[sago]

Neat. Thank you. I get what you're saying now.

And that makes sense. You can see the balance. Because it will balance. Or you'd know which of the things were debit accounts and which went credit accounts.

Yep.

But I definitely bet it's not raw unsigned/untyped numbers behind that document! I suspect we've just been mismatching on different levels: I began this discussion about developers understanding double entry bookkeeping. I would be surprised if you could get very far if you didn't understand the difference between debit and credit. But your pushback makes sense. Thank you.

[kgwgk]

I do understand the difference between debit and credit. The point is not whether you can balance the books looking at them when they fit in a single page. The point is that in a balance sheet assets appear as $x (where x is rarely negative, an asset with negative value would become a liability).

People want assets to be positive in the balance sheet. This may be a convention but it's a reasonable convention. I don't think you're helping developers who try to understand accounting by telling them that assets are negative quantities (it may make sense as an implementation detail, but not so much as an accounting concept).

[sago]

If you are using a negative numbers you can do it in three ways.

1. positive numbers represent the default for an account (A positive number in a debit account is a debit, but a positive number in a liability say, is a credit). This is done a lot. But he causes a lot of rules about when to add and went to subtract what the balance with what. I think this is why they lot of double entry bookkeeping and has a hard reputation. Certainly if you coded it you would have to code all those rules manually.

2. The approach I'm used to of having negative numbers in the debits and positive credits. This makes all the double accounting balancing much simpler. But I can see it may confuse some people when assets are negative.

3. Make credits at the beauty of an debits positive (incidentally I only today learned that beancount does it this way). Again balancing and double-entry accounting becomes simpler. Now money in the bank would be positive, like your bank statement. But sales income would be negative (it is a credit). I wonder if that would confuse people.

So maybe that's why UI should make everything positive and undifferentiated. But given the amount of time the Accounting 101 has to drill in all the rules of what

[nybble41]

> But sales income would be negative (it is a credit). I wonder if that would confuse people.

It does tend to cause some confusion, but IMHO less than you would get with negative asset balances, much less the traditional version where "credits" and "debits" have different signs depending on the type of account and nothing ever just sums to zero.

The less confusing way to think of it is that an income account represents not "how much income have I received" but rather the source of the income, e.g. your employer or customer. They paid you, so they have less than they started with.

⋄ Money moves from employer to me: decrease "Income:Employment" and increase "Assets:Cash".

⋄ Money moves from me to my landlord: decrease "Assets:Cash" and increase "Expenses:Rent".

⋄ Deposit money at the bank: decrease "Assets:Cash" and increase "Assets:Bank:Checking".

⋄ Take out a loan: decrease "Liabilities:Loan" (negative since I owe them money) and increase "Assets:Cash".

Note that Income and Expense account balances are relative—which is why it makes sense for Income balances to sometimes be negative, and why these accounts are zeroed out at the end of the reporting period with transfers to or from equity—in contrast to most other accounts which have absolute balances.

[kgwgk]

> 2. The approach I'm used to of having negative numbers in the debits and positive credits. This makes all the double accounting balancing much simpler. But I can see it may confuse some people when assets are negative.

So, if people were able to overcome their confusion, would you have balance sheets written like this?

   $ in millions
   
   ASSETS                                        LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
   
   Cash and Short Term Investments   -133546     Deposits                      117756
   Other Assets                      -859422     Other liabilities             784947
   ------------                      -------     -----------------             ------
   Total Assets                      -992968     Total liabilities             902703

                                                 Shareholders' equity           90265
                                                 ====================          ======
                                                 Total liabilities
                                                 and shareholders' equity      992968

If you really want to change the signs in one of the sides, so instead of getting the same totals they sum to zero, it would make much more sense to do it the other way: keep assets positive and let liabilities be negative (as other commenters have suggested).

   $ in millions
   
   ASSETS                                        LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
   
   Cash and Short Term Investments    133546     Deposits                     -117756
   Other Assets                       859422     Other liabilities            -784947
   ------------                       ------     -----------------            -------
   Total Assets                       992968     Total liabilities            -902703

                                                 Shareholders' equity          -90265
                                                 ====================         =======
                                                 Total liabilities
                                                 and shareholders' equity     -992968

But one property of the usual presentation is lost: equity is no longer equal to net assets (which are $90265mn). You would need to change the sign of equity when considering it as an asset.