LORD SHARMAN's conclusions on going concern are to be applauded. The system we have has long since been problematic and not nearly nuanced enough.
In a report this week Going Concern and Liquidity Risks he concludes that the current system is too “binary” – a company is a going concern or it isn’t.
That doesn’t nearly cover all the possibilities. After all, a business may be deemed a going concern for the purposes of reporting, but may indeed face serious difficulties that stakeholders should know about. Hence the need for more information and in different forms.
A more nuanced approach should also mean that disclosures can be made without becoming the killer blow that causes a company to collapse. This is why the all or nothing approach of the current going concern regime is inadequate. The International Accounting Standards Board has to listen because accountants and company directors really do need a better system.
You may also like
If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.
In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.