruction of the real value of the Rand at a rate of 6% or about R120 billion per annum because inflation normally rises to the top of the inflation targeting range. Real value is destroyed evenly in Rand bank notes and coins and other monetary items (loans, deposits, etc) throughout the SA monetary economy.
SA accountants value monetary items at their original nominal values – at their nominal historical cost – during the current financial period. It thus appears that it is correct when it is stated that “financial reporting simply reports on what took place”. That is mistaken. Accountants value everything they account. There is no other way monetary items can be accounted and valued during the current financial period. It is an illusion that accountants only record what happened in the past: the “financial-reporting-simply-reports-on-what-took-place”-illusion as promoted by accounting professors.
SA accountants value monetary items at their current depreciated generally lower real values by accounting them during the current accounting period at their original nominal HC values during inflation. Their real values are destroyed by inflation over time. Being stated at their original nominal HC monetary values by accountants during inflation means that monetary items are automatically being valued by the continuous economic process of inflation over time.
This obviously means that monetary items are always correctly valued during the current financial period in any current account: at the current real value as determined by the current rate of inflation. In practice, money and other monetary items´ real values consequently generally decrease once per month – on the date the new CPI value is published by the statistics authorities – to a lower real value in low inflationary economies.
SA accountants do not destroy the about R120 billion in real value of the Rand and other monetary items in the SA monetary economy each year: 4.6% inflation does that. SA accountants value and account monetary items correctly in the SA monetary economy by stating them at their original nominal monetary HC values. They, however, fail to calculate and account the net monetary gains and losses from holding either net monetary liabilities or net monetary assets, as the case may be. This is a generally accepted accounting practice under HCA.
The only difference between accounting and valuing monetary items under the current HCA model and their accounting and valuation when measuring financial capital maintenance in real value maintaining units of constant purchasing power would be the calculation and accounting of net monetary gains and losses. These net monetary gains and losses are required by the IASB to be calculated and accounted in terms of IAS 29 during hyperinflation. These net monetary gains and losses are not calculated and accounted under the HCA model although it can be done. See Kapnick. No-one does that under HCA. Net monetary gains and losses are constant real value non-monetary items (income statement gains and losses) once they are accounted and have to be inflation-adjusted – measured in units of constant purchasing power - thereafter under the financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power model or Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting model as authorized by the IASB in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989 as well as in terms of IAS 29 during hyperinflation.
Side note: The FASB and IASB have been working on their joint Conceptual Framework project for the last 6 years. However, they have not stated one word about valuing monetary items - or items like shareholders equity. It is called the Historical Cost mentalité - like there used to be the gold standard mentalité.
Copyright © 2010 Nicolaas J Smith
Measurement of Monetary Items in the Financial Statements
Measurement is the process of determining the monetary amounts at which monetary items are to be recognised and carried in the financial reports. This involves the selection of the particular basis of measurement. The original nominal values of monetary items can only be measured in nominal monetary units during the current accounting period.
During low inflation
The real value of money and other monetary items can not be updated or indexed or inflation-adjusted or maintained during the current financial period under any accounting or economic model during low inflation. Inflation destroys the real value of money and other monetary items evenly throughout the SA monetary economy currently at 4.6% per annum (May 2010) or about R120 billion per annum. Money and other monetary items only maintain their real values perfectly stable under permanently sustainable zero per cent annual inflation. This has never been achieved over an extended period of time of more than a month or two.
"The South African Reserve Bank conducts monetary policy within an inflation targeting framework. The current target is for CPI inflation to be within the target range of 3 to 6 per cent on a continuous basis." SARB
The SARB´s definition of price stability, in practice, is the destruction of the real value of the Rand at a rate of 6% or about R120 billion per annum because inflation normally rises to the top of the inflation targeting range. Real value is destroyed evenly in Rand bank notes and coins and other monetary items (loans, deposits, etc) throughout the SA monetary economy.
SA accountants value monetary items at their original nominal values – at their nominal historical cost – during the current financial period. It thus appears that it is correct when it is stated that “financial reporting simply reports on what took place”. That is mistaken. Accountants value everything they account. There is no other way monetary items can be accounted and valued during the current financial period. It is an illusion that accountants only record what happened in the past: the “financial-reporting-simply-reports-on-what-took-place”-illusion as promoted by accounting professors.
SA accountants value monetary items at their current depreciated generally lower real values by accounting them during the current accounting period at their original nominal HC values during inflation. Their real values are destroyed by inflation over time. Being stated at their original nominal HC monetary values by accountants during inflation means that monetary items are automatically being valued by the continuous economic process of inflation over time.
This obviously means that monetary items are always correctly valued during the current financial period in any current account: at the current real value as determined by the current rate of inflation. In practice, money and other monetary items´ real values consequently generally decrease once per month – on the date the new CPI value is published by the statistics authorities – to a lower real value in low inflationary economies.
SA accountants do not destroy the about R120 billion in real value of the Rand and other monetary items in the SA monetary economy each year: 4.6% inflation does that. SA accountants value and account monetary items correctly in the SA monetary economy by stating them at their original nominal monetary HC values. They, however, fail to calculate and account the net monetary gains and losses from holding either net monetary liabilities or net monetary assets, as the case may be. This is a generally accepted accounting practice under HCA.
The only difference between accounting and valuing monetary items under the current HCA model and their accounting and valuation when measuring financial capital maintenance in real value maintaining units of constant purchasing power would be the calculation and accounting of net monetary gains and losses. These net monetary gains and losses are required by the IASB to be calculated and accounted in terms of IAS 29 during hyperinflation. These net monetary gains and losses are not calculated and accounted under the HCA model although it can be done. See Kapnick. No-one does that under HCA. Net monetary gains and losses are constant real value non-monetary items (income statement gains and losses) once they are accounted and have to be inflation-adjusted – measured in units of constant purchasing power - thereafter under the financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power model or Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting model as authorized by the IASB in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989 as well as in terms of IAS 29 during hyperinflation.
Side note: The FASB and IASB have been working on their joint Conceptual Framework project for the last 6 years. However, they have not stated one word about valuing monetary items - or items like shareholders equity. It is called the Historical Cost mentalité - like there used to be the gold standard mentalité.
Copyright © 2010 Nicolaas J Smith
Monday, 25 October 2010
Severe Hyperinflation: Comment Letter
Second submission: Nicolaas Smith Comment Letter: IASB Exposure Draft - Severe Hyperinflation
Submitter Organization Date
Nicolaas Smith Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting 2nd November, 2010
International Accounting Standards Board
30 Cannon Street
London EC4M 6XH
United Kingdom
Second submission via “Create Comment Letter” page on www.ifrs.org. First submission on 22-10-2010 - confirmed by IASB email - not published after 10 days. This second submission is different from the first submission. I respectfully request that you publish this – updated – submission. Thank you.
Dear Sirs/Mesdames,
Request for comment on IASB Exposure Draft ED/2010/12: Severe Hyperinflation - Proposed Amendment to IFRS 1
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the IASB Exposure Draft: Severe Hyperinflation - Proposed Amendment to IFRS 1
I agree with the IASB´s proposal to add an exemption to IFRS 1 to allow an entity which has been subject to severe hyperinflation to measure assets and liabilities at fair value and use that fair value as the deemed cost of those assets and liabilities in the opening IFRS statement of financial position when the date of said opening IFRS statement of financial position is on, or after, the date when the reporting currency of the reporting entity ceases to be subject to severe hyperinflation or when the reporting currency is a relatively stable foreign currency in a newly dollarized economy after a period of severe hyperinflation.
I disagree with the IASB´s definition of severe hyperinflation. Severe hyperinflation is impossible when there is no exchangeability.
My detailed answers to the questions in the Exposure Draft and my suggestions are contained in the attached appendix.
If you have any questions regarding this submission, please do not hesitate to contact me at realvalueaccounting@yahoo.com
Yours sincerely
Nicolaas Smith
Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting
http://realvalueaccounting.blogspot.com/
Page 1 of 3
Second submission: Nicolaas Smith Comment Letter: IASB Exposure Draft - Severe Hyperinflation
Appendix – Response to the questions asked in the Exposure Draft: Severe Hyperinflation
Question 1 – Severe hyperinflation exemption
The Board proposes adding an exemption to IFRS 1 that an entity can apply at the date of transition to IFRSs after being subject to severe hyperinflation. This exemption would allow an entity to measure assets and liabilities at fair value and use that fair value as the deemed cost of those assets and liabilities in the opening IFRS statement of financial position.
Do you agree that this exemption should apply when an entity prepares and presents an opening IFRS statement of financial position after being subject to severe hyperinflation?
Why or why not?
Yes, I agree with the IASB´s proposal to add an exemption to IFRS 1 to allow an entity which has been subject to severe hyperinflation to measure assets and liabilities at fair value and use that fair value as the deemed cost of those assets and liabilities in the opening IFRS statement of financial position when the date of said opening IFRS statement of financial position is on, or after, the date when the reporting currency of the reporting entity ceases to be subject to severe hyperinflation or when the reporting currency is a relatively stable foreign currency in a newly dollarized economy after a period of severe hyperinflation.
I agree because it is the only economically logical, correct and common sense solution.
I suggest that the dollarization option – which can be in any relatively stable foreign currency - be specifically added to the wording of the amendment to IFRS 1.
Question 2 – Other comments
Do you have any other comments on the proposals?
Yes, I suggest that the following changes (in bold and underlined) should be made to paragraph D28 (b):
Paragraph D28: The currency of a hyperinflationary economy is subject to severe hyperinflation if it has both of the following characteristics: (a) a reliable general price index is not available to all entities with transactions and balances in the currency, (b) exchangeability between the currency and most relatively stable foreign currencies does not exist,
Rationale for my answers and suggestions above:
The IASB proposes to define severe hyperinflation as follows:
D28 The currency of a hyperinflationary economy is subject to severe hyperinflation if it has both of the following characteristics:
(a) a reliable general price index is not available to all entities with
Page 2 of 3
Second submission: Nicolaas Smith Comment Letter: IASB Exposure Draft - Severe Hyperinflation
transactions and balances in the currency,
(b) exchangeability between the currency and a relatively stable foreign currency does not exist,
In fact, it is exactly the opposite: severe hyperinflation stops when “(b) exchangeability between the currency and a relatively stable foreign currency does not exist.” (As stated in the singular it means it includes the plural since this is IFRS nomenclature.)
D28 (b) is thus not a definition of severe hyperinflation, but, a definition of when severe hyperinflation stops.
Severe hyperinflation is only possible when there is exchangeability with at least one relatively stable foreign currency.
The one exchange rate that lasted till the end of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was the Old Mutual Implied Rate (OMIR).
“The ratio of the Old Mutual share price in Harare to that in London equals the Zimbabwe dollar/sterling exchange rate." p8
Severe hyperinflation stops the moment exchangeability between the currency and all foreign currencies does not exist.
“Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation came to an abrupt halt. The trigger was an intervention by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. On November 20, 2008, the Reserve Bank’s governor, Dr. Gideon Gono, stated that the entire economy was “being priced via the Old Mutual rate whose share price movements had no relationship with economic fundamentals, let alone actual corporate performance of Old Mutual itself” (Gono 2008: 7–8). In consequence, the Reserve Bank issued regulations that forced the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange to shut down. This event rapidly cascaded into a termination of all forms of non-cash foreign exchange trading and an accelerated death spiral for the Zimbabwe dollar. Within weeks the entire economy spontaneously “dollarized” and prices stabilized.” p 9-10
There was severe hyperinflation in Zimbabwe while there was exchangeability with at least one relatively stable foreign currency – the British Pound in this case as made possible via the OMIR. When this last exchangeability stopped it was not possible to set prices in the ZimDollar any more and severe hyperinflation stopped: no exchangeability means no severe hyperinflation.
I thus suggest that paragraph D28 (b) should be changed to: “(b) exchangeability between the currency and most relatively stable foreign currencies does not exist,”
, Hanke, S. H. and Kwok, A. K. F., On the Measurement of Zimbabwe’s Hyperinflation, Cato Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 2009), pp. 353-64 Available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n2/cj29n2-8.pdf
No other issues noted.
______________________________________________________
This comment letter is available HERE on the IFRS.org website.
Severe hyperinflation comment letter available in the following book:
Buy the ebook
Submitter Organization Date
Nicolaas Smith Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting 2nd November, 2010
International Accounting Standards Board
30 Cannon Street
London EC4M 6XH
United Kingdom
Second submission via “Create Comment Letter” page on www.ifrs.org. First submission on 22-10-2010 - confirmed by IASB email - not published after 10 days. This second submission is different from the first submission. I respectfully request that you publish this – updated – submission. Thank you.
Dear Sirs/Mesdames,
Request for comment on IASB Exposure Draft ED/2010/12: Severe Hyperinflation - Proposed Amendment to IFRS 1
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the IASB Exposure Draft: Severe Hyperinflation - Proposed Amendment to IFRS 1
I agree with the IASB´s proposal to add an exemption to IFRS 1 to allow an entity which has been subject to severe hyperinflation to measure assets and liabilities at fair value and use that fair value as the deemed cost of those assets and liabilities in the opening IFRS statement of financial position when the date of said opening IFRS statement of financial position is on, or after, the date when the reporting currency of the reporting entity ceases to be subject to severe hyperinflation or when the reporting currency is a relatively stable foreign currency in a newly dollarized economy after a period of severe hyperinflation.
I disagree with the IASB´s definition of severe hyperinflation. Severe hyperinflation is impossible when there is no exchangeability.
My detailed answers to the questions in the Exposure Draft and my suggestions are contained in the attached appendix.
If you have any questions regarding this submission, please do not hesitate to contact me at realvalueaccounting@yahoo.com
Yours sincerely
Nicolaas Smith
Constant ITEM Purchasing Power Accounting
http://realvalueaccounting.blogspot.com/
Page 1 of 3
Second submission: Nicolaas Smith Comment Letter: IASB Exposure Draft - Severe Hyperinflation
Appendix – Response to the questions asked in the Exposure Draft: Severe Hyperinflation
Question 1 – Severe hyperinflation exemption
The Board proposes adding an exemption to IFRS 1 that an entity can apply at the date of transition to IFRSs after being subject to severe hyperinflation. This exemption would allow an entity to measure assets and liabilities at fair value and use that fair value as the deemed cost of those assets and liabilities in the opening IFRS statement of financial position.
Do you agree that this exemption should apply when an entity prepares and presents an opening IFRS statement of financial position after being subject to severe hyperinflation?
Why or why not?
Yes, I agree with the IASB´s proposal to add an exemption to IFRS 1 to allow an entity which has been subject to severe hyperinflation to measure assets and liabilities at fair value and use that fair value as the deemed cost of those assets and liabilities in the opening IFRS statement of financial position when the date of said opening IFRS statement of financial position is on, or after, the date when the reporting currency of the reporting entity ceases to be subject to severe hyperinflation or when the reporting currency is a relatively stable foreign currency in a newly dollarized economy after a period of severe hyperinflation.
I agree because it is the only economically logical, correct and common sense solution.
I suggest that the dollarization option – which can be in any relatively stable foreign currency - be specifically added to the wording of the amendment to IFRS 1.
Question 2 – Other comments
Do you have any other comments on the proposals?
Yes, I suggest that the following changes (in bold and underlined) should be made to paragraph D28 (b):
Paragraph D28: The currency of a hyperinflationary economy is subject to severe hyperinflation if it has both of the following characteristics: (a) a reliable general price index is not available to all entities with transactions and balances in the currency, (b) exchangeability between the currency and most relatively stable foreign currencies does not exist,
Rationale for my answers and suggestions above:
The IASB proposes to define severe hyperinflation as follows:
D28 The currency of a hyperinflationary economy is subject to severe hyperinflation if it has both of the following characteristics:
(a) a reliable general price index is not available to all entities with
Page 2 of 3
Second submission: Nicolaas Smith Comment Letter: IASB Exposure Draft - Severe Hyperinflation
transactions and balances in the currency,
(b) exchangeability between the currency and a relatively stable foreign currency does not exist,
In fact, it is exactly the opposite: severe hyperinflation stops when “(b) exchangeability between the currency and a relatively stable foreign currency does not exist.” (As stated in the singular it means it includes the plural since this is IFRS nomenclature.)
D28 (b) is thus not a definition of severe hyperinflation, but, a definition of when severe hyperinflation stops.
Severe hyperinflation is only possible when there is exchangeability with at least one relatively stable foreign currency.
The one exchange rate that lasted till the end of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was the Old Mutual Implied Rate (OMIR).
“The ratio of the Old Mutual share price in Harare to that in London equals the Zimbabwe dollar/sterling exchange rate." p8
Severe hyperinflation stops the moment exchangeability between the currency and all foreign currencies does not exist.
“Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation came to an abrupt halt. The trigger was an intervention by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. On November 20, 2008, the Reserve Bank’s governor, Dr. Gideon Gono, stated that the entire economy was “being priced via the Old Mutual rate whose share price movements had no relationship with economic fundamentals, let alone actual corporate performance of Old Mutual itself” (Gono 2008: 7–8). In consequence, the Reserve Bank issued regulations that forced the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange to shut down. This event rapidly cascaded into a termination of all forms of non-cash foreign exchange trading and an accelerated death spiral for the Zimbabwe dollar. Within weeks the entire economy spontaneously “dollarized” and prices stabilized.” p 9-10
There was severe hyperinflation in Zimbabwe while there was exchangeability with at least one relatively stable foreign currency – the British Pound in this case as made possible via the OMIR. When this last exchangeability stopped it was not possible to set prices in the ZimDollar any more and severe hyperinflation stopped: no exchangeability means no severe hyperinflation.
I thus suggest that paragraph D28 (b) should be changed to: “(b) exchangeability between the currency and most relatively stable foreign currencies does not exist,”
, Hanke, S. H. and Kwok, A. K. F., On the Measurement of Zimbabwe’s Hyperinflation, Cato Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 2009), pp. 353-64 Available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n2/cj29n2-8.pdf
No other issues noted.
______________________________________________________
This comment letter is available HERE on the IFRS.org website.
Severe hyperinflation comment letter available in the following book:
Buy the ebook
Copyright © Nicolaas J Smith 2010
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Definition of Severe Hyperinflation - Updated
The IASB proposes to define severe hyperinflation as follows:
D28 The currency of a hyperinflationary economy is subject to severe hyperinflation if it has both of the following characteristics:
(a) a reliable general price index is not available to all entities with transactions and balances in the currency,
(b) exchangeability between the currency and a relatively stable foreign currency does not exist,
In fact, it is exactly the opposite: severe hyperinflation stops when (b) “exchangeability between the currency and a relatively stable foreign currency does not exist.”
D28 (b) is thus not a definition of severe hyperinflation, but, a definition of when severe hyperinflation stops.
Severe hyperinflation is only possible when there is exchangeability with at least one relatively stable foreign currency.
The one exchange rate that lasted till the end of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was the Old Mutual Implied Rate (OMIR).
“The ratio of the Old Mutual share price in Harare to that in London equals the Zimbabwe dollar/sterling exchange rate." p8
Severe hyperinflation stops the moment exchangeability between the currency and all foreign currencies does not exist.
“Zimbabwe ’s hyperinflation came to an abrupt halt. The trigger was an intervention by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe . On November 20, 2008, the Reserve Bank’s governor, Dr. Gideon Gono, stated that the entire economy was “being priced via the Old Mutual rate whose share price movements had no relationship with economic fundamentals, let alone actual corporate performance of Old Mutual itself” (Gono 2008: 7–8). In consequence, the Reserve Bank issued regulations that forced the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange to shut down. This event rapidly cascaded into a termination of all forms of non-cash foreign exchange trading and an accelerated death spiral for the Zimbabwe dollar. Within weeks the entire economy spontaneously “dollarized” and prices stabilized.” p 9-10
There was severe hyperinflation in Zimbabwe while there was exchangeability with at least one relatively stable foreign currency – the British Pound in this case. When this last exchangeability stopped it was not possible to set prices in the ZimDollar any more and severe hyperinflation stopped: no exchangeability means no severe hyperinflation.
I thus suggest that D28 (b) should be changed to: “(b) exchangeability between the currency and most relatively stable foreign currencies does not exist,”
1,2 Hanke, S. H. and Kwok, A. K. F., On the Measurement of Zimbabwe’s Hyperinflation, Cato Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 2009), pp. 353-64 Available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n2/cj29n2-8.pdf
Copyright © 2010 Nicolaas J Smith
D28 The currency of a hyperinflationary economy is subject to severe hyperinflation if it has both of the following characteristics:
(a) a reliable general price index is not available to all entities with transactions and balances in the currency,
(b) exchangeability between the currency and a relatively stable foreign currency does not exist,
In fact, it is exactly the opposite: severe hyperinflation stops when (b) “exchangeability between the currency and a relatively stable foreign currency does not exist.”
D28 (b) is thus not a definition of severe hyperinflation, but, a definition of when severe hyperinflation stops.
Severe hyperinflation is only possible when there is exchangeability with at least one relatively stable foreign currency.
The one exchange rate that lasted till the end of hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was the Old Mutual Implied Rate (OMIR).
“The ratio of the Old Mutual share price in Harare to that in London equals the Zimbabwe dollar/sterling exchange rate." p8
Severe hyperinflation stops the moment exchangeability between the currency and all foreign currencies does not exist.
“Zimbabwe ’s hyperinflation came to an abrupt halt. The trigger was an intervention by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe . On November 20, 2008, the Reserve Bank’s governor, Dr. Gideon Gono, stated that the entire economy was “being priced via the Old Mutual rate whose share price movements had no relationship with economic fundamentals, let alone actual corporate performance of Old Mutual itself” (Gono 2008: 7–8). In consequence, the Reserve Bank issued regulations that forced the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange to shut down. This event rapidly cascaded into a termination of all forms of non-cash foreign exchange trading and an accelerated death spiral for the Zimbabwe dollar. Within weeks the entire economy spontaneously “dollarized” and prices stabilized.” p 9-10
There was severe hyperinflation in Zimbabwe while there was exchangeability with at least one relatively stable foreign currency – the British Pound in this case. When this last exchangeability stopped it was not possible to set prices in the ZimDollar any more and severe hyperinflation stopped: no exchangeability means no severe hyperinflation.
I thus suggest that D28 (b) should be changed to: “(b) exchangeability between the currency and most relatively stable foreign currencies does not exist,”
1,2 Hanke, S. H. and Kwok, A. K. F., On the Measurement of Zimbabwe’s Hyperinflation, Cato Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 2009), pp. 353-64 Available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n2/cj29n2-8.pdf
Copyright © 2010 Nicolaas J Smith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)