Showing posts with label Balance sheet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Balance sheet. Show all posts
Why Financial Accounting is Neither Simple Nor Precise
| Financial accounting strives to answer two basic questions: how did the business do last year, and what did the business own and owe at the end of the year? The answers to these questions are summarized in two basic statements, the income statement and the balance sheet. If you have even a passing knowledge of business and economics, answering these questions might not seem that difficult. In fact, determining a firm's economic performance and condition often is very difficult. Unfortunately, financial statements rarely are able to give completely definitive and precise answers to what seem to be simple economic questions. Why would this be so? Accounting's measurement problems derive primarily from three factors. First, it is difficult to pin down exact criteria for measuring economic performance and economic condition. Second, accounting uses money as its fundamental measurement unit, and money's unit value is not stable over time. Third, accounting rule makers have to allow for the fact that business managers often are motivated to distort economic reality rather than reflect it accurately. What is Economic Performance and Economic Condition? In terms of economic performance, our simplest criterion for doing well surely involves looking at cash flows. A business does well if it brings in more cash than it spends and vice versa. But for all but the very simplest of businesses such a measurement approach can be very problematic. Negative cash flow is not necessarily equivalent to poor economic performance and vice versa. Because of these problems, accountants have had to develop a more abstract concept of economic profitability, which creates its own problems. Accounting encounters even more difficulty in trying to pin down a firm's economic condition. To determine economic condition we want to find out about a firm's assets and their values. But there is more than one standard of value. Should accountants use current market values for assets owned or the original cost incurred to acquire them? Rarely are these values the same and there are advantages and disadvantages to both standards. There also is legitimate controversy about what should be counted as assets on the balance sheet. For example, should the value of personnel or intangible assets, such as patents, trademarks and goodwill, be measured and included? If so, how do we measure their value? Money: Accounting's Unstable Measurement Unit In accounting the unit of measurement is money. Money is a medium of exchange that has value only to the extent that it can be traded for goods and services. But, money is not a stable unit of measurement, because its exchange value varies with time. What one dollar buys today in goods and services is almost never the same as what that same dollar purchased last year or will purchase two years from now. The practical ramifications of this instability of money as a measuring unit are pervasive. If a company had net income last year of $100,000, was its economic performance the same as it was five years ago when its income statement also showed a $100,000 net income? Decidedly not, if the purchasing power of the dollar changed significantly in the intervening five years. Questions about economic condition are also affected by the instability of money as a measurement unit. For example, consider two companies each with $800,000 of assets and $500,000 of liabilities. In the case of one company, all its debt must be repaid within one year, while the other company's debt does not have to be repaid for ten years. Are the economic conditions of the companies the same? Again, decidedly not, because the purchasing power of the dollar will change over the next ten years. Accounting rule makers have struggled greatly with the questions of how and when these changes in the value of money should be reflected. Measurement Error: Management's Motivation for Mendacity Measurement error is unavoidable. But it would be nice if we could assume that almost everybody involved in the accounting measurement process was highly motivated to avoid errors. Sadly, this is not the case, because business managers often wish to avoid accurate measurements if such accuracy would lead to significant damage to their career and finances. Facing such ruin, managers will be strongly tempted to avoid fair and accurate measurements. Managers will seek to "cook the books". There are two important ramifications for accounting stemming from this motivational bias. First, in order for financial reports to have any credibility at all, they have to be verified by independent auditors. This is an expensive and often imperfect process. Second, in formulating accounting rules, the rule makers have to carefully consider how any proposed measurement procedures might be subverted by managers intent on providing a skewed view of economic performance or condition. The practical consequence is that the accounting rules that might be most logical and simple are often not adopted because these rules also tend to be the easiest ones for managers to distort. |
| Author Resource:- Michael Sack Elmaleh is a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Valuation Analyst. His book, "Financial Accounting: A Mercifully Brief Introduction", has received wide critical acclaim. He has nearly 30 years of accounting and 10 years of teaching experience.His web site is understand-accounting.net |
| Article From New Ezine Articles |
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uJMGEh_dTBgKgqMs13Ec0mGHKhRDS1YFsb3a7n0beSL6AoV0A-lMguW7c5EpzabmzXYq1lzfLzdhacYGrKdJjSFyiwgfL9yDhLhVsBoZugdfbPHfRvPHjEqJ2WsYJ1qF8GQ-PtUYYzRbkmTBFa1jRv=s0-d)
What is accounting fraud?
--Not listing prepaid expenses or other incidental assets
--Not showing certain classifications of current assets and/or liabilities
--Collapsing short- and long-term debt into one amount.
Over-recording sales revenue is the most common technique of accounting fraud. A business may ship products to customers that they haven't ordered, knowing that those customers will return the products after the end of the year. Until the returns are made, the business records the shipments as if they were actual sales. Or a business may engage in channel stuffing. It delivers products to dealers or final customers that they really don't want, but business makes deals on the side that provide incentives and special privileges if the dealers or customers don't object to taking premature delivery of the products. A business may also delay recording products that have been returned by customers to avoid recognizing these offsets against sales revenue in the current year
The other way a business commits accounting fraud is by under-recording expenses, such as not recording depreciation expense. Or a business may choose not to record all of its cost of goods sold expense fore the sales made during a period. This would make the gross margin higher, but the business's inventory asset would include products that actually are not in inventory because they've been delivered to customers.
A business might also choose not to record asset losses that should be recognized, such as uncollectible accounts receivable, or it might not write down inventory under the lower of cost or market rule. A business might also not record the full amount of the liability for an expense, making that liability understated in the company's balance sheet. Its profit, therefore, would be overstated.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uQDZP-aXojKEvtFjs8_OBx07ES0p6NqywXAnt8LiZCE4IeuG0-kW3BqRWRucXMB9QpkICWRTrkvlW9RZhLllrXINDIiaeSVQAwZSLwh8wFFcTevAKo-dW4LXdXGw_WNjx2Qo513D1vtfmhWxsRu3OA=s0-d)
Why Financial Accounting is Neither Simple Nor Precise
If you have even a passing knowledge of business and economics, answering these questions might not seem that difficult. In fact, determining a firm's economic performance and condition often is very difficult. Unfortunately, financial statements rarely are able to give completely definitive and precise answers to what seem to be simple economic questions. Why would this be so?
Accounting's measurement problems derive primarily from three factors. First, it is difficult to pin down exact criteria for measuring economic performance and economic condition. Second, accounting uses money as its fundamental measurement unit, and money's unit value is not stable over time. Third, accounting rule makers have to allow for the fact that business managers often are motivated to distort economic reality rather than reflect it accurately.
What is Economic Performance and Economic Condition?
In terms of economic performance, our simplest criterion for doing well surely involves looking at cash flows. A business does well if it brings in more cash than it spends and vice versa. But for all but the very simplest of businesses such a measurement approach can be very problematic. Negative cash flow is not necessarily equivalent to poor economic performance and vice versa. Because of these problems, accountants have had to develop a more abstract concept of economic profitability, which creates its own problems.
Accounting encounters even more difficulty in trying to pin down a firm's economic condition. To determine economic condition we want to find out about a firm's assets and their values. But there is more than one standard of value. Should accountants use current market values for assets owned or the original cost incurred to acquire them? Rarely are these values the same and there are advantages and disadvantages to both standards.
There also is legitimate controversy about what should be counted as assets on the balance sheet. For example, should the value of personnel or intangible assets, such as patents, trademarks and goodwill, be measured and included? If so, how do we measure their value?
Money: Accounting's Unstable Measurement Unit
In accounting the unit of measurement is money. Money is a medium of exchange that has value only to the extent that it can be traded for goods and services. But, money is not a stable unit of measurement, because its exchange value varies with time. What one dollar buys today in goods and services is almost never the same as what that same dollar purchased last year or will purchase two years from now.
The practical ramifications of this instability of money as a measuring unit are pervasive. If a company had net income last year of $100,000, was its economic performance the same as it was five years ago when its income statement also showed a $100,000 net income? Decidedly not, if the purchasing power of the dollar changed significantly in the intervening five years.
Questions about economic condition are also affected by the instability of money as a measurement unit. For example, consider two companies each with $800,000 of assets and $500,000 of liabilities. In the case of one company, all its debt must be repaid within one year, while the other company's debt does not have to be repaid for ten years. Are the economic conditions of the companies the same? Again, decidedly not, because the purchasing power of the dollar will change over the next ten years.
Accounting rule makers have struggled greatly with the questions of how and when these changes in the value of money should be reflected.
Measurement Error: Management's Motivation for Mendacity
Measurement error is unavoidable. But it would be nice if we could assume that almost everybody involved in the accounting measurement process was highly motivated to avoid errors. Sadly, this is not the case, because business managers often wish to avoid accurate measurements if such accuracy would lead to significant damage to their career and finances. Facing such ruin, managers will be strongly tempted to avoid fair and accurate measurements. Managers will seek to "cook the books".
There are two important ramifications for accounting stemming from this motivational bias. First, in order for financial reports to have any credibility at all, they have to be verified by independent auditors. This is an expensive and often imperfect process. Second, in formulating accounting rules, the rule makers have to carefully consider how any proposed measurement procedures might be subverted by managers intent on providing a skewed view of economic performance or condition. The practical consequence is that the accounting rules that might be most logical and simple are often not adopted because these rules also tend to be the easiest ones for managers to distort.
Article Source: http://www.ArticleStreet.com/
About the Author
Michael Sack Elmaleh is a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Valuation Analyst. His book, "Financial Accounting: A Mercifully Brief Introduction", has received wide critical acclaim. He has nearly 30 years of accounting and 10 years of teaching experience.His web site is understand-accounting.net![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sLmLZghdjzObmtvToQktstRq5Uh3X43M7Vt4OEtRwvIvtXPuFlGbAucE1xDW_KtYLcxOq0ikszwr8oh8Ip3FmS3Q1MMB8TiB3pkluORsWf_38tnK36saBhLxx4gt_9cnVNjUeGjNwKfAamX3VWCc0=s0-d)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
