Historical Cost accountants freely choosing to measure financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units - a 700 year old generally accepted accounting practice (which is a popular accounting fallacy approved by the IASB) - in terms of the Framework, Par 104 (a) or as the traditional HCA model in terms of GAAP, unknowingly hyper-destroy the real value of reported constant items never maintained because they implement their very destructive stable measuring unit assumption (another IASB approved popular accounting fallacy) during hyperinflation. They know and admit that this destruction is occurring during inflation and hyperinflation and that it is especially evident during hyperinflation, but, they mistakenly blame inflation and hyperinflation (instead of their own choice of the HCA model) for the erosion of companies´ profits and capital - the third very popular accounting fallacy.
Hyperinflation is defined by the IASB in IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies as a rate of inflation approaching or surpassing 100% cumulative inflation over three years. 26% annual inflation for three years in a row would result in cumulative inflation of 100% over that period.
The IASB requires countries to implement IAS 29 during hyperinflation as defined above. IAS 29 requires companies to value all non-monetary items – both variable and constant items – in units of constant purchasing power by applying the CPI at the financial year end date.
Accountants freely choosing continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power would maintain the real value of all existing reported constant items stable in companies that at least break even during low inflation, hyperinflation and deflation per se for an unlimited period of time – all else being equal. Continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power (an IASB approved accounting model) is the only way to maintain the real value of constant items stable in companies that at least break even during low inflation, hyperinflation and deflation per se – ceteris paribus.
In short:
1.) Accountants unknowingly destroy massive amounts of real value in the real economy with traditional HCA during inflation and hyperinflation.
2.) The only way to stop that destruction is with another freely available accounting model also authorized by the IASB in 1989; namely, continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during inflation and hyperinflation.
Unfortunately IAS 29, as it is currently formulated, does not incorporate continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during hyperinflation. IAS 29 requires that all non-monetary items (variable and constant items) in HC or current cost financial statements are restated in terms of the CPI, generally at the year end date, to make the financial statements more useful during hyperinflation. IAS 29 is about the restatement of financial statements to make them more useful during hyperinflation. It is, unfortunately - currently, not the objective of IAS 29 to engender continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power and to continuously maintain the real values of non-monetary items during hyperinflation although it is almost correctly formulated to be used for this purpose. When it were to be used for this purpose it would stop the hyper-destruction of the real economy during hyperinflation. It would instead ensure economic stability in the real economy during hyperinflation. It is not currently the objective of IAS 29 to maintain the real value of constant items for an unlimited period of time by implementing continuous financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power during hyperinflation because the IASC Board and accountants in general were not yet aware of this function of accounting during inflation and hyperinflation at the time of authorizing IAS 29 in 1989 for reasons explained before.
PricewaterhouseCoopers tell us very succinctly what happens under IAS 29:
"Inflation-adjusted financial statements are an extension to, not a departure from, historical cost accounting. "
PricewaterhouseCoopers: International Financial Reporting Standards - Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies – Understanding IAS 29, p. 3
Kindest regards,
Nicolaas Smith
Monday, 4 January 2010
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Objective of general purpose financial reporting
The objectives of general purpose financial reporting are:
1) Automatic maintenance of the constant purchasing power of capital in all entities that at least break even - ceteris paribus.¹ ²
2) Provision of continuously updated decision-useful financial information about the reporting entity to capital providers and other users.
The objectives try to answer the question: what is accounting suppose to do?
Continuous financial capital maintenance to continuously maintain the real value of capital stable can only be measured in units of constant purchasing power during inflation, hyperinflation and deflation.
Financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units per se is a complete fallacy, even though it is a very popular accounting fallacy, it is authorized by the IASB in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989 and even though it is 700 years old, a SA Generally Accepted Accounting Practice and forms part of real value destroying generally accepted traditional Historical Cost Accounting used by everyone. It still is a fallacy that costs SA about R200 billion per annum in real value unknowingly, unnecessarily and unintentionally destroyed by SA accountants implementing their very destructive stable measuring unit assumption - the second of the three very popular accounting fallacies - two of which are authorized by the IASB in the exact same Framework, Par 104 (a).
A company has continuously maintained the real value of its capital stable if it has as much capital - expressed in units of constant purchasing power - at the end of the reporting period as it had at the beginning of the period, after excluding any distributions to, and contributions from, owners during the period. Consequently: a profit is earned only if the constant purchasing power of the net assets at the end of the period exceeds the constant purchasing power of net assets at the beginning of the period, after excluding any distributions to, and contributions from, owners during the period.
Continuous financial capital maintenance implies maintaining the constant purchasing power of constant items by continuously applying the monthly CPI during low inflation and deflation. The daily parallel rate is continuously applied during hyperinflation.
Variable items are continuously valued in terms of IFRS excluding the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation and deflation. Variable items are continuously valued in units of constant purchasing power during hyperinflation by applying the daily parallel rate.
Monetary items are money held and items with an underlying monetary nature valued in nominal monetary units during the reporting period. The net monetary loss or gain from holding monetary items is included in net income.
¹ “It is the overall objective of reporting for price changes to ensure the maintenance of the business as an entity.”
Accounting for Price Changes: An Analysis of Current Developments in Germany, Adolf G Coenenberg and Klaus Macharzina, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 3.1 (1976), P 53.
² The Framework, Par 104 (a): "Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power."
Kindest regards,
Nicolaas Smith
1) Automatic maintenance of the constant purchasing power of capital in all entities that at least break even - ceteris paribus.¹ ²
2) Provision of continuously updated decision-useful financial information about the reporting entity to capital providers and other users.
The objectives try to answer the question: what is accounting suppose to do?
Continuous financial capital maintenance to continuously maintain the real value of capital stable can only be measured in units of constant purchasing power during inflation, hyperinflation and deflation.
Financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units per se is a complete fallacy, even though it is a very popular accounting fallacy, it is authorized by the IASB in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989 and even though it is 700 years old, a SA Generally Accepted Accounting Practice and forms part of real value destroying generally accepted traditional Historical Cost Accounting used by everyone. It still is a fallacy that costs SA about R200 billion per annum in real value unknowingly, unnecessarily and unintentionally destroyed by SA accountants implementing their very destructive stable measuring unit assumption - the second of the three very popular accounting fallacies - two of which are authorized by the IASB in the exact same Framework, Par 104 (a).
A company has continuously maintained the real value of its capital stable if it has as much capital - expressed in units of constant purchasing power - at the end of the reporting period as it had at the beginning of the period, after excluding any distributions to, and contributions from, owners during the period. Consequently: a profit is earned only if the constant purchasing power of the net assets at the end of the period exceeds the constant purchasing power of net assets at the beginning of the period, after excluding any distributions to, and contributions from, owners during the period.
Continuous financial capital maintenance implies maintaining the constant purchasing power of constant items by continuously applying the monthly CPI during low inflation and deflation. The daily parallel rate is continuously applied during hyperinflation.
Variable items are continuously valued in terms of IFRS excluding the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation and deflation. Variable items are continuously valued in units of constant purchasing power during hyperinflation by applying the daily parallel rate.
Monetary items are money held and items with an underlying monetary nature valued in nominal monetary units during the reporting period. The net monetary loss or gain from holding monetary items is included in net income.
¹ “It is the overall objective of reporting for price changes to ensure the maintenance of the business as an entity.”
Accounting for Price Changes: An Analysis of Current Developments in Germany, Adolf G Coenenberg and Klaus Macharzina, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 3.1 (1976), P 53.
² The Framework, Par 104 (a): "Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power."
Kindest regards,
Nicolaas Smith
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Three popular accounting fallacies: two IFRS approved
SA accountants preparing their companies’ financial reports in compliance with IFRS are required, in terms of the IASB´s Framework, Par 104 (a), to choose between measuring financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power. They actually have to choose the one or the other measurement basis. The choice is not made for them like under GAAP where Historical Cost Accounting is the generally accepted accounting model.
The Framework, Par 104 states that the financial and physical concepts of capital stated in Par 102 give origin to the financial and physical capital maintenance concepts.
The Framework, Par 104 (a) states:
“Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power.”
Consequently, it does not simply state that the economic item financial capital can be measured in nominal monetary units, but, financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units. Generally stated financial capital maintenance implies maintaining the real value of financial capital stable – all else being equal. However, under the Historical Cost model it is assumed that the monetary unit of account is stable: the very destructive stable measuring unit assumption. Under the HC model it is thus assumed that the real value of financial capital is maintained stable with measurement in nominal monetary units. The statement that financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units which implies that financial capital is maintained stable in real value is a very popular fallacy amongst accountants. It is mostly a deceptive, misleading and false statement. It is only true per se in theory at sustainable zero inflation. It is always false per se during inflation and deflation in real terms. It is only true during low inflation when qualified to the effect that it is required that a company invests 100% of its Issued Share Capital, Share Premium Account and Non-distributable Reserves in revaluable fixed assets which always have a revalued or not revalued total real value equal to the updated real value of the original real values of those items.
The IFRS statement “Financial capital maintenance can be measured … in nominal monetary units” would only be true – per se – in nominal and real value terms in one single theoretical instance: it would only be possible to maintain the nominal and real value of financial capital stable in nominal monetary units per se – all else being equal – at sustainable zero inflation: an economic environment that has never been achieved in monetary history and is not very likely to be achieved any time soon or in the distant future. The above IASB statement is not a fallacy at zero inflation. It is, however, a purely theoretical statement: we have never had, we do not have and we most probably will never have sustainable zero inflation anywhere in the monetary economy.
It is impossible to maintain the real value of financial capital stable with measurement in nominal monetary units per se during low inflation and deflation. The above IFRS statement is thus false in terms of real value during low inflation and deflation. The real value of financial capital measured in nominal monetary units is being destroyed at a rate equal to the inflation rate during low inflation when a SA company has no revaluable fixed assets by its accountant’s choice of the HCA model during low inflation. The nominal value of financial capital is maintained in nominal value by measuring it in nominal monetary units during low inflation and deflation. This is, however, a popular fallacy: a false, misleading, unsound, inappropriate and deceptive notion in real value terms. HCA is an inappropriate accounting model authorized by the IASB which adds to general economic instability in SA´s low inflationary economy. It causes massive destruction of reported constant items´ real values, e.g. the real value of all existing reported Retained Earnings, during low inflation in the SA economy. It causes economic instability in the real economy as the real value of companies´ profits and capital is destroyed in this manner. This is mistakenly blamed on inflation by accounting standard setters, accounting authorities, accounting professors and lecturers as well as accountants.
The above IFRS statement is true in nominal value, false in real value and a fallacy during deflation. It results in economic instability during deflation by creating real value in constant items valued in nominal monetary units.
The IASB approved fallacy of financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units during low inflation leads to SA accountants unnecessarily, unknowingly and unintentionally destroying about R200 billion per year in the real value of SA companies´ existing reported constant items because of their implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption in SA´s low inflationary environment.
The above is one of the three popular accounting fallacies. They are the following:
1. The stable measuring unit assumption: IFRS approved
2. Inflation erodes companies´ profits and capital (The FASB loves this one)
3. Financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units: IFRS approved (The IASB loves this one)
These three fallacies constitute the very destructive basis of the traditional generally accepted IFRS authorized Historical Cost Accounting model fully approved in most probably all SA companies.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission.
The Framework, Par 104 states that the financial and physical concepts of capital stated in Par 102 give origin to the financial and physical capital maintenance concepts.
The Framework, Par 104 (a) states:
“Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetary units or units of constant purchasing power.”
Consequently, it does not simply state that the economic item financial capital can be measured in nominal monetary units, but, financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units. Generally stated financial capital maintenance implies maintaining the real value of financial capital stable – all else being equal. However, under the Historical Cost model it is assumed that the monetary unit of account is stable: the very destructive stable measuring unit assumption. Under the HC model it is thus assumed that the real value of financial capital is maintained stable with measurement in nominal monetary units. The statement that financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units which implies that financial capital is maintained stable in real value is a very popular fallacy amongst accountants. It is mostly a deceptive, misleading and false statement. It is only true per se in theory at sustainable zero inflation. It is always false per se during inflation and deflation in real terms. It is only true during low inflation when qualified to the effect that it is required that a company invests 100% of its Issued Share Capital, Share Premium Account and Non-distributable Reserves in revaluable fixed assets which always have a revalued or not revalued total real value equal to the updated real value of the original real values of those items.
The IFRS statement “Financial capital maintenance can be measured … in nominal monetary units” would only be true – per se – in nominal and real value terms in one single theoretical instance: it would only be possible to maintain the nominal and real value of financial capital stable in nominal monetary units per se – all else being equal – at sustainable zero inflation: an economic environment that has never been achieved in monetary history and is not very likely to be achieved any time soon or in the distant future. The above IASB statement is not a fallacy at zero inflation. It is, however, a purely theoretical statement: we have never had, we do not have and we most probably will never have sustainable zero inflation anywhere in the monetary economy.
It is impossible to maintain the real value of financial capital stable with measurement in nominal monetary units per se during low inflation and deflation. The above IFRS statement is thus false in terms of real value during low inflation and deflation. The real value of financial capital measured in nominal monetary units is being destroyed at a rate equal to the inflation rate during low inflation when a SA company has no revaluable fixed assets by its accountant’s choice of the HCA model during low inflation. The nominal value of financial capital is maintained in nominal value by measuring it in nominal monetary units during low inflation and deflation. This is, however, a popular fallacy: a false, misleading, unsound, inappropriate and deceptive notion in real value terms. HCA is an inappropriate accounting model authorized by the IASB which adds to general economic instability in SA´s low inflationary economy. It causes massive destruction of reported constant items´ real values, e.g. the real value of all existing reported Retained Earnings, during low inflation in the SA economy. It causes economic instability in the real economy as the real value of companies´ profits and capital is destroyed in this manner. This is mistakenly blamed on inflation by accounting standard setters, accounting authorities, accounting professors and lecturers as well as accountants.
The above IFRS statement is true in nominal value, false in real value and a fallacy during deflation. It results in economic instability during deflation by creating real value in constant items valued in nominal monetary units.
The IASB approved fallacy of financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units during low inflation leads to SA accountants unnecessarily, unknowingly and unintentionally destroying about R200 billion per year in the real value of SA companies´ existing reported constant items because of their implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption in SA´s low inflationary environment.
The above is one of the three popular accounting fallacies. They are the following:
1. The stable measuring unit assumption: IFRS approved
2. Inflation erodes companies´ profits and capital (The FASB loves this one)
3. Financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units: IFRS approved (The IASB loves this one)
These three fallacies constitute the very destructive basis of the traditional generally accepted IFRS authorized Historical Cost Accounting model fully approved in most probably all SA companies.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
IFRS statement mainly a destructive fallacy
SA accountants doing their companies’ accounting in compliance with IFRS are required, in terms of the IASB´s Framework, Par 104 (a), to choose between measuring financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units or in units of constant purchasing power.
The IFRS statement “Financial capital maintenance can be measured … in nominal monetary units” in the Framework, Par 104 (a) is mainly a destructive fallacy.
It would only be true – per se – in nominal and real value terms in one single theoretical instance: It would only be possible to maintain the nominal and real value of financial capital constant in nominal monetary units per se at sustainable zero inflation – an economic environment that has never been achieved in all of monetary history and is not very likely to be achieved any time soon or even in the distant future.
The IASB statement is not a fallacy at zero inflation. It is, however, a purely theoretical statement at zero inflation: We have never had, we do not have and we most probably will never have sustainable zero inflation anywhere in the monetary economy.
Kindest regards,
Nicolaas Smith
The IFRS statement “Financial capital maintenance can be measured … in nominal monetary units” in the Framework, Par 104 (a) is mainly a destructive fallacy.
It would only be true – per se – in nominal and real value terms in one single theoretical instance: It would only be possible to maintain the nominal and real value of financial capital constant in nominal monetary units per se at sustainable zero inflation – an economic environment that has never been achieved in all of monetary history and is not very likely to be achieved any time soon or even in the distant future.
The IASB statement is not a fallacy at zero inflation. It is, however, a purely theoretical statement at zero inflation: We have never had, we do not have and we most probably will never have sustainable zero inflation anywhere in the monetary economy.
Kindest regards,
Nicolaas Smith
Monday, 28 December 2009
Destructive GAAP
SA accountants consider their unknowing destruction of the real value of existing reported constant items in SA companies by their free choice of implementing the stable measuring unit assumption as part of the traditional Historical Cost Accounting model to be similar to the cost of inflation which is not accounted under HCA during low inflation. They are consequently satisfied when it is also not accounted. They do not see the destruction of real value in companies´ profits and capital as a separate item from inflation. To them it is all part of the “erosion” caused by inflation. They are dead wrong. Inflation has no effect on the real value of non-monetary items. Inflation can only destroy the real value of money and other non-monetary items which are items with an underlying monetary nature.
The IASB authorized an alternative basic accounting model, financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power in the Framework, Par 104 (a) which SA accountants are free to choose which would allow them to stop their unknowing destruction caused by their choice of the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation.
SA accountants do not know they are destroying about R200 billion in real value each and every year when they freely choose, in terms of the Framework, Par 104 (a), an IASB authorized 700 year old traditional, generally accepted accounting model complaint with IFRS; consequently, they do not look for a solution: they ignore the other option in Par 104 (a), namely, financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power.
The cost of inflation, i.e., the net monetary loss from holding monetary items is not accounted under HCA during low inflation. This is not the same as the cost of the stable measuring unit assumption: the unknowing destruction of constant items´ real values by SA accountants´ choice of measuring them in nominal monetary units implementing the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation, when inflation can only destroy the real value of the Rand, the monetary unit of account. This is the cost of a destructive Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) by SA accountants. This cost is also not accounted under HCA during low inflation. It thus appears to be the same as the net monetary loss - the cost of inflation. However, it is not the same, even though the IASB, FASB and most people think it is.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission.
The IASB authorized an alternative basic accounting model, financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power in the Framework, Par 104 (a) which SA accountants are free to choose which would allow them to stop their unknowing destruction caused by their choice of the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation.
SA accountants do not know they are destroying about R200 billion in real value each and every year when they freely choose, in terms of the Framework, Par 104 (a), an IASB authorized 700 year old traditional, generally accepted accounting model complaint with IFRS; consequently, they do not look for a solution: they ignore the other option in Par 104 (a), namely, financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power.
The cost of inflation, i.e., the net monetary loss from holding monetary items is not accounted under HCA during low inflation. This is not the same as the cost of the stable measuring unit assumption: the unknowing destruction of constant items´ real values by SA accountants´ choice of measuring them in nominal monetary units implementing the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation, when inflation can only destroy the real value of the Rand, the monetary unit of account. This is the cost of a destructive Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) by SA accountants. This cost is also not accounted under HCA during low inflation. It thus appears to be the same as the net monetary loss - the cost of inflation. However, it is not the same, even though the IASB, FASB and most people think it is.
© 2005-2010 by Nicolaas J Smith. All rights reserved
No reproduction without permission.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Blind leading the blind
In 2008 I agreed with the statement that inflation destroys the value of non-monetary items which do not maintain their real values. I agreed at the time but later I realized that it is wrong. Inflation has no effect on the real value on non-monetary items. It was stated that SA accountants are not doing the destroying, but inflation. That is dead wrong. They unknowingly destroy about R200 billion per year in the real values of SA banks´ and companies´ reported constant items, e.g. reported Retained Profits, never maintained, either under SA GAAP or implementing the stable measuring unit assumption.
SA accountants, it was stated, simply do not record this destruction. So, SA accountants know and admit that there is real value being destroyed. It is dead right when it is stated that they do not record this destruction. Why? Because SA accountants also mistakenly think it is caused by inflation. They maintain that it is the monetary authorities´ task to contain inflation which would reduce this cost. They mistakenly regard the destruction caused by their choice to implement the stable measuring unit assumption as “the erosion of business profits and invested capital caused by inflation” (FASB). They consider it to be similar to the cost of inflation which is not accounted under HCA during low inflation. They are consequently satisfied when it is also not accounted. They do not see it as a separate item. To them it is all part of the “erosion” caused by inflation.
Inflation is the well known enemy number one. SA accountants´ choice of the stable measuring unit assumption is the unknown but real enemy number two camouflaged by the fact that it has been authorized by the International Accounting Standard Board in International Financial Reporting Standards with its statement in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989 that financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units. That statement is only theoretically true as an accounting principle. It is impossible to maintain capital in nominal monetary units - per se - in our low inflationary economies.
IFRS are principles-based standards. That statement is only, in fact, true at sustainable zero inflation, an economic environment that has never been achieved in the past and is not likely to be achieved any time soon in the future - if ever. The IASB´s statment is generally false: it is false for all of economic history as well as the current state of the world and SA economy: it is thus generally false and can even be considered a fantasy. It´s result is the destruction by SA accountants - who freely choose the stable measuring unit assumption - of about R200 billion in the real value of SA banks´ and companies´ constant items never maintained in SA´s low inflation environment each and every year.
Almost like the blind leading the blind. Everybody blinded by an IFRS fantasy principle which is part of SA GAAP and the basis of the 700 year old traditional Historical Cost Accounting model.
All this can be stopped when SA accountants freely choose the other option also authorized by the IASB twenty years ago in the Framework, Par 104 (a):
"Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetay units or units of constant purchasing power."
Copyright © 2005 - 2010 Nicolaas J Smith
SA accountants, it was stated, simply do not record this destruction. So, SA accountants know and admit that there is real value being destroyed. It is dead right when it is stated that they do not record this destruction. Why? Because SA accountants also mistakenly think it is caused by inflation. They maintain that it is the monetary authorities´ task to contain inflation which would reduce this cost. They mistakenly regard the destruction caused by their choice to implement the stable measuring unit assumption as “the erosion of business profits and invested capital caused by inflation” (FASB). They consider it to be similar to the cost of inflation which is not accounted under HCA during low inflation. They are consequently satisfied when it is also not accounted. They do not see it as a separate item. To them it is all part of the “erosion” caused by inflation.
Inflation is the well known enemy number one. SA accountants´ choice of the stable measuring unit assumption is the unknown but real enemy number two camouflaged by the fact that it has been authorized by the International Accounting Standard Board in International Financial Reporting Standards with its statement in the Framework, Par 104 (a) in 1989 that financial capital maintenance can be measured in nominal monetary units. That statement is only theoretically true as an accounting principle. It is impossible to maintain capital in nominal monetary units - per se - in our low inflationary economies.
IFRS are principles-based standards. That statement is only, in fact, true at sustainable zero inflation, an economic environment that has never been achieved in the past and is not likely to be achieved any time soon in the future - if ever. The IASB´s statment is generally false: it is false for all of economic history as well as the current state of the world and SA economy: it is thus generally false and can even be considered a fantasy. It´s result is the destruction by SA accountants - who freely choose the stable measuring unit assumption - of about R200 billion in the real value of SA banks´ and companies´ constant items never maintained in SA´s low inflation environment each and every year.
Almost like the blind leading the blind. Everybody blinded by an IFRS fantasy principle which is part of SA GAAP and the basis of the 700 year old traditional Historical Cost Accounting model.
All this can be stopped when SA accountants freely choose the other option also authorized by the IASB twenty years ago in the Framework, Par 104 (a):
"Financial capital maintenance can be measured in either nominal monetay units or units of constant purchasing power."
Copyright © 2005 - 2010 Nicolaas J Smith
Monday, 21 December 2009
SA´s second enemy camouflaged by IFRS approval
It was stated that inflation destroys the value of non-monetary items which do not maintain their real values. I agreed at the time but later understood that this is wrong. Inflation has no effect on the real value on non-monetary items. To that way of thinking SA accountants are not doing the destroying, but inflation. That is dead wrong. SA accountants unnecessarily and unknowingly destroy about R200 billion per year in the real values of SA banks´ and companies´ reported constant items, e.g. reported Retained Profits, never maintained either under SA GAAP or with their free choice of measuring financial capital maintenance in nominal monetary units implementing the stable measuring unit assumption in terms of the IASB´s Framework, Par. 104 (a) which states that financial capital maintenance can be calculated in either units of constant purchasing power or in nominal monetary units.
According to that view, SA accountants simply do not record this destruction. That is dead right: they do not record it because they also mistakenly think it is caused by inflation and they can do nothing about it as their actions do not affect inflation. They mistakenly think the cost of the stable measuring unit assumption is similar to the cost of inflation: the net monetary loss from holding monetary items, the only harm caused - and able to be caused - by inflation, which is not accounted under HCA during low inflation. It is not the same.
What SA accountants ignore is the fact that the IASB authorized an alternative basic accounting model, financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) twenty years ago which they are free to choose which will allow them to stop their unknowing destruction of about R200 billion in the real value of SA banks´ and companies´ constant items which they unknowingly destroy each and every year by measuring them in nominal monetary units implementing their very destructive stable measuring unit assumption under HCA in SA´s low inflationary economy.
The cost of inflation, i.e., the net monetary loss from holding monetary items is not accounted under HCA during low inflation. This is not the same as the cost of the stable measuring unit assumption: the unknowing destruction of constant items´ real values by SA accountants´ choice of measuring them in nominal monetary units implementing the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation, when inflation can only destroy the real value of the Rand, the monetary unit of account. The latter is the cost of a destructive Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) by SA accountants, namely, valuing constant items in nominal monetary units implementing the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation. This cost is also not accounted under HCA during low inflation. It thus appears to be exactly the same as the net monetary loss - the cost of inflation. However, it is not the same, even though most people think it is.
The indisputable proof - from an accounting standards point of view - that inflation does not destroy the value of non-monetary items which do not maintain their real values is the fact that the cost of this destruction is not calculated as part of the net monetary loss in FAS 33: US Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 33 Financial Reporting and Changing Prices. It is thus a mistaken view. FAS 33 required the purchasing power gain or loss on net monetary items to be presented as supplementary information in published annual reports in companies using HCA during inflation.
IAS 29 also requires the calculation of the net monetary gain or loss from holding monetary items, but, during hyperinflation rejecting the stable measuring unit assumption; i.e. measuring all non-monetary items in units of constant purchasing power. There is no cost from the stable measuring unit assumption when it is not applied. In practice, it is normally exactly the opposite in hyperinflationary economies which do not follow the Brazilian example by indexing all non-monetary items. In practice, it is the stable measuring unit assumption that is applied even under hyperinflation which hyper-destroys the non-monetary or real economy together with hyperinflation in monetary items which hyper-destroys the monetary economy. The two enemies in the economy: the one seen as a monster, the other – wreaking maybe even more damage – a stealth enemy camouflaged by IFRS approval.
Copyright © 2005 - 2010 Nicolaas J Smith
According to that view, SA accountants simply do not record this destruction. That is dead right: they do not record it because they also mistakenly think it is caused by inflation and they can do nothing about it as their actions do not affect inflation. They mistakenly think the cost of the stable measuring unit assumption is similar to the cost of inflation: the net monetary loss from holding monetary items, the only harm caused - and able to be caused - by inflation, which is not accounted under HCA during low inflation. It is not the same.
What SA accountants ignore is the fact that the IASB authorized an alternative basic accounting model, financial capital maintenance in units of constant purchasing power in the Framework, Par. 104 (a) twenty years ago which they are free to choose which will allow them to stop their unknowing destruction of about R200 billion in the real value of SA banks´ and companies´ constant items which they unknowingly destroy each and every year by measuring them in nominal monetary units implementing their very destructive stable measuring unit assumption under HCA in SA´s low inflationary economy.
The cost of inflation, i.e., the net monetary loss from holding monetary items is not accounted under HCA during low inflation. This is not the same as the cost of the stable measuring unit assumption: the unknowing destruction of constant items´ real values by SA accountants´ choice of measuring them in nominal monetary units implementing the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation, when inflation can only destroy the real value of the Rand, the monetary unit of account. The latter is the cost of a destructive Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) by SA accountants, namely, valuing constant items in nominal monetary units implementing the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation. This cost is also not accounted under HCA during low inflation. It thus appears to be exactly the same as the net monetary loss - the cost of inflation. However, it is not the same, even though most people think it is.
The indisputable proof - from an accounting standards point of view - that inflation does not destroy the value of non-monetary items which do not maintain their real values is the fact that the cost of this destruction is not calculated as part of the net monetary loss in FAS 33: US Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 33 Financial Reporting and Changing Prices. It is thus a mistaken view. FAS 33 required the purchasing power gain or loss on net monetary items to be presented as supplementary information in published annual reports in companies using HCA during inflation.
IAS 29 also requires the calculation of the net monetary gain or loss from holding monetary items, but, during hyperinflation rejecting the stable measuring unit assumption; i.e. measuring all non-monetary items in units of constant purchasing power. There is no cost from the stable measuring unit assumption when it is not applied. In practice, it is normally exactly the opposite in hyperinflationary economies which do not follow the Brazilian example by indexing all non-monetary items. In practice, it is the stable measuring unit assumption that is applied even under hyperinflation which hyper-destroys the non-monetary or real economy together with hyperinflation in monetary items which hyper-destroys the monetary economy. The two enemies in the economy: the one seen as a monster, the other – wreaking maybe even more damage – a stealth enemy camouflaged by IFRS approval.
Copyright © 2005 - 2010 Nicolaas J Smith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)