Madeleine Fund - End of Year Accounts 2016-2017.

[sadie]

Yes it does... Alice says the accounts could have been done by a contract engineer I believe that is a ridiculous suggestion

Alice, why specifically a Contracts Engineer, I wonder ?   Do you mean a Chartered Engineer ?

The main criteria as to the ability of any engineer to do accounts, would be, IMO, the fact that he has run a Company of some size .... and has had the responsibility of overseeing the profits and financial workings.  If the Company were large enough, he would have a Financial Director who would get the figures together, but the M.D. must have the ability to check everything in the Company is done correctly ..... and that includes overseeeing the Financial Director.

If the company was small then it is likely that it would employ an external Accountant.

If a part of a very large group then there would almost certainly be a Divisional Financial Section which would oversee all the senior financial people including Directors


Anyone who runs a Company, engineer or not, if able to do so, could do the necessary paperwork, but most would chose to employ either an internal qualified accountant or use the setrvices of an external qualified accountant. 

If anything goes wrong, then the accountant carries the buck.

AIMO, but most is fact.

[G-Unit]

What even the bit about trading at a loss for two consecutive years?

It seems that the change to Financial Reporting Standard 102 1A from UK GAAP has required small companies to show these losses. The accounts for Y/E 2016 showed this. Nothing about a loss in the Profit and Loss account is mentioned;

Unrestricted Funds  167,574
Restricted Funds     547,226
                             714,800

The figures brought forward from 2016 to the 2017 accounts show these different figures;

Unrestricted Funds        185,507         
Restricted Funds           560,645         
income/Expenditure A/c (31,352)
                                    714,800



So the total is the same, but the details have been changed. It seems profits and losses will be seen in future.

[Mr Gray]

It seems that the change to Financial Reporting Standard 102 1A from UK GAAP has required small companies to show these losses. The accounts for Y/E 2016 showed this. Nothing about a loss in the Profit and Loss account is mentioned;

Unrestricted Funds  167,574
Restricted Funds     547,226
                             714,800

The figures brought forward from 2016 to the 2017 accounts show these different figures;

Unrestricted Funds        185,507         
Restricted Funds           560,645         
income/Expenditure A/c (31,352)
                                    714,800



So the total is the same, but the details have been changed. It seems profits and losses will be seen in future.

So a change in reporting practices... Would you expect non accountants to keep up with these changes

[G-Unit]

So a change in reporting practices... Would you expect non accountants to keep up with these changes

Those working in the sector would all have been aware of it, including support staff.

[Mr Gray]

Those working in the sector would all have been aware of it, including support staff.

Fair enough... Those working in the accounting industry...

[G-Unit]

How useful are audits? Not very, according to those probing the collapse of Carillion;

Rachel Reeves MP, who chairs the Business Committee, added: "On this morning's evidence from KPMG and Deloitte, these audits appear to be a colossal waste of time and money, fit only to provide false assurance to investors, workers and the public."

Of course it may be that they misunderstand the role of an auditor;

KPMG's head of audit Michelle Hinchliffe told MPs: "We check the figures and make sure they are in accordance with accounting standards but it's not a guarantee that the company will continue or that the management are making effective decisions."

https://news.sky.com/story/regulator-and-auditor-spectators-on-carillion-mp-11261940

 

[Brietta]

How useful are audits? Not very, according to those probing the collapse of Carillion;

Rachel Reeves MP, who chairs the Business Committee, added: "On this morning's evidence from KPMG and Deloitte, these audits appear to be a colossal waste of time and money, fit only to provide false assurance to investors, workers and the public."

Of course it may be that they misunderstand the role of an auditor;

KPMG's head of audit Michelle Hinchliffe told MPs: "We check the figures and make sure they are in accordance with accounting standards but it's not a guarantee that the company will continue or that the management are making effective decisions."

https://news.sky.com/story/regulator-and-auditor-spectators-on-carillion-mp-11261940

Your post is specifically in relation to Madeleine's Fund ... in what way?

[G-Unit]

Your post is specifically in relation to Madeleine's Fund ... in what way?

It's relevant because I have had the impression in the past that some people seem to think that auditors certify that a company is well-run. Having audited accounts doesn't tell us anything except that the accounts comply with certain financial standards.

[Brietta]

It's relevant because I have had the impression in the past that some people seem to think that auditors certify that a company is well-run. Having audited accounts doesn't tell us anything except that the accounts comply with certain financial standards.

Exactly what are you implying with regard to Madeleine's Fund?

[Alice Purjorick]

Yes it does... Alice says the accounts could have been done by a contract engineer I believe that is a ridiculous suggestion

Why?
He has the skill sets required so why is it ridiculous in your opinion?

[Mr Gray]

Why?
He has the skill sets required so why is it ridiculous in your opinion?

for the reasons I have already posted

[Alice Purjorick]

Alice, why specifically a Contracts Engineer, I wonder ?   Do you mean a Chartered Engineer ?

The main criteria as to the ability of any engineer to do accounts, would be, IMO, the fact that he has run a Company of some size .... and has had the responsibility of overseeing the profits and financial workings.  If the Company were large enough, he would have a Financial Director who would get the figures together, but the M.D. must have the ability to check everything in the Company is done correctly ..... and that includes overseeeing the Financial Director.

If the company was small then it is likely that it would employ an external Accountant.

If a part of a very large group then there would almost certainly be a Divisional Financial Section which would oversee all the senior financial people including Directors


Anyone who runs a Company, engineer or not, if able to do so, could do the necessary paperwork, but most would chose to employ either an internal qualified accountant or use the setrvices of an external qualified accountant. 

If anything goes wrong, then the accountant carries the buck.

AIMO, but most is fact.

If anything is wrong the company directors carry the can back.
See Companies Act 2006.

[G-Unit]

Exactly what are you implying with regard to Madeleine's Fund?

I'm not implying anything. I'm explaining something about what auditors can and cannot tell us about a company because I have seen it implied in the past that auditing provides a seal of approval. It doesn't, except in a very specific area. 

[Alice Purjorick]

for the reasons I have already posted

Your opinion in this instance is incorrect consequently worthless.

[Mr Gray]

Your opinion in this instance is incorrect consequently worthless.

As is yours

I think we are, all aware of your motives as you have stated them clearly... Come here... Throw some stones in the water and see what ripples they cause... If you want to believe that the mccanns could have employed anyone but a registered firm of accountants to submit their accounts... So be it... I think it's a ridiculous  suggestion... End of... No more ripples