On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM psionl0 <[email protected]> wrote: > @Ajoeibin The problem with doing it your way is that at the end of the > exercise, your assets is now a negative value instead of zero and rather > than the gain/loss being included in income, it is just recorded as a > change in the value of your assets. > > It would appear that you really didn't understand what I did. There is no way that you would be diminision your assets - - - - dunno how you would even get there. 1. you purchase asset x at value y this is accomplished by a disbursement from funds (cash or some other similar) and an increase in 'assets' any fees/costs are dealt with amounts coming from your funds (again cash or otherwise) 2. you sell asset x for z (it doesn't matter what this value is!!!!!!!!!!) you asset value is reduced by EXACTLY the value that it was originally logged into your system any difference between z and y is now logged into 'income' where again it really doesn't matter if the number is positive or negative any fees/costs are dealt with amounts coming from your funds (again cash or otherwise)
You made the assumption that the sale price that I would list would be what I actually sold the item for. That is incorrect and imo that would only be correct if you were entering that value in 'Income' initially. This misunderstanding is what causes difficulty for most when they look at 'present value' on any asset. 'Present value', imo and maybe only imo, has absolutely no connection with 'realized value'. My process was developed from the need of tracking assets that are predominantly depreciating assets. That process enables me to account for any change in value. The process where the sale value is the value of the item for removal from the asset list would seem to be much more prevalent when one is holding assets that are predominantly expected to 'appreciate'. But even given such logic by removing an asset from a portfolio at its sale value directly without accounting for any changes from its listed purchase value - - - - well - - - for me that's just messy thinking - - - - I'd bet that any forensic accounting investigation by tax authorities would be quite enthused by finding such recording. This careful and very orderly statement of every part of every transaction is the beauty of double entry accounting. Being able to lay out and balance all the parts of any transaction clearly is perhaps the major reason that I use ledger-cli - - - most other record keeping systems seem to expect the user (inputer) to be different from the organizer and the 'analyzer' (thinker) is yet again a different entity. As I get to wear all of the hats in my businesses - - - - well I' hugely into the KISS principle and anything to make things easier. (This gets challenged any time there are assets that are used for both business and personal purposes.) Regards -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ledger" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ledger-cli/CAPpdf5-7wdvX_Vvc7yzWzQQFrNfD9t3k8t6MboMFMzRMoQFOjA%40mail.gmail.com.
