This article focuses on the problem of whether every corporation should be compelled by law to publish detailed reports of internal affairs. The article considers the objections to this proposed legislation, makes some general observations on the problem, and draws conclusions from the survey conducted as of September 1929. Among the arguments in support of this proposed legislation a considerable amount of propaganda was encountered. Very convincing theories were put forth in some instances which upon close scrutiny proved wholly fallacious. The same deceptiveness will be found among the objections in a still greater degree. In fact a discussion of the objection is a grand expose of misleading arguments that have been broadcast by the defense in order to develop a strong public opinion against the proposed law. Salient among defense arguments stands the objection that a law which required publication of corporate affairs would be in violation of the private rights of corporations. The private business corporation, it is said, is a private concern just like a personal enterprise or partnership and the public is not justified in meddling in its affairs.

Reviews the book "Auditors Reports and Working Papers," by D.C. Eggleston.

The article focuses on the controversy created in the U.S. by a proposal contained in a book that every corporation should be compelled by law to publish complete detailed reports of its internal affair. Corporate reformers urge for the adoption of the proposal on the ground that it would protect defenseless stockholders from being swindled by corporate managers and would in other ways contribute to the public welfare. The opposition is composed of those corporate managers who maintain that the proposed laws would not only fail to produce the good results expected of them, but would also hamper business activity and progress. The complete reports would include a statement of affairs, or balance-sheet, and a statement of incomes and expenditures, or operating statement. It is intended to secure for public inspection reports which are detailed at least as fully as is customary in the particular trade for the use of creditor banks. The author analyzes the advantages and objections to the plan and finally some general observations and conclusions are given.

Both accounting and economics professions, deal with the conduct of men in gaining a livelihood. The accountant is concerned with those activities almost exclusively as they manifest themselves in those actual, particular institutions which they call enterprises. With individual human beings he is concerned chiefly to the extent to which they participate in the finances or the operations of the enterprise under review. Whether the accountant is dealing with an enterprise as an entirety or with the individual as a taxpayer both the enterprise and the taxpayer are real. The economist, on the contrary, devotes no attention at all to real individuals or to real enterprises. He may appear to be concerned with what laborers do, or what is done by the suppliers of monied funds or by those who exercise managerial powers. They are functional groupings invested by the economist with standard sets of motives, aims, interests and opportunities. Since both professions are interested in income in the most general sense of that term, both are interested in what is called production. But the interests of the two groups are widely divergent.

The article focuses on an interesting paradox pointed in a review by Henry Rand Hatfield, professor of accounting, which drew much attention. If two identical bonds are bought on the same day, one of them at 90 and one at 110, the aggregate cost is equal to the aggregate par and the yield rate on the holding is equal to the nominal rate on the bonds. Hatfield demonstrated that if the buyer separately amortizes the premium on one and the discount on the other by the conventional compound interest formula the aggregate interest earnings thus found in the several periods will diverge from the uniform coupon receipts. The author shows that the paradox can arise from the algebraic properties of the "average yield rate" or single compound interest rate implicit in the cost of an aggregate holding acquired in more than one purchase lot. The author also considers some of the properties of the mean yield rate and makes some comments on the meaning of bond premium and bond discount and puts some question about the theoretical accuracy and the consistency of Hatfield's accuracy.