Balance sheets and accounting are made up. You know in maths how you could do calculations on two different ways and arrive at the same result? That's what the author is doing. "Proper accounting" is how you do it, but you could actually just think of it this way. It makes no difference to the end result.

▲

phdp 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Epicycles in a geocentric model of the solar system is another way of looking at planetary motion. It breaks down due to the required addition of complexity to explain discrepancies between the model and truth, which is the same for this particular situation. In addition to what the CPA said, how does this model work with callable, putable, or floating rate bonds where the interest payment is not known up front?

▲

globular-toast 2 days ago | parent [-]

I understand there's a reason why accountants do things the way they do. But hacking is about looking at things differently. To use your analogy, one can definitely gain insight into planetary motion from a geocentric model even if it's not the best model for all purposes.

	▲	danielmarkbruce a day ago \| parent [-]
		Generally speaking, "hacking" is about thinking things in a different way that is generally better or at least more useful in a certain situation. The author's explanation is strictly worse. It's just another confident fool spouting off about a topic they don't understand. The article is 90% trash.

▲

danielmarkbruce a day ago | parent | prev [-]

You won't end up with the same result, that's the problem.