Question:

I am an adult and I hate details.  I can’t handle simple things if they have a lot of details – even simple details.  I can understand complicated, conceptual things easily if the details are fed in slowly.  I can read books about linguistics to grasp the general ideas, but if I have to get coffee for three people and bring it back I get all confused, need to write  down how each one wants the coffee, and just want to refuse to do it. I got great marks in an accounting major in college, but found I could not even begin to do it on the job.  I couldn’t stand the details details.  I hate shopping, hate financial stuff, etc.

Response:

confused, need to write  down how each one wants the coffee, and just

A note pad is helpful, yes. — We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.

Response:

Thanks.  I never heard of a note pad.  That is very deep.

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Virgin Blue is expected to make a 11 million dollar loss to 6 months, whilst Qantas is expected to announce a 700 million dollar profit on Thursday, way short of one billion as forcasted earlier in the year, thanks due to skyrocketing fuel prices. Bet VB hedge fuel costs next time eh Bloody bean counters who think they know it all . pffffft You have to have the cash to do so. That is why Southwest and JetBlue in the USA are heavily hedged, and United, Delta, America, Northwest and Continental are not. They don’t have the cash to buy the forward contracts (and technically because US and UA are in Bankruptcy, they are prohibited from buying any sort of speculative contracts, such as forward Jet A contracts).

Matt this is true in part but look at it in real cash flow terms at the time VB was offered a hedge premium was a mere 5% and on a formulae to be triggered in 6 months if price went above x premium adjustment again but still cheaper fuel and payments in advance  for sure . Like all provisions in accounting land  if not used cost / savings reverts back to cash . They had the margin  but it appears chose to spend the ‘cash" elsewhere This is not 20/20 hindsight it is a fact. They took the punt and blew it . Management decision  based on what i believe was almost criminal flawed advice  and turns out to have been wrong decision . Lesson learned  (I hope) Thats the trouble with some of the new breed whiz kids  The books  do not substitute for street smarts gained by previous bloody noses and experience . You can also insure as well as forward positions as I am sure your no doubt aware . Although  now the actuarys would   really give you a hit to cover their tails . Cheers

Response:

Virgin Blue is expected to make a 11 million dollar loss to 6 months, whilst Qantas is expected to announce a 700 million dollar profit on Thursday, way short of one billion as forcasted earlier in the year, thanks due to skyrocketing fuel prices. Bet VB hedge fuel costs next time eh Bloody bean counters who think they know it all . pffffft

You have to have the cash to do so. That is why Southwest and JetBlue in the USA are heavily hedged, and United, Delta, America, Northwest and Continental are not. They don’t have the cash to buy the forward contracts (and technically because US and UA are in Bankruptcy, they are prohibited from buying any sort of speculative contracts, such as forward Jet A contracts).

Response:

Virgin Blue is expected to make a 11 million dollar loss to 6 months, whilst Qantas is expected to announce a 700 million dollar profit on Thursday, way short of one billion as forcasted earlier in the year, thanks due to skyrocketing fuel prices.

Response:

Virgin Blue is expected to make a 11 million dollar loss to 6 months, whilst Qantas is expected to announce a 700 million dollar profit on Thursday, way short of one billion as forcasted earlier in the year, thanks due to skyrocketing fuel prices.

Bet VB hedge fuel costs next time eh Bloody bean counters who think they know it all . pffffft

Response:

Question:

Besides the CPA.

Response:

Typo: After the CPA, not besides

Response:

CMA, CIA, CISA, ABC, XYZ. If you have extra time, take the Canadian CA, the ACCA, the Australian CA  and so on. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Typo: After the CPA, not besides

Response:

Hi all, Actually. I have completed my CPA exams already. So, I am looking for a Post-graduate Degree

Response:

Hi all, Actually. I have completed my CPA exams already. So, I am looking for a Post-graduate Degree cheers

Response:

Hi all, Actually. I have completed my CPA exams already. So, I am looking for a Post-graduate Degree cheers

I agree with the poster who suggests you get some experience first. I got a lot more out of my MBA for having had 2 years with a Big-8 firm before continuing my formal education. As for which masters degree to get, some real world work experience will help you with that decision, too. If you don’t know what you want to do with your life, an MBA is a reasonable choice. Once you have a better idea what you want to spend the next 30 or 40 years doing, you may still find an MBA to be your best choice but you might also discover that something more specialized is the way to go. Good luck. Regards, Bill

Response:

I should have stated that I have 3 years of local audit firm experiences, but now thinking of changing job nature. It is quite difficult to change to commerical firm now.

Response:

Question:

Islam is the MOST corrupt and deceptive religion on the face of the planet!!! Could you give us, in order, your top ten.

Top ten what? We need a bit more perspective on your ideas.

And who is the "WE"?  Is the Church of Scientology on the list? What about the Hare Krishnas? And then there’s that Rael guy with his extra-terrestrial "elohims" and cloning for eternal life.

May be, but I can assure you that Islam will make the list. But while we are at it, prove to me that any of your examples is a false relgion! I suppose if Allah can speak to Muhhamad (who was a killer, a child molester, a polygamist and a thief) via an angel called Gabreel and you believe it, God can also speak to Joseph Smith (who was a liar, a thief, a polygamist) via an angel called Moroni. Do you see the irony here? So will you be converting to Mormonism next, moving to Utah?

Response:

Islam is the MOST corrupt and deceptive religion on the face of the planet!!! Could you give us, in order, your top ten. We need a bit more perspective on your ideas. Is the Church of Scientology on the list? What about the Hare Krishnas? And then there’s that Rael guy with his extra-terrestrial "elohims" and cloning for eternal life.

All religions are man made.  There are no gods; but simple minded people will continue killing in the name of ‘their god’ until the population is wiped out or it comes to it’s senses. Meantime it is all SENSELESS! Bob Young Hongkong "If, at age five, you do not know the gods are made up things and the myths of impossible tales you are a fool."[Suetonius  75 - 160 AD] "Religion is a socio-political institution for the control of people’s thoughts, lives, and actions; based on ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing." [Woden]

Response:

Islam is the MOST corrupt and deceptive religion on the face of the planet!!! Could you give us, in order, your top ten. We need a bit more perspective on your ideas. Is the Church of Scientology on the list? What about the Hare Krishnas? And then there’s that Rael guy with his extra-terrestrial "elohims" and cloning for eternal life.

well, there’s just plain outlandish, and then there’s outlandish where people wind up dead.

Response:

Islam is the MOST corrupt and deceptive religion on the face of the planet!!! Could you give us, in order, your top ten. We need a bit more perspective on your ideas. Is the Church of Scientology on the list? What about the Hare Krishnas? And then there’s that Rael guy with his extra-terrestrial "elohims" and cloning for eternal life.

of the SIGNIFICANT religions: Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam .

Response:

<snip Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic political Party has been engaged for almost 50 years in the work of establishing the Islamic Political system. At the heart of our work is the presentation of Islam as a system of life for the whole of humanity,

Ram the "Islam as a system of life for the whole of humanity" right up your rear end.

Response:

Islam is the MOST corrupt and deceptive religion on the face of the planet!!!

Could you give us, in order, your top ten. We need a bit more perspective on your ideas. Is the Church of Scientology on the list? What about the Hare Krishnas? And then there’s that Rael guy with his extra-terrestrial "elohims" and cloning for eternal life. — Abdelkarim Benoit Evans

Response:

Capitalism Inc. is Corrupt

Do you know what capitalisim is? Let me ask you, do you have any money in your pocket, in your house or in a bank someplace?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  Yes I agree. The wave of financial scandals unearthed in Corporate America is a sign of structural flaws within Capitalism itself and the value system of Liberal democracies. Reform of a system by definition, can only work if the foundations are sound, when the foundations are themselves questionable is it not time to examine the alternatives? Capitalism’s jittery track record Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Iron Curtain of Communism, many heralded the triumph of the Capitalist way of life. Francis Fukuyama went so far as to claim that history, as we knew it had ended, with the final ascendancy of Liberal democracies and its associated values. "(But) the century that began full of self-confidence in the ultimate triumph of Western liberal democracy seems at its close to be returning full circle to where it started: not to an "end of ideology" or a convergence between capitalism and socialism, as earlier predicted, but to an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism."  Yet 13 years on from these bold assertions we have witnessed a decade in which the application of Capitalism has inflicted serious damage. The Capitalist experiment in the former Soviet Union failed abjectly in the 1990s and was found wanting in its restructuring of the economies of the former eastern bloc. Conditions at times were said to be worse than those endured during the worst years of Communism. However, this failure has been hidden behind the belief that Mafia styled oligarchs ruined the system accompanied by a culture of bureaucratic rigidity and weak judicial systems. Aswe witnessed the collapse of the Tiger economies of the Far East in 1997, misery was inflicted upon the lives of millions in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Whilst the initial successes of the Tiger economies were attributed to liberal values and the Capitalist economic system, its failure was excused away by references to the culture of nepotism, corruption and cronyism in these lands. Closer to home, as the late 1990s Dot Com stock bubble burst, the crisis was explained away as being attributable to industry specific factors while the fundamental tenets of the Capitalist economy remained valid. In recent months the world has witnessed a wave of accounting scandals engulfing Corporate America. Scandals such as the   $3.8billion gaping hole in WorldCom’s accounts which incidentally has now led to the biggest corporate bankruptcy in history.  Other examples include Rank Xerox overstating its profits by $1.4billion over 5 years, Merck the giant pharmaceutical company overstating its revenues and its costs-by some $14billion over 3 years, not to mention the collapse of the Energy giant Enron. Most of the explanations for the crisis have lacked a larger conceptual framework and seem to focus on the peripheral issues. An attitude which produces statements such as the oft-repeated one, that the crisis is the result of a few rotten apples. ‘Value-less’ Capitalism to blame? But how many more crises must occur and scandals unearthed, before someone discusses the most pertinent question; is not Capitalism itself the cause of these problems? Is not the system and its participants geared to produce the scenarios we have witnessed over the last few months? Is it a case of a few rotten apples or is the whole Apple Cart itself corrupt? In which case, the discussion about reform is a misnomer. Endless reform cannot fix an inherently corrupt system. The whole philosophy that underpins Western Capitalism is geared towards the concept of self-fulfilment and material benefit. As long as everyone is looking after his or her own interests the society will be sound. Values, ethics, and morals become irrelevant as each individual has his or her own conception of what this is. This concept underpinned Adam Smith’s term the ‘invisible hand’, where people by seeking their own self-interest would ensure that the society itself will become prosperous. When the major participants bring this outlook of life to the economy can anyone expect a scenario other than that which is currently being witnessed? In profiling the major players; the boardroom directors, auditors, shareholders, stock analysts, supposedly hawkish regulators and the altruistic politicians who are charged with resolving these crises, each instance points towards institutionalised corruption and malpractice that is inspired by the very values that are held to be sacrosanct. * The directors are statutorily charged with delivering an increasing level of shareholder value through generating a higher share price and dividend growth. The drives for exponential growth, higher stock prices and  market capitalisation have meant that age-old values that should underpin business; accountability, responsibility, ethics and a moral code fall by the way side. The fictional Wall Street character Gordon Gekko best summarised their outlook when he famously stated that ‘greed is good’. Gekko’s oft – repeated mantra can be traced back to the philosophy of famed liberal thinkers such as Friedrich Von Hayek who argued that "To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be.controlled in everything." Or to the liberal values of Robert Nozick who stated that "there is no justified sacrifice of some of us for others."  The corporate culture and the ensuing malaise are no doubt the products of the value system (or lack of it) that Liberal secular beliefs inspire and which are the very bedrock of corporate capitalism. It is little wonder that people identify a ‘Corporation’ as being an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. * Auditors who were meant to be casting a watchful eye on behalf of shareholders and the public, ended up collaborating with directors in their fraudulent activities. This is because the Big 5 audit giants are themselves huge corporations whose bottom line is also their most important concern. The lure of consultancy dollars is incentive enough for them to sign off accounts as ‘true and fair’ when in reality the financial reporting of their clients were far from accurate. * The shareholders themselves are driven with an insatiable appetite for higher and higher returns on their investments. Entranced by increased gains on the surging stock market they are more or less willing to turn a blind eye as companies lie to them, as long as their wealth keeps increasing. In this regard they are egged on by the mushrooming media channels that cheer the market on, creating an atmosphere where anything but exponential growth is seen as a sign of corporate timidity and weakness. * Stock analysts who are meant to provide an objective assessment to the public on the  corporate health of those companies they are reporting on, are more interested in their own financial wealth. The analysts working for investment banks were either promoting companies who were large fee paying clients of their banks or they were personally receiving perks from the very same companies they were recommending to the public. One case in the UK highlights this practice where shares in many companies were bought before promoting them as good investments in newspaper columns. * The regulators are selected from the same backgrounds that are now under scrutiny. Witness the background of the Chairman of the main regulator in the USA, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Harvey Pitt. He made his career as a lawyer representing the accounting industry, lobbying hard against tightening of any rules that harmed the profession. As a result Pitt has had to excuse himself from many of the SEC decisions this year due to conflict of interests, with at least 10 of his former clients currently under SEC investigation. Two other appointees to the 5 man SEC also come from accountancy firms. Imbued in the corporate values that inspired the American Industrialist Cornelius Vanderbilt to remark "The public be damned", can we expect regulators of the same ilk to be acting in the public’s best interest when their backgrounds and future appointments lie with the same companies they seek currently to regulate? Special condemnation can be made for the politicians charged with finding solutions to these problems. This is because the hold, which corporations have over the political systems in western democracies can only produce scenarios where rights and wrongs come associated with the size of a company’s political donation. The billions that are poured into the political process corrupt the system that should be based on a social contract that should protect the right of all, especially those who are the most vulnerable. Where the politician’s role requires individuals to be selfless in serving the public they put their own selfish interests first rather than those of their constituents. President Bush’s questionable business background with Harken Energy and Vice president Dick Cheney’s role as Chief Executive of Halliburton should come as no surprise. The capitalist system therefore, like the communist system before it, has proved devastating for mankind. It joins the failed systems of the past such as empires, dynasties, monarchies feudalism and fascism in

… read more »

Response:

Islam is the MOST corrupt and deceptive religion on the face of the planet!!!

Capitalism Inc. is Corrupt

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  Yes I agree. The wave of financial scandals unearthed in Corporate America is a sign of structural flaws within Capitalism itself and the value system of Liberal democracies. Reform of a system by definition, can only work if the foundations are sound, when the foundations are themselves questionable is it not time to examine the alternatives? Capitalism’s jittery track record Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Iron Curtain of Communism, many heralded the triumph of the Capitalist way of life. Francis Fukuyama went so far as to claim that history, as we knew it had ended, with the final ascendancy of Liberal democracies and its associated values. "(But) the century that began full of self-confidence in the ultimate triumph of Western liberal democracy seems at its close to be returning full circle to where it started: not to an "end of ideology" or a convergence between capitalism and socialism, as earlier predicted, but to an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism."  Yet 13 years on from these bold assertions we have witnessed a decade in which the application of Capitalism has inflicted serious damage. The Capitalist experiment in the former Soviet Union failed abjectly in the 1990s and was found wanting in its restructuring of the economies of the former eastern bloc. Conditions at times were said to be worse than those endured during the worst years of Communism. However, this failure has been hidden behind the belief that Mafia styled oligarchs ruined the system accompanied by a culture of bureaucratic rigidity and weak judicial systems. Aswe witnessed the collapse of the Tiger economies of the Far East in 1997, misery was inflicted upon the lives of millions in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Whilst the initial successes of the Tiger economies were attributed to liberal values and the Capitalist economic system, its failure was excused away by references to the culture of nepotism, corruption and cronyism in these lands. Closer to home, as the late 1990s Dot Com stock bubble burst, the crisis was explained away as being attributable to industry specific factors while the fundamental tenets of the Capitalist economy remained valid. In recent months the world has witnessed a wave of accounting scandals engulfing Corporate America. Scandals such as the   $3.8billion gaping hole in WorldCom’s accounts which incidentally has now led to the biggest corporate bankruptcy in history.  Other examples include Rank Xerox overstating its profits by $1.4billion over 5 years, Merck the giant pharmaceutical company overstating its revenues and its costs-by some $14billion over 3 years, not to mention the collapse of the Energy giant Enron. Most of the explanations for the crisis have lacked a larger conceptual framework and seem to focus on the peripheral issues. An attitude which produces statements such as the oft-repeated one, that the crisis is the result of a few rotten apples. ‘Value-less’ Capitalism to blame? But how many more crises must occur and scandals unearthed, before someone discusses the most pertinent question; is not Capitalism itself the cause of these problems? Is not the system and its participants geared to produce the scenarios we have witnessed over the last few months? Is it a case of a few rotten apples or is the whole Apple Cart itself corrupt? In which case, the discussion about reform is a misnomer. Endless reform cannot fix an inherently corrupt system. The whole philosophy that underpins Western Capitalism is geared towards the concept of self-fulfilment and material benefit. As long as everyone is looking after his or her own interests the society will be sound. Values, ethics, and morals become irrelevant as each individual has his or her own conception of what this is. This concept underpinned Adam Smith’s term the ‘invisible hand’, where people by seeking their own self-interest would ensure that the society itself will become prosperous. When the major participants bring this outlook of life to the economy can anyone expect a scenario other than that which is currently being witnessed? In profiling the major players; the boardroom directors, auditors, shareholders, stock analysts, supposedly hawkish regulators and the altruistic politicians who are charged with resolving these crises, each instance points towards institutionalised corruption and malpractice that is inspired by the very values that are held to be sacrosanct. * The directors are statutorily charged with delivering an increasing level of shareholder value through generating a higher share price and dividend growth. The drives for exponential growth, higher stock prices and  market capitalisation have meant that age-old values that should underpin business; accountability, responsibility, ethics and a moral code fall by the way side. The fictional Wall Street character Gordon Gekko best summarised their outlook when he famously stated that ‘greed is good’. Gekko’s oft – repeated mantra can be traced back to the philosophy of famed liberal thinkers such as Friedrich Von Hayek who argued that "To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be.controlled in everything." Or to the liberal values of Robert Nozick who stated that "there is no justified sacrifice of some of us for others."  The corporate culture and the ensuing malaise are no doubt the products of the value system (or lack of it) that Liberal secular beliefs inspire and which are the very bedrock of corporate capitalism. It is little wonder that people identify a ‘Corporation’ as being an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. * Auditors who were meant to be casting a watchful eye on behalf of shareholders and the public, ended up collaborating with directors in their fraudulent activities. This is because the Big 5 audit giants are themselves huge corporations whose bottom line is also their most important concern. The lure of consultancy dollars is incentive enough for them to sign off accounts as ‘true and fair’ when in reality the financial reporting of their clients were far from accurate. * The shareholders themselves are driven with an insatiable appetite for higher and higher returns on their investments. Entranced by increased gains on the surging stock market they are more or less willing to turn a blind eye as companies lie to them, as long as their wealth keeps increasing. In this regard they are egged on by the mushrooming media channels that cheer the market on, creating an atmosphere where anything but exponential growth is seen as a sign of corporate timidity and weakness. * Stock analysts who are meant to provide an objective assessment to the public on the  corporate health of those companies they are reporting on, are more interested in their own financial wealth. The analysts working for investment banks were either promoting companies who were large fee paying clients of their banks or they were personally receiving perks from the very same companies they were recommending to the public. One case in the UK highlights this practice where shares in many companies were bought before promoting them as good investments in newspaper columns. * The regulators are selected from the same backgrounds that are now under scrutiny. Witness the background of the Chairman of the main regulator in the USA, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Harvey Pitt. He made his career as a lawyer representing the accounting industry, lobbying hard against tightening of any rules that harmed the profession. As a result Pitt has had to excuse himself from many of the SEC decisions this year due to conflict of interests, with at least 10 of his former clients currently under SEC investigation. Two other appointees to the 5 man SEC also come from accountancy firms. Imbued in the corporate values that inspired the American Industrialist Cornelius Vanderbilt to remark "The public be damned", can we expect regulators of the same ilk to be acting in the public’s best interest when their backgrounds and future appointments lie with the same companies they seek currently to regulate? Special condemnation can be made for the politicians charged with finding solutions to these problems. This is because the hold, which corporations have over the political systems in western democracies can only produce scenarios where rights and wrongs come associated with the size of a company’s political donation. The billions that are poured into the political process corrupt the system that should be based on a social contract that should protect the right of all, especially those who are the most vulnerable. Where the politician’s role requires individuals to be selfless in serving the public they put their own selfish interests first rather than those of their constituents. President Bush’s questionable business background with Harken Energy and Vice president Dick Cheney’s role as Chief Executive of Halliburton should come as no surprise. The capitalist system therefore, like the communist system before it, has proved devastating for mankind. It joins the failed systems of the past such as empires, dynasties, monarchies feudalism and fascism in its complete inability to solve mankind’s

… read more »

Response:

Capitalism Inc. is Corrupt

 Yes I agree. The wave of financial scandals unearthed in Corporate America is a sign of structural flaws within Capitalism itself and the value system of Liberal democracies. Reform of a system by definition, can only work if the foundations are sound, when the foundations are themselves questionable is it not time to examine the alternatives? Capitalism’s jittery track record Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Iron Curtain of Communism, many heralded the triumph of the Capitalist way of life. Francis Fukuyama went so far as to claim that history, as we knew it had ended, with the final ascendancy of Liberal democracies and its associated values. "(But) the century that began full of self-confidence in the ultimate triumph of Western liberal democracy seems at its close to be returning full circle to where it started: not to an "end of ideology" or a convergence between capitalism and socialism, as earlier predicted, but to an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism."  Yet 13 years on from these bold assertions we have witnessed a decade in which the application of Capitalism has inflicted serious damage. The Capitalist experiment in the former Soviet Union failed abjectly in the 1990s and was found wanting in its restructuring of the economies of the former eastern bloc. Conditions at times were said to be worse than those endured during the worst years of Communism. However, this failure has been hidden behind the belief that Mafia styled oligarchs ruined the system accompanied by a culture of bureaucratic rigidity and weak judicial systems. Aswe witnessed the collapse of the Tiger economies of the Far East in 1997, misery was inflicted upon the lives of millions in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Whilst the initial successes of the Tiger economies were attributed to liberal values and the Capitalist economic system, its failure was excused away by references to the culture of nepotism, corruption and cronyism in these lands. Closer to home, as the late 1990s Dot Com stock bubble burst, the crisis was explained away as being attributable to industry specific factors while the fundamental tenets of the Capitalist economy remained valid. In recent months the world has witnessed a wave of accounting scandals engulfing Corporate America. Scandals such as the   $3.8billion gaping hole in WorldCom’s accounts which incidentally has now led to the biggest corporate bankruptcy in history.  Other examples include Rank Xerox overstating its profits by $1.4billion over 5 years, Merck the giant pharmaceutical company overstating its revenues and its costs-by some $14billion over 3 years, not to mention the collapse of the Energy giant Enron. Most of the explanations for the crisis have lacked a larger conceptual framework and seem to focus on the peripheral issues. An attitude which produces statements such as the oft-repeated one, that the crisis is the result of a few rotten apples. ‘Value-less’ Capitalism to blame? But how many more crises must occur and scandals unearthed, before someone discusses the most pertinent question; is not Capitalism itself the cause of these problems? Is not the system and its participants geared to produce the scenarios we have witnessed over the last few months? Is it a case of a few rotten apples or is the whole Apple Cart itself corrupt? In which case, the discussion about reform is a misnomer. Endless reform cannot fix an inherently corrupt system. The whole philosophy that underpins Western Capitalism is geared towards the concept of self-fulfilment and material benefit. As long as everyone is looking after his or her own interests the society will be sound. Values, ethics, and morals become irrelevant as each individual has his or her own conception of what this is. This concept underpinned Adam Smith’s term the ‘invisible hand’, where people by seeking their own self-interest would ensure that the society itself will become prosperous. When the major participants bring this outlook of life to the economy can anyone expect a scenario other than that which is currently being witnessed? In profiling the major players; the boardroom directors, auditors, shareholders, stock analysts, supposedly hawkish regulators and the altruistic politicians who are charged with resolving these crises, each instance points towards institutionalised corruption and malpractice that is inspired by the very values that are held to be sacrosanct. * The directors are statutorily charged with delivering an increasing level of shareholder value through generating a higher share price and dividend growth. The drives for exponential growth, higher stock prices and  market capitalisation have meant that age-old values that should underpin business; accountability, responsibility, ethics and a moral code fall by the way side. The fictional Wall Street character Gordon Gekko best summarised their outlook when he famously stated that ‘greed is good’. Gekko’s oft – repeated mantra can be traced back to the philosophy of famed liberal thinkers such as Friedrich Von Hayek who argued that "To be controlled in our economic pursuits means to be.controlled in everything." Or to the liberal values of Robert Nozick who stated that "there is no justified sacrifice of some of us for others."  The corporate culture and the ensuing malaise are no doubt the products of the value system (or lack of it) that Liberal secular beliefs inspire and which are the very bedrock of corporate capitalism. It is little wonder that people identify a ‘Corporation’ as being an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. * Auditors who were meant to be casting a watchful eye on behalf of shareholders and the public, ended up collaborating with directors in their fraudulent activities. This is because the Big 5 audit giants are themselves huge corporations whose bottom line is also their most important concern. The lure of consultancy dollars is incentive enough for them to sign off accounts as ‘true and fair’ when in reality the financial reporting of their clients were far from accurate. * The shareholders themselves are driven with an insatiable appetite for higher and higher returns on their investments. Entranced by increased gains on the surging stock market they are more or less willing to turn a blind eye as companies lie to them, as long as their wealth keeps increasing. In this regard they are egged on by the mushrooming media channels that cheer the market on, creating an atmosphere where anything but exponential growth is seen as a sign of corporate timidity and weakness. * Stock analysts who are meant to provide an objective assessment to the public on the  corporate health of those companies they are reporting on, are more interested in their own financial wealth. The analysts working for investment banks were either promoting companies who were large fee paying clients of their banks or they were personally receiving perks from the very same companies they were recommending to the public. One case in the UK highlights this practice where shares in many companies were bought before promoting them as good investments in newspaper columns. * The regulators are selected from the same backgrounds that are now under scrutiny. Witness the background of the Chairman of the main regulator in the USA, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Harvey Pitt. He made his career as a lawyer representing the accounting industry, lobbying hard against tightening of any rules that harmed the profession. As a result Pitt has had to excuse himself from many of the SEC decisions this year due to conflict of interests, with at least 10 of his former clients currently under SEC investigation. Two other appointees to the 5 man SEC also come from accountancy firms. Imbued in the corporate values that inspired the American Industrialist Cornelius Vanderbilt to remark "The public be damned", can we expect regulators of the same ilk to be acting in the public’s best interest when their backgrounds and future appointments lie with the same companies they seek currently to regulate? Special condemnation can be made for the politicians charged with finding solutions to these problems. This is because the hold, which corporations have over the political systems in western democracies can only produce scenarios where rights and wrongs come associated with the size of a company’s political donation. The billions that are poured into the political process corrupt the system that should be based on a social contract that should protect the right of all, especially those who are the most vulnerable. Where the politician’s role requires individuals to be selfless in serving the public they put their own selfish interests first rather than those of their constituents. President Bush’s questionable business background with Harken Energy and Vice president Dick Cheney’s role as Chief Executive of Halliburton should come as no surprise. The capitalist system therefore, like the communist system before it, has proved devastating for mankind. It joins the failed systems of the past such as empires, dynasties, monarchies feudalism and fascism in its complete inability to solve mankind’s affairs. As the Quran states in its third chapter ‘Many were the ways of life that have passed away before you, travel through the earth and see what was the end of those who rejected the truth’ (3:137) Examining the Options When those at the helm of capitalism produce scenarios where governments can debauch currencies, wherein companies can invent figures, where corporate directors deceive shareholders, and auditors collude in the fraud – can reform really work? The world renowned British publication ‘The Economist’ … read more »

Response:

Our Prophet Mohammed worked as a slave dealer until he graduated to becoming a feared and ruthless warlord. Our Prophet Mohammed maintained 13 wives in his compound. Our Prophet Mohammed’s favourite fuck, when he got older, was a sweet 9 year old child. He turned the institution of marriage into a pervert’s farce. Our Prophet Mohammed died by being poisoned by a captive Jewish wife whose captive husband had earlier been beheaded by the Prophet. Our Prophet Mohammed’s wives were no more than slaves, as women lost all their ancestral rights to be free, to marry, to own property or to be superior to men in any possible way. Our Prophet Mohammed obliterated women’s rights. Our Prophet Mohammed personally beheaded hundreds of captive prisoners of war. Our Prophet Mohammed murdered all of our Arabian ancestors who refused to accept his total and absolute authority.  Our Prophet Mohammed became the most feared warlord in history and his authority expanded on this fear. How could this demon be sent by God? Our Prophet Mohammed’s holy warriors ( thugs ) exported his terrorizing religion to all his neighbouring countries and they murdered all of our ancestors who refused to accept him as their new Prophet. The dissenters, our good ancestral people who refused to bow down, were murdered. He cleverly called Christ a prophet but then he placed  Christ behind himself. Mohammed never performed a miracle while Christ brought men back from the dead. Mohammed was the Anti Christ in fact and deed. All Christians and Jews who would not convert, were included in the massacres. A cultured and affluent Middle East became a land of fear, terror and blood. Our Imams never tell us these facts of history. They talk of mercy and good deeds. They are liars. They want to drag us all down to Hell with them, for God is indeed great but God is also good and more powerful than Satan. I am now convinced that Prophet Mohammed was Satan in person. I also believe that all Muslims are destined to go to Hell unless they repent and return to goodness. I will kill the devil Imams and Mullahs whenever and wherever I can.

Response:

Question:

 There is no plausible deniability with Enron.

Too soon to say.   Frankly, I find it almost impossible to find anyone connected with it who wasn’t at some level contributory. That includes, employees, investors, congress, accountants, financial community, SEC, Justice, the State folks, on and on…..

The ultimate, relevant, prevailing opinion will most likely be neither yours nor mine, but that of yet to be selected jurors. I am totally convinced that genuine diligence on the part of honest people is essential to keeping fraud and abuse down to a tolerable level.  We cannot rely totally on government and whatever harsh penalties that government might choose to impose. If people are, it still is only going to work up to a point.  It isn’t going to stop everyone from slipping through.  

The only way to stop them all is to stop the economy, clearly not an acceptable alternative.  I’m pushing to keep it down to a tolerable level. A repairman would be someone who could fix the problem.  None of you did, can, or will.  I can’t play the fiddle either.  There is no one on this forum who in anyway, shape or form has, is, or will become an agent of change.  We are all actors, not playwrights or directors.

Public opinion will be the agent of change if there is to be change.  We all contribute – some more – some less. We can no more fix the problems that cause Enrons than we can control the weather.

Hopefully we can disagree agreeably. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

… If you are familiar with "plausible deniability" you will also know that it is extremely difficult to get the real perps.  It is easy enough to put away a few disposable designated perps, but the person or persons who are truly abusing us generally go free because they are smart enough to insulate themselves and to take advantage of the safeguards in our legal system.

Plausible deniability only works when people let it work.  There is no plausible deniability with Enron.  Frankly, I find it almost impossible to find anyone connected with it who wasn’t at some level contributory. That includes, employees, investors, congress, accountants, financial community, SEC, Justice, the State folks, on and on….. I am totally convinced that genuine diligence on the part of honest people is essential to keeping fraud and abuse down to a tolerable level.  We cannot rely totally on government and whatever harsh penalties that government might choose to impose.

If people are, it still is only going to work up to a point.  It isn’t going to stop everyone from slipping through.  There is only one Enron this year, in another decade there will be another one.  Anyone who sez he can put forward a 100% solution is selling horse sweat… That is not to say that I don’t advocate harsh penalties, because I do advocate harsh penalties where appropriate.  I also know that I need to be diligent on my own behalf.

Harsh penalties.  Ha  The last person to be quickly executed for murder was Timothy McVey.  ONLY because he killed a half dozen Federal Police Officers (not the civilians in the building, almost no one gets the rope for killing civilians) and only because he wouldn’t let his lawyers defend him.  Didn’t Gebhart have his wife on the payroll for nothing? Oh, so sorry, bookkeeping mistake, by gones…… The current U.S. is not the land of harsh penalties or even ones that fit the crime, if you can get anyone convicted of anything.  Heck, the State has been trying to execute Steve Anderson for twenty years! Believe it or not, I largely agree with your comment about the Enron failure and the audit failure behind it being little more than a pimple on a wart on the rump of the world; a symptom of something that has gone very wrong.  What I vehemently disagree with is your statement that "it probably cannot be fixed as there is no repairman available".  I’m a repairman.  Meyers is a repairman.  Zollars is a repairman.  Many of the other regulars here are repairmen, as are many of the irregulars and lurkers.  You could also be a repairman if you chose to be.

A repairman would be someone who could fix the problem.  None of you did, can, or will.  I can’t play the fiddle either.  There is no one on this forum who in anyway, shape or form has, is, or will become an agent of change.  We are all actors, not playwrights or directors. I said it before and I say it aging, the next century is not going to be an American century.  We no longer have what it takes and what little we have is dissipating.  Are culture has been under steady attack for the last hundred and it is worn out.  We can no more fix the problems that cause Enrons than we can control the weather. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *    From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia,      * *           the Seventh worst state for business,             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

IMHO we should bear in mind what "behavioral finance" confirms: The sense of justice and the perception of working in a reasonably just social and political environment with "level playing fields" are very highly motivating factors in respect of economic productivity. Insisting of compliance with basic ethical tenets, which BTW are remarkably similar in most cultures, contributes directly to the economic well-being of our fellow humans and our "goodselves". A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. http://www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption with GnuPG. Key fingerprint = F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Soviet jihad explosion Panama bomb strategic Serbian kibo North Korea

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Familiar with that, the big plan, critical theory, progressive thought, how the world really works, how politics functions, some of the real motives people have, history, what doesn’t work, why the grand plan doesn’t work, and on and on…… In one sense audit has been broken a long time.  In a larger sense it really doesn’t matter that much.  The Enron failure and the audit failure behind it really are not much in the grand scheme of things. The economic impact is little more than a pimple on a wart on the rump of the world.  It is a symptom of something that has gone very wrong and probably cannot be fixed as there is no repairman available. In a similar note, the 9/11 sneak attack really didn’t have a measurable effect on the economy.  The huge Clinton tax increase of eight or so years ago and all the anti commerce administrative rules and regulations sunk the expansion. …. Ron, Are you familiar with "plausible deniability"?

If you are familiar with "plausible deniability" you will also know that it is extremely difficult to get the real perps.  It is easy enough to put away a few disposable designated perps, but the person or persons who are truly abusing us generally go free because they are smart enough to insulate themselves and to take advantage of the safeguards in our legal system. I am totally convinced that genuine diligence on the part of honest people is essential to keeping fraud and abuse down to a tolerable level.  We cannot rely totally on government and whatever harsh penalties that government might choose to impose.   That is not to say that I don’t advocate harsh penalties, because I do advocate harsh penalties where appropriate.  I also know that I need to be diligent on my own behalf. Believe it or not, I largely agree with your comment about the Enron failure and the audit failure behind it being little more than a pimple on a wart on the rump of the world; a symptom of something that has gone very wrong.  What I vehemently disagree with is your statement that "it probably cannot be fixed as there is no repairman available".  I’m a repairman.  Meyers is a repairman.  Zollars is a repairman.  Many of the other regulars here are repairmen, as are many of the irregulars and lurkers.  You could also be a repairman if you chose to be. My nine-month-old grandchild is upstairs playing with her grandmother as I write this.  I owe it to her to give this the best shot I can.  If this problem is not resolved, and soon, there will be no USA as we know it by the time she is my age. Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com Washington, USA

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I did read it and thought very little of it. A system should be setup…. The Exchange should hire the auditors….. Yep, I see what he is doing.  The SEC will need to more closely regulate the Exchange to assure that the audits are carefully done and on and on.. It opens the door, for the end of independent accountancy in the world. On the other hand, maybe the independent accountants no longer have enough ethical and moral capital to do the job.  Maybe the level of rot has passed the point of no return.  Of course all this happened under Levit’s SEC, where all the legally required forms were filed by the I said it before and I will say it again.  If anyone was really serious about cleaning this situation up you would see twenty-five year disbarments from practice before the SEC being handed out.  I haven’t heard anyone mention that.  (If twenty-five doesn’t work, then life time disbarments, bar them from tax work too.)

Ron, Are you familiar with "plausible deniability"? — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Familiar with that, the big plan, critical theory, progressive thought, how the world really works, how politics functions, some of the real motives people have, history, what doesn’t work, why the grand plan doesn’t work, and on and on…… In one sense audit has been broken a long time.  In a larger sense it really doesn’t matter that much.  The Enron failure and the audit failure behind it really are not much in the grand scheme of things. The economic impact is little more than a pimple on a wart on the rump of the world.  It is a symptom of something that has gone very wrong and probably cannot be fixed as there is no repairman available. In a similar note, the 9/11 sneak attack really didn’t have a measurable effect on the economy.  The huge Clinton tax increase of eight or so years ago and all the anti commerce administrative rules and regulations sunk the expansion.

… Ron, Are you familiar with "plausible deniability"?

… — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *    From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia,      * *           the Seventh worst state for business,             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

I wonder whether the AICPA has any liability from the standpoint that it is supposed to "police" the profession.

Who says the AICPA polices the profession. For what it’s worth, the AICPA doesn’t even seem capable of policing its own membership. Hypothetically, if it didn’t act or act timely or with appropriate action for the offender and the firm/individual did something similar—one could always sue —  but seems like one could find a nexus.

Try posting this question on misc.legal.moderated. Regards, Bill

Response:

I wonder whether the AICPA has any liability from the standpoint that it is supposed to "police" the profession. Hypothetically, if it didn’t act or act timely or with appropriate action for the offender and the firm/individual did something similar—one could always sue —  but seems like one could find a nexus. Jim E.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I did read it and thought very little of it. A system should be setup…. The Exchange should hire the auditors….. Yep, I see what he is doing.  The SEC will need to more closely regulate the Exchange to assure that the audits are carefully done and on and on.. It opens the door, for the end of independent accountancy in the world. On the other hand, maybe the independent accountants no longer have enough ethical and moral capital to do the job.  Maybe the level of rot has passed the point of no return.  Of course all this happened under Levit’s SEC, where all the legally required forms were filed by the I said it before and I will say it again.  If anyone was really serious about cleaning this situation up you would see twenty-five year disbarments from practice before the SEC being handed out.  I haven’t heard anyone mention that.  (If twenty-five doesn’t work, then life time disbarments, bar them from tax work too.) Doesn’t really sound like a solution, just another layer of people and a way to get the blame passed off on someone else. Since it would lead to more bureaucracy and government involvement, I can see why the Post published it.  It would definitely get another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government.  Kind of like the argument I have with my Dentist.  He can’t seem to understand that if there is only one insurance payer, the next step is he is no longer an independent contractor. I think it would be more interesting to let someone else try it out first.  I think the EU should try it first. Did you even read the article Ron. … — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *    From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia,      * *           the Seventh worst state for business,             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

Yes, I did read it and thought very little of it. A system should be setup…. The Exchange should hire the auditors….. Yep, I see what he is doing.  The SEC will need to more closely regulate the Exchange to assure that the audits are carefully done and on and on.. It opens the door, for the end of independent accountancy in the world. On the other hand, maybe the independent accountants no longer have enough ethical and moral capital to do the job.  Maybe the level of rot has passed the point of no return.  Of course all this happened under Levit’s SEC, where all the legally required forms were filed by the I said it before and I will say it again.  If anyone was really serious about cleaning this situation up you would see twenty-five year disbarments from practice before the SEC being handed out.  I haven’t heard anyone mention that.  (If twenty-five doesn’t work, then life time disbarments, bar them from tax work too.) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Doesn’t really sound like a solution, just another layer of people and a way to get the blame passed off on someone else. Since it would lead to more bureaucracy and government involvement, I can see why the Post published it.  It would definitely get another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government.  Kind of like the argument I have with my Dentist.  He can’t seem to understand that if there is only one insurance payer, the next step is he is no longer an independent contractor. I think it would be more interesting to let someone else try it out first.  I think the EU should try it first. Did you even read the article Ron.  

… — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *    From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia,      * *           the Seventh worst state for business,             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

Right you are, Jim. What can we do to support Dave aside from sending him a nice email? (Done.)

Keep beating the drum.  Quote from his article.  Forward the URL to any European publications you know to be following this story. Here we have an "insider" speaking out and telling it like it is.  In my opinion that is truly significant. It is highly likely that this guy will be viciously trashed within the "In" crowd.  Support from us could mean a lot more to him than we have any way of knowing. I’m not presently a member of the AICPA.  If a guy like Cotton were to make a serious attempt to capture one of the top offices I would strongly consider joining so I could vote for him. In my opinion, this sort of effort from the "grass roots" is our best hope to restore the prestige of what was once a fine profession. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Doesn’t really sound like a solution, just another layer of people and a way to get the blame passed off on someone else. Since it would lead to more bureaucracy and government involvement, I can see why the Post published it.  It would definitely get another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government.  Kind of like the argument I have with my Dentist.  He can’t seem to understand that if there is only one insurance payer, the next step is he is no longer an independent contractor. I think it would be more interesting to let someone else try it out first.  I think the EU should try it first. CPAs (and I’m One) Can Reverse Their Losses

… — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *    From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia,      * *           the Seventh worst state for business,             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

Doesn’t really sound like a solution, just another layer of people and a way to get the blame passed off on someone else. Since it would lead to more bureaucracy and government involvement, I can see why the Post published it.  It would definitely get another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government.  Kind of like the argument I have with my Dentist.  He can’t seem to understand that if there is only one insurance payer, the next step is he is no longer an independent contractor. I think it would be more interesting to let someone else try it out first.  I think the EU should try it first.

Did you even read the article Ron.  Dave Cotton is certainly not advocating a government solution.  Quite the opposite. In his third paragraph Dave states that, "We can restore trust in the CPA profession, and there are two ways to do that with minimal government intervention, red tape and regulation. One is to make accounting firms work directly for the people with the most to lose — investors. Let’s set up a system by which the stock exchanges would use a competitive process to select CPA firms to audit the financial statements of companies whose stock is traded on their exchanges. That would take auditors off the payroll of the firms they’re supposed to be monitoring." The first sentence of his fourth paragraph starts with, "Another measure would be to beef up the strength of the accounting industry’s ethics review panel." How do you get "another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government" out of that? — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Looks like "good" thinking.  But of course it’s just a start.  You have the problem of the CPA not being paid by the client.  Now he doesn’t want to cooperate as fully.  Or this client is in better condition than another. Who decides how to allocate costs, which I suspect will some way find its way back to the firm audited.  It wouldn’t be fair to charge costs equally — no firm is alike.  But those are all problems that can be dealt with if one gets a buy in on the concept of  working for the investors, at least with a middleman involved.  As I said, somehow, the costs have to get back to the client.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Doesn’t really sound like a solution, just another layer of people and a way to get the blame passed off on someone else. Since it would lead to more bureaucracy and government involvement, I can see why the Post published it.  It would definitely get another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government.  Kind of like the argument I have with my Dentist.  He can’t seem to understand that if there is only one insurance payer, the next step is he is no longer an independent contractor. I think it would be more interesting to let someone else try it out first.  I think the EU should try it first. Did you even read the article Ron.  Dave Cotton is certainly not advocating a government solution.  Quite the opposite. In his third paragraph Dave states that, "We can restore trust in the CPA profession, and there are two ways to do that with minimal government intervention, red tape and regulation. One is to make accounting firms work directly for the people with the most to lose — investors. Let’s set up a system by which the stock exchanges would use a competitive process to select CPA firms to audit the financial statements of companies whose stock is traded on their exchanges. That would take auditors off the payroll of the firms they’re supposed to be monitoring." The first sentence of his fourth paragraph starts with, "Another measure would be to beef up the strength of the accounting industry’s ethics review panel." How do you get "another step toward having the independent CPA made an employee of the Federal Government" out of that? — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com

Response:

CPAs (and I’m One) Can Reverse Their Losses [Outlook] The Post’s opinion and commentary section runs every Sunday. By Dave Cotton Sunday, January 27, 2002; Page B01 Last year, a public opinion survey put certified public accountants solidly in the middle of a short list of most-trusted professionals. Thanks to Enron Corp. and Arthur Andersen LLP, we CPAs might be lucky to outrank journalists, lawyers or used-car salesmen in the next survey. <snip Unfortunately, the plan announced Jan. 17 by Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt and my own organization, the AICPA, is a collection of cosmetic half-measures. Setting up an autonomous body to oversee ethics enforcement, discipline and SEC practice-monitoring processes is not a bad idea, but it does not address the root causes of the Enron debacle. <big snip of excellent material – must read Dave Cotton is a partner with Cotton & Company LLP, an auditing firm in Alexandria, and a member of the AICPA’s Professional Ethics Committee’s Technical Standards Subcommittee. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the AICPA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41302-2002Jan26.html The above is "must read" stuff.  I find this article extraordinary in that is written by CPA member of the AICPA’s Professional Ethics Committee and published in The Washington Post. For those of you who would like to send Dave an atta-boy, his email is — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Right you are, Jim. What can we do to support Dave aside from sending him a nice email? (Done.) A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. http://www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption with GnuPG. Key fingerprint = F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Semtex fissionable NORAD quiche FBI Honduras supercomputer cracking bomb

Response:

Question:

Hi, Just a newbie here tonight looking at posts, but it appears that the issue of where the kids are to live came about with the simultaneous death and remarriage.  Objectively, why should there be an issue at all?  Just curious, how did dearly departed mom die?  Suspicious by nature, I guess, but how long had the new Mrs. known your ex before the wedding bells? Naturally, the age of your children indicates they can choose, but I don’t feel comfortable in putting forth such a concept to their routine living under your roof, plus their tender-age psyche in putting them through that sort of  "choosing where to live" type of thing, just because ex’s mom died and ex remarried and decides to get financially paranoid toward you. Something sounds screwy with this picture for ex to pull the late checks, etc.  To me, pulling that sort of stunt is a signal that this caring father has become not so caring … makes no difference here if the check goes to you … the money is still required for the welfare of those teenagers.  By abusing you in this money scenario, he is abusing those kids and displays he definitely is not a caring father.  Sure, when he is WITH them he’s very generous … ever heard of the Disneyland parent?  Take advantage of the deadbeat dad laws and get him back on track and quit the money games and traumatizing yourself emotionally over it.  Be true to feeling in your heart in taking into account in doing so that you really are looking at the best interest of your kids and the money is a skirt being hidden behind by your ex.  There may even be something in ex’s mom’s Will for a trust fund for these kids (a common theme … that the deceased wishes for the son/daughter to be in control of said trust(s)) that your ex doesn’t want you to know about, hence the game playing on annoying you and worrying yourself about not wanting to create flack about the lacking checks … until you relinquish custody to him, which would make him a happier camper and you more of an emotional wreck in having done so.  Wills are on public record, so you can mosey down to the courthouse and look it up and get a copy.  Go from there to find out more about assets if you really want to, but a bit of the meat of money appears to be somewhere involving your teenagers, especially in view of this money behavior in not sending you checks.  I feel sure there are assets being hidden as well.  Just relating my own past experiences not too disimilar.  Good luck. Kay

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings, Everyone! When I first started reading the posts on this forum, the weather outside was still balmy — however, my heart was frozen solid. I never thought I would have the courage to let it thaw, and allow myself to feel again. But after months of perusing the various posts here and following people’s brave resolve and valiant efforts to "press on," I’ve come to believe that I, too, can somehow find the strength to chip the protective ice off my heart. My former husband had always been a very generous and caring father. Even after the divorce, he never begrudged the children anything. He spent much time with them, and didn’t balk about his share of funds to support the children. We maintained a civil relationship. Then, his mother died and he inherited several million $$$ (he was the only child), and he also got remarried. (I do not know which came first, as the news of his mother’s death and his remarriage were revealed to me simultaneously.) Almost immediately, he began griping about the child support payments, skipping the children’s checks here and there, hemming and hawing about things like, "I don’t think [our daughter] really NEEDS braces…" Maybe he (and/or his new wife?) was worried that I’d suddenly ask for more money for the children, but the truth is that the children were being well-taken-care-of prior to his inheritance, and didn’t REQUIRE any more funding. However, they certainly didn’t require any LESS, either!!! I decided not to rock the boat — that the new wife would eventually see that I wasn’t after "their" money, so I waited patiently for him to get back on track with the payment-schedule that had been established years ago, and to which he always adhered. Well, no such luck. It was almost as if he was DARING me to keep up the stamina to have to call him periodically to broach the subject. (He KNOWS I hate talking about money, and it was always very uncomfortable for me to have to pick up the phone and say, "Um, sorry to bother you, but we haven’t received a check in the last 3 months, and [our daughter] will not be able to participate in the marching band if we don’t pay the dues and fees for the uniform/instrument/travel expenses this week!" Eventually, I felt I had no choice but to approach an attorney. I had been very reluctant to do so, but I didn’t know where else to turn! The attorney promptly researched my former husband’s assets, and guess what the dossier turned up?: except for his airplane, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! (For insurance purposes, apparently, my former husband kept the aircraft registered in his name, but EVERYTHING ELSE, he signed over either to his new wife, or tucked away in some overseas accounts.) I know there are "forensic accountants" who can supposedly locate all sorts of hidden assets, but not only do I not have the money to retain one — I also seem to have been born without the gene to motivate me to fight with anyone over money. Some might say that it’s not about money, per se, but about what is rightly due the children, and that therefore, I SHOULD fight! If he were otherwise a rotten father, I would agree, but, in all honesty, he is really a VERY GOOD FATHER . . . when the children are with HIM, that is! It’s only when they’re with ME, that he suddenly adopts this Scrooge attitude. I mean, not only is he financially generous with them when they are with him, but, being a university professor, he is also very adept at guiding them from an educational and intellectual standpoint (which I am, as well). Emotionally, however, he may actually be better-suited, in that he doesn’t "stress out" as easily as I do (but I think if I had millions of dollars, I probably wouldn’t "stress out" as much, either!). So I recently made a VERY tough decision. I decided that it might, indeed, be best for my children to live with their father. But I am still so torn about this! This decision HAS served to end the turmoil between me and my former husband, but I still feel almost "lost" without my children living under the same roof with me!!! My "higher self" does believe this is the right decision — for THEM, for my KIDS — but my heart aches almost non-stop! This is SUCH a societally non-popular decision, and I actually shudder at the thought of admitting that I made it somewhat voluntarily. (I say "somewhat," because I feel that I was, in a way, cornered into it.) I hope I’m not coming across as trying to make myself sound like some kind of "martyr." To me, it seems like I had the choice of battling for the next however-many-years in court, while my kids went without braces, missed piano lessons, been privy to legal wranglings, etc. — OR: choose to let them experience the next few years in relative peace, knowing that their needs are being met NOW. They are 15 and 17 years old, by the way. That makes ALL the difference when it comes to my motivation to pursue a big, giant investigation and fight. With college just around the corner, these children can’t afford to wait several years for a judge to render a decision on their behalf. Please don’t stone me! I’m already bruised enough as it is, believe me! May everyone here have a "New and Improved" New Year! Good health to all in 2001! Thanks for listening (for those who have endured my long-winded drivel!)! –Alexa talexa{at}evcom{dot}net

Response:

Hi, Toni! Season’s Greetings! Well, the first question I have is do the kids *want* to live with their dad?

Oh, without a question! They are happy with either — both my former husband and I have always made sure that they feel equally comfortable with each of us. I mean, think about the motivation here.  It’s really about a lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.

Well, with all else being rather equal, I do admit that the motivation is financial — he and I can both provide a healthy environment for them, insofar as values and morals and and ethics are concerned. But he has the "edge" when it comes to immediate fulfillment of their medical and extra-curricular needs. Yes (as I indicated previously), it’s quite likely that a judge would have eventually rendered a decision in their favor had they continued to live under my care — but what good is a "reward" in their favor at age 20, let’s say, if they need the care and consideration NOW?!?!? Dad has the means, but is the *environment* what is best for them?

Essentially, they are in equally good care, be they with him, or with me. Is this good training for them?….What’s the lesson for them?

Great question! The "lesson" (that I’m hoping they will never have to look back upon — but IF THEY DO, IT WILL BE THERE) IS: sometimes we have to surrender those whom we love to the care of others, IF — and, mind you, ONLY IF — we have thoroughly reviewed the matter and determined that it would be entirely selfish for us to "keep them." Toni, let’s face it: realistically — by the time we’d get through arguing in court, our daughters would more than likely be well into adulthood. live maybe a less profitable life with you?

As teenagers, they yearn to be autonomous — and, of course, require steady guidance. He is as good at providing that as I am. However, in addition, he is willing to provide them "perks" when they are with him — perks which he became unwilling to provide them when they are with me. (I SUSPECT this is the influence of the new wife, but I can not be certain.) Truth be told, I believe that their lives are equally profitable with each of us (again, from the spiritual and ethical point of view), but certainly enhanced — from the materialistic point of view — with him. With all else being equal, and with him having "the edge" when it comes to money, and with me having to make the choice of which is "better" for them: well, what other criteria could I have figured into this formula? It seemed that it would be pretty sexist for me to say, "Well, I’m the MOTHER, therefore I get them by default!" I don’t happen to think that way. I encourage men to cultivate their capacity for nurturing their offspring. I’m not a hypocrite who says, "Men should care more for their children," while at the same time saying, "Women are more bonded to their children, and therefore should have first dibs." Toni, I’m not asking for a cheering section. I am merely trying to present a point of view which [hopefully] illustrates that decisions such as these should not be predicated upon the the gender or desire(s) of the parent(s) — but upon that which is deemed — AFTER SERIOUS INTROSPECTION AND INVESTIGATION BY THE ADULTS INVOLED — to be in the best interest of the children. (Usually, this means not considering divorce as an option, to begin with. [Barring, of course, severe mental, emotional, and/or physical abuse.] I know that’s more than one question, but…Lots of kids don’t have many of the "things" that you speak of and many get through college without parents footing the bill.  Just some things to think about.

Oh, Toni! Don’t get me started on the subject of "things," please! I see consumerism and materialism as being the great scourge on our society and culture! If anything, it is he who is arguing about "stuff" — I am the one who has refused to do this . . . Happy, happy, happy . . . 2001 . . . to one and all! –Alexa talexa{at}evcom{dot}net

Response:

Greetings, Everyone! When I first started reading the posts on this forum, the weather outside was still balmy — however, my heart was frozen solid. I never thought I would have the courage to let it thaw, and allow myself to feel again. But after months of perusing the various posts here and following people’s brave resolve and valiant efforts to "press on," I’ve come to believe that I, too, can somehow find the strength to chip the protective ice off my heart. My former husband had always been a very generous and caring father. Even after the divorce, he never begrudged the children anything. He spent much time with them, and didn’t balk about his share of funds to support the children. We maintained a civil relationship. Then, his mother died and he inherited several million $$$ (he was the only child), and he also got remarried. (I do not know which came first, as the news of his mother’s death and his remarriage were revealed to me simultaneously.) Almost immediately, he began griping about the child support payments, skipping the children’s checks here and there, hemming and hawing about things like, "I don’t think [our daughter] really NEEDS braces…" Maybe he (and/or his new wife?) was worried that I’d suddenly ask for more money for the children, but the truth is that the children were being well-taken-care-of prior to his inheritance, and didn’t REQUIRE any more funding. However, they certainly didn’t require any LESS, either!!! I decided not to rock the boat — that the new wife would eventually see that I wasn’t after "their" money, so I waited patiently for him to get back on track with the payment-schedule that had been established years ago, and to which he always adhered. Well, no such luck. It was almost as if he was DARING me to keep up the stamina to have to call him periodically to broach the subject. (He KNOWS I hate talking about money, and it was always very uncomfortable for me to have to pick up the phone and say, "Um, sorry to bother you, but we haven’t received a check in the last 3 months, and [our daughter] will not be able to participate in the marching band if we don’t pay the dues and fees for the uniform/instrument/travel expenses this week!" Eventually, I felt I had no choice but to approach an attorney. I had been very reluctant to do so, but I didn’t know where else to turn! The attorney promptly researched my former husband’s assets, and guess what the dossier turned up?: except for his airplane, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! (For insurance purposes, apparently, my former husband kept the aircraft registered in his name, but EVERYTHING ELSE, he signed over either to his new wife, or tucked away in some overseas accounts.) I know there are "forensic accountants" who can supposedly locate all sorts of hidden assets, but not only do I not have the money to retain one — I also seem to have been born without the gene to motivate me to fight with anyone over money. Some might say that it’s not about money, per se, but about what is rightly due the children, and that therefore, I SHOULD fight! If he were otherwise a rotten father, I would agree, but, in all honesty, he is really a VERY GOOD FATHER . . . when the children are with HIM, that is! It’s only when they’re with ME, that he suddenly adopts this Scrooge attitude. I mean, not only is he financially generous with them when they are with him, but, being a university professor, he is also very adept at guiding them from an educational and intellectual standpoint (which I am, as well). Emotionally, however, he may actually be better-suited, in that he doesn’t "stress out" as easily as I do (but I think if I had millions of dollars, I probably wouldn’t "stress out" as much, either!). So I recently made a VERY tough decision. I decided that it might, indeed, be best for my children to live with their father. But I am still so torn about this! This decision HAS served to end the turmoil between me and my former husband, but I still feel almost "lost" without my children living under the same roof with me!!! My "higher self" does believe this is the right decision — for THEM, for my KIDS — but my heart aches almost non-stop! This is SUCH a societally non-popular decision, and I actually shudder at the thought of admitting that I made it somewhat voluntarily. (I say "somewhat," because I feel that I was, in a way, cornered into it.) I hope I’m not coming across as trying to make myself sound like some kind of "martyr." To me, it seems like I had the choice of battling for the next however-many-years in court, while my kids went without braces, missed piano lessons, been privy to legal wranglings, etc. — OR: choose to let them experience the next few years in relative peace, knowing that their needs are being met NOW. They are 15 and 17 years old, by the way. That makes ALL the difference when it comes to my motivation to pursue a big, giant investigation and fight. With college just around the corner, these children can’t afford to wait several years for a judge to render a decision on their behalf. Please don’t stone me! I’m already bruised enough as it is, believe me! May everyone here have a "New and Improved" New Year! Good health to all in 2001! Thanks for listening (for those who have endured my long-winded drivel!)! –Alexa talexa{at}evcom{dot}net

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -New Year’s Eve! Greetings, Everyone! When I first started reading the posts on this forum, the weather outside was still balmy — however, my heart was frozen solid. I never thought I would have the courage to let it thaw, and allow myself to feel again. But after months of perusing the various posts here and following people’s brave resolve and valiant efforts to "press on," I’ve come to believe that I, too, can somehow find the strength to chip the protective ice off my heart. My former husband had always been a very generous and caring father. Even after the divorce, he never begrudged the children anything. He spent much time with them, and didn’t balk about his share of funds to support the children. We maintained a civil relationship. Then, his mother died and he inherited several million $$$ (he was the only child), and he also got remarried. (I do not know which came first, as the news of his mother’s death and his remarriage were revealed to me simultaneously.) Almost immediately, he began griping about the child support payments, skipping the children’s checks here and there, hemming and hawing about things like, "I don’t think [our daughter] really NEEDS braces…" Maybe he (and/or his new wife?) was worried that I’d suddenly ask for more money for the children, but the truth is that the children were being well-taken-care-of prior to his inheritance, and didn’t REQUIRE any more funding. However, they certainly didn’t require any LESS, either!!! I decided not to rock the boat — that the new wife would eventually see that I wasn’t after "their" money, so I waited patiently for him to get back on track with the payment-schedule that had been established years ago, and to which he always adhered. Well, no such luck. It was almost as if he was DARING me to keep up the stamina to have to call him periodically to broach the subject. (He KNOWS I hate talking about money, and it was always very uncomfortable for me to have to pick up the phone and say, "Um, sorry to bother you, but we haven’t received a check in the last 3 months, and [our daughter] will not be able to participate in the marching band if we don’t pay the dues and fees for the uniform/instrument/travel expenses this week!" Eventually, I felt I had no choice but to approach an attorney. I had been very reluctant to do so, but I didn’t know where else to turn! The attorney promptly researched my former husband’s assets, and guess what the dossier turned up?: except for his airplane, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! (For insurance purposes, apparently, my former husband kept the aircraft registered in his name, but EVERYTHING ELSE, he signed over either to his new wife, or tucked away in some overseas accounts.) I know there are "forensic accountants" who can supposedly locate all sorts of hidden assets, but not only do I not have the money to retain one — I also seem to have been born without the gene to motivate me to fight with anyone over money. Some might say that it’s not about money, per se, but about what is rightly due the children, and that therefore, I SHOULD fight! If he were otherwise a rotten father, I would agree, but, in all honesty, he is really a VERY GOOD FATHER . . . when the children are with HIM, that is! It’s only when they’re with ME, that he suddenly adopts this Scrooge attitude. I mean, not only is he financially generous with them when they are with him, but, being a university professor, he is also very adept at guiding them from an educational and intellectual standpoint (which I am, as well). Emotionally, however, he may actually be better-suited, in that he doesn’t "stress out" as easily as I do (but I think if I had millions of dollars, I probably wouldn’t "stress out" as much, either!). So I recently made a VERY tough decision. I decided that it might, indeed, be best for my children to live with their father. But I am still so torn about this! This decision HAS served to end the turmoil between me and my former husband, but I still feel almost "lost" without my children living under the same roof with me!!! My "higher self" does believe this is the right decision — for THEM, for my KIDS — but my heart aches almost non-stop! This is SUCH a societally non-popular decision, and I actually shudder at the thought of admitting that I made it somewhat voluntarily. (I say "somewhat," because I feel that I was, in a way, cornered into it.) I hope I’m not coming across as trying to make myself sound like some kind of "martyr." To me, it seems like I had the choice of battling for the next however-many-years in court, while my kids went without braces, missed piano lessons, been privy to legal wranglings, etc. — OR: choose to let them experience the next few years in relative peace, knowing that their needs are being met NOW. They are 15 and 17 years old, by the way. That makes ALL the difference when it comes to my motivation to pursue a big, giant investigation and fight. With college just around the corner, these children can’t afford to wait several years for a judge to render a decision on their behalf. Please don’t stone me! I’m already bruised enough as it is, believe me! May everyone here have a "New and Improved" New Year! Good health to all in 2001! Thanks for listening (for those who have endured my long-winded drivel!)! –Alexa talexa{at}evcom{dot}net

Well, the first question I have is do the kids *want* to live with their dad? I mean, think about the motivation here.  It’s really about a lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.  Dad has the means, but is the *environment* what is best for them?  Is this good training for them?….What’s the lesson for them?  Would they rather have the things that money can provide than to live maybe a less profitable life with you?  I know that’s more than one question, but…Lots of kids don’t have many of the "things" that you speak of and many get through college without parents footing the bill.  Just some things to think about.

Response:

If you know where his mother’s estate was probated, you could get copies of the distribution reports and prove that he was hiding assets.  It shouldn’t take much, just check with the clerk of the court where she was known to reside.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings, Everyone! When I first started reading the posts on this forum, the weather outside was still balmy — however, my heart was frozen solid. I never thought I would have the courage to let it thaw, and allow myself to feel again. But after months of perusing the various posts here and following people’s brave resolve and valiant efforts to "press on," I’ve come to believe that I, too, can somehow find the strength to chip the protective ice off my heart. My former husband had always been a very generous and caring father. Even after the divorce, he never begrudged the children anything. He spent much time with them, and didn’t balk about his share of funds to support the children. We maintained a civil relationship. Then, his mother died and he inherited several million $$$ (he was the only child), and he also got remarried. (I do not know which came first, as the news of his mother’s death and his remarriage were revealed to me simultaneously.) Almost immediately, he began griping about the child support payments, skipping the children’s checks here and there, hemming and hawing about things like, "I don’t think [our daughter] really NEEDS braces…" Maybe he (and/or his new wife?) was worried that I’d suddenly ask for more money for the children, but the truth is that the children were being well-taken-care-of prior to his inheritance, and didn’t REQUIRE any more funding. However, they certainly didn’t require any LESS, either!!! I decided not to rock the boat — that the new wife would eventually see that I wasn’t after "their" money, so I waited patiently for him to get back on track with the payment-schedule that had been established years ago, and to which he always adhered. Well, no such luck. It was almost as if he was DARING me to keep up the stamina to have to call him periodically to broach the subject. (He KNOWS I hate talking about money, and it was always very uncomfortable for me to have to pick up the phone and say, "Um, sorry to bother you, but we haven’t received a check in the last 3 months, and [our daughter] will not be able to participate in the marching band if we don’t pay the dues and fees for the uniform/instrument/travel expenses this week!" Eventually, I felt I had no choice but to approach an attorney. I had been very reluctant to do so, but I didn’t know where else to turn! The attorney promptly researched my former husband’s assets, and guess what the dossier turned up?: except for his airplane, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! (For insurance purposes, apparently, my former husband kept the aircraft registered in his name, but EVERYTHING ELSE, he signed over either to his new wife, or tucked away in some overseas accounts.) I know there are "forensic accountants" who can supposedly locate all sorts of hidden assets, but not only do I not have the money to retain one — I also seem to have been born without the gene to motivate me to fight with anyone over money. Some might say that it’s not about money, per se, but about what is rightly due the children, and that therefore, I SHOULD fight! If he were otherwise a rotten father, I would agree, but, in all honesty, he is really a VERY GOOD FATHER . . . when the children are with HIM, that is! It’s only when they’re with ME, that he suddenly adopts this Scrooge attitude. I mean, not only is he financially generous with them when they are with him, but, being a university professor, he is also very adept at guiding them from an educational and intellectual standpoint (which I am, as well). Emotionally, however, he may actually be better-suited, in that he doesn’t "stress out" as easily as I do (but I think if I had millions of dollars, I probably wouldn’t "stress out" as much, either!). So I recently made a VERY tough decision. I decided that it might, indeed, be best for my children to live with their father. But I am still so torn about this! This decision HAS served to end the turmoil between me and my former husband, but I still feel almost "lost" without my children living under the same roof with me!!! My "higher self" does believe this is the right decision — for THEM, for my KIDS — but my heart aches almost non-stop! This is SUCH a societally non-popular decision, and I actually shudder at the thought of admitting that I made it somewhat voluntarily. (I say "somewhat," because I feel that I was, in a way, cornered into it.) I hope I’m not coming across as trying to make myself sound like some kind of "martyr." To me, it seems like I had the choice of battling for the next however-many-years in court, while my kids went without braces, missed piano lessons, been privy to legal wranglings, etc. — OR: choose to let them experience the next few years in relative peace, knowing that their needs are being met NOW. They are 15 and 17 years old, by the way. That makes ALL the difference when it comes to my motivation to pursue a big, giant investigation and fight. With college just around the corner, these children can’t afford to wait several years for a judge to render a decision on their behalf. Please don’t stone me! I’m already bruised enough as it is, believe me! May everyone here have a "New and Improved" New Year! Good health to all in 2001! Thanks for listening (for those who have endured my long-winded drivel!)! –Alexa talexa{at}evcom{dot}net

Response:

Question:

Yes……BUT….do you want to be considered by the public as they consider "those people."

Well, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. As a tax practitioner, I don’t benefit from any state-enforced monopoly. I have to compete in an open marketplace where being a CPA does not necessarily pose any clear advantage. I tend to find that clients remember and recommend service providers with whom they’ve have had a favorable experience, *regardless* of credentials. MTW Please reply to newsgroup – unsolicited email ignored.

Response:

… My area of concern is the using of "CPA" as a marketing enhancement for non accounting services.  In this context I am including tax prep as an accounting service.

… IMHO the only reason there has been a push from the brokerage and insurance industries to sign up cpas is to get to their natural markets.  Once the cpa has finished selling to his clients, what’s left?  Is the cpa going out and beat the bushes for clients with the regular agents?   I’ve seen an insurance industry prediction that only those cpa firms that become insurance agencies will survive the next decade.  I thought that was a silly thing to say.  How many cpas can say a silly thing like that as part of a sales pitch?  How many cpas can use the sales tactics necessary to close a "financial product" sale?  Now many cpas can live two lives, one where they have to sell to clients as a commission agent and another where they have to adhere to the ethical standards of the accounting profession?  How many men can serve two masters? — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *                                                             * *  Unemployed five years, and really beginning to enjoy it.   * *                                                             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

Not exactly.  What you want is a level playing field and a slightly taller horse (CPA credential). Not so. In many cases those various others have certifications that I don’t have (CFP, CLU, GRE, etc., etc.). Which horse is taller is very much a matter of the consumer’s opinion.

This is a real hot button issue with my non certified CFP friends.  They see "CPA" as a very tall horse. For example, if anyone thinks I know more about real estate than an experienced realtor, simply because I am a CPA, they are a moron. <g

Based on my own experience, I would say that the market assumes we know more about real estate TAXATION than brokers.  I realize that we often don’t.  I am very careful in this area.  I take time to do the research, and that sometimes includes a call to a friendly broker. You want to be able to offer the same products, but also wrap yourself in the mantle of objectivity, integrity and independence that the CPA credential provides. Not so. As a tax practitioner, I never claim to be objective or independent – and I don’t think many of my clients would like it if I was!

<clarity break Integrity is something you have to earn on your own. It is not guaranteed by virtue of licensing. People who aren’t CPAs don’t automatically lack integrity.

Agreed.  I should not have used that word in the context that I did. Actually, if I were to get into this area, I would probably not mention my CPA status to non-client prospects (unless specifically required to do so by regulations) because it isn’t particularly relevant and it may give rise to erroneous expectations. For example, I know at least a few CPA-turned-stockbrokers who tell me that they *don’t* advertise their CPA status because people thereby seem to assume that all of their investment recommendations contain some magic tax gimmick.

This makes sense. While many CPAs seem to view this issue in terms of what they consider to be a "wrapping of the mantle" – thereby presuming a certain amount of self-importance (which may or may not really exist in the marketplace) – I simply view it in terms of my right as a citizen to engage in otherwise legal business activities *without* discrimination based *solely* on the fact that I’m a CPA.

My area of concern is the using of "CPA" as a marketing enhancement for non accounting services.  In this context I am including tax prep as an accounting service. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

You want to be able to offer the same products, but also wrap yourself in the mantle of objectivity, integrity and independence that the CPA credential provides.

I think we all are going to have to understand that, more and more, it’s going to be our own responsibility to build our reputation, and that "credentials" are likely going to lose some of their luster as they start covering broader areas. I’ve already decided that commissioned CPAs are going to exist–I’m just not one of them, and I do plan to let clients know that.  If others parties cry foul (and they often do) I simply point out that I am informing my client about my decision–let them inform their client about theirs and we’ll go forward. I’ve always found it amusing that some who receive commissions have a thin skin about anyone *mentioning* they do that, even if it is mentioned in a nonjudgemental way.

Response:

… I also think it is foolish for stock brokers, realtors, insurance dudes, etc. to get involved in tax preparation. But, since there is absolutely no movement afloat to impose restrictions on them, all I ask for is a level playing field.

… Yes……BUT….do you want to be considered by the public as they consider "those people."  I predict that the first time a CPA, in a CPA practice, churns an account it is going to make the national news. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *                                                             * *  Unemployed five years, and really beginning to enjoy it.   * *                                                             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

… I think the lust for commissions was driven primarily by the bull market….

I think that sums up the heart of the problem perfectly.   No bull market goes on forever and their are indicators that the market peak has passed.  When the market starts down, all this attractive commission business is going to look mighty rotten to those cpas who signed on.  Unfortunately, by then, they may be known as "stock brokers" by their traditional market.  IMHO their reputations will be tarnished by associations and they will have a harder time retaining their traditional client base when times get tough. IMHO I have come to the conclusion that many cpas must have slept through their undergraduate psychology, sociology and history classes. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *                                                             * *  Unemployed five years, and really beginning to enjoy it.   * *                                                             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

Personally, I think it is foolish for practicing CPAs to get into commission sales.  

I think it’s foolish for totally different reasons–the clients I have who do commissioned work in the financial services markets have been complaining for years that commissioned work is under attack, and the rates they are receiving have been dropping. I think the lust for commissions was driven primarily by the bull market, when it appeared "easy" to select investments.  Now that we may be facing a time when dartboard stock/fund selection doesn’t work so well, we may find a few people will discover clients will start asking uncomfortable questions about why their investments have gone down…

Response:

Personally, I think it is foolish for practicing CPAs to get into commission sales. I also think it is foolish for stock brokers, realtors, insurance dudes, etc. to get involved in tax preparation.

I agree. But, since there is absolutely no movement afloat to impose restrictions on them,

<clarity break all I ask for is a level playing field.

Not exactly.  What you want is a level playing field and a slightly taller horse (CPA credential). You want to be able to offer the same products, but also wrap yourself in the mantle of objectivity, integrity and independence that the CPA credential provides. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

Not exactly.  What you want is a level playing field and a slightly taller horse (CPA credential).

Not so. In many cases those various others have certifications that I don’t have (CFP, CLU, GRE, etc., etc.). Which horse is taller is very much a matter of the consumer’s opinion. For example, if anyone thinks I know more about real estate than an experienced realtor, simply because I am a CPA, they are a moron. <g You want to be able to offer the same products, but also wrap yourself in the mantle of objectivity, integrity and independence that the CPA credential provides.

Not so. As a tax practitioner, I never claim to be objective or independent – and I don’t think many of my clients would like it if I was! Integrity is something you have to earn on your own. It is not guaranteed by virtue of licensing. People who aren’t CPAs don’t automatically lack integrity. Actually, if I were to get into this area, I would probably not mention my CPA status to non-client prospects (unless specifically required to do so by regulations) because it isn’t particularly relevant and it may give rise to erroneous expectations. For example, I know at least a few CPA-turned-stockbrokers who tell me that they *don’t* advertise their CPA status because people thereby seem to assume that all of their investment recommendations contain some magic tax gimmick. While many CPAs seem to view this issue in terms of what they consider to be a "wrapping of the mantle" – thereby presuming a certain amount of self-importance (which may or may not really exist in the marketplace) – I simply view it in terms of my right as a citizen to engage in otherwise legal business activities *without* discrimination based *solely* on the fact that I’m a CPA. MTW Please reply to newsgroup – unsolicited email ignored.

Response:

Personally, I think it is foolish for practicing CPAs to get into commission sales.

I also think it is foolish for stock brokers, realtors, insurance dudes, etc. to get involved in tax preparation. But, since there is absolutely no movement afloat to impose restrictions on them, all I ask for is a level playing field. MTW Please reply to newsgroup – unsolicited email ignored.

Response:

In Oregon, the hot topic seems to be revising the accountancy act so that CPA’s can accept commissions.  Can CPA’s do this already in WA?

Literally as we speak the WA Board is considering a repeal of their anti-commission rule. MTW Please reply to newsgroup – unsolicited email ignored.

Response:

In Oregon, the hot topic seems to be revising the accountancy act so that CPA’s can accept commissions.  Can CPA’s do this already in WA? Literally as we speak the WA Board is considering a repeal of their anti-commission rule.

The WSCPA is also pushing to get statutory approval.  This would prevent the board from banning commissions. One way or the other, it is going to happen. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

In Oregon, the hot topic seems to be revising the accountancy act so that CPA’s can accept commissions.

I most states that battle has already been fought.  In many cases, the state relied on the AICPA Code of Ethics, and when that was changed as part of the FTC consent decree the states followed.  Generally, CPAs are allowed to accept commissions so long as the CPA firm does no attest work for that client in most states.

Response:

It’s interesting how the different state associations push different issues. In Oregon, the hot topic seems to be revising the accountancy act so that CPA’s can accept commissions.  Can CPA’s do this already in WA? Any thoughts from the experts out there? Anthony

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The following is a copy and paste from a document intended by the WSCPA to become law in the State of Washington. (3) An applicant for initial issuance or renewal of a permit to practice under this section shall be required to show that:  (a) A simple majority of the ownership of the firm, in terms of financial interests and voting rights of all partners, officers, shareholders, members, or managers, must belong to holders of a certificate who are certified or licensed in this state or another state, and such partners, officers, shareholders, members, or managers, whose principal place of business is in this state and who perform professional services in this state must hold a valid certificate issued under RCW 18.04.105 or the corresponding provision of prior law I am having a great deal of difficulty accepting the notion that the public interest can be adequately protected where CPA firms performing attest work can be 49% owned by persons or entities who are not CPAs. As I read this proposed rule, I see nothing that would stop Bill Gates from buying a 49% interest in the "Cognitor" firm that audits M$.  I’m not comfortable with that.  Are the rest of you comfortable with that? — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

In Oregon, the hot topic seems to be revising the accountancy act so that CPA’s can accept commissions. I most states that battle has already been fought.  In many cases, the state relied on the AICPA Code of Ethics, and when that was changed as part of the FTC consent decree the states followed.  Generally, CPAs are allowed to accept commissions so long as the CPA firm does no attest work for that client in most states.

According to the July 24 – August 6, 2000 issue of ACCOUNTING TODAY, there are presently eight states that bar commissions.  They are Idaho, Oregon, Rhode Island, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Wyoming and Washington. My guess is that within a year we (WA) will allow them with some fairly strong disclosure requirements provided there is no attest work involved. Personally, I think it is foolish for practicing CPAs to get into commission sales.  Our only inherent advantage is the fact that CPAs enjoy a high level of public trust.  A  few well publicized commission rip offs and a little time could easily change that.  The investment related talk shows are already making this an issue. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

All the owners would be subject to the same standards as CPA’s, although I don’t know what the penalty would be if they didn’t.

I suspect the proposed penalty would be that the firm itself could be sanctioned.  Of course, given the court decisions what that would really mean is that the firm could be barred only from attest functions.

Response:

We all know (or should know) that control is easily possible with a lot less than 49% ownership.

The practical matter is that many of these entities have obtained control with 0% ownership of the CPA firm–rather, the firm remains as a shell and "leases" employees as needed from the non-CPA firm entity.  That’s been the AMEX design from early on…

Response:

We all know (or should know) that control is easily possible with a lot less than 49% ownership. The practical matter is that many of these entities have obtained control with 0% ownership of the CPA firm–rather, the firm remains as a shell and "leases" employees as needed from the non-CPA firm entity.  That’s been the AMEX design from early on…

This really gets depressing.  The further I get into this the more I’m getting the message that CPA "independence" is nothing but a illusion. CPAs don’t want to be independent and the public doesn’t care. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

The following is a copy and paste from a document intended by the WSCPA to become law in the State of Washington. (3) An applicant for initial issuance or renewal of a permit to practice under this section shall be required to show that:  (a) A simple majority of the ownership of the firm, in terms of financial interests and voting rights of all partners, officers, shareholders, members, or managers, must belong to holders of a certificate who are certified or licensed in this state or another state, and such partners, officers, shareholders, members, or managers, whose principal place of business is in this state and who perform professional services in this state must hold a valid certificate issued under RCW 18.04.105 or the corresponding provision of prior law I am having a great deal of difficulty accepting the notion that the public interest can be adequately protected where CPA firms performing attest work can be 49% owned by persons or entities who are not CPAs. As I read this proposed rule, I see nothing that would stop Bill Gates from buying a 49% interest in the "Cognitor" firm that audits M$.  I’m not comfortable with that.  Are the rest of you comfortable with that? — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

… I am having a great deal of difficulty accepting the notion that the public interest can be adequately protected where CPA firms performing attest work can be 49% owned by persons or entities who are not CPAs.

No problem here.  The business would still be under the control of the licensed owners.  The unlicensed partners "could" be a valuable source of sellable knowledge and /or capital.  I stress could, because I think this minority ownership movement is based on growth assumptions that are not going to happen. As I read this proposed rule, I see nothing that would stop Bill Gates from buying a 49% interest in the "Cognitor" firm that audits M$.  I’m not comfortable with that.  Are the rest of you comfortable with that?

Weeelllllll…..  Wouldn’t the ethics standards prohibit that or at least force "the gates" to recuse "itself."  I’m not much for forward speculation, but I find it very hard to see that kind of conflict of interest being allowed. I don’t think there is much fear of that happening.  CPA firms have neither the long term profitability or growing market to attract such a corporate investment.  "Knowledge enterprises" (what the heck ever that is this week) will want to buy off or in to the consulting sections of firms.  As far as the audit & accounting firms, the only buyers I see would be the "financial community" who would want the customer base for cross selling whole life, annuities, and other high commission products. … — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *                                                             * *  Unemployed five years, and really beginning to enjoy it.   * *                                                             * *                   Ayn Rand was right                        *

Response:

A simple majority of the ownership of the firm

As a purely technical point, I am troubled by the term "simple majority". If this is supposed to mean "greater than 50%" or "at least 51%", then it should be stated as such. But, wouldn’t that be an *absolute* majority? On the other hand, perhaps the WSCPA *wants* the rule to be vague and ambiguous… MTW Please reply to newsgroup – unsolicited email ignored.

Response:

Jim Hudspeth wrote I am having a great deal of difficulty accepting the notion that the public interest can be adequately protected where CPA firms performing attest work can be 49% owned by persons or entities who are not CPAs.

Situations like you have posted ‘could’ happen, but I think what it is intended to allow is the integration of other professions into the CPA firm.  IE: legal, IT/computer folk, investments, etc.  I think Georgia is tossing around a similar provision with that intention in mind.  All the owners would be subject to the same standards as CPA’s, although I don’t know what the penalty would be if they didn’t. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens,  Georgia

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jim Hudspeth wrote I am having a great deal of difficulty accepting the notion that the public interest can be adequately protected where CPA firms performing attest work can be 49% owned by persons or entities who are not CPAs. Situations like you have posted ‘could’ happen, but I think what it is intended to allow is the integration of other professions into the CPA firm.  IE: legal, IT/computer folk, investments, etc.  I think Georgia is tossing around a similar provision with that intention in mind.  All the owners would be subject to the same standards as CPA’s, although I don’t know what the penalty would be if they didn’t. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens,  Georgia

Here in Tennessee the fastest growing areas appear to be in information technology and tax.  State and local tax (SALT) specialization seems to really be on the rise at larger firms.  Many of the people filling these jobs are not accountants.  One firm locally formed an LLC to handle what had been its IT division in order to allow non-CPAs ownership in this fast growing function. I don’t know is keeping the functions under a separate company is better or worse than allowing direct ownership in a CPA firm, but there are clearly ways around the current prohibition.  In small towns near where I live it is very common to see more than one business name on the door of a CPA firm. Example: "Joe Smith, CPA" and right under that "Smith and Jones Bookkeeping and Tax Service".  I would strongly suspect this is because Mr./Ms. Jones is not a CPA, but for all practical purposes is a partner.

Response:

Jim Hudspeth wrote I am having a great deal of difficulty accepting the notion that the public interest can be adequately protected where CPA firms performing attest work can be 49% owned by persons or entities who are not CPAs. Situations like you have posted ‘could’ happen, but I think what it is intended to allow is the integration of other professions into the CPA firm.  IE: legal, IT/computer folk, investments, etc.  I think Georgia is tossing around a similar provision with that intention in mind.  All the owners would be subject to the same standards as CPA’s, although I don’t know what the penalty would be if they didn’t.

When you are writing legislation you really need to think about the unintended consequences.  The intent of the promoters doesn’t mean diddle when you’re going through an enforcement action. You can say that "All the owners would be subject to the same standards as CPA’s", but there is no effective way to enforce it. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

… I am having a great deal of difficulty accepting the notion that the public interest can be adequately protected where CPA firms performing attest work can be 49% owned by persons or entities who are not CPAs. No problem here.  The business would still be under the control of the licensed owners.

We have both lived too long to buy that argument. The unlicensed partners "could" be a valuable source of sellable knowledge and /or capital.

Of course they are – otherwise there would be no incentive to go this route. I stress could, because I think this minority ownership movement is based on growth assumptions that are not going to happen.

Different discussion. As I read this proposed rule, I see nothing that would stop Bill Gates from buying a 49% interest in the "Cognitor" firm that audits M$.  I’m not comfortable with that.  Are the rest of you comfortable with that? Weeelllllll…..  Wouldn’t the ethics standards prohibit that or at least force "the gates" to recuse "itself."  I’m not much for forward speculation, but I find it very hard to see that kind of conflict of interest being allowed.

If it is legal, just who, pray tell, is going to prohibit it, and how would they do it.  Owners do not voluntarily "recuse" themselves. I don’t think there is much fear of that happening.  CPA firms have neither the long term profitability or growing market to attract such a corporate investment.  "Knowledge enterprises" (what the heck ever that is this week) will want to buy off or in to the consulting sections of firms.  As far as the audit & accounting firms, the only buyers I see would be the "financial community" who would want the customer base for cross selling whole life, annuities, and other high commission products. …

While I would certainly agree that there would be plenty of cross selling going on (which I don’t like either), I want to stress that the problem is independence – not profitability.  There are plenty of commercial concerns that would love to "own" a captive CPA firm.  We all know (or should know) that control is easily possible with a lot less than 49% ownership. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Response:

Question:

I have just started using this program and every time I make an entry I get the message: Transaction date is prior to the closing date for this company file and this will affect your accounting. I am sure that this is not the case. How do I get rid of this message? Thanks for your help

Response:

Change your closing date.  Look in the User’s Guide and Help under Closing Date and Passwords. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have just started using this program and every time I make an entry I get the message: Transaction date is prior to the closing date for this company file and this will affect your accounting. I am sure that this is not the case. How do I get rid of this message? Thanks for your help

Response:

Question:

Lets keep all the boats. One half fish one year and the others the next. Who knows after five years there may be enough fish to allow all boats to fish again.

Response:

     FYI CCA IN UNPRECEDENTED AGREEMENT TO CONTROL LONGLINES, SHRINK FLEET      In late August, CCA, in conjunction with The Billfish Foundation and      the American Sportfishing Association, entered into a memorandum with      the Blue Water Fishermen’s Association (which represents longliners),      pursuant to which 160,000 square miles of US waters would be      permanently closed to longlining, additional time and area closures      would be instituted, the size of the longline fleet would be reduced      by 30% and longliners would be required to participate in an extended      study aimed at reducing bycatch.      The permanently closed area would stretch from the North      Carolina/South Carolina border to Key West, Florida, an area      identified in Billfish Foundation studies as the U.S. region      accounting for the greatest incidence of sub-legal swordfish and      billfish bycatch.  (Early this year, CCA opposed NMFS’s original      proposal of a seasonal closure encompassing only the Florida Straits,      since we realized that the more extensive closure provided by the      current agreement was not only possible, but necessary.)  Large areas      in the northern and western Gulf of Mexico will also be subject to      seasonal closures.      As part of the agreement, the longline fleet will be reduced by      approximately 30% through buyouts.  50% of the money for the buyouts      will come from the federal government.  The remaining costs will be      shared equally by the remaining participants in the longline fishery      and by anglers fishing in the closed areas (or by state governments      assuming the anglers’ share).      While the agreement is, in the words of Walter Fondren, CCA’s      Chairman, "maybe the biggest conservation measure for offshore      fisheries ever," it is, as he acknowledges, only a "step in the right      direction."  CCA, other conservation organizations and the longliners      themselves will now go to the International Commission for the      Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and request that similar conservation      measures be implemented in international waters.  Such international      management is essential, since about 95% of Atlantic billfish      mortality, and most mortality of juvenile swordfish, is caused by      foreign longliners.      For the agreement to become effective, it must be approved by      Congress.  CCA has already lined up a list of influential sponsors and      cosponsors in both the House and the Senate.  Unfortunately, a      negative campaign with some false information regarding the agreement      is encouraging anglers to ask their Congressman to oppose the deal.      Since any piece of legislation is a very delicate construct,  that      campaign could succeed.  Therefore, CCA NY members are being provided      with the following information so that, properly informed, they can      spread the truth regarding the agreement:      Vessels that are "bought out" of the longline fishery will not be able      to enter any other commercial fishery.  Such vessels are federally      documented.  Pursuant to the buyout agreement, not only the vessels’      longline permits, but also the commercial fishing endorsement in their      documentation, will be purchased.  After such purchase, the vessels      may be used as dive boats, party boats, whale-watchers, oil-rig      tenders or any other purpose except commercial fishing for the rest of      their working lives.      The buyout will substantially reduce effort in the domestic swordfish      fishery. Longliners remaining after the buyout have agreed to support,      at ICCAT, at 10-year rebuilding plan for swordfish, and will insist      that American negotiators press for such a plan.  Since a 10-year      rebuilding plan will require harvest reductions of at least 27%, both      the reduction in fleet size and the reduction in harvest will be      roughly proportional.  The remaining longline vessels will not reap a      significantly larger share of the swordfish quota.      There should be little displacement of longline effort from the closed      areas to the mid-Atlantic and New England.  The east-coast longline      fishery is broken into distinct segments.  a)  Longliners in the Gulf      of Mexico primarily target yellowfin tuna in a short-set, live bait      fishery that provides most of the fresh tuna steaks to the eastern      United States.  Employing methods designed to get fish from the water      to the consumer in a matter of hours, Gulf longliners have already      agreed that they could remain in local waters and serve their      traditional markets under the terms of the agreement.  Under the terms      of the agreement, they have agreed to participate in a multi-year      scientific study of longline bycatch.  b)  Southeastern longliners      primarily target swordfish, and is the group that will be the most      affected by the closures.  Some may opt to travel from traditional      ports, and fish in waters north of the closure line.  However, most      are expected to accept the buyout offer instead.  c)  Mid-Atlantic      longliners, most operating out of New Jersey, are unique in that they      target both swordfish and tuna.  They are not expected to be      significant participants in the buyout, and their operations will see      little immediate impact from the agreement, although they will also      participate in a multi-year bycatch study.  d)  New England longliners      are primarily swordfishermen, and comprise a distant waters fleet that      frequently fishes for extended periods outside of the EEZ.  They will      see the least immediate impact from the agreement, and will remain in      traditional waters.      Vessel owners who accept the buyout will not be able to re-enter the      fishery unless another owner leaves.  Because a limited-entry system      has been instituted in the longline fishery, the only way such a      vessel owner would be able to obtain a permit would be to buy it from      another owner who will then no longer be able to fish.      A direct ban, without some of agreement from longliners may even hurt      the fishery.  Longlining is a frighteningly effective and terribly      destructive means of catching fish.  However, American vessels,      fishing under a permit issued by NMFS, are required to obey American      fishery management plans even when they fish in international waters.      Thus, U.S.-permitted longliners may not retain billfish, fin sharks or      commit similar offenses whenever and wherever they fish.  A vessel      banned in the U.S. might  decide to reflag in Trinidad, Haiti,      Venezuela or other foreign jurisdiction, and would free such vessels      of the restrictions imposed by American law.  Since more than 95% of      billfish and more than 50% of juvenile swordfish are already killed by      foreign-flag boats, an American ban would do virtually nothing to      rebuild the fishery, but would end America’s moderating influence.      Pursuant to the agreement, vessel owners who accept the buyout will      not be able to reflag in another nation.      Armed with the above information, CCA NY members will be able to      refute fallacious arguments and urge adoption of the longline      agreement-the first real breakthrough in the conservation of highly      migratory species since CCA spearheaded the drive to outlaw the sale      of Atlantic billfish, more than a decade ago. — Joseph M Tyson Bellport, Long Island

Response:

Just my opinion, but buying out 68 boats of dubious condition for $1 million each using our tax dollars is pretty depressing.  I haven’t read the fine print of this "deal with the devil" pact, but I’d like to see the longline fishery’s total quota reduced by at least 50% if we can’t succeed in banning the (longline) fishing method altogether. Dollars to donuts the NMFS will take any quota reduction from lost longliners and stick it back in another fishery’s quota. While it sounds prosaic… longliners should all convert back to harpoon boats for swords, and the NMFS should put a minimum of 250 pounds dressed carcass weight for a commercial-sold fish.  Right now longliners are landing juvenile fish in the sub-100 pound category on a regular basis, and these fish aren’t even old enough to spawn… so it’s only a matter of time before the species is wiped out and these jerks are holding their hands out again.  Just look at the mess up in New England in the George’s Bank. I’ve seen longliners out in the deep transferring fish carcasses from one boat to another, and you know that something fishy (no pun intended) is going on.  Probably selling a decent sized blue marlin to a foreign boat.  Yeah, it’s OK because it’s dead bycatch.  Saw that out around Washington Canyon a couple of years ago while we were fishing in the Mid-Atlantic 500.  Everyone should work so hard to eliminate the longline fishery altogether without a cash buyout, and support the Recreational Fishing Alliance and the 90+ groups, companies, and other organizations that are opposing the CCA deal. I’ve suggested to Doug Kelly of Sport Fishing that the next FACE OFF article should feature this debate… hopefully with someone like Al Ristori/Jim Donofrio on one side supporting the RFA, and John McMurray supporting the NY-CCA and their position.  Doug has already responded to muy email and agreed that this would be a good one… so look forward to two conservation groups with different perspectives going at it soon. Maybe we’ll have some surprises on both sides, but this issue needs to be discussed, since both groups want strong stocks of billfish, tuna and shark. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     FYI CCA IN UNPRECEDENTED AGREEMENT TO CONTROL LONGLINES, SHRINK FLEET     In late August, CCA, in conjunction with The Billfish Foundation and     the American Sportfishing Association, entered into a memorandum with     the Blue Water Fishermen’s Association (which represents longliners),     pursuant to which 160,000 square miles of US waters would be     permanently closed to longlining, additional time and area closures     would be instituted, the size of the longline fleet would be reduced     by 30% and longliners would be required to participate in an extended     study aimed at reducing bycatch.     The permanently closed area would stretch from the North     Carolina/South Carolina border to Key West, Florida, an area     identified in Billfish Foundation studies as the U.S. region     accounting for the greatest incidence of sub-legal swordfish and     billfish bycatch.  (Early this year, CCA opposed NMFS’s original     proposal of a seasonal closure encompassing only the Florida Straits,     since we realized that the more extensive closure provided by the     current agreement was not only possible, but necessary.)  Large areas     in the northern and western Gulf of Mexico will also be subject to     seasonal closures.     As part of the agreement, the longline fleet will be reduced by     approximately 30% through buyouts.  50% of the money for the buyouts     will come from the federal government.  The remaining costs will be     shared equally by the remaining participants in the longline fishery     and by anglers fishing in the closed areas (or by state governments     assuming the anglers’ share).     While the agreement is, in the words of Walter Fondren, CCA’s     Chairman, "maybe the biggest conservation measure for offshore     fisheries ever," it is, as he acknowledges, only a "step in the right     direction."  CCA, other conservation organizations and the longliners     themselves will now go to the International Commission for the     Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and request that similar conservation     measures be implemented in international waters.  Such international     management is essential, since about 95% of Atlantic billfish     mortality, and most mortality of juvenile swordfish, is caused by     foreign longliners.     For the agreement to become effective, it must be approved by     Congress.  CCA has already lined up a list of influential sponsors and     cosponsors in both the House and the Senate.  Unfortunately, a     negative campaign with some false information regarding the agreement     is encouraging anglers to ask their Congressman to oppose the deal.     Since any piece of legislation is a very delicate construct,  that     campaign could succeed.  Therefore, CCA NY members are being provided     with the following information so that, properly informed, they can     spread the truth regarding the agreement:     Vessels that are "bought out" of the longline fishery will not be able     to enter any other commercial fishery.  Such vessels are federally     documented.  Pursuant to the buyout agreement, not only the vessels’     longline permits, but also the commercial fishing endorsement in their     documentation, will be purchased.  After such purchase, the vessels     may be used as dive boats, party boats, whale-watchers, oil-rig     tenders or any other purpose except commercial fishing for the rest of     their working lives.     The buyout will substantially reduce effort in the domestic swordfish     fishery. Longliners remaining after the buyout have agreed to support,     at ICCAT, at 10-year rebuilding plan for swordfish, and will insist     that American negotiators press for such a plan.  Since a 10-year     rebuilding plan will require harvest reductions of at least 27%, both     the reduction in fleet size and the reduction in harvest will be     roughly proportional.  The remaining longline vessels will not reap a     significantly larger share of the swordfish quota.     There should be little displacement of longline effort from the closed     areas to the mid-Atlantic and New England.  The east-coast longline     fishery is broken into distinct segments.  a)  Longliners in the Gulf     of Mexico primarily target yellowfin tuna in a short-set, live bait     fishery that provides most of the fresh tuna steaks to the eastern     United States.  Employing methods designed to get fish from the water     to the consumer in a matter of hours, Gulf longliners have already     agreed that they could remain in local waters and serve their     traditional markets under the terms of the agreement.  Under the terms     of the agreement, they have agreed to participate in a multi-year     scientific study of longline bycatch.  b)  Southeastern longliners     primarily target swordfish, and is the group that will be the most     affected by the closures.  Some may opt to travel from traditional     ports, and fish in waters north of the closure line.  However, most     are expected to accept the buyout offer instead.  c)  Mid-Atlantic     longliners, most operating out of New Jersey, are unique in that they     target both swordfish and tuna.  They are not expected to be     significant participants in the buyout, and their operations will see     little immediate impact from the agreement, although they will also     participate in a multi-year bycatch study.  d)  New England longliners     are primarily swordfishermen, and comprise a distant waters fleet that     frequently fishes for extended periods outside of the EEZ.  They will     see the least immediate impact from the agreement, and will remain in     traditional waters.     Vessel owners who accept the buyout will not be able to re-enter the     fishery unless another owner leaves.  Because a limited-entry system     has been instituted in the longline fishery, the only way such a     vessel owner would be able to obtain a permit would be to buy it from     another owner who will then no longer be able to fish.     A direct ban, without some of agreement from longliners may even hurt     the fishery.  Longlining is a frighteningly effective and terribly     destructive means of catching fish.  However, American vessels,     fishing under a permit issued by NMFS, are required to obey American     fishery management plans even when they fish in international waters.     Thus, U.S.-permitted longliners may not retain billfish, fin sharks or     commit similar offenses whenever and wherever they fish.  A vessel     banned in the U.S. might  decide to reflag in Trinidad, Haiti,     Venezuela or other foreign jurisdiction, and would free such vessels     of the restrictions imposed by American law.  Since more than 95% of     billfish and more than 50% of juvenile swordfish are already killed by     foreign-flag boats, an American ban would do virtually nothing to     rebuild the fishery, but would end America’s moderating influence.     Pursuant to the agreement, vessel owners who accept the buyout will     not be able to reflag in another nation.     Armed with the above information, CCA NY members will be able to     refute fallacious arguments and urge adoption of the longline     agreement-the first real breakthrough in the conservation of highly     migratory species since CCA spearheaded the drive to outlaw the sale     of Atlantic billfish, more than a decade ago. — Joseph M Tyson Bellport, Long Island

… read more »

Response:

Question:

I am looking for your opinions on the type of Fixed Asset System that you use.  I would like both good and bad comments. My company currently uses FAS2000.  We have not found an easy way to interface to our GL which is Lawson 6.1 (soon to be 7.05). Thanks, Melanie Atl. GA

Response:

I am looking for your opinions on the type of Fixed Asset System that you use.  I would like both good and bad comments. My company currently uses FAS2000.  We have not found an easy way to interface to our GL which is Lawson 6.1 (soon to be 7.05).

I believe FAS2000 is a Best Software product.  My company attempted to change from the DOS version of that product called PCFAS about 2 years ago. It was such a resource hog that we abandoned it after 2 months, and returned to the DOS version.  To this day we are running the PCFAS in a DOS window on Win95. Best Software has sent a memo saying they will no longer support PCFAS after this year, and we are now in the position of searching for capital asset tracking software as well.  I hesitate to consider Best again in the upgraded arena, considering the terrible prior experience, and the high annual fees.  It sounds from your experience that I may want to avoid FAS2000. Our financial data processing is currently done through integrated software by a company called DataWorks out of San Diego, CA, and runs on an HP9000 platform.  They have a fixed asset module, but I would be interested in comments from anyone on what other software might be available.  Thanks.

Response:

I’m not familiar with Lawson’s accounting package, but my experience says that CLR’s ACE Depreciation is one of the best programs out there.  You can print reports to several different type of files such as (comma separated, data interchange format, tab separated, plain text).  One of the best features that I like about this program is that if you find a mistake in a previous period, it is very easy to correct.  Also, this program gives adequate areas for description, serial #’s etc.  ACE depreciation requires Windows 95. If you would like a demo of any of CLR’s products, you can request a demo CD that has all their programs.  If you are interested their website is at: http://www.acesoftware.com  or you can get their phone number to request a demo CD. I absolutely do not like BNA’s dos depreciation program.  It only gives you a 20 character space to input an asset description.  I have also found several instances where BNA does not fully depreciate an asset (probably due to the original setup of the assets and their depreciation).  I hear that BNA is going to have a Windows 95 version soon, hopefully that will be better. Hope this helps. CPABob or visit me at http://home.columbus.rr.com/cpabob/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking for your opinions on the type of Fixed Asset System that you use.  I would like both good and bad comments. My company currently uses FAS2000.  We have not found an easy way to interface to our GL which is Lawson 6.1 (soon to be 7.05). Thanks, Melanie Atl. GA

Response:

I don’t know if it is appropriate for you, but in our public accounting practice, we use Depreciation Solutions II from Creative Solutions and are quite happy with it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking for your opinions on the type of Fixed Asset System that you use.  I would like both good and bad comments. My company currently uses FAS2000.  We have not found an easy way to interface to our GL which is Lawson 6.1 (soon to be 7.05). I believe FAS2000 is a Best Software product.  My company attempted to change from the DOS version of that product called PCFAS about 2 years ago. It was such a resource hog that we abandoned it after 2 months, and returned to the DOS version.  To this day we are running the PCFAS in a DOS window on Win95. Best Software has sent a memo saying they will no longer support PCFAS after this year, and we are now in the position of searching for capital asset tracking software as well.  I hesitate to consider Best again in the upgraded arena, considering the terrible prior experience, and the high annual fees.  It sounds from your experience that I may want to avoid FAS2000. Our financial data processing is currently done through integrated software by a company called DataWorks out of San Diego, CA, and runs on an HP9000 platform.  They have a fixed asset module, but I would be interested in comments from anyone on what other software might be available.  Thanks.

Response:

Have you looked at Lawson’s Asset Management system?  It has been greatly improved from the 6.1 version to 7.05.  It is especially strong in its integration with Lawson Purchase Order, Accounts Payable, General Ledger, and Activity Management. Dave – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking for your opinions on the type of Fixed Asset System that you use.  I would like both good and bad comments. My company currently uses FAS2000.  We have not found an easy way to interface to our GL which is Lawson 6.1 (soon to be 7.05). Thanks, Melanie Atl. GA

Response: