How I make corrections and updates to posts

This would be a good time to explain how I make changes on posts. The etiquette in the blogging world seems to be that changes and corrections should be clearly identified.  That’s a great idea.

Here’s my protocol:

The original comments will be left in the post.

Corrections and deletions will be marked through with strikeout.

Update comments will be identified Update: with the word update and italicized comment.

Small updates will be italicized right after a strikeout. For illustration example.

Minor typos will be corrected without a special notation, unless it has significance to the article.

With two different series of posts I’m working on now, I’m making a number of corrections, so thought it worthwhile to mention this.

Gamesmanship in GIK valuations? Part 3

Two previous posts discussed the issues raised by an article in Forbes about the valuation used by some nonprofits in their financial statements for recording donations of deworming medicine.

I’d planned to look at the impact on some specific financial statements next, but think it would be better to look at what the accounting rules have to say before doing some number crunching.  This will be a really long post, so please bear with me.

The Forbes article by William P. Barrett is Donated Pills Make Some Charities Look Too Good on Paper.


Gamesmanship in GIK valuations? Part 2

Previous post discussed an accounting issue raised by Forbes about valuing deworming medicine.  Forbes magazine thinks some nonprofits are using a valuation that is too high for recording donated meds in their financial statements.

The Forbes article, by William P. Barrett, is Donated Pills Make Some Charities Look Too Good on Paper.

My first post describes some of the valuations that are in use. 

This post discusses where the valuation amounts came from.  (more…)

Gamesmanship in GIK valuations? Part 1

Forbes magazine dives into the nonprofit community’s GIK valuation issue in an article by William P. Barrett, Donated Pills Make Some Charities Look Too Good On Paper. (In print the article had a cooler title – Magic Pill, Magical Accounting)

GIK valuation is difficult and messy.  Before anyone gets mad at me for airing dirty laundry from the NPO community, keep in mind that Forbes has a circulation that is somewhere in the range of, say, one gazillion times larger than this little blog.  The article appears in Forbes magazine guys, and on their website.  Don’t get mad at me.

My point in writing these posts?  The issues we are struggling with in the religious NPO world are getting attention from secular media.  It would be wise for NPOs and auditors to deal with this on our own. Quickly.