# What happens if the Central Bank does not absorb a BOP deficit/surplus?

The basic principle of BOP accounting is double entry bookkeeping. In short, every transaction enters twice. As a consequence of this, by definition

$$\text{Current account } (CA) + \text{Capital account } (KA) = \text{Financial account } (FA)$$

Note that this may differ depending on how you classify BOP accounts. Some sources classify it as CA = KA (and do not have an FA), but the principle is the same.

In my definition, the FA includes the official reserve account (OA).

What I don't understand is - if every transaction automatically generates a credit and debit entry, how can it be possible to have:

$$CA + KA \neq (FA \; \backslash \; OA)$$

I know I am wrong to think this, but it seems to me like the 'need' for central bank intervention to absorb a surplus/deficit in the other components violates the definition of double-entry bookkeeping, which implies BOP = 0 at any point in time. So:

1) Why am I wrong wrt the above?

2) If the OA does not absorb the deficit/surplus from the rest of the BOP, what happens?

• Ive responded to your edit now. – Grada Gukovic Aug 3 '19 at 14:48

If OA is a part of FA. The second equation follows from the first: $$CA + KA = FA \wedge OA \neq 0 \Rightarrow FA - OA = CA +KA -OA \neq CA +KA$$.
$$CA + KA \neq \frac{FA}{OA}$$ follows from the first equation as well:
$$CA + KA = FA \wedge OA \neq 1 \Rightarrow \frac{FA}{OA}= \frac{CA+KA}{OA} \neq CA +KA$$ in general. (I've checked your LateX expression it really says: "(FA \backslash OA)"). I don't understand why you would think that BOP has anything to do with division. For example Feenstra and Taylor say in their textbook:
$$OSB=-Reserve FA=CA+KA+Nonreserve FA$$, where OSB is your OA and their version of the BOP identity is $$CA + KA + FA = 0$$, with your FA as their -FA.