User talk:Foggy Morning/Archive 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Hello Foggy Morning! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Kuru talk 14:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Real Value Accounting

Thank you for your offer regarding an article about inflation accounting.

Yes, I am prepared to work with you.

Your father was right. Inflation does kill real value. To the extent of USD 30 Billion per year just in the real value of the 30 Dow companies´ Retained Income balances which are also possible dividends permanently destroyed every year. The total for real value permannently destroyed in all of the US´s companies´ retained income balances easily run into a hunderd billion USD per year.

Since I am the author of the book "RealValueAccounting.Com - The next step in our fundamental model of accounting" I don´t think I can ever contribute on Wikipedia regarding anything related to Real Value Accounting, the fact that inflation has two components, the fact that accountants and the Historical Cost Accounting model destroy value all over the world or that Real Value Accounting would stop that.

The book is available as a free downlaod on the Social Science Research Network at [1]

My email address is freely available on the internet on many sites: realvalueaccounting@yahoo.com

I do not think I will be allowed to contribute an article about inflation accounting because of COI and OR. The conflict of interest is purely apparent and not true or real. I make no money from Real Value Accounting. I am not an academic. I get absolutely nothing from it.

My interest is to add to common knowledge, but I understand and accept that that is not included in the scope of an encyclopedia which simply is to reflect veriable generally accepted items whether they are true or not.

When I started to write the book in 1996 it was just to tell people what to do in a hyperinflationary economy. I was working in Angola. I dollarized Volvo´s accounts after being there for a year. It was the only logical thing to do.

Then I took ten years to understand the basics of the accounting and the inflation concepts involved to explain what I did at Volvo. During that time Real Vale Accounting just happened. I did not plan it. It just popped out by itself.

Now I am stuck with it. I understand its value to accounting and the economy. I did not plan this to happen. I posses this knowledge by chance. What must I do now? Just keep quiet about it?

That is the apparent COI. The original researh part may also not be true as far as Wikipedia is concerned because of the fact that it is published. The rule simply requires the work to be published to be acceptable. It does not exclude self-published works in the definition of what is not original research.

Under the self-published part wikipedia states it may be used. It may only fail on the point of being contentious. You may be able to eliminate that point. Then it should be clear for contribution to wikipedia. I don´t know. I think you have a better idea about that than I have.

If you read the book and contribute items about Real Value Accounting I can advise you in the talk page if they are correct or not.

If you contribute there would be no COI. Do you think the self-publishing part can be overcome?

An article I wrote about the destruction of retained income real value world wide by the stable measuring unit assumption will appear in the September issue of Accountancy SA, the South Afirican Institute of Chartered Accountants´ monthly accountancy magazine. I don´t know if that will help. That is one of the top accountancy publications in the world.

Yes, I am prepared to work with you.

Real Value Accounting is not only inflation accounting to be applied in high inflation and hyperinflationary economies like IAS29 only in hyperinflationary economies. Real Value Accounting is intended to replace the Historical Cost Accounting model as the basic accounting model in all economies. I did not plan it like that. It just happened that way; or, it is logical that that is what will happen.

I did not read a single book about inflation accounting in the 10 years it took me to write the book. In the end when I sent a copy of the second last manuscript to the IASB Geoffrey Whittington wrote back and asked me why I do not quote his and Sir David Tweedie´s books. I have never even heard of the books. I knew Geoffrey Whittington was an important author about inflation accounting. So I bought his book and read it after I have already finished the final manuscript. I changed nothing in the book.

If I start an article on Wikipedia regarding inflation accounting with me not being able to mention anything about Real Value Accounting I would dedicate the article to denounce IAS29. I ask for its scrapping in the book. It is the only IAS that does not form part of Real Value Accounting. It is not necessary under Real Value Accounting. IAS29 is also fundamentally flawed.

I would write the article simply to show that IAS29 is completely useless and I would show why. The restated values in IAS29 are only valid new real values when they are accepted by the country´s tax authorities. While there is no law or tax decree for that prupose IAS29 has zero effect.

That was the case in Turkey. They started implementing IAS29 in 2003 but taxes were not calculated in terms of the restated amounts. So IAS29 had no effect. Only in 2004 when the tax authorities accepted the restated values did IAS29 have an effect.

Here is what Dr Cemal KÜÇÜKSÖZEN, Head of Accounting Standards Department, Capital Markets Board of Turkey had to say:

"Dear Mr. Smith, As we have talked on the phone, you can find my interpretation about your book, attached to this e-mail. Please do not hesitate to contact for any point. Best regards, Cemal KÜÇÜKSÖZEN, Ph.D. Head of Accounting Standards Department Capital Markets Board of Turkey

Dear Nick Smith,

I examined your book and understood that Real Value Accounting™ is based on the continuous updating of non-monetary units in terms of the Consumer Price Index to today’s real value.

Theoretically, I totally agree with you. But, as you know, there is a trend toward the acceptance of International Accounting Standards and International Financial Reporting Standards issued by the International Accounting Standards Board all over the world. For example, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) recommends harmonization of national accounting standards with IAS and IFRS. Also, the European Union introduced the requirement that from 2005 onwards, all listed companies have to prepare their consolidated accounts in accordance with IAS and IFRS adopted for application within the European Community. Considering international developments and as a candidate country for full membership, Turkey has issued a communiqué involving all IAS and IFRS and began application of them from the beginning of 2005 (As you know, we began application of IAS 29 in 2003).

In this regard, we can change over to real value accounting when there is a change in IAS/IFRS toward real value accounting or there is a trend toward real value accounting all over the world.

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. In 2005, tax authority declared that high inflation period has ended, so entities did not do restatement according to inflation in first, second and third quarter of 2005. At the end of 2005, both Board and tax authority will evaluate economic conditions again and decide whether there is a need to restatement according to inflation.

Lastly, you stated in your book “publicly held companies and capital market institutions must account for perhaps an estimated 80 percent of the Turkish economy”. Unfortunately, I couldn’t give such statistical information. Besides, I attached a file that includes information about market value of publicly held companies. As you can see in that file, total market value of publicly held companies is approximately $ 174.3 billion and market value of floating part is about $ 54 billion. Total portfolio value of the investment funds is about $ 20 billion where brokerage firms have an estimated market value of $ 2 billion.

On the other hand, I can say that when there is hyperinflation in terms of IAS 29, with some exceptions (small firms), most of the Turkish companies have to restate their assets and liabilities according to regulation of the CMB and the tax authorities.

Best regards."

Nicolaas J Smith 09:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Meigs and Meigs

New version is Williams, Jan R.; Haka, Susan F.; Bettner, Mark S. & Carcello, Joseph V. (2006), Financial Accounting (12th ed.), Boston, Mass: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, ISBN 0072884673  --65.78.215.47 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question

Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_create_a_user_subpage.3F. Best of luck, and I appreciate your efforts on this. Unfortunately, my own opinion is that there is little likelihood of this working. There is an Agenda which needs to be pushed above all, and as evidenced repeatedly, no interest by the user whatsoever in learning / applying WP procedures (unless they support the Agenda). I also have no faith in the citations, since I've seen the misuse of foreign-language citations, and I'm fairly certain that what the IASB has said could not be reliably cited as "A reliable source, the accounting profession, through the IASB, recognized the fact that the combination of hyperinflation and the Historical Cost Accounting model destroys real value in constant real value non-monetary items and developed IAS 29", for example; I'm rather certain it would say 'misstates' or something similar.

At any rate, I do wish this process more success than I've had; the subject is important. I'm just tired of dealing with the nonsense and attacks and just plain gibberish.

In the meantime, I believe the article should be flagged as problematic, since the content is in doubt; this is supposed to be a public resource. In due course, I think it may have to go to AfD as complete bollocks unless seriously improved and then just start over.--Gregalton 05:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has been a headache for you, and I appreciate your help very much. The inflation accounting article history and talk page history are definitely a total mess, and Nicolaas/Herbou's comments on the talk page (and editing of the talk page) are certainly not helping matters. I don't know if he's ignoring the Wiki rules or doesn't understand them.

I'll make time this week to try to work with him, if he wants to work with me. If the article doesn't look reasonably clean by next weekend, I think an Admin might be willing to move it to userspace and delete the mainspace listing without AfD. It's worth asking, anyhow.

Meanwhile, I'll leave a note on the article talk page for Herbou. He and I should do some reference checking against sources he and I and you can all see. That might help.

I'm not sure what sort of flag should be on the article right now. I'll leave that up to you. --Foggy Morning 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Who knows? This morning seems more amenable. Apologies if I did a lot of editing at once - was to be heading off on a flight (delayed). For the most part, was trying to flag for POV and citations needed. Much of this would be acceptable if the language were toned down (a lot) and fewer attempts to "prove" things by arguing them out on the article page. I still think none of the "personal" sources are citation-worthy (none are published in a meaningful sense), but perhaps I should just step back from that discussion.--Gregalton 09:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the kudos. I always try to support business contributors to the encyclopedia; especially since our economics and business articles quite frankly suck. The amount of 'conflict of interest additions' is simply staggering, and most serious educated contributors get frustrated and leave very quickly. If you ever need any assistance, please let me know! Kuru ^talk 23:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the the economics and business articles suck, but not as much as they would without your edits! I can see why serious editors leave, but I'll try to stick around and stay serious... or sort of serious. I got a BIG laugh over Wikipedia:Grief!! Thanks for your support, Kuru :) --Foggy Morning 04:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

EECavazos

Thanks for showing me the tool {{welcomespam}}! Stay well.EECavazos 22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! :)) --Foggy Morning 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of being a sock-puppet

This is in response to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Silver_MoonDragon . eC has been around for, like, 10 years. I've been on Wikipedia for, like, almost a year. Consider this: if you were a part of ecere, would you wait so long to create an entry on Wikipedia? If you still think I'm a sock-puppet, check my IP. My IP SCREAMS of me being an Indian, while ecere or its creator(s) isn't (or aren't). Silver MoonDragon 14:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look at where you or EC came from, I looked at what you and the other user and an anon IP did very quickly in EC (programming language).[2] I don't think I made my case very clearly, but at least I tried. User:Rlevse decided the sock-puppet evidence wasn't good enough, but to me it seems clear that you were pretending to be multiple users and an anon working on a single article. Please don't do that. --Foggy Morning (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Financial Ratios

Hi. Yes, I will have a look at the Financial ratio article. First thing I noticed that that several ratios are duplicated (ie, they are the same ratio but are listed twice under slightly different names).

I will certainly have a look soon and add some citations, and maybe tidy up some of the duplicated entries. AnthonyUK (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your help is greatly appreciated! Also please help with the term "accountancy", because it's not a widely-used American word, and I don't know how widely it is used internationally, so I'd appreciate cited guidance. I was reading the book American Bee today, and the author noted that British and American spelling and usage isn't always clear. If "accountancy" is a day-to-day British term, I agree that it ought to be merged into Wikipedia. But if it's source is erudition or contentious, I think "Accounting" might be the better term to use for a general encyclopedia article. Can you help clear this up with citations? --Foggy Morning 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question

I've responded to your question on my talk page.--Gregalton (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Balance Sheet (headline links to user Tinctorius page, Balance Sheet article)

Thanks for your reply, Foggy Morning.

Except for my spelling mistakes (plural/singular), most layout mistakes are due to the defaults of wikitable. For instance, I used real table headings for the cells saying "Assets", "Liabilities and Owners' Equity", etc., which are centered by default, while the old version used normal table cells (aligned left by default) with bold contents. I hope I fixed most of that here. Also, all those table cell borders you see are there because they're the default, and it's a real code bloat to remove 'em all, but I did try it.

If you like the revision, please commit it :)

I hope that there'll be some kind of template/style sheet declaration for this in Wikipedia, though -- the code get's really ugly after a while. Regards, Tinctorius (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Old version

Revised new version

NICE layout! But why did you delete the source? --Foggy Morning (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What source? You mean my old source? --Tinctorius (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean the citation (source) for the table information. The reference. --Foggy Morning (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.