SpineLineSpineLine wrote the following post 2 days ago: After reading the article, I'm going to chime in here with some education and experience from the accouting and finance side. I feel that the author displayed a lack of knowledge on the subject that resulted in some curious arguments. I'll answer from my base of knowledge as an MBA with degrees in finance and economics (built on a dream of running a railroad ), before going to work for a large tech manufacturer that allocated its campus costs to factories, and later working as a consultant to universities that used the responsibility center allocation methods.
Very informative post. Welcome on board.
After reading the article, I'm going to chime in here with some education and experience from the accouting and finance side. I feel that the author displayed a lack of knowledge on the subject that resulted in some curious arguments.
I'll answer from my base of knowledge as an MBA with degrees in finance and economics (built on a dream of running a railroad ), before going to work for a large tech manufacturer that allocated its campus costs to factories, and later working as a consultant to universities that used the responsibility center allocation methods.
Starting from the basics, accouting and finance are different animals. Accounting is the act of dutifully recording the past. The key things to track are who (Dept. or Cost Center), what (which account) and when. The household analogy is which checking account spent money on what thing (groceries, utilities, etc.). Corporate Finance, meanwhile, is all about the future performance of the firm and identifying ways to improve. I prefer to think of it as the creative half, and no, we are not accountants.
The accountants keep a log of every transaction, called a General Ledger. If we viewed the GL summarized into a financial statement by Dept, we will see massive variances between departments. If each LD train carries its own Dept number (likely), then you would see a profit or loss for that train based on its direct costs. This is one of the key arguments in the article. The finance folks will look at that and note that there are a ton of indirect costs for things like marketing, operations, depreciation and management that ought to be included. This is where the allocations are born.
Next, we can get into the allocation methods. The first thing to remember is that every allocation is a 'balloon squeeze' as one of my mentors put it. You are not adding costs (inflating the balloon), but simply moving them from one area to another. In the tech world, one allocation I was responsible for was allocating the cost of the gases used on campus to the three factories according to their wafer production for the month.
In the Responsibilty Center world, many of these allocations by metric are stacked atop one another. 4,600 is a very large number (unwieldly in my opinion), but there should be a spreadsheet to back up each entry. Going back to the General Ledger, each of these should be a unique entry, allowing you to present an income statement in both native and allocated views.
Based on the Miami station episode, it sounds like Amtrak isn't doing RC quite right by not taking into account a full view; instead the focus is only on cost. Allocations and allocation rules really need to account for both revenue and expense. Taking a half view is a bastardization of the method.
Finally, there was confusion in the article about why the cost of trackwork for the SW Chief and NEC are handled differently. That comes down to ownership and accounting rules:
I have argued the case for the LDs many timrs. But the bottom line is that Federal eupport for Amtrak goes out the window, and the States will have to pick up the tab for corridor and short-distancd subsidies. Possibly retaining an Amtrak for economies of scale but podsibly regional autorities for local control.
Well, now that the concept of "stranded assets" has been brought up, I suppose Amtrak could eliminate the LD routes and still cook up some creative means to retire their share of overhead without passing those charges along to the coveted short distance operations.
oltmannd I think trying to parse Amtrak's cost accounting is a fools errand. None of this has anything to do with the real cost of running the trains. Perhaps, if Amtrak shed big chunks of their network, it would be possible to re-engineer their staff processes and system fixed costs. Perhaps, Amtrak should be charged the real cost the frt RRs bear to host their trains. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps... Costing tools are almost never "what-if" tools when you are talking about large changes and the costs Amtrak pays aren't even the actual costs they are incurring. It's pretty clear that the frt roads are subsidizing the LD trains and Amtrak is subsidizing NEC commuter roads. That nobody can come up with a perfect solution for doing this doesn't change the real costs a whit. It's just swivelling the lounge chair seats. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. It only matters that Amtrak tries to do the best with what it has. If Amtrak is secretly trying to kill off the LD trains, well, then, they are just as bad at that as they are at running them well. It's been a whole year and not one train is dead. Arguing about their cost accounting and trying to read a "secret plot" into is about as dumb as arguing if you like EMD or GE locomotives more.
I think trying to parse Amtrak's cost accounting is a fools errand.
None of this has anything to do with the real cost of running the trains. Perhaps, if Amtrak shed big chunks of their network, it would be possible to re-engineer their staff processes and system fixed costs. Perhaps, Amtrak should be charged the real cost the frt RRs bear to host their trains. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...
Costing tools are almost never "what-if" tools when you are talking about large changes and the costs Amtrak pays aren't even the actual costs they are incurring. It's pretty clear that the frt roads are subsidizing the LD trains and Amtrak is subsidizing NEC commuter roads. That nobody can come up with a perfect solution for doing this doesn't change the real costs a whit. It's just swivelling the lounge chair seats.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. It only matters that Amtrak tries to do the best with what it has.
If Amtrak is secretly trying to kill off the LD trains, well, then, they are just as bad at that as they are at running them well. It's been a whole year and not one train is dead.
Arguing about their cost accounting and trying to read a "secret plot" into is about as dumb as arguing if you like EMD or GE locomotives more.
+1 Of course we can all agree about ALcos.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CMStPnPYou do have to be careful with this analogy, even though you might get it to work in your post.
What I was getting at is that cost allocation is inherently subjective. In the case of a personal vehicle, the rule might be that it is necessary for that big 4-week vacation trip, and all the fixed costs (purchase, maintenance, licensing, insurance) are considered as part of the annual holiday expense. The rest of the year it also gets used 5 days a week for commuting, but the only assigned cost is fuel. That makes the aalternative of public transit seem quite expensive. On the other hand charge all the fixed costs to commuting, now driving to work becomes costly and the vacation becomes considerably more affordable.
Overall the cost is the same, and "accounting" is satisfied because the rules (which ever ones are chosen) have been followed. However, two rather different conclusions can been drawn based on the same overall figures. Because allocation is inherently somewhat arbitrary, it can be chosen to yield a desired outcome should there be a hidden agenda. And because of that arbitrary nature, the allocation rules are open to debate and challenge. The accounting side will use the allocations as defined by senior management, so are just bystanders crunching the numbers to keep everything legal.
Yes, the above is simplistic and few would actually break the cost of car ownership into defined categories. Indeed most probably lump it into general household operating costs. I have a vehicle, it costs money (some years more than others), but because it is there I use it without caring much about accounting for it. Whether it is to the grocery store or trackside for some train watching, in my mind the trip is "free" apart from maybe a gas fill.
charlie hebdo I do think it is surprising that most posters on the passenger forum "The place to discuss Amtrak, the future of passenger rail, and high speed proposals" either have no interest in or actually oppose HSR.
I think we need High Speed Rail to exist first in the United States. Otherwise, it is kind of like talking about the success or failure of Brightline prior to 2024.
Average speed on the NEC is still like 60 mph or something ridiculously low. The Midwest HSR project is still choking on red tape or just plain incompetence. California is probably a good 8-10 years away from completion. Dallas to Houston is still a pipe dream.
cx500 To a considerable extent the arguments here have been due to two parallel but different ways of using the numbers. JPS1 is correct from an accounting perspective, since the overall numbers that Amtrak reports in summary form presumably balance. How they are distributed internally is irrelevant to the year end results of the company. It is when they are used for other purposes that the problems arise. That internal distribution in most companies is not usually publicly available, nor is there any need for it as long as the shareholders are satisfied that the management and board are acting appropriately in the company's interest. We have a rather different situation with Amtrak. Here Amtrak is using selected internal numbers publicly to justify decisions that affect a mandated public service. It is not unreasonable in this case for the public (who are after all the "shareholders") to ask for proof that those figures are reasonable. The limited information that is released, when scrutinised in detail, seems to raise questions about how the costs and revenues are allocated thus putting their credibility in question. Consider your household. At year end you know your income and expenditures and can balance them off, and this is what JPS1 is talking about. Your vehicle is going to be one of the costs, perhaps divided into commuting, local errands and holiday and weekend excursions. Do you allocate the costs by mileage, or number of trips, weighted by which purpose, number of occupants, and so on? Do you include the costs of the house (heating, taxes, maintenance) using the square footage of the garage and driveway vs the house to develop the ratio? Any of these allocations will be arbitrary. By careful selection of the allocation criteria almost any result can be produced. Essentially it becomes indeed creative fiction.
To a considerable extent the arguments here have been due to two parallel but different ways of using the numbers. JPS1 is correct from an accounting perspective, since the overall numbers that Amtrak reports in summary form presumably balance. How they are distributed internally is irrelevant to the year end results of the company.
It is when they are used for other purposes that the problems arise. That internal distribution in most companies is not usually publicly available, nor is there any need for it as long as the shareholders are satisfied that the management and board are acting appropriately in the company's interest.
We have a rather different situation with Amtrak. Here Amtrak is using selected internal numbers publicly to justify decisions that affect a mandated public service. It is not unreasonable in this case for the public (who are after all the "shareholders") to ask for proof that those figures are reasonable. The limited information that is released, when scrutinised in detail, seems to raise questions about how the costs and revenues are allocated thus putting their credibility in question.
Consider your household. At year end you know your income and expenditures and can balance them off, and this is what JPS1 is talking about. Your vehicle is going to be one of the costs, perhaps divided into commuting, local errands and holiday and weekend excursions. Do you allocate the costs by mileage, or number of trips, weighted by which purpose, number of occupants, and so on? Do you include the costs of the house (heating, taxes, maintenance) using the square footage of the garage and driveway vs the house to develop the ratio? Any of these allocations will be arbitrary. By careful selection of the allocation criteria almost any result can be produced. Essentially it becomes indeed creative fiction.
I agree. Of course folks will always cherry pick from data streams to support their pre-exiting position on a topic, eg., Rumsfeld/Cheney with the CIA briefings on WMDs. On here, those who wish to perpetuate a mid-20th century passenger rail system claim that "overhead" (apparently mostly stemming from the Amtrak-owned NEC) is unfairly allocated onto LD routes in order to eliminate those routes, while others maintain that we don't actually know that to be true. I certainly do NOT know the answer to that question or its corrollary: the appointment of Anderson as head of Amtrak by its board to carry out the covert mission(s) of ending LD trains and all of Amtrak beyond the NEC. I believe the allocation of fixed costs is mostly irrelevant to answering the real question: what type, if any, passenger train services we should strive for? I do think it is surprising that most posters on the passenger forum "The place to discuss Amtrak, the future of passenger rail, and high speed proposals" either have no interest in or actually oppose HSR.
cx500Consider your household.
You do have to be careful with this analogy, even though you might get it to work in your post.
A C Corporation is not the same as a household. I can do things as head of a C Corporation that head of a household cannot in regards to credit, debt and financing. A lot of readers here think they can apply their own household analogies to the running of a C Corp. Roughly it works sometimes but the C Corp is a far more powerful entity with far more options open to it than a household has. So in most cases the household to C Corp analogy has holes in it.
Lets take financing for example. Just by issuing stock and selling it, I can obtain legal access to my personal 401k plan and anyone elses 401k plan as a source of no interest, no loan financing because the sale of stock represents an investment in a legal company which the 401k is investing into via purchase of the stock. Thats just one example that is 100% legal. You cannot do that as head of a household, S Corp, LLC, or Partnership. Must be a C Corp registered via a state. Now think about using that approach without ever having to visit a bank loan officer. Your stock does not have to be publicly traded or listed on the NYSE to do this. Can be ordinary private shares of C Corp stock. Suddenly you appear as a C Corp out of nowhere with a large cash account and zero debt.........every bankers dream. I guarantee you at that point the banker does not give a crap about your business plan, your going to get a loan of some amount from them with no debate.
"I have reviewed the Rail Passengers Association report..."
"The author, who is not an accountant, did not have access to Amtrak's books or any of the primary accounting source documents..."
"The author of the report has a Rail Passengers Association bias..."
Apparently I need to repeat myself: We have very detailed IG and GAO reports plus the Volpe report summarized by the RPA (as always, go the the source data for full detail). Those reports were made by accountants at OIG and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, who DID have access to Amtrak's books. Indeed Volpe was tasked with redesigning their cost accounting system.
As I said originally, the RPA report SUMMARIZED them, and I fully agree should be taken with a grain of salt where it veers into subjectivity (the "RPA assessment" bits). However a large portion of it provides objective facts from the OIG and Volpe reports, which I found useful and others will likely find more approachable than the densely-packed originals. Importantly, it also provides citations for that data. As always (I say again), go to the source data for full detail.Some of those cites require creative Googling to track down, but this one's a good start: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/17485
charlie hebdoApparently you misunderstood my remark, either because you have below average reading comprehension (unlikely) or because you enjoy distorting others' comments, for reasons unknown.
I understood it clearly for what it was. Another public justification to troll others that comment on Amtrak financials.......I noticed your victim list is lengthening in this thread. I'm just snickering about all this.
JPS1 They don't have any evidence for their assumptions and, most times are wrong. But people love to speculate, and there is no putting an end to it.
E'hhhh? It's the internet,. what else is it good for?
If one comes home after a hard day at work, and finds a cuff link under a freshly made bed, and you know the cuff link is not yours....is it all that unreasonable to speculate that whoever made the bed might know something about the cuff link's origin?
Perhaps if Amtrak was not so "clandestine" about it's cost allocation methods, people would feel less inclined to speculate?
CMStPnP charlie hebdo I agree. I only had three courses in accounting as an undergrad, so I really only know enough to realize that I don't know very much. And to see that many of those outsiders who comment on Amtrak accounting practices haven't a clue. Without internal access, any comments are uninformed speculation. And yet the people in this forum that take that exact position are doing what? Commenting openly on Amtrak Financials and telling everyone else they are not qualified or do not have the experience or access. What does your psychology training tell you about that? lol. :)
charlie hebdo I agree. I only had three courses in accounting as an undergrad, so I really only know enough to realize that I don't know very much. And to see that many of those outsiders who comment on Amtrak accounting practices haven't a clue. Without internal access, any comments are uninformed speculation.
And yet the people in this forum that take that exact position are doing what?
Commenting openly on Amtrak Financials and telling everyone else they are not qualified or do not have the experience or access. What does your psychology training tell you about that? lol. :)
Apparently you misunderstood my remark, either because you have below average reading comprehension (unlikely) or because you enjoy distorting others' comments, for reasons unknown.
charlie hebdoI agree. I only had three courses in accounting as an undergrad, so I really only know enough to realize that I don't know very much. And to see that many of those outsiders who comment on Amtrak accounting practices haven't a clue. Without internal access, any comments are uninformed speculation.
JPS1 Convicted One Where Randall O'Toole points out that Amtrak counts state subsidies on the shorter routes as "passenger revenue"...it comes clear that Amtrak is playing a shell game of sorts, trying to tell the story that it wants to tell......for reasons that aren't all that hard to figure out. IMO, it would be incedibly naive to assume that they are not being equally creative in how they allocate costs. Most companies would include the state supported payments under other revenues or other income as a below the line item. But Amtrak is not violating any GAAP Principles by including it in operating revenues. In its Comprehensive Statement of Operations, the state support payments are set out clearly under Total Revenues. The bottom line results are the same. Outsiders make all kinds of assumptions about how an entity is accounting for its transactions. They don't have any evidence for their assumptions and, most times are wrong. But people love to speculate, and there is no putting an end to it.
Convicted One Where Randall O'Toole points out that Amtrak counts state subsidies on the shorter routes as "passenger revenue"...it comes clear that Amtrak is playing a shell game of sorts, trying to tell the story that it wants to tell......for reasons that aren't all that hard to figure out. IMO, it would be incedibly naive to assume that they are not being equally creative in how they allocate costs.
Where Randall O'Toole points out that Amtrak counts state subsidies on the shorter routes as "passenger revenue"...it comes clear that Amtrak is playing a shell game of sorts, trying to tell the story that it wants to tell......for reasons that aren't all that hard to figure out.
IMO, it would be incedibly naive to assume that they are not being equally creative in how they allocate costs.
Most companies would include the state supported payments under other revenues or other income as a below the line item. But Amtrak is not violating any GAAP Principles by including it in operating revenues.
In its Comprehensive Statement of Operations, the state support payments are set out clearly under Total Revenues. The bottom line results are the same.
Outsiders make all kinds of assumptions about how an entity is accounting for its transactions. They don't have any evidence for their assumptions and, most times are wrong. But people love to speculate, and there is no putting an end to it.
I agree. I only had three courses in accounting as an undergrad, so I really only know enough to realize that I don't know very much. And to see that many of those outsiders who comment on Amtrak accounting practices haven't a clue. Without internal access, any comments are uninformed speculation.
JPS1 In this sense, Amtrak is doing what every other public corporations does.
If one reads Fred Frailey's Feb 2019 piece in Trains magazine, in context with this discussion, it's somewhat thought provoking.
IMO, it would be incredibly naive to assume that they are not being equally creative in how they allocate costs.
Somehow the arguments that Amtrak is using accepted procedures seems mis guided. Note that the old monthly peerformance reports had several of out posters point out flaws. These reports have been severely reduced / discontinued leaving these posters to wonder what is happening ? We have to ask why ?. 1st order of business require Amtrak to start issuing those portions and add the suggested ones such as what are each of the allocated costs.
BaltACD JPS1 If the Rail Passengers Association wanted an objective assessment of Amtrak's cost accounting policies, procedures, and practices, it would engage an independent accounting firm, i.e. PWC, Deloitte, EY, Grant Thornton, etc. for the assignment. The auditors would need access to Amtrak's "current" books as well as the company's Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accountant, and Chief Auditor. As I have said, I don’t know whether Amtrak’s cost accounting policies, procedures, and practices are inappropriate. So the professional response is simple. I don’t know!
The auditors would need access to Amtrak's "current" books as well as the company's Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accountant, and Chief Auditor.
As I have said, I don’t know whether Amtrak’s cost accounting policies, procedures, and practices are inappropriate. So the professional response is simple. I don’t know!
JPS1If the Rail Passengers Association wanted an objective assessment of Amtrak's cost accounting policies, procedures, and practices, it would engage an independent accounting firm, i.e. PWC, Deloitte, EY, Grant Thornton, etc. for the assignment. The auditors would need access to Amtrak's "current" books as well as the company's Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accountant, and Chief Auditor. As I have said, I don’t know whether Amtrak’s cost accounting policies, procedures, and practices are inappropriate. So the professional response is simple. I don’t know!
Amtrak's response will be no way, no how! I don't know either and it has become Amtrak's 'job' to make sure no one interupts their 'story' of their own cost accounting. The Amtrak reports is nothing more than a financial fictional novel.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
billso OBVIOUSLY. That point was made several times already. Lacking that, we seek the best data points available. We do have IG and GAO reports plus the Volpe Center report summarized here (as always, go the the source data for full detail), they were specifically tasked to examine and recommend improvements to cost accounting: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/7353/amtraks_route_accounting_-_fatally_flawed.pdf
OBVIOUSLY. That point was made several times already.
Lacking that, we seek the best data points available. We do have IG and GAO reports plus the Volpe Center report summarized here (as always, go the the source data for full detail), they were specifically tasked to examine and recommend improvements to cost accounting: https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/7353/amtraks_route_accounting_-_fatally_flawed.pdf
I have reviewed the Rail Passengers Association report on Amtrak's cost accounting policies, procedures and practices.
The author, who is not an accountant, did not have access to Amtrak's books or any of the primary accounting source documents. Most of the report is based on second or third hand findings or is speculation.
The author of the report has a Rail Passengers Association bias. It is an advocacy group. It is not an independent assessment organization. To conclude that the report is objective would be a stretch.
If the Rail Passengers Association wanted an objective assessment of Amtrak's cost accounting policies, procedures, and practices, it would engage an independent accounting firm, i.e. PWC, Deloitte, EY, Grant Thornton, etc. for the assignment.
Having worked with consultants some years ago at "pruning" the tree it was my eventual view that the tree was half dead before the consultants turned up and they only applied the eventual coup de grace. One such companies premises are now a multi-storey car park and hardly anyone remembers they were ever there !!!
I do understand cost accounting and Amtraks methodolgy is fantasy. They have used the tried and tested method of deciding what result you want to show and work backwards. There are so many things I could comment on but the one that amuses me most is capitalising NE Corridor costs which allows that cost centre to show a "profit". Doing this without showing any depreciation will eventually show an asset worth billions in an Amtrak Balance Sheet and so it goes on. Amtrak ridership stats show a rise pretty much every year and back in 2015 I rode a lot of the Long-distant trains which were all pretty bang up full. So if the demand was there why not have TWO South-West Chiefs on the same day rather than looking to institute a bus that no one is ever going to ride. TWO would halve the fixed overhead allocation to each train even if it was ficticious and provide a service that appears to have a need. I know it ain't going to happen for a dozen reasons but it's food for thought rather than trying to kill Amtrak off by stealth which appears to ever be the case !! As a foreigner from Australia you won't know what you'll miss until it's gone. I know that from experience as long-distance trains in Australia are rarer than hen's teeth and our daily Adelaide - Melbourne servvice has been pulled by the private provider as "not profitable". It's supposed to be a service !!!
billso Former Amtrak chief David Gunn certainly had access to their cost accounting details, and spoke eloquently and forcefully about how screwed up it was, and how he made only limited progress. He's been gone for awhile, but I doubt it's improved.
Unless one has been schooled in cost accounting and has access to Amtrak's current books, as opposed to those Gunn supposedly had access to when he was at the helm, how could an outsider evaluate Gunn's views?
Without access to Amtrak's books, or those of any entity for that matter, it is impossible to evaluate the efficacy and appropriateness of an organization's cost accounting policies, procedures, and practices.
Well, that escalated quickly :-)Former Amtrak chief David Gunn certainly had access to their cost accounting details, and spoke eloquently and forcefully about how screwed up it was, and how he made only limited progress. He's been gone for awhile, but I doubt it's improved.
CMStPnP charlie hebdo clinical psychologist That is pretty humorous because your doing just the opposite online that your supposed to be doing professionally as a practioner. Perhaps thats what you both have in common?
charlie hebdo clinical psychologist
That is pretty humorous because your doing just the opposite online that your supposed to be doing professionally as a practioner. Perhaps thats what you both have in common?
You proved my point.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.