3

I've read many claims that the Metropolitan Transit Authority of New York is low on funds and is in massive debt, but I've also heard several allegations of fraud, including claims of "keeping two sets of financial plans" to improperly justify fare hikes (I'm not asserting that they're necessarily true). As such, the truthfulness of the MTA's financial documents is in question. With these allegations in mind, are the MTA's financial documents accurate in their indication that the MTA is in debt and continuing to lose money?

Transport Alternatives "MTA Cooked Books, Hid $500 Million"

In double bombshell accusations, the New York State Comptroller and New York City Controller issued separate reports in April showing that the MTA kept two sets of books and hid $500 million over several years in order to justify the 50-cent city bus and subway fare increase.

Wertilq
  • 5,948
  • 8
  • 42
  • 63
bwDraco
  • 431
  • 3
  • 10
  • 1
    Please add some links to the claims of debt. This link may also be useful to answerers: http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/ – John Lyon Jul 09 '12 at 00:04
  • 2
    What do you mean by "in debt"? Every business has items on liability side of the balance sheet. Also, note that your link claims that there were two sets of forward financial plans, not "two sets of books" – 410 gone Jul 09 '12 at 14:12
  • @EnergyNumbers: "in debt" is understood to mean having outstanding liabilities which, in aggregate, exceed funds available. – bwDraco Jul 09 '12 at 14:14
  • Ah, I see, insolvent. No, it's not insolvent. See p29/30 of the accounts. http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/dec2011/MTA_Consolidated_Financials2011.pdf – 410 gone Jul 09 '12 at 14:19
  • 1
    @EnergyNumbers I did not mean insolvent. I meant long-term liabilities such as loans that are not yet paid off. – bwDraco Jul 09 '12 at 14:20
  • I expanded the question by adding "or losing money." – bwDraco Jul 09 '12 at 14:28
  • Both questions are answered in the official accounts. But that must have been the first place you looked. Can you explain in the question why you think those are insufficient? It will help us write better answers. – 410 gone Jul 09 '12 at 14:30
  • 1
    @EnergyNumbers: Previous allegations of fraud have called into question the truthfulness of these financial documents. – bwDraco Jul 09 '12 at 14:32
  • Please provide evidence of those allegations of fraud. All you've provided so far are allegations of different forward plans. That's very distinct from deliberately filing untrue accounts. – 410 gone Jul 09 '12 at 14:44
  • @EnergyNumbers: The fraud in this case is a false set of financial plans visible to the public that indicated that it was making less money than it really was. – bwDraco Jul 09 '12 at 14:52
  • But that's not what the comptroller's report that you've link to, says. The fraud referred to by the comptroller is the Authority's claim of being "the most open agency in government" - i.e. that claim is, in the opinion of the comptroller, a "fraud" – 410 gone Jul 09 '12 at 15:14
  • 1
    It is worth noting that government agencies are not (in the US at least) required to follow the same accounting procedures that publicly traded companies are held to. So there is a chance that the MTA is using dodgy accounting techniques without being guilty of "fraud" in the legal sense of the word. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Jul 09 '12 at 18:13
  • Also, is it a requirement that the MTA run a profit or breakeven? Most public-benefit corporations in the United States are not expected to turn any sort of a profit, or even break even for that matter. – rjzii May 08 '13 at 13:47

0 Answers0