..forgive me for being picky, but arn't backrecs a control for checking that the underlying records are correct, not for producing them in the first place
Now if someone could produce a bit of kit to match up the bank statement transactions with something like VT, that would be quite imense!
In response to Democratus...
"Banks, sooner or later those clever people in the banks will take your not reared pigs, collateralise them, bundle them into a new type of derivitive and sell these not reared pigs on to people who won't understand the business as you do, "
....Would that be a not-sausage then?
it depends on how you are preparing the cashflow - direct or ind
If you are preparing an indirect cashflow, such as that shown in stat accounts (ie a reconciliation of op profit to cashflow) then there will be a movement in working capital which will include a movement in debtors.
A direct cashflow will only show your cash in from debtors as part of total cash in, less total cash out = net cashflow....
If you are preparing a financial forecast with P&L and BS then I would suggest that you should be using a direct cashflow as this will provide an essential check that your model works if you BS balances.
This is not the case with indirect cashflows as it is essentially a balancing figure - i.e - it will always balance
I can't tell you how many times I've seen forecasts fall appart as a result of the above (especially when things get complex). The knock-on effect is that the banks (if they discover it...) lose a lot of confidence (I used to be a corporate banker...) and we all know where that leads....
Perhaps not entirely relevant but may be of use...
Accountant and bookkeeper - Southampton
Unless I'm missing something here...Its up to the purchaser to undertake their own due diligence.
Of course having your own valuation makes it easy to refute their claims that its worth 50% less than you think.
You could offer to have the valuation done on the agreement (in writting!) that they will underwrite the costs which can be added on at the end
It may be that I've muisunderstood/misread the question but I would have thought that a serious purchaser would be willing to pay the professional fees to make sure that its not a floodplane/prone to subsidance/not contaminated etc etc etc
As far as I can see there is no obligation for you to do anything
Totally unrealted but...Sir Les - Honestly - Great Photo!
Very good answer,Cheers
Thanks againI'm looking to start up and therefore minimise the initial investment in software until such a time as it is clear that it is working. At that point I will look to up the quality of the software I am using, whilst the number of clients is still small and the changeover would not be too disruptive
My main worry is how much the marketing cost is going to be to bootstrap myself into trading and so would like to keep other costs as low as posible (initially).
I certainly get the point about cost/value however initially cost will be the more sensitive of the two. Initially
To that note I am trying to make the best decision as to software usage as possible.
At the moment its looking something like VT & FTax or Sage Instant Accounts Production with FTax and self developed excel spreadsheet for soletraders (or perhaps DIY Accounting)
I really do appreciate your taking the time to respond
Yes I can appreciate your question...Are you basically saying that there are only two choices - cheap and unintegratable (not sure if that's a real word), or expensive and integrated.
I suppose the question I am really asking is is there a set-up or combination that would provide the efficiencies of an integrated suite, but without the pricetag?
If someone has found a particular setup that has fits the above I would be interested in hearing from them
This is very helpful
Useful practical tips
Thanks - I found this actually quite useful - especially the part about not seeking feedback from the audience in the same way as you would in a one-to-one meeting
Hats off to John Antonakis. I think the most important point here is not which theories work or do not, but to raise the question as to the reqyuirement for theories stand up against rigourous scientific testing.
Before jumping off at the deep end, readers should really pick up a copy of Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (a really entertaining but informative read, and was in my experience, and all I have lent it too, unputdownable) to get an understanding of why science is the only thing that can really test these assertions
I have come across countless nonsense on training courses in the past with 'experts' making assertions relating to defunct theories 50 years out of date. A total waste of money in my opinion
I shall be looking up Mr Antonakis to see what evidence he has to offer...
Why not IFRS FRSSE
I'm a big fan of the FRSSE and it makes good sense for small companies to have reduced reporting requirements.
Having all your reporting requirements (CA and FRS of whatever denomination) in one relatively short document is useful had helpful to clients in that it keeps their fees down
Why not bring the FRSSE in line with the IFRS for SME? Seems like a sensible approach
Cheap accountants online
You don't often hear about reports being 'leaked' by PwC that are not in its own interest.
This is a cynical move by the firm to look impartial whilst being the mouthpiece of its clients
Shame on you PwC - its a low and dirty tactic (just in time for the election as well...)
Is there nothing they won't privatise?
This sort of comment really underlines what many have suspected all along - the Tory's only want to get into power to line their, and their friends pockets
What'll be next, sale and leaseback of the houses of parliament?
Why not float the BoE on the stock exchange?
A solution to this inequality?
I have long considered that equal rights for both maternity and paternity (or at least more equal) would go a long way to chipping away at that glass ceiling. If it was equally likely that a man was going to take a long paternity as a woman, it would be very difficult to desciminate - all people of 'child -rearing age would come under equally likely 'suspicion' (for want of a better word).
Of course it would take a cultural shift that may take some years to view either parent to be equally worthy main child carers I appreciate there is a biological requirment for new born children to be with the mother), however the current laws surrounding maternity and paternity pay heavily incentivises the mother to be the main child carer.
I know of plenty of couples of whom the female is the breadwinner with better career prospects and earning more than their partner but, due the maternity laws have opted to take maternity leave.
This, I believe, is a huge contributor to the apparant glass ceiling effect whereby women fail to make it to board level. Really its not that surprising that if a woman chose (was economically forced?) to take a career gap of a few years for child bearing purposes (often at a critical time in their carrer - late 20s early 30s) that they end up "behind" their male counterparts who took no such break - their male equivelents are now a few years more experienced.
This is always an increadibly emotive subject and I suspect this post will get blasted from all sides from individuals who have vested interests.
My proposal (and I haven't fully thought this through so there will bound to be objections etc etc) is an 'allowance' of time per child so that it can be split between mother and father (or other child carers such as grandparents etc) in the way that it best suits their individual circumstances. This would be good for the child, both parents, female career prospects and even employers and would probably be good for the economy and possibly even lead to better society
Politicians - please feel free to take this as a policy (I suspect, delivered in the right way it would be a vote winner!)
I would be interested to hear your resposnses to this proposal
I will incorporate this into my completion checklists