The idea sometimes prevails with those unfamiliar with accounting that the simplicity of an accounting system may be measured by the number of books employed - an idea which is frequently fallacious. The simplest system is the best, if it is adequate; but speaking generally, nothing could be more mistaken than the idea that simplicity and the number of books employed have any necessary connection. Simplicity is frequently attained by keeping different classes of entries in different books, rather than by entering many varied transactions in one book, a method which necessitates much analysis at a later day.

The terms "a few records" and "simple methods" arc not synonymous; they are in fact opposed to each other. "Few records" usually mean poor records, and poor records not infrequently result in a poor owner of those records. In the case of a large real estate business with numerous branches and much detail work, a certain complexity is unavoidable. It is a condition common to all affairs that the larger and more involved the business, the more comprehensive and complex must be its system of records.

Also in any business, no matter what its size, a sufficient number of books must be employed to record properly its transactions, and the accountant when installing a system, usually finds that simplicity and clearness are obtained by the use of records sufficient in number to keep each class of entry separate and distinct.