Apologies for the flippancy, but if you're feeling a tad aggrieved now, imagine how you're going to feel when good old Dave gets his from the exiting Theresa for "services above & beyond"... as do most ex-PMs
I appreciate all the comments posted regarding this issue... especially the "over-thinking" one, which I have been rightly accused of on many occassions.
Having considered your comments, the property will stand at its cost less depreciation.
Good point... the short answer is no... bank's panel for lending purposes... client pays... gun to their heads...
But, and there's always a but, FRS 102 still stands...
Somehow I can't see the Institute going along with the argument that "honest guv, it's not quite a proper valuation cos he was being prudent" ... aren't all independent valuations supposed to err on the side of caution?
Paul, having re-read Sn17 for the umpteenth time, I can see where you're coming from... but, & its a big but, doesn't the fact that I have a so-called "professional" valuation, imply that the asset is impaired? otherwise, given that the surveyor knew what they were going to pay for it, why did the muppet provide a lower figure?
No... PP&E
As I understood it, IP has to be valued at "fair value" and what a joy that was, trying to nail down a definition of that one... whereas PP&E is "open-market-value".
Client is obviously happy with what they actually paid for it, but having got a "professional" valuation, does FRS 102 really care what a client thinks?
My answers
Apologies for the flippancy, but if you're feeling a tad aggrieved now, imagine how you're going to feel when good old Dave gets his from the exiting Theresa for "services above & beyond"... as do most ex-PMs
I appreciate all the comments posted regarding this issue... especially the "over-thinking" one, which I have been rightly accused of on many occassions.
Having considered your comments, the property will stand at its cost less depreciation.
Thank you for your input.
Good point... the short answer is no... bank's panel for lending purposes... client pays... gun to their heads...
But, and there's always a but, FRS 102 still stands...
Somehow I can't see the Institute going along with the argument that "honest guv, it's not quite a proper valuation cos he was being prudent" ... aren't all independent valuations supposed to err on the side of caution?
Paul, having re-read Sn17 for the umpteenth time, I can see where you're coming from... but, & its a big but, doesn't the fact that I have a so-called "professional" valuation, imply that the asset is impaired? otherwise, given that the surveyor knew what they were going to pay for it, why did the muppet provide a lower figure?
No... PP&E
As I understood it, IP has to be valued at "fair value" and what a joy that was, trying to nail down a definition of that one... whereas PP&E is "open-market-value".
Client is obviously happy with what they actually paid for it, but having got a "professional" valuation, does FRS 102 really care what a client thinks?
"brain-fart"... at least gave me something to smile about.
Whoa...
I said the parent profits were £0.4M...
I've got a big enough headache without having to bring 2015 into the equation...
Ruddles, where were you when I need you...
Hmmm... not quite the right word I had in mind
I appreciate your assitance in this matter... not quite the response I was expecting but thanks anyway.
Apologies but I'm a tad confused as to why 2016.
Yellow card 2015... Red card 2016... QIPS 2017... I was sure that's how it worked...