On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 6:32 AM o1bigtenor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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 diminishing 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 > > (remove previous version - - - minor editing - - - - not enough checking before sending!) -- --- 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-w1eNuzNgUvcHayi06xoUXq6hMv0B6C7%3D-dHZCf9KYqA%40mail.gmail.com.
