"As at" on balance sheet

the balance sheet shows “As at” just in front of the date; e.g., “As at 12/31/2019”. And that is NOT correct accounting form.
Correct accounting form is “As of 12/31/2019”.

how can it be changed?

“As at” is very common, standard accounting terminology. You cannot change it on the report.

1 Like

Both terms are common. I think it depends on the country. Claiming As at is not correct accounting form cannot be right. For example Australian accounting standards use As at.

Indeed. Two minutes on Google reveals plenty of examples with “as of,” “as at,” “at,” “on,” “as on,” and simply the unadorned date all by itself.

“As at” is NOT GAAP form in USA. there should be a way to accommodate different countries; however, if the answer is NO, then we are where we are. Indeed! Unadorned!

@curtallen, can you provide a link to or quote of an actual standard or regulation? The Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) don’t require specific wording or formats of reports. They are more theoretical in nature, expressing fundamental concepts. And I know of no FASB-codified requirement for specific wording on balance sheets. Examples are not prescriptive, but illustrative. Unless you can find a governing document saying, in effect, “Balance sheets must contain the heading ‘As of …’ a fixed date,” I think you are worried about something inconsequential.

Queen Tut:

guidance comes in a variety of forms. Regulation S-X prescribes the form and content of and requirements for financial statements filed with the SEC. The codification of Financial Reporting Policies contains extracts of Accounting Series Releases (ASRs) and Financial Reporting Releases (FRRs) expressing the interpretive views on accounting and disclosure matters. Certain views on accounting and auditing are also expressed in the enforcement-related ASRs and the Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases (AAERs). Also, Staff Accounting Bulletins (SAB topics) express views on certain accounting and disclosure matters.

Another option is not to use As of or As at terms anywhere in the program. For example, since balance sheet does support comparative layout, I don’t even think it’s appropriate to show subtitle “as at” (or “as of”) when there are actually multiple dates it covers. Perhaps the date should be shown as column title and that’s it.

Yep. I like that option.

Showing the date in the column only will not be acceptable.

Come on mate, what is not GAAP about “As at”. I personally prefer “As on” myself because this is the only correct english but I think “As at” or “As of” would do just fine.

I don’t think this is a good idea, more will object to the lack of date description than which one you use. If you ask me I’d say stick to the one that is there and everyone will have to do.

2 Likes
  • The dates as showing in Manager do not define a point in time, transactions are expected to occur during the 24 hours of any day.

  • When defining a date range, such as in the “Profit and Loss Statement” on the summary page or in any of the various report, if we wanted to display say a financial year we would specify the first day of the year and last day of the year. In doing so we actually mean from the beginning or the start date until the end of the finish date.

  • So a date qualification would be useful to specify if the balances in a report are to the end or beginning of the specified date given both are used within Manager at various times.

  • Neither “As at” or "As of’’ provide clarification of how transactions occurring on that date are treated, so are of equal limited value Imo. On the summary screen the user can drill down to see what is there, so it doesn’t really matter either way to me (and the balance sheet typically includes transactions up to the current date and time).

  • On printed reports I can see a stronger case for clarifying if transaction on that date are or are not included.

ps @curtallen re “Queen Tut” please don’t attack the person, expressing your opinion on the subject of the thread is more useful. Tut does contribute a lot of time on the forum explaining how users can efficiency use Manager as it currently is. A position which is not as popular as supporting how Manager could be changed, but it is the best way to maximize the net benefit users get from Manager given there are at least 200 ways Manager could be usefully enhanced documented as bugs, ideas, unclassified posts or the programmers private list, so clearly the majority will not occur in the short term.

Thanks for the lecture about things I already knew, @curtallen. None of your points, however, constitutes a reference to a governing requirement. You have just summarized how guidance is promulgated. I think you will find this to be a matter of preference and tradition.

Reg S-X. It’s in the 2nd sentence

in my opinion "As at " would be synonymous with time while "As on " or "As of " would be more suitable for date.

1 Like

What a fascinating philological debate. I know nothing of GAAP, but using English is my trade. “As of”, according to both Chambers (British English) and Webster (US English) is used to describe something which starts on the given date, and continues thereafter. That doesn’t seem to me to be appropriate for a balance sheet, which shows a state of affairs on a given date, not necessarily continuing thereafter. From an English usage point of view, “as at” or “as on” would better describe the function of a balance sheet than “as of”. But there is no accounting for taste, and perhaps US accountants think otherwise …

2 Likes

Just to hopefully close things out, Regulation S-X Rule 3-01(a), which specifies balance sheet submission requirements for SEC registrants in the USA, uses the phrase as of, but is utterly silent on format, content, or wording of reports.

From reading the thread, appears the issue being discussed was the use of “As at” vs. “As of” on the balance sheet; and from follow on comments appears the preponderance of research suggest using “As of” on the balance sheet, which is what the original contributor recommended. Roger?

Yes, but the original suggestion was based on an erroneous assertion and contradicts both traditional usage and some requirements.