The most recent Comment from Accountancy Age

Behind the numbers: eyes on the prize

Gavin Hinks — 2008-11-20T17:38:00.000Z

Gavin Hinks, Accountancy Age, Thursday 20 November 2008 at 17:38:00

As post-Accountancy Age Awards hangovers slowly subside, I thought I would attempt to head off the numerous questions we receive along the lines of ‘why didn’t we win the award’ and ‘how can we win one next year?’

So here are some pointers for achieving awards success.

1. Try to focus on changes and improvements in the period covered by the award – the previous 12 months or so. Keep history prior to the relevant period to a minimum. It’s change in the relevant period that makes the difference to the judges.

2. Descriptions of how great you are take up a lot of space – better to concentrate on examples of how you have changed, progressed and the difference you have made. Answer the question how do I show we are/I am great?

3. Use the word count and the allowance for supporting information. Too concise entries often don’t say enough to convince the judges there is substance behind your claims. Conversely, writing over the allotted word count does not impress either and could see your entry marked down or even disqualified.

4. The awards are all about rewarding progress. If you give examples of your successes try to illustrate how they fit in with your overall strategy.

5. If you are an individual entering an award try to get someone to write/nominate for you and make sure your name is in the submission as well as the entry form.

6. Overcoming personal adversity, while impressive, is only relevant to the awards if it has had some effect on your work. If it is just part of your general background and unconnected to work, then it is largely wasted information.

7. Work on the structure of your entry. Too many appear to be stream of consciousness efforts which do not convince judges that the entry was well thought out. Well structured entries are also easier to read and assess.

8. Please check spelling and grammar.

9. Don’t ignore the opportunity to obtain and provide client or stakeholder testimonials. Testimonials where the writer is identified are better than anonymous ones and make sure the testimonials are written with the entry in mind. Too many are flat references to ‘satisfactory’ work clearly taken from documents written for different reasons.

10. Please, please, please demonstrate in your submission how you meet the entry criteria.

Gavin Hinks is the editor of Accountancy Age and blogs at insider.accountancyage.com

The FDs' FD: to be a winner

Margaret Ewing — 2008-11-13T15:37:00.000Z

Margaret Ewing, Accountancy Age, Thursday 13 November 2008 at 15:37:00

Over the last six months this column has increasingly focused on how to survive the financial turmoil and dramatic impact on the ‘real economy’

It has tended to dwell on the negative attributes of this turbulence and recommended actions for FDs and their teams to take to mitigate the implications.

But this week, given this is the 2008 Awards edition of Accountancy Age, I am going to concentrate on being a winner.

There are not many situations that foster such high emotion, adrenalin and happiness as being a winner. In November 2006, following the takeover of BAA, I found myself out of work (or ‘pursuing other opportunities’) and feeling somewhat aimless.

That was until the star-studded, champagne infused evening of 16 November 2006 in Battersea Park, when I unexpectedly found myself the amazingly proud winner of the Blue Chip Finance Director of the Year Award.

As I shook hands with William Hague, my demeanour and self-belief were transformed. Not only was I delighted to have received such recognition, but my credibility and positive attitude were reinstated.

I realised I had been and would continue to be a winner, despite the situation, as long as I retained a positive approach to the future.

By taking action now, planning ahead and remaining positive, instead of letting events catch you unaware you can ensure you emerge from the chaos as winners.

Today’s winning FDs are rethinking their approach to future financial management, particularly the management and use of cash; devoting considerable time and energy to their relationships with lenders, customers and suppliers; reducing dependency on bank financing and pursuing alternative sources of credit, while seeking to reduce the level of leverage within the company; forecasting the implications of various scenarios and ensuring they retain flexibility and agility to respond; managing honestly and transparently their stakeholders’ expectations in a timely way, with no surprises; understanding how they can turn this situation to their advantage by realising the opportunities presented.

As Andrew Higginson, CFO of Tesco, told a group of delegates at the Financial Director Summit in late September: ‘Do not think you cannot grow, because if you do think this, you will not grow. Think you will win.’

If you are positive about the future, but also realistic, you too will be a winner.

Margaret Ewing is partner and vice-chairman of Deloitte. She formerly served as CFO of BAA

Your chance to shine

Accountancy Age — 2008-11-13T14:28:00.000Z

Accountancy Age, Accountancy Age, Thursday 13 November 2008 at 14:28:00

This week we celebrate the 2008 Accountancy Age Awards

Our winners have succeeded against a backdrop of the credit crunch, a banking crisis and a downturn transforming into a recession. They are to be commended for still completing good work.

But it is poignant to note a survey from the Forum of Private Business and Graydon which shows that around 70% of small businesses are turning to their accountants as their most trusted adviser, against 47% going to their bankers.

Bank managers are being replaced by call centres but moreover there is a perception that banks have not offered enough support in recent times. Indeed, the statistics are supported by comments by an HSBC official on our Insider Business webcast revealing confidence had switched to accountants. Anecdotally there is mounting evidence that small businesses have struggled to find finance at affordable rates, if at all, deepening the animosity towards banks.

This is a key moment for accountants. As the recession deepens and relations with banks potentially worsen the profession will be seen as the experts to turn to. It is a position accountants can take and hold if they focus on seeing their clients through these difficult times.

That means seeing the current environment as an opportunity to deliver quality services and to add substantial value to clients. Of course, accountants cannot offer financing, but nor can the downturn just be about tacking an insolvency practice on to your firm. What they can do is build cases to win funding or show clients how to manage their way through the crisis.

It may turn out to be stressful and demand an extra commitment but consider how much better off the average accountant will be if he and his organisation and clients successfully negotiate these troubled times.

The profession’s reputation would never be higher.

This week's blogs: banking on trust

our bloggers — 2008-11-06T16:36:00.000Z

our bloggers, Accountancy Age, Thursday 6 November 2008 at 16:36:00

This week our bloggers question codes of conduct and help for small businesses

Given the current economic gloom, market participants need to be extra vigilant in demonstrating that the regulatory frameworks, codes of conduct and industry practice within which they operate are fit for purpose and capable of helping UK plc withstand the downturn.

My view is that, post-Enron, the incremental changes introduced in terms of regulatory oversight and corporate governance reform are generally holding up well. While it is probably little comfort to Northern Rock shareholders, 12 months into the credit crunch the list of UK corporate casualties has been limited.

Historically company directors have had to declare one of three positions:

That they have a reasonable expectation the company will cont-inue in operational existence for the foreseeable future.
That they have identified factors which cast doubt on the ability of the company to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future.
That they consider the company is unlikely to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future.

The FRC is proposing a fourth provision, reflecting the requirements of IFRS:

That they have identified material uncertainties that may cast significant doubt about the ability of the com-pany to continue as a going concern.

Investors need a clear understanding of the ongoing health of the companies in which they invest. One question is whether a fourth provision clarifies or confuses, or whether the second of the three current provisions should just be aligned better with IFRS.

Michael Izza, ICAEW chief executive

ion.icaew.com/MoorgatePlac e

Insider wrote in his blog that auditors are having a good crisis. This seems to be borne out by research from Graydon among SMEs. The results so far seem to suggest that smaller businesses are seeking more advice from accountants and turning away from bank managers as trust in banks deteriorates. Through the liquidity crisis, SMEs have found it difficult to obtain finance at affordable rates, if at all, and are clearly frustrated, worried and annoyed.

SME owners are probably blaming banks for the global downturn through their greedy lending in the good times. But the banks have been bailed out with the taxpayers money. Now the bad times have arrived, the rescued banks don’t seem to be doing much to help their own business customers survive.

It’s easy to see why SMEs are turning to a profession they trust.

Martin Williams, UK managing director, Graydon UK

riskybusiness.accountancyage.com

Moving forward: personal crisis

Lynn Williams — 2008-11-06T16:26:00.000Z

Lynn Williams, Accountancy Age, Thursday 6 November 2008 at 16:26:00

What do you do if the worst happens and you get made redundant?

You’re expecting a normal day until HR call and you learn that you no longer have a job.

How do you cope in a crisis like that?

Roll with the punch. Don’t react immediately. Redundancy is a shock so take time to adjust before negotiating terms. Get advice from any union or professional association you belong to and don’t feel pressured into agreeing to anything you’re not sure of. Take time out if you need it and don’t sign anything while you’re in an emotional state. When you’re ready to negotiate, don’t just consider money, what else would help? Some companies offer retraining packages, outplacement consultants, counsellors or financial advisers.

Unburden yourself. It’s pointless pretending nothing has happened. Talk things through with family and friends and get their support. Try to spread the emotional load, though, don’t expect one person to shoulder it all. Even when partners are supportive they can still get upset. Getting together with colleagues or others in the same situation for a good moan eases the burden and means you can be more positive at home.

Do things that take you out of yourself to give yourself and those around you some respite.

Check your finances. First, clarify what happens to any pension you have. If you have a substantial redundancy payment, get independent financial advice before investing it. It can feel like you’ve won the lottery if you get a sizeable payout and people have been known to blow the lot on mad schemes.

Whatever payment you get, see the Benefits Agency immediately. They’ll work out any benefit entitlements and ensure you get National Insurance credits. Calculate how much money you’ll have each month, how much you need to spend, and plan a budget that will keep you going for the long term even if you’ll only need it for a short while.

Rebuild your confidence. Your self-esteem will be bruised, so be kind to yourself. Pursue sports and hobbies you enjoy and that make you feel good. Take your interests seriously and work on them. Find ways to continue using your skills and talents. If nothing else, consider using them in voluntary work or community projects rather than letting them lie fallow.

Look at your life. Are you doing what you really want to? If not, this could be a big turning point your chance to change.

Lynn Williams is a career coach. She is the author of several career books.

On the money with Gavin Hinks

Gavin Hinks — 2008-11-06T16:23:00.000Z

Gavin Hinks, Accountancy Age, Thursday 6 November 2008 at 16:23:00

Who would be Tim Tookey right now? He’s the man who has just taken on the permanent role of group FD at LloydsTSB. What a time to take the job

Tookey has been doing the role in an acting capacity since the promotion of predecessor Helen Weir. He has effectively handled the job through the crisis which saw the government invest heavily in Lloyds, among other, banks to help ensure it continues to function. Could he have imagined being at the centre of such a storm when Weir moved on in April this year, several months before Lehman’s crashed so spectacularly sending the banks and government desperately seeking a way out of the mire.

Tookey’s CEO, Eric Daniels, praised him for his ‘immense contribution’ during ‘a period of unprecedented turmoil in global financial services’.

I’ll say. There could not have been a group FD anywhere with that on their CV. It makes you wonder what Lloyds would have done if they felt they needed someone else. Where would you look? Who would want it?

Tookey’s in a particularly intriguing position as he is not only at the heart of managing Lloyds recapitalisation, but also dealing with the government and the takeover of HBOS, a measure not entirely met with joy by the analysts.

That sounds more like a job for two people, not a single man. Such a large takeover presents a vast volume of work while the recapitalisation must present similar challenges. At this time, more than any other, people will be relying on the accuracy of the accounts and Tookey will be responsible for making sure they are right.

So what kind of person does that take? The only thing that can be certain is that you’d have to be able to be able to soak up pressure like a sponge because, as things stand, there is little sign of it easing off.

Gavin Hinks is editor of Accountancy Age

Auditors: decision time

Graham Clayworth, BDO Stoy Hayward — 2008-11-06T16:20:00.000Z

Graham Clayworth, BDO Stoy Hayward, Accountancy Age, Thursday 6 November 2008 at 16:20:00

A company's fate lies in the hands of the auditors

The guidance from the FRC requiring audit committees to consider the impact of their auditor leaving the market missed the point.

It is far better to plan to avoid a crash than to plan to deal with the consequences when it does happen and there are two urgent actions that could help: clear guidance on reporting in the current economic climate and a review of the auditor limited liability rules.

The world has moved on since the MPG recommendations were published, although choice remains an unsolved problem in the audit market. Financial statements and audit reports need to be meaningful in a climate where there is significant doubt about the ability of any company to continue as a going concern, particularly, when banks are unwilling or unable to confirm renewed facilities.

As the government has committed billions to revive illiquid markets there is still doubt about the impact it will have for businesses seeking to renew current or negotiate new facilities with their banks.

Companies need to ensure they inform stakeholders of the risks they face in such a way that is clear and informative. Auditors currently need to consider whether all uncertainties have been adequately described and, if not, consider some form of qualified report. Where a significant uncertainty surrounds a future event this is noted as an emphasis to the audit opinion.

The danger is that auditors will be caught between issuing reports that are either qualified or draw attention to uncertainties and these lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy and corporate failure, or give clean reports only to find that companies fail in the next 12 months. Either way, the auditor will be blamed.

Auditors face the challenge of trying to judge whether companies will remain as going concerns.

Clear guidance is now urgently required about how accounts and audit reports should deal with the general risks arising from the economic climate.

The limited liability regime change, introduced in the Companies Act earlier this year, has undoubtedly stalled. It is therefore time to review this position. The current law permits auditors to limit liability by contract but there seems to be significant resistance to this from company boards and other regulators. Maybe it is time to consider limitation by statute.

Graham Clayworth is an audit partner at BDO Stoy Hayward

View from the board: Tough enough?

Mark Freebairn — 2008-10-30T19:36:00.000Z

Mark Freebairn, Accountancy Age, Thursday 30 October 2008 at 19:36:00

A young investment executive in one of the top tier US private equity firms was bemoaning the performance of one of their investments

‘I don’t understand it,’ he said. ‘We bought this business on the premise that we could reduce the cost base substantially and now, a year later, we still have not been able to do that. Why can’t we drive the cost out of the business?’

No one had the heart to answer the question, because it wouldn’t have been complimentary but it was simple. He had never actually run a business in his life. University had led to an MBA and that had led to employment with one of the best firms in the market. But he had never had to worry about dealing with procurement or driving headcount reductions.

Current market conditions have created a real problem for private equity and a real opportunity for finance leaders. The credit markets are so tight that there are few opportunities for refinancing or sale. So people simply have to run their businesses better.

CEOs need to be reined back in and businesses need to be focussed on cost management.

Now you have two options in this sort of situation change the CEO or change the CFO. If you take the first course of action, you really need to give the incoming CEO three years to make a difference. This focuses the attention on changing the CFO. The benefit of this is that you can bring someone in who can make a step change in how the business is managed a change that has much more immediate impact.

In situations where you have to spend every pound wisely, a finance function working hand-in-hand with the business is essential.

It can develop the right mind-set in operational management and transform a business into one where its leaders are very focussed on saving cost. And when everyone has a stake and when multiples could be four, five, six or more times your money, saving a million here and there suddenly makes a very real difference to your retirement age.

That young investment executive was daft to think the cost could be driven out of the business. But a good CFO can find ways of reducing costs signifi cantly, and can help to ensure the business is well run. It helps, though, if your MBA (if you have one) is backed by solid experience and sound good sense. For the brave-hearted, these are great times to be an accountant in private equity. Really.

Mark Freebairn is a partner at Odgers Ray & Berndtson

The FDs' FD: get capital working

Margaret ewing — 2008-10-16T18:49:00.000Z

Margaret ewing, Accountancy Age, Thursday 16 October 2008 at 18:49:00

We are inundated by articles about the credit crunch all very alarming and predicting doom and gloom

So much so, that I fear that many finance directors are in danger of being ‘caught in the headlights’ and not realising that there are very practical steps available to us all to minimise its impact on our ability to fund our businesses.

In many businesses, one of the biggest investments is also one of the most poorly managed working capital. A renewed focus on managing working capital effectively can provide a business with much needed liquidity.

As FDs we can fall into the trap of setting policies for working capital but leaving other parts of our organisation sales, operations and procurement to manage it. In effect, these functions are determining the levels of cash we need to invest in our businesses on a day to day basis. While many FDs may not normally have direct influence over a number of these areas, this is the time FDs need to grab control to ensure we optimise working capital.

In many respects, the FD is the hub of the working capital wheel and, therefore, at the centre of, and driving, the processes. There are a number of improvements we can make solely within the finance function, others that need the involvement of parts of the wider organisation and a third group that requires change on the part of our customers and suppliers.

As FDs, it is our responsibility to pull all the levers to ensure that cash is maximised. Firstly, it is imperative that we achieve improvements in the aspects of working capital under our control. We also need to provide tools to allow the rest of the organisation to monitor and control cashflow and thereby make further improvements.

Throughout the business, management needs to be aware of the implications of its actions and decisions ranging from the launch of new products through to factoring in working capital into customer and product profitability analyses. This shift from a pure top line and margin culture to one which includes a cash consideration will not only bring benefits in the current climate but provides a solid foundation for the future.

Under normal circumstances, working capital often provides the cheapest and most accessible source of funding for a business. In today’s environment it is essential that we take advantage of this source of internal funding before our customers and suppliers do.

Margaret Ewing is a partner and vice-chairman at Deloitte and former CFO of BAA

Political intervention: defensive position

David Cairns — 2008-10-16T18:41:00.000Z

David Cairns, Accountancy Age, Thursday 16 October 2008 at 18:41:00

The profession must stand up to the politicians

The intervention of politicians in financial reporting issues is nothing new. Those with long memories will recall inflation accounting and deferred taxes in the UK or accounting for derivatives, stock options and oil and gas exploration costs in the USA. Those with shorter memories may recall President Chirac’s claim that the requirements of IAS 39 would have

‘nefarious consequences for financial stability’.

Political intervention is not surprising. Accounting requirements affect the relative interests of different stakeholders and, therefore, have political consequences. Politicians and bureaucrats tend to support influential groups that claim they will be the losers hence their willingness to seek the easing of the rules on fair value accounting.

It is an easy target because it appears to be something new imposed by the adoption of IFRS. However, the losses that banks and others want to hide arise in the context of historical cost rather than fair value. The banks should have recognised these losses under their national GAAPs as well as IFRS.

The term ‘fair value accounting’ implies that all assets and liabilities must be measured at fair value at each balance sheet date and the resulting gains and losses included in profit and loss. IFRS require this form of fair value accounting for derivatives and other held-for-trading financial assets. Rightly or wrongly, the IASB believes that this is the only meaningful way to account for these items.

For virtually everything else, IFRS follows the same historical cost model that has been in existence for decades. As all accountants know, the carrying amounts of assets under this model should not exceed the amount that can be obtained from their use, sale or other means of recovery. Some might call this prudence.

Those calling for the easing of fair value accounting want to hide losses that should be recognised under both historical cost and fair value accounting. They want to assign the blame for bad or ill-informed decision-making on the accounting. As Lynn Turner, former chief accountant at the SEC, argued, they will tell lies to investors if they pretend that loan assets are worth more than the borrower will repay.

Such accounting may be acceptable to politicians. But, as a profession, we should tell them we will not be associated with it.

David Cairns is a visiting professor at the London School of Economics

This week's blog entries: and what do you do?

Accountancy Age — 2008-10-02T17:40:00.000Z

Accountancy Age, Accountancy Age, Thursday 2 October 2008 at 17:40:00

What your clients actually do, and a very green crisis in this week’s round up of the blogs

Personal service

At a business networking event recently I met Christopher Higenbottam. I asked what he did and he told me he is an architect.

After a few minutes I think I asked him whether there was anything specific that distinguished his practice from that of other architects I might know. And it’s an important one for professional advisers (especially accountants) to be able to answer convincingly.

Most professionals, in my experience, fall back onto the hackneyed standbys. They often talk about offering a ‘personal service’ (sometimes they even seem to believe that this is special, just like all of the other accountants, lawyers, surveyors who say the same thing).

Other common replies, that also fail to make the adviser memorable or distinctive focus on other intangible service elements.

When I ask the question it’s because I want to know what to listen out for when talking to

people who might need the person’s services.

If I’m not a potential consumer of the services myself I want to know why I should remember and recommend that person rather than any of the other accountants, lawyers, surveyors I have met.

Mark Lee, chairman, Tax Advice Network

bookmarklee.wordpress.com

A very green crisis

The most interesting potential repercussion of the market crisis (or correction, depending on your point of view) is for the environmental performance of the wider economy.

It is truly remarkable how quickly business leaders and commentators have realised the opportunity the problems in the City and Wall Street now present for the low carbon economy.

As Paul Dickinson of the Carbon Disclosure Project explains, the cause of the current crisis can be found in a failure to properly assess risk and an absence of adequate oversight and regulation.

These are the exact same causes of the climate crisis and an increased focus on these concepts can only draw attention to the need for more concerted action on carbon emissions.

The letter to the Prime Minister from the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, underlines the extent to which this realisation has dawned on many business leaders, with them calling explicitly for more environmental regulation and a massive expansion in public sector spending on green projects as part of a coordinated effort to stimulate a flagging economy.

James Murray at businessgreen.com

blog.businessgreen.com

Behind the numbers: The big shrink

Damian Wild — 2008-09-24T16:32:00.000Z

Damian Wild, Accountancy Age, Wednesday 24 September 2008 at 16:32:00

The question 'Are four big firms enough?' has been replaced with 'Do we really need four big firms?'

Ever since Andersen collapsed the question most frequently asked by regulators examining choice at the top end of the audit market has been: ‘ Are four firms enough?’

But with corporate collapse and market concentration intensifying, that question no longer seems relevant. Instead, perhaps, we should be asking the question: ‘Do we really need as many as four firms?’

Such are the extraordinary developments in financial services markets on an almost hourly basis that any summary risks being overtaken by events. But, at the time of writing at least, two banks have fallen (Lehman Brothers to administration, Merrill Lynch to Bank of America); two others are entertaining a shotgun marriage (HBOS and Lloyds TSB); and an insurer (AIG) has lost its market status.

It’s by no means confined to the financial services industry.

BA chief executive Willie Walsh has predicted that as many as 30 airlines will go to the wall between now and Christmas on top of the 30 that have already collapsed around the world in recent months.

XL, that most media-friendly of implosions given the way in which it lent itself to images of stranded holidaymakers, is seen as the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the wider travel industry.

Meanwhile the high street is in a torrid state, possibly only rivalled in the gloom stakes by commercial property developers and house builders.

The upshot for the next 12 months is that auditors will trade clients as businesses merge and lose them as others collapse. And given that much of the shrinkage will be at the upper end of the FTSE and Dow Jones indices, we could well see the number of audit clients held by each of the Big Four shrink.

I wouldn’t expect many commentators, as a result, to be asking whether four firms are too few any time soon.

Will this affect jobs? Certainly. Will it cost jobs? In that sense it will be harder to establish cause and effect.

In the US, Deloitte is making ‘adjustments to its workforce levels’ while E &Y is freezing hiring in the UK. Those are, of course, programmes that will be stepped up there and elsewhere if the global slowdown grinds any closer to a halt or even a retreat.

Damian Wild is editor in chief of Accountancy Age and blogs at accountancymatters.accountancyage.com

Talent: play to your strengths

Judith Germain — 2008-09-18T01:21:00.000Z

Judith Germain, Accountancy Age, Thursday 18 September 2008 at 01:21:00

Senior management should be aware of talent at their disposal

UK companies run the risk of slipping behind global competitors if they fail to focus on improving through the talent of their people.

Many businesses understand the need to develop and nurture top talent but, according to the CIPD Global Leadership Forecast 2008/09, accountability lies mostly with the HR team and junior managers. Only 19% of UK senior managers are held accountable, while in global companies this rises to 36%.

Most business leaders are aware of the old adage ‘you get what you measure’ and this can explain why there appears to be failure in companies’ ability to ensure that effective leadership development takes place.

The CIPD found that 64% of UK companies felt improving or leveraging top talent was a number one priority for their business. To achieve this then overall accountability must move to senior managers.

This is the most effective way to ensure that talent management is taken seriously by the company and enables business priorities like improving customer service and maintaining growth in increasingly competitive markets to take place.

Senior management can be held accountable in a number of ways. The most effective include:

Align accountability for talent management to salary and bonus schemes;
When senior managers report to the board on their functional responsibilities like growth targets, talent management has an equal amount of ‘airspace’;
Ensure that senior management are not promoted unless there is a successor readily available;
Ensure talent management is addressed as a senior management team, not just an individual manager’s responsibility; and
Enable the HR team to hold senior management accountable to promote talent management as well as the board.

These measures are designed to ensure that senior management remains focused on developing top talent as a key area for the business. These managers are most able to define key talent’s career opportunities, morale and ability to perform for the company via their direct control or patronage. If this is used well then the company is more likely to achieve its strategic objectives.

Judith Germain is a leadership consultant

Latest blog entries: a place in the sun

various — 2008-09-18T01:15:00.000Z

various, Accountancy Age, Thursday 18 September 2008 at 01:15:00

The Big Four is the place to start a career and why HMRC's holiday home ruling has a sting in the tail. It's all in our latest blogs round-up

Accounting hot,

E&Y hottest

It’s official: accounting is hot. That’s according to Business Week’s annual careers survey.

The Big Four take four of the top five places in the Best Places to Launch a Career 2008 league table. KPMG is knocked into fifth place by Goldman Sachs, with PwC third, Deloitte second and E&Y nabbing the top spot.

More surprising though is that despite talk of layoffs by the big firms elsewhere, the Big Four do so well. But it seems there is little link between career longevity and an organisation being a good place to start out. After all investment banks do well too.

accountingmatters.accountancyage.com

Holiday homes,

HMRC’s latest

The recent press release from HM Revenue & Customs in respect of holiday homes abroad is not necessarily the good news that many believe. It confirms that individuals who own holiday homes through companies will not suffer a benefit in kind tax liability due to the company asset being made available to them. The change in HMRC position applies to all years, including those in the past. The press release goes onto give details about mechanisms to recover taxes paid for past periods.

Clearly the concept of the relieving provision is a step in the right direction, especially if the change is backdated in the favour of the individual. So where is the ‘sting in the tail’?

HMRC sets outs the conditions that need to be satisfied for no benefit to arise.

One of the conditions is that the property owning company is owned directly by the individual in question (or his family).

This is important and may be overlooked by some taxpayers. HMRC have confirmed that the revised legislation is designed to avoid a charge where the taxpayer may have accidentally suffered one.

As such, indirect ownership of the company shares (e.g. via trusts) is not exempted by the new relieving legislation and the possibility of a benefit in kind will continue.

There is also the question of the extent that the foreign entity will be a company for the purposes of the exemption, because the legislation uses the term ‘company’ and not ‘body corporate’.

I suspect that there will be a good few years of uncertainty as to the extent that some of the more unusual (and exotic) foreign property ownership vehicles are a company for these purposes.

Richard Verge,

goodmanjones.net

Moving forward: go for gold

Lynn Williams — 2008-09-11T17:56:00.000Z

Lynn Williams, Accountancy Age, Thursday 11 September 2008 at 17:56:00

Well, that’s the Olympics over, and we didn’t do too badly

Going for gold demands a level of personal sacrifice way beyond what’s required in most workplaces, but there are elements of that medal-winning thinking you can apply to your own performance.

Know why you’re running: athletes have a specific goal: get to the finishing line first. Everything is focused on that one objective. Define your own goals as clearly and precisely – you’ll keep your eyes on the prize when you know exactly what the prize is.

It takes courage: athletes don’t waste time looking for short-cut or easy answers. Sometimes you just have to grit your teeth and get on with it if you want to see results.

You’re always competing against yourself: athletes are always striving – not only to be better than the other competitors, but to beat their previous performance. Measure yourself against yourself and aim to be better each time.

Keep reviewing your performance: trainers spend hours with their protégés going over each event in detail. Assess your own performance - what you did well, what you could do better and what you’ll do differently next time.

Training counts: no athlete expects to simply turn up and win – they train until they’re in peak condition. Invest in your own training and spend time and effort practicing if you want to be good.

It takes a team: winners have trainers, supporters, coaches, physiotherapists, an entire team around them. Although your performance comes down to you on the day, don’t underestimate the help available. Who are your allies?

Be generous in victory and magnanimous in defeat: no-one likes a bad loser. When you win, speak up for the losers; when you lose, congratulate the winner. It will be noticed.

Focus matters: successful athletes concentrate their effort where it will produce results. Don’t scatter yourself too widely or spread yourself too thin.

Success costs: every potential gold-medallist has to weigh up the cost of success. Because you can do something doesn’t mean you have to and because you can do anything it doesn’t mean you have to do everything.

Play to your strengths: athletes start with a natural talent and polish it until it’s world class. They work on their weaknesses, but they spend far more time reinforcing their strengths.

Lynn Williams is a career coach who writes books on job search and career issues www.koganpage.com