The trouble with double-entry...

[Rod Engelsman]

Benjamin Carlyle wrote:

>I'm not sure the reconciliation process would be simpler with a cleared
>date field. After all, you still fill that out and the only time you
>-can- fill it out is at reconciliation time. That is, either when you
>get your statement or when you check your online statement[1].
>
>So, why would you actually want this feature if it isn't going to help
>you reconcile? Well, perhaps you want to be able to go back over things
>after reconciliation and see that they still match your piece of paper
>statement. Personally, I think that correct use of the reconciled field
>in Gnucash voids all use cases for the field and that adding it would
>then only complicate the interface. Perhaps someone smarter than I am
>could find a use for it, though.
>  
>

My experience has been that it is easier for me to catch errors that 
I've made in entering transactions if they are in the same date order as 
my bank statement. It's a YMMV thing, I suppose, and not a huge deal 
either way.

>Personally, I think it could only be more confusing. Consider reports.
>Do you use the transaction date, or the cleared date? If you use the
>cleared date your balance sheet won't balance because it will contain
>only parts of the transactions that "straddle" the period boundaries.
>How can you compare two periods if a single transaction has effects on
>both periods?
>  
>
I've never found much use for reports like the Balance Sheet. That's 
seems more a business-oriented thing.

>I suspect the use of such a field actively harm the utility of any
>double entry accounting system... but it is something most new users
>expect to see. Perhaps we need a way of breaking them of the idea that
>transactions happen when the banks tell them they happen, and work
>towards reinforcing the notion that the transaction occurs when you say
>it occurs (when it affects you).
>
I find this last statement ironic in light of earlier discussions having 
to do with the accounting convention of checks appearing in the 
right-hand column and deposits in the left -- in contradiction to every 
checkbook register I've seen in the last 30 years. In that case we're 
told that's the "correct" way to do it because the checking account 
register has to be seen from the bank's point of view. Now you want to 
tell us that the bank's point of view with regard to the date of 
clearing is irrelevant. Can we have a little consistency, please?

Perhaps we need to break people of the desire to have everyone do things 
and view things in the way that they deem proper.


> Reconciliation is then just the means
>to ensuring that everyone's accounts of what occurred agree. The
>accounts don't have to be identical and will probably not be identical
>because everyone has a different perspective.
>
>  
>
And the date that transactions occur is an important component of that. 
At least every creditor and utility company I've ever dealt with has 
seemed to feel that way.

Rod