Re:The Double Entry Counting Method (2016)
by rco8786 on Saturday September 24, 2022 @08:59PM
(#32968013)
This is what is sold in theory. Practice is wildly different. Reconciling across departments looks absolutely nothing like what you’ve described and does not go to the cent or even close. As long as in you’re in the ballpark of reconciling and can reasonably explain the sql queries and reports that got you to a number within an okay range of error you’re good to go.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Double Entry Counting Method (2016)
by doctor_eval on Saturday September 24, 2022 @10:42PM
(#32968498)
This is absolutely not my experience at all. Books that don’t balance to the cent suggest a problem that needs to be resolved.
Electronic books that don’t balance to the cent are defective.
I’ve certainly seen lax accounting and reconciliation practices in businesses such as those you describe but it’s absolutely not been the norm in my experience.
Re:The Double Entry Counting Method (2016)
by rco8786 on Sunday September 25, 2022 @12:48PM
(#32973195)
> Books that don’t balance to the cent
Individual books, yes (though I am still very dubious of the value in doing this given the guarantees that modern computers/databases offer). I'm talking specifically about cross-department reconciliation where different departments are keeping their own books and have their own data pipelines/etc. They absolutely still have to be reconciled, but there is no expectation of an exact match from the SEC or internal/external auditors.
Re:The Double Entry Counting Method (2016)
by nulbyte on Sunday September 25, 2022 @08:40AM
(#32970751)
I agree, mostly. You have to understand the implications of a few cents' difference. One cent (or even one dollar) could be the effect of rounding. Or it could be a single typo. Or it could be multiple errors involving larger transactions with opposite signs.