|
|
18 Jun 2010
The annual Top 50 +50 survey of firms was, as usual, a stressful process. Not least for our features editor Paul Grant and the firms taking part.
I had previously blogged that there was a chance that, with the tough economic conditions, some firms might decide that their latest figures weren't fit for public consumption.
My Nostradamus-like prediction (I'm begin sarcastic here folks) came true.
I don't want to tar all the firms with the same brush, as there were many varied reasons why they turned us down this year.
But still, it was a shame that one Top 50 firm declined to take part this year, having been regular entrants, while four of the + 50 also said no.
We estimated their income anyway - and congrats to the others who got their numbers through to us. Check the latest survey out here.
You may also like
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
AccountancyAgeInsight is a frequently updated resource centre for finance professionals, offering a free and easy-to-use digital library of briefings, white papers and other information resources. 
Visitor comments Add your comment
Also interesting to note that some firms are reported to have produced actual results to 30 June 2010 (eg: GT and RSM Tenon) without the use of estimates. Impressive as there's still 2 weeks to go!
;-)
At least Mazars' and Chantrey Vellacott's results to 31 August and 30 June 2010 (respectively) are identified as having been estimated!
I trust Taking Stock will be Taking the proverbial over this unconventional reporting glitch.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Lee, 21 Jun 2010 | 12:08
Thanks for the keen gaze Mark, we could've done with you last week when proofing!
As with these charts, we're aiming for 100% perfection. Having put them together myself in the past, and well aware of the nightmare six weeks Paul would have had with them, we might just take your spots as a blip on a job well done.
Hopefully nothing more sinister lurking...
Posted by: Kevin Reed, 21 Jun 2010 | 14:22
PKF's partner number figure is clearly wrong. Just count the number of partners according to their website.
Posted by: Anon, 25 Jun 2010 | 12:02
The different structures in larger firms now do mean that partner numbers can sometimes be clouded through stating equity partners rather than salaried partners, or senior directors included in the total, or a variation. May depend on the message the firm wants to put out? In context, for PKF their turnover has declined slightly over the last three years, there are four partners less and the key ratio partner/fees has slightly increased.
Posted by: Andrew Jenner, 25 Jun 2010 | 12:34
Surely the fees per partner numbers are useless unless every firm defines "partner" in the same way. PKF's partner number clearly does not include all those who are held out (on their website and elsewhere)as partners or, more to the point, all those who operate internally with full partner authority on client matters. Therefore their fees per partner number is meaningless.
Posted by: Anon, 25 Jun 2010 | 12:46
While I don't know how the firm arrived at its partner number figure, there is at least one other potential explanation not covered by Andrew's comment.
Firms tend to give a partner number figure that is an average for the year in question, riding out any ebbs and flows during that period.
Posted by: Kevin Reed, 25 Jun 2010 | 14:17
Yearends
I suspect that the accounts in question are actually from 2009 rather than 2010. Maybe the chart should be amended?
Partner numbers
The key is to only count as partners those whose salary has NOT been deducted in arriving at PBT in partnership accounts. It is that figure which is then divided by the partners who get to share the PBT (and to pay tax thereon). Directors will always be on PAYE so should never be counted as partners for this purpose.
Posted by: Mark Lee, 25 Jul 2010 | 11:17