Re: [OPE] replacement cost and historical cost (again)

From: 이채언 <>
Date: Sun Sep 06 2009 - 12:18:51 EDT

Dear Philip

May I ask just one question? How and on what ground could you change the bygone financial report in restrospective? Can you get back money from the man who sold his goods 2 years ago because it is now known to be unfair even though the trade was not unfair by any means because the new invention did not yet appear at that time?

Why do you think it is unfair to make the depreciation by 40%? It was only because the new invention did not appear until the 4 th year. The 20% depreciation was fairenough so long as the new invention did not yet appear at that time. And the 4th year share holder will lose more than the previous holders not because of the unfairness but because of the new invention.



보낸 사람: []이(가) Philip Dunn [] 대신 보냄
보낸 날짜: 2009년 9월 6일 일요일 오후 3:44
받는 사람: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
제목: Re: [OPE] replacement cost and historical cost (again)

On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 10:33 +0900, 이채언 wrote:
> As to Philip Dunn's argument;
> Past accountings cannot be adjusted in the future, by definition, and so the moral depreciation could not be retrospective, I think.
> In the given example, the fourth depreciation would be 40% (not 20%) inclusive of the moral depreciation of 20%. The fifth year depreciation is executed in advance. If a thing is depreciated in ADVANCE, we call it morally depreciated.
> Yours
> Chai-On

Hi Chai-On

"FRS3 ...
FRS3 states that a prior period adjustment is required to correct a
fundamental error or change in accounting policy. A fundamental error is
classified as an error which is so significant that the truth and
fairness of the financial statements is not achieved."

Depreciating by 40% in the 4th year would not be "true and fair" and
does not maintain the principal of depreciation in proportion to

ope mailing list

ope mailing list
Received on Sun Sep 6 12:20:28 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 30 2009 - 00:00:02 EDT