Talk:Capital account/Archives/2013

the name

Isn't it the financial account? Does the terms define the same thing? --Luizabpr 15:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[luizabpr]

Yes, the article seems to be describing the financial account. There seems to be some confusion or overlap between the two terms. Finnancier (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing Word

I think that the word "foreign" is missing from the sentence, i.e. was "By convention, resident acquiring a domestic ..." should be: "By convention, a foreign resident acquiring a domestic asset ..." 82.123.131.223 14:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

country differences

can/should we assume all the countries have the same definition? should we mention the differences among them? Jackzhp 18:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

For practical purposes there is a lot of standardisation in how these terms are used by all countries, one of the results of globalisation. The different definitions in use relate to IMF and the rest of the world, and i think we've captured that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

split off other definition

Also shouldn't this part:

In financial accounting, the capital account is one of the accounts in shareholders' equity. Sole proprietorships have a single capital account in the owner's equity. Partnerships maintain a capital account for each of the partners.

be removed, as this particular article is about the Macroeconomic definition, and made into its own article (Capital account (finance) or something?)? Having both defs on top of each other is just sloppy.radek (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Capital account (financial accounting) would be a good name, as in terms of international finance the term capital account is used in exactly the same way as the Macroeconomic sense. A problem may be that deletionists will do their nuts if they see an unreferened stub, and I dont know enough about accounting to easilly make a decent article myself. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the "bold" thing and moved it to its own article. Accounting's not my thing either but I think I can find enough sources to establish notability and hopefully someone more familiar with the subject will pick it up. A disambig page might be useful.radek (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I added an inline disamb, i think thats neater when there's only two articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

one more issue

The disambiguation page for Sterilization redirects Economic sterilization to this article, which has a significant chunk on the subject matter. That's all well and good but the concept should have its own article and, once that's created of course, the section should be removed. May I be bold here?radek (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree, its an important topic and could very easilly fill a large article. The current sterilization section was created entirely by me, if you use any part of it in the new article no need to worry about attributing it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This one's probably a bit more of a project so I'll wait till I get some major sources in front of me.radek (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

the name change

the article mentioned the name change, but without giving any reason associated with it. A little bit more information will be appreciated. Jackzhp 18:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

yes the capital account still exists now but is defined as containing transactions in non-financial, non-produced assets, according to the IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/bop/pdf/chap12.pdf). Someone should edit the page to this effect. It used to be the blanket name for the financial and capital account, but now the capital account is very infrequently used, while the financial account is very important. We should have a separate article for each. Alternatively, we could have this article reworked and include the capital account.

---

navin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navin.rai (talk • contribs) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... shouldn't this article be moved to Financial account and the capital account article made into the proper description of what it is currently?radek (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. No, the article correctly reflects how the term is used, with the IMF using the term with a different meaning to most of the rest of the world. If anyone wants to flesh out the IMF definition, I dont see any reason why Captial account (IMF) cant be created. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Most textbooks for example that I'm aware of follow the IMF definition. Sources?radek (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: I just took a look a the three sources provided to sort of back up this claim. The last two - the IMF source and Heakal - just state that the IMF defines the financial account in the way that it does. It doesn't say anything about ROW defining it differently. More so, the Heakal source pretty much follows the IMF definition. The only source which sort of supports the above contention is the one by Colin Danby. However, with no offense meant for Colin, I don't think this view is actually representative of how the term is defined in the (recent) economic literature (UMass-Amherst, NTTAWWT). The source is also somewhat circular as it references Wikipedia (though a different article). I got Krugman and Obstfeld sitting in front of me and they use "financial account". I'm not sure about the other big international book, Appleyard, Field and Cobb because all I got handy ATM is old editions from before the name change. "Multinational Financial Management" by Shapiro also uses "financial account" for the topic of this article.radek (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

However, the fact that Subramanian uses "capital account" in a recent article is evidence for the opposite view.radek (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this Radeksz, youve raised a lot of good points here. Think we have two different issues. 1) It now looks like youre talking about the use of Financial Account as a synonym for Capital account. For most practical purposes they mean the same thing, so no harm there. Mostly just the term capital account is used with no mention of the alternative (e.g. see this glossary from economist magazine, and there are scores of other examples i can think of from the web, books and papers , so surely thousands if we searched ), but sometimes folk give both terms and occasionally they just say financial account (the latter might actually be more common in a few sources like Wall Street Journal). Its the same for practical use in the workplace , in both investments banks and government, Im sure some civil servants use the IMF definition cos they liase with them, but ive not encountered that.)

2) On the other hand, ROW sources never use the term "capital account" with the IMF meaning, except maybe in very rare cases when they explicitly make it clear they are deviating from convention (the IMF meaning being just to mean transfers & exchange of non producing assetts). Search the Financial Times, search WSJ , search a good academic journal , search an economists forum like www.voxeu.org. I doubt your find more than one or two exceptions, with thousands the other way. BTW, the IMF manual does actually mention the ROW meaning in a token effort to atone for the confusion theyve generated, but its such a big document many will miss it. Many text books use only the term capital account, and dont mention financial account such as Sloman or Crabbe (they dont even mention the term financial account). However you have convinced me that we should mention the term financial account more clearly in the lead. There is already a redirect of financial account to this article. So I think thats all thats needed? FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. "Financial account" redirects here but then there is no article for "capital account" as it is defined by the IMF, which definition (of capital account) is used in many textbooks (like the ones I mentioned above). Yes, that's obviously confusing. And you're right that the IMF name change caused it. And the main issue is what this article should be called. I think the "sources" are split on it, most likely, with some sticking to the old usage, and some following the IMF (btw, that economist link doesn't work for me). I'll do some more checking of textbooks and articles in the next few days to get a better idea of how it really splits (my impression is that it's FA not KA but I'm willing to be convinced). I do think however, that overtime the usage is going to shift towards the IMF one and that this has already happened to a significant extent. Will get back to you.radek (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Got the economist link working - you're right they do use 'capital account'.radek (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinking a bit more about it, the important thing is that the article is written to minimize confusion for potential readers. They might read Krugman and Obstfeld, come here looking for info on financial account and then get confused between the definition given in the article and the one they get from the textbook. Of course readers coming from a different point might get confused differently. So basically I think that keeping it under the current name is fine (for now, and barring some overwhelming evidence that the usage in econ lit has switched) but the article should elaborate a bit more on the different usages. A bit more in the lede + the short section should be sufficient.radek (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks, have added a bit more in the lede. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, looks good. Same with the accounting disambig below.radek (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)