How to read an asset range, and the calculation never to do with it
Bracketed values are everywhere in disclosure documents, and they are almost always read as though they were rounded amounts. They are not. A range is a deliberate design: it establishes that a holding exists and roughly how large it is, and it withholds everything finer. Understanding what that permits, and the one calculation it forbids: is most of what a reader needs to use these documents well.
What a range establishes
Two things, both useful. First, existence: the filer held this thing during the period, and that is now a matter of record. Second, scale: the value falls between two stated figures, which is enough to tell a modest holding from a substantial one.
For the purpose these documents were designed for (spotting a conflict between a person’s interests and their public role) existence and scale are sufficient. A legislator who holds a bracketed stake in an industry they regulate has disclosed the conflict regardless of whether the true value sits at the top or the bottom of the band. The annual congressional filing is where most of these brackets originate.
The calculation that must not be done
Summing the midpoints of many brackets to produce a total. It is the single most common error in coverage of disclosure filings, and the reason is arithmetic rather than ideological: the midpoint of a wide band is an arbitrary point, and a sum of arbitrary points is an arbitrary number with no confidence interval and no defined meaning.
The distortion is not symmetric either. Because brackets widen as values rise, midpoint summing behaves worst exactly where the stakes are highest. Two filers whose real positions differ by an order of magnitude can produce midpoint totals within a few per cent of each other.
What a reader can legitimately do is state the bounds: the sum of the lower bounds and the sum of the upper bounds. That produces a genuine range, usually so wide that it makes the point on its own.
| Conclusion | Permitted? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| This holding exists | Yes | The filing states it |
| It is worth between X and Y | Yes | That is what the bracket says |
| It is worth about the midpoint | No | The midpoint is an arbitrary point in the band |
| Total wealth is the sum of midpoints | No | A sum of arbitrary points has no meaning |
| Total wealth is between the summed bounds | Yes, with the width stated | Both bounds come from the filing |
| An unlisted asset was hidden | No | Thresholds and exclusions are written into the form |
What a bracket cannot hide, and what it can
It cannot hide the existence of a holding, which is the point of the exercise: a filer with a stake in an industry has declared it, whatever the band. It cannot hide a pattern either: the same asset appearing year after year, or a liability that grows across filings, is visible even in brackets.
What it can hide is scale at the top. Because the bands widen as values rise, the most consequential holdings are described the least precisely, which is the opposite of what a reader expects from a disclosure regime. That is a design choice about privacy rather than an oversight, and it is worth knowing before drawing conclusions from a form.
The practical consequence is that these documents answer conflict questions well and wealth questions badly. Reading them for the second purpose is the most common way an accurate filing produces an inaccurate story. Form 4 shows the opposite trade-off: an exact figure with a far narrower scope.
Brackets outside politics
The same structure appears in sport. Cricket boards publish salary bands for draft categories and contract grades: a player is announced in a category, and the category has a published range. That is a bracketed disclosure by another name, and it deserves the same handling: quote the band, name the season, and resist the urge to take the middle.
Recognising the pattern is useful because the temptation is identical in both settings. A range is harder to write a headline around than a number, and the pressure to collapse it is constant. The verification questions are what keep it from happening here.
Questions readers send
Are the bracket schedules the same in every regime?
No. Federal congressional filings use one schedule; state and municipal ethics regimes use their own, and sports pay categories use bands set by a board. The bracket has to be read against the schedule that produced it.
What does an asset range actually prove?
That the holding existed during the period, and that its value fell between two stated figures. Nothing finer than that.
Why can’t I add up the midpoints?
Because a midpoint is an arbitrary point inside a wide band, and a sum of arbitrary points has no defined meaning. If a total is needed, sum the lower bounds and the upper bounds and state both.
Does a missing asset mean something was hidden?
Not necessarily. Reporting thresholds and exclusions are written into the forms: a primary residence is generally not reportable, and small holdings fall below the floor.
The documents this page rests on
- 01 US House and Senate disclosure offices, The bracket schedules the forms use and the thresholds and exclusions that apply Filing instructions published with the annual disclosure forms