Words Words Words, Whose Words?
In today’s world of legal jargon and ambiguous standards, the call for clear, specific language couldn’t be more relevant. Take, for instance, the recent saga involving Trump and the Trump Organization, where a New York judge ruled that they used misleading financial statements to inflate asset values and secure favorable loans. The result? A hefty $300 million penalty, racking up interest, after a lengthy trial concluded their business practices were, well, less than “fiduciary.” But of course, words like “fiduciary” are so open to interpretation, aren’t they?
Trump, never one to shy away from a good fight, has appealed the ruling, accusing New York State Attorney General Letitia James of an overreach of power and arguing that all loans were repaid in full, with no complaints from the lenders. It’s a classic case of the game of definitions—what exactly constitutes fraud when all debts are settled and everyone appears satisfied?
Enter Tinkelman’s request to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), seeking clarification on what exactly these financial terms mean in personal finance statements. He argues that terms like “estimated current value” lack any clear guidance, leaving experts to spar over optimistic vs. realistic valuations. His proposals include banning the term “net worth” unless it factors in taxes and liabilities, using “fair value” instead of vague estimates, and clarifying the accounting methods used to determine current values.
Tinkelman’s sarcastic jab hits the mark: “It’s an embarrassment to the profession when standards are so unclear that experts can duel over financial values.” At our firm, we prefer the word “fair” because it’s specific and honest—unlike the murky waters of “fiduciary” obligations that can twist and turn based on who’s interpreting them. In business, as in law, clarity matters. We stick to standards that are transparent, fair, and above all, precise—because in the end, words should mean something specific, not whatever suits the moment.