Truth by Fiat: Its Accountants' Turn

in , ,

In 1897, Indiana General Assembly was persuaded to consider Bill #246 which provided a method for squaring the circle by ruler and compass (millenniums after unsuccessful search, and 15 years after Lindemann proved it to be mathematically impossible), and effectively declaring the value of pi to be rather convenient 3.2. A physician almost succeeded in getting this bill passed by arguing that the state could collect royalties from those who may use this discovery, and was stopped only by arguments of a real mathematician who just happened to be present.

In recent years, the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board have declared that in corporate financial reporting stock variables (such as assets and liabilities) have priority over flow variables (such as revenues and expenses).

But stocks and flows are related to each other in a way that precludes the idea of dependence of one over the other. Value of asset derives from the benefits that flow to its owner over time; returns on an investment flow out of its value. It makes little more sense to declare one to have priority over the other than to declare that days precede nights, or that chicken came before the egg.

There have been numerous attempts in human history to establish scientific truth through exercise of political, military, or bureaucratic power or fiat. Of these, declaration of primacy of stocks over flows is neither the first, nor the silliest; it is also unlikely to be the last.

Banking: delivering money (or pizza) with a bite on the way

in ,

I go to my bank of twelve years in New Haven to request a wire transfer. What are the charges, I ask. No charge. It is an international wire transfer. They check the rules for my type of account again and tell me that there is no charge. Next day, I get an email from the recipient telling me the amount credited to his account is $35 short. I call my bank and learn that while they did not charge anything, their correspondent bank in New York might have, and that they have no knowledge of, or control over, the correspondent bank's charges. Perhaps they just send the money to the New York bank, and everyone in their supply chain is free to take a helping at the trough.

My request to speak to the bank manager revealed that he knew the correspondent bank charge to be $20, and thus inferred that the bank of the destination account must have charged the other $15 of the shortfall. He offered to send another wire transfer for $35 to make up the difference. The transaction not only required an initial visit to the bank branch to authorize the transfer, but also three follow up phone calls of more than 15 minutes to sort this out.

What is going on in banking? If I owe someone $1,000, and write them a check for that amount, how much will be delivered to their account? How much will be delivered to their account in a no-fee wire transfer promised by the bank? If one orders a pizza, how many of the slices should be expected reach the customer. Should one assume that the delivery-man and the door-man have the right to take bites on the way?

What about efficient execution of commerce. If the check-writer or the originator of a wire transfer cannot know how much of the amount sent will actually be credited to the account of the recipient, what amount should the originator send to satisfy his obligation to the receiving party? Should this be a matter of guess work, or multiple successive transfers each being subject to the same uncertainty? Is it unreasonable for the customers to assume that the wire transfer service being sold by the bank (in exchange for its fee) is to deliver the specified amount of remittance all the way to the recipient's account? Can banks be relied on to use plain English (and the Commercial Code) meaning of words, or should we let them wrap their practices in euphemisms and opaque correspondent relationships?

It used to be that banks could be relied on the keep their word on even large amounts. Has banking changed, or am I nostalgic about a nonexistent past? I hope someone who knows more about banking will come forth and illuminate the matter.