Toby Young is a c0nt

[love detective]

Imagine that, just before I close my accounts, I agree to make you a hat.

I charge you £10 and promise you the hat in a while.

I pay myself £6 as salary, put £2 away for a rainy day and spend £2 on the requisite materials.

I now have £4 in assets and cash, but £10 in liabilities, because I owe you a hat.

My business, on a very crude reckoning, has a net value of -£6.

Again utter nonsense

In the situation you describe (i.e. accepting money for a sale that has not yet been honoured) as the £10 received in relation to that sale is deferred (for future release to P&L as revenue when the sale is actually completed and the revenue can then be legally recognised) then the expenses relating to the performance of that sale would also be deferred, therefore your balance sheet at the end of the period in relation to that transaction alone would be:-

Assets

• Bank 2 (initial receipt of £10, less £6 paid out for salary and £2 paid out for materials)
• Deferred Expenses 8 (salary of £6 and materials of £2)
• Total Assets 10

Liabilities

• Deferred Revenue 10
• Total Liabilities 10

When the hat is actually delivered both the deferred revenue and the expenses relating to them would be released to the P&L giving the following situation

Assets

• Bank 2

Shareholders Funds/Capital & Reserves

• Retained Profit 2 (£10 sales, less £8 expenses)

At no point are liabilities greater than assets in your example

some types of liabilities on a company's balance sheet may represent cash received for sales that have not yet been delivered/honoured but you are completely wrong to state that liabilities are the same thing as sales. Sales that are made and delivered prior to receiving the money for them will never go near the balance sheet as liabilities (instead they will represent an asset relating to the money due to the company from the customer). Likewise all kinds of liabilities are present on a companies balance sheet that have nothing to do with specific sales (debt, loan capital, tax liabilities, lease obligations, overdrafts etc. etc.)

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Fair enough.

In the real world, though, when looking at small consulting businesses which don't need to report too much, looking at liabilities is a pretty good way of estimating the size of work at hand.

Also, as far as I know - and I'm a manager, not an accountant - revenue recognition doesn't always work like that. A certain proportion can be booked on commencing work, and has been everywhere I've ever worked, including PLCs.

And why is the salary deferred? It's been paid, hasn't it?

 

[love detective]

Fair enough.

In the real world, though, when looking at small consulting businesses which don't need to report too much, looking at liabilities is a pretty good way of estimating the size of work at hand.

In the real world looking at liabilities is a good way of estimating how much liabilities a company has, nothing more

To look at the 'size of work at hand' you would need to look at particular types of liabilities (i.e. those representing deferred revenue) and separate them out from other types which are irrelevant for those purposes, but even then that's just part of the story. In addition you'd need to look at other parts of the balance sheet and P&L to get the overall picture (i.e. sales that have been made and are being worked on but which no money has been received yet or won't be received until the sale has been fully completed etc - these will not be part of liabilities at all)

Saying the more liabilities the better is an absurd thing to do frankly. A company could have taken out loads of loans & finance from various sources and then spunked the money on a project or venture that returned nothing or next to nothing. Their balance sheet at that point would be a massive liability representing the various loans taken out. There would be little assets and a huge loss representing negative shareholders funds/capital & reserves. So these liabilities in no way says anything about the the size of work at hand. Likewise the overall net negative value of the company does not in the slightest suggest it's in a good state.

Also, as far as I know - and I'm a manager, not an accountant - revenue recognition doesn't always work like that. A certain proportion can be booked on commencing work, and has been everywhere I've ever worked, including PLCs.

Well it was you in your example who stated that your company would be reporting £10 of liabilities at the close of accounts, so I was taking your lead and going on the basis that you hadn't recognised any of the income as revenue at that stage. If you had of recognised some of that as revenue (which would imply that some of the value of the sale had been delivered to the customer) then the liability would reduce by an equivalent amount which would have worked even more against the case you were making in relation to high liabilities. But in any case it wouldn't have made any difference, your company would still not have a net negative value position whether you recognised none of the revenue or all of it

And why is the salary deferred? It's been paid, hasn't it?

for the same reason as the £10 received is deferred - because the basic accounting principle of revenue recognition is that you match the costs incurred against revenues received for a particular transaction - whether the income or expenditure has been physically received or paid out doesn't impact at all at what stage it's recognised as revenue or costs

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

an oil company, an investment bank, pharma, and a shipping company. When i was homeless and down and out on my luck, socialism gave me fuck all. Despite me singing its virtues. Nowadays, i will look after myself. I taught me everything i know. i owe nothing to noone.

When and where was this socialism you speak of?

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

1990s UK

 

[revol68]

1990s UK

shut up you utter wank sock.

 

[Awesome Wells]

iF hopkins was the business success she thinks she is, she wouldn't be on the fucking TV moaning about overweight children or whatever bullshit she's paid to troll about this week.

 

[nino_savatte]

iF hopkins was the business success she thinks she is, she wouldn't be on the fucking TV moaning about overweight children or whatever bullshit she's paid to troll about this week.

Exactly. What is her business skill? Does anyone know?

She's a perfect match for Tobes. Both of them are quite dense and reactionary.

 

[Nylock]

1990s UK

Which part of the '90's would this be? The thatcherite first 7 years or the neo-thatcherite final 3?

 

[Awesome Wells]

Exactly. What is her business skill? Does anyone know?

She's a perfect match for Tobes. Both of them are quite dense and reactionary.

Her business skill seems to be other people's fellas!

Allegedly of course!

 

[ViolentPanda]

no.

You fuckers will never get anywhere cos of all your infighting and egos.

Yeah, because what I do on the boards is the sum of my life, isn't it?

You soft-headed tosser.

When i was a kid i used to buy the socialist worker. Then i realised they really wouldnt achieve shite. Ever. Keep arguing amongst yourselves.

There's your mistake - you mistook a bunch of Trot vanguardists for socialism. Kind of shows your condescension up for what it is - ill-informed bitter bollocks from a flaccid cock.

 

[ViolentPanda]

an oil company, an investment bank, pharma, and a shipping company. When i was homeless and down and out on my luck, socialism gave me fuck all. Despite me singing its virtues. Nowadays, i will look after myself. I taught me everything i know. i owe nothing to noone.

Of course you did. You owe nothing to the people who made you literate, or who funded your healthcare until you were old enough to contribute toward it yourself, eh?

Self-righteous muppet.

Fucking next you'll be banging on about having attended the University of Life, Faculty of Hard Knocks, like all the other self-righteous boring arses, you great fucking plum!

I promote you to Cptin Fceplm, you twat!

 

[ViolentPanda]

1990s UK

So, this'd be around the time New Labour starting coming out of the woodwork, and into positions of power, which mean that (even more than Kinnock, and despite the promise Smith showed on some topics) there was about as much socialism in parliamentary politics as there is in a pair of aristo's jodhpurs.

 

[ViolentPanda]

iF hopkins was the business success she thinks she is, she wouldn't be on the fucking TV moaning about overweight children or whatever bullshit she's paid to troll about this week.

She appears to have morphed into one of those "personalities" who measures their success in column inches.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

I was being a tit and I apologise

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was being a tit and I apologise

To be fair, you have a sort of point about socialism having failed, but (IMO) that's not because it's inherently worthless, it's because the format in which it interfaces with power (through parliamentary democracy) is shit, and is so encrusted with the values of the "haves" rather than the "have-nots", that it's not an effective forum for most forms of socialism except Fabianism (which was effectively designed to be top-down and reformist - i.e. let's make things a little better for the workers - rather than to be a socialism where people had more say in their own fates).

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

I do not think it worthless at all. i love the idea. But what annoys me is the lack of getting it to work, which as you say is the current democratic system not being conducive towards such systems and therefore makes such a framework unachievable,

 

[nino_savatte]

Tobes is always eager to demonstrate how 'free market' (what's wrong with this picture?) capitalism is better than 'socialism'. Today he flourishes a chart from the American Enterprise Institute in response to John Pilger's excoriation of capitalism on yesterday's edition of Today on Radio 4. He also plugs Hannan's book about, er, 'freedom'.

Take a look at the above chart, originally published on the Carpe Diem blog of the American Enterprise Institute. As the post's author Mark J Perry says, it illustrates "one of the most remarkable achievements in human history – the 80 per cent reduction in world poverty in only 36 years, from 26.8 per cent of the world’s population living on $1 or less (in 1987 dollars) in 1970 to only 5.4 per cent in 2006."

Perry goes on to quote Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute, who is in little doubt about who or what is responsible for this remarkable reduction:

So what did that? What accounts for that? United Nations? US foreign aid? The International Monetary Fund? Central planning? No.

It was globalization, free trade, the boom in international entrepreneurship. In short, it was the free enterprise system, American style, which is our gift to the world.

I will state, assert and defend the statement that if you love the poor, if you are a good Samaritan, you must stand for the free enterprise system, and you must defend it, not just for ourselves but for people around the world. It is the best anti-poverty measure ever invented.

Powerful words, even if he's wrong about who invented "the free enterprise system". (It was the British, obviously. It was "our gift to the world", including the United States. For chapter and verse on this, I recommend Dan Hannan's new book How We Invented Freedom and Why It Matters.) But is he right about capitalism being the cause of this 80 per cent reduction?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...alism-is-better-than-socialism/#disqus_thread

 

[Awesome Wells]

Wow those radio 4 guest editors have really upset the village elders!

Even on this morning's show they were moaning about John Pilger. Pathetic.

 

[vornstyle76]

Toby is *apparently* setting up an online vote exchange system for Tory/UKIP voters. As you do, he's written a Mail on Sunday comment piece about it but admits he's yet to plan it or design the website. You have to wonder whether he'll actually do it given his hilarious failure to turn up to his own meagre pro-austerity demo in 2011.

 

[Awesome Wells]

a vote exchange system? How would that work?

 

[vornstyle76]

a vote exchange system? How would that work?

Hook Tory and UKIP voters up in key marginals to 'swap' votes according to which is most likely to defeat the, ahem, left wing party in that constituency. Basically a more formalised tactical voting (which requires a lot of faith). Essentially, given the electoral gulf, it's an attempt at a mass transfer of UKIP votes to the Tories.

 

[Awesome Wells]

What a pillock.

No honour among thieves Tobes.

Twat.

 

[nino_savatte]

Tobes repeats his Tory-UKIP electoral alliance proposal that he 'outlined' in his earlier blog. He's sounds desperate.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...between-the-tories-and-ukip-join-my-campaign/
Have a look at the Kippers who've left comments. They scoff at his overtures.

This one is particularly amusing.

jackcadeisback
• 12 minutes ago

• −

Have you heard of the story of the Phoenix Toby? It has to die and be immolated to bring about a transformation. This is what needs to happen to the now-moribund Conservative Party. It is now so far away in ideology from what used to be its core voters that it is unrecognisable. Indeed, since Cameron took the helm it has morphed into its very opposite: a Social-Democratic party that is almost indistinguishable from Labour or the LibDems.

I for one do not trust Cameron or his empty promises. I know you would like to do a stitch up to prevent UKIP voters like myself having the chance to vote for our own party (UKIP). However that is not going to happen. The Tories are going to lose the next election by a wide margin. After that they will ditch Cameron and then, maybe, there is a chance of a pact with UKIP. Until then no deal, for as far as we are concerned the LibLabCon is just one, nasty party of EU-loving Communists.

 

[nino_savatte]

A fight has broken out on Telegraph blogs between Michael Heaver and Tobes. It's popcorn time.

Toby Young's "Country before Party" campaign seems to be the type of caricature of British politics that both entirely misunderstands both Ukip as a new electoral force and the new composition of British politics altogether.

The entire basis for its existence is to seemingly put David Cameron back in Number 10. Is that really a patriotic thing to be calling for, given the track record of this man since he has taken power? Polling has shown repeatedly now that the vast majority of Ukip voters don't think so.

After all, is blocking the development of any new grammar schools, doing naff all about open doors to Romania and Bulgaria and overseeing record levels of national debt really a legacy that would have differed that much from another Labour government?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...st-ukippers-dont-want-dave-back-in-number-10/

Heaver's still ranting abut Bulgaria and Romania. Fuckwit.

 

[brogdale]

Lordy, lordy...where to start with this one?

Well, first up, here's the pic that goes with his c0ntship's Tele piece:-

'kinnel, these stupid fuckers are rattled......'tactical voting' to 'heal' the split right vote:-

Ukip can beat Labour in the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election – and Conservatives should support them

As one of the architects of the Country Before Party campaign, I'll be urging all those who want to stop Ed Miliband and secure an EU referendum to vote Ukip in those seats where Ukip is better placed to beat Labour than the Conservatives. If Farage decides to concentrate the party's resources on unseating Labour MPs in the North and the Midlands, Conservatives should reciprocate by not campaigning too energetically in those same seats because it's in our interests for Ukip to turn its attention away from winning Conservative-held seats in the South. By "Conservatives" I don't mean the party panjandrums, who are duty-bound to support the Tory candidates. I mean the party's supporters.

In order to advance this cause, it will be enormously helpful if Ukip wins the forthcoming by-election in the constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

I will be urging all Conservative voters to get behind the Ukip candidate, just as I'll be urging Kippers to get behind the Eurosceptic Tory candidates in 2015 in those seats in which the Conservatives are best placed to win. If voters of both persuasions are prepared to put country before party, Miliband won't stand a chance.

For the record, this according to Young is what "better placed to beat Labour than the Conservatives" looks like:-

2010 GE:-

Paul Goggins Labour 17,987 44.1 -8.0
Janet Clowes Conservative 10,412 25.6 +3.3
Martin Eakins Liberal Democrat 9,107 22.3 +0.9
Bernard Todd BNP 1,572 3.9 N/A
Christopher Cassidy UKIP 1,405 3.4 +0.4
Lynn Worthington TUSC 268 0.7 -0.3

 

[Nylock]

If ever anyone needed evidence that tobes is a deluded wanker then that^ was it

 

[brogdale]

If ever anyone needed evidence that tobes is a deluded wanker then that^ was it

I'm actually wondering if the colossal bellend might have just got himself chucked out of the tory party?

Calling for punters to vote for another party?

 

[nino_savatte]

"Country before party".... PMSL!

 

[Dogsauce]

Hook Tory and UKIP voters up in key marginals to 'swap' votes according to which is most likely to defeat the, ahem, left wing party in that constituency. Basically a more formalised tactical voting (which requires a lot of faith). Essentially, given the electoral gulf, it's an attempt at a mass transfer of UKIP votes to the Tories.

Surely there's scope to dishonestly abuse this, or at the very best sow confusion. I'll happily trade my Tory vote (yeah right) for someone else to vote UKIP somewhere that it wasn't helpful!