Is Snippa too polite for Spud now?

The accounting for banks shows just how far in the other (wrong) direction accounting has moved since then. Losses are not recognised now until they are ‘realised’, which means they have been proved to exist by the failure to pay. This is why bank profits were over-stated before the 2008 crash. Anticipation had disappeared from loss accounting when once it was ever-present.

Isn’t that the Gordon Brown change on accounting for expected losses which Ritchie cheered on at the time as it increased tax collected?

14 thoughts on “Is Snippa too polite for Spud now?”

  1. You really should consider the introduction of ‘disqus’ for your comments

    Please don’t!

  2. The Meissen Bison

    Given the recent revelation that the Snippa is a mighty colossus who bestrides the disciplines not only of accountancy, economics BUT ALSO medicine, this seems appropriate for a wet Bank Holiday afternoon…

    From the Diary of Richard Rhizome, Apothecary
    Finding myself unable to venture abroad this forenoon, so severe had been the assault upon my retiring constitution by the wholly merited encomiums directed at me by Messrs Horocks and Wilcox, I was at length sufficiently restored by a glass of madeira wine and a biscuit that I betook myself to the lodgings of my friend Jolyon Moartax Esquire who had urged my attendance incontinently.

    I discovered my friend’s condition to be sadly aggravated since my last visit to him upon which occasion I had opined gravely that he was being overcome by the consumptive disease known to men of science as tuber-culosis. I confess to feeling immense gratification, therefore, when he informed me that eminent Doctors had called on him and pronounced his case to be beyond their capacities.

    Nothing deterred, I assured him that I could alleviate his suffering and sent out straightway for some physic of my own formulation and enjoined him to partake ad libitum of these excellent tinctures whereupon I took my leave and left him to his repose.

    Thus I was greatly astonished when his servant was admitted to my chambers no more than an hour later to announce that his master had in truth been in the last extremities of the pox and had now breathed his last. The cordials and admixtures which I had recommended remained untasted by my newly departed friend which weighs upon my heart as they should doubtless have proved as efficacious against the pox as against all other agues and ailments.

  3. It accelerated the collection of taxes, thereby disguising the extent of the Budget deficit created by Brown. However it actually *decreased* the total amount of tax collected in the long run as it encouraged rash lending (and the concealment of the rashness from non-executive) which created losses which, on crystallisation, reduced the amount of tax payable.
    To expect Murphy to understand this is, naturally, an unreasonable demand.

  4. Interesting comments, as this is the not standard accounting practice i assumed this must be a regulatory requirement without even looking it up. Is it just for tax purposes? More a case that provisions aren’t allowed for tax reporting as I would assume they still account for them in general terms

  5. TMB

    I would suggest that you consider whether there may be suitable reward in applying to be his formal biographer?

    He will undoubtedly need one, even if it hasn’t yet occurred to him…

  6. Bloke in Costa Rica

    TMB: that was glorious. I can just see him in a weskit and a powdered wig, looking bilious. Given how often The Great Tuber™ tacks to the wind, I wonder if he is a cousin of that other chameleon, The Vicar of Bray.

  7. BniC –

    Regulatory. Unsure about the tax consequences of the regulatory change, if any.

    Here in ‘Merica, regulation and tax code very often do not mirror one another. Don’t know how wogs handle things, though.

  8. ‘Snippa’ was always too polite for Spud. No insult or obscenity can encapsulate his unpleasantness and stupidity.

  9. Yes regulatory is different, but then you wouldn’t call it accounting you may specifically refer to accounting for tax purposes or regulatory purposes so his lack of a qualifier is likely deliberate

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *