#LeaveNoBusinessBehind - come & join our movement

Mr_awol wrote:

kirstymcgregor wrote:

Just for clarity - I did say that others had described this forum as being full of luddites. That's the impression other, well-known, accountants have of this forum. They tell me they look on here fairly regularly, so it's a view they have acquired and haven't seen fit to change that opinion. I have no idea who they are referring to. I wouldn't even try to guess.
And I commented, in the round, that it was such a shame this forum has that reputation in the profession.

I don't think it has that reputation in 'the profession' at all. I think it probably has that reputation in the circles within which you operate.

If I may try and provide some balance in the you vs lonewolf/others/possibly even me argument here, I do believe that you have been told that by some of your accountant contacts. I also believe, however, that this is kind of like an inventor asking friends and family if they have a good idea - and finding they receive supportive messages, only to get torn apart on dragons' den.

'your people' that provide (or want to provide) CF/advisory services to appreciative clients probably think what you are doing is great. 'our kind of people' know it wont work for our practices. You and your supporters may see us as luddites, we might see your supporters as gullible fools trying to pitch something which will fail in a few years because the clients simply don't want it.

In truth, both sides are probably right, as long as they do indeed know their market.

I have a couple of clients I could flog cashflow forecasting to (the majority of those who would benefit have ACA FDs in post and as such don't need it from me) but the vast majority of my clients are below the audit threshold and as OMBs they know their business much better than an automated cashflow forecasting tool (or even a competent external advisor) ever could. Some are so small, and fee conscious, that they'd never pay for it and even if I gave it for free they'd neither value it nor take any notice of it.

What you need to consider - and this is very important - is that despite the above I don't think mine is a 'small' firm in the grand scheme of things in A-Web world. I used to assume that everyone on here was a partner or senior manager in a 5-15 partner firm, and scratch my head wondering how some of them managed to implement the processes they say they do. One was particularly vociferous in how things 'should' be done in a 'progressive' firm and dismissive of those who didn't want to adapt to his model - but then one day admitted that he had about 50 clients in total. I suddenly realised that this was a theme and now I suspect that the vast majority of A-Webbers are one man bands or very small practices with a few hundred clients at most. As such they probably have clients the same, or smaller, than mine and have no chance of flogging an advisory service - apart from a few who have positioned themselves almost entirely in that market and only work with the vast minority of clients who would dream of paying for that service. On the one hand, great, they have found a way of servicing very few, high fee paying, clients. On the other hand there isn't enough of that kind of work to feed everyone, and the 'general practitioner' model is ultimately a lot more sustainable in the long run for most of us.

So why did you bother to try and promote your wares on AWEB ??

I never have. Was that supposed to be directed at someone else?

Mr_awol wrote:

I never have. Was that supposed to be directed at someone else?

I think I'll start a petition for this thread to be eliminated

It's a problem with the 'new' format. It makes it really difficult to follow new replies, who said what, etc.

The "argument for authority" often tends to be a weak one , the idea that those who are well known somehow hold more competent views than those who are not so well known is imho fallacious, it also may have cognitive bias issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#:~:text=The%20argu....

Still, I note you are at least out of the RSM stable, me too, in my case Hodgson Impey, Glasgow, so I will give the benefit of the doubt for now, however imho you really have to date failed to demonstrate any universal need for an SME to have his/her accountant prepare cashflows for his/her business, I accept they at times have a use but I will posit that usually there are far better things a business could do with its money than pay the accountants to navel gaze. (I say this as an FD/Joint MD)

I'm no expert on social media but I can't help feeling that in an argument, mentioning your family is not wise.

kirstymcgregor wrote:

I was quoting what he (I assume it’s a ‘he’) had just called me

I don't think (s)he called you a child. I think it was a reference to you having shown the page to your 16 y/o son, who was in turn either unimpressed or upset.

The sexism point is interesting though. It started, I think, because you said 'NH' only spoke to you in the way that (s)he dis because you are a female. I actually had assumed that NH was also female, but then again I only found out a coule of weeks ago that TaxDragon is - I'd always though 'he' was a man. I've also assumed LoneWolf is a male, but who knows? Finally, we have PNL - who knows WHAT 'that' was. I find, though, it is a benefit of the online persona system. We generally have no idea of the age/gender/sexuality/ethnicity/religion/etc of each other, which genially prevents discrimination but also prevents anyone from pulling out an 'ism' card. It's a plus point of anonymity.

I am as guilty as anyone, I have a sort of default view that most posters are male unless their avatar/name gives me a clue otherwise (possibly misguided), so I always considered Portia female , Penelope female, because that is how they portrayed themselves- I suspect I really ought to go to "reeducation classes" to prevent my MCP prejudices getting even worse.

How dare you assume my gender! Joke. I'm joking. (Not very well I admit, I will never be a comedian).

You've misinterpreted me. I was referring to the post where you alluded to your child having been upset by what you had shown them. I found it a strange introduction to the thread, and in my cynical mind, it was done as the majority of opinion seemed to be against you, in an attempt to sway the argument in your favour.

Normally I wouldn't have commented, but it upset my 7 year old greatly. (See what I did there, I used my child to try and elicit an emotional response from readers to get them on my side. Won't somebody please think of the children?)

The thread is dead in the water frankly and should be closed as further comments are likely to be childish bickering. (And yes, I am aware of the irony of me talking about childish bickering, having posted some childish comments myself.)

Lone_Wolf wrote:

How dare you assume my gender! Joke. I'm joking. (Not very well I admit, I will never be a comedian).

But is it true that you're really a geezer?

Enquiring minds want to know

I am indeed a geezer.

But that's the great thing about the modern world. I may be a geezer today. Tomorrow I could be a geezelle.

I don't even think I need to wait until tomorrow, I'm sure there's one where I can be whatever I'm feeling at any given moment. Right now I'm feeling gassy.

Lone_Wolf wrote:

I am indeed a geezer.

But that's the great thing about the modern world. I may be a geezer today. Tomorrow I could be a geezelle.

I don't even think I need to wait until tomorrow, I'm sure there's one where I can be whatever I'm feeling at any given moment. Right now I'm feeling gassy.

Deer oh deer I think my spelling is as bad as yours

It does not have to descend that way, a discussion is still possible.

I see the advantages of cashflows under some circumstances, I just struggle with the idea that any good can come from ten minute cashflows and I really struggle with the idea that clients can be persuaded to pay for them, bespoke yes, for a purpose, yes, routinely, no.

Using my own argument for authority, I was lucky that in the post 2008 crash we used a corporate /banking expert, a chap who sat on the boards of a few larger beasts and had a contact list on his phone to senior lenders in most of the main banks, what I learned from him is that off the shelf is never good enough, pitch the cashflows to banks how you want to be perceived, ensure you keep the message simple and do not say confuse the bankers at RBOS GRG etc.

For that you need a bespoke set of proposals. Some of my fund raising proposals pre 2008 had been pretty hefty, 100 odd page tomes, and regarding experience I have been raising/replacing debt out of banks in decent sums for a fair few years now ; I think I got offered my current job on the back of raising £5 m in 1998 and my largest single sum of debt raised was just over £12m.

So what Kirsty needs to expand on is what precisely does the SME gain (outwith periods of expansion/insolvency) and how will a bog standard ten minute set of cashflows achieve anything useful , remembering that every time you pitch without success to a bank you tend to close access to that particular bank; coming back with a slicker offering to the same bank later seldom works.

At the moment I cannot see past the Emperor's New Clothes, but I am willing to be convinced by actual facts structured into an argument.