Ltd Co profit and loss to be disclosed
Discussion
youngsyr said:
I've got a bee in my bonnet because it's yet another massive over reach by the government spun as a solution to a problem that not only did no-one have in the first place, but doesn't actually do what it's said to do!
How is going back to the system we had in place for over 100 years a massive over reach?I personally think the mistake was allowing limited companies not to file full accounts. As Eric says limited liability is a privilege not a fundamental human right.
EW109 said:
As I pointed out above, you can have privacy at the cost of unlimited liability (including by an unlimited company: a company does not have to be limited). But I don't see why people should think they have any right to privacy and limited liability.
You quoted me, but I didn’t say anything about disagreeing or agreeing with this - I’d expect though if the info is there it could be accessed in an instant now & shared widely between folk with limited understanding. I’d expect quite a few Ltd Co’s would cease either through decision not to go public with numbers or subsequent adverse publicity if they do.Eg The guy that owns the chip shop is a Ltd co. Publishes his accounts - folk complain he’s making too much “profit” = local boycott from folk who object to the price increase in chips when they compare to the profits made a year or so ago…. Folk in my town to behave like this & used to object to the local Co’s profit levels when profits (before dividends) are published in local newspapers
I hate this whole freely accessible age, if it's related to my business then I will give it for free where reasonable to request it, Gov deciding anyone can have it in an instant for absolutely any reason, incl an offender wanting to get a beat on my directorships, contact addresses, director loans, value of assets and bank holdings from accounts I would be happy to supply for legitimate people to be given for free when reasonable is dangerous.
A neighbor recently complained for not doing my MOT, when in fact the database is wrong, they are aware and constantly fail to correct it. Another commented how on googling my address he found I have multiple directorships, had seen the shareholders names, business assets, cost of business, bank holdings, property's owned and commented oddly that I should expect someone to kidnap family members...
Disclosure with notice to myself, some free supply from me or approval at a cost would be more than reasonable, giving anyone access to information instantly to be used for any purpose without me being aware is too far IMO.
A neighbor recently complained for not doing my MOT, when in fact the database is wrong, they are aware and constantly fail to correct it. Another commented how on googling my address he found I have multiple directorships, had seen the shareholders names, business assets, cost of business, bank holdings, property's owned and commented oddly that I should expect someone to kidnap family members...
Disclosure with notice to myself, some free supply from me or approval at a cost would be more than reasonable, giving anyone access to information instantly to be used for any purpose without me being aware is too far IMO.
Edited by NFT on Tuesday 14th November 20:00
Ean218 said:
youngsyr said:
I've got a bee in my bonnet because it's yet another massive over reach by the government spun as a solution to a problem that not only did no-one have in the first place, but doesn't actually do what it's said to do!
How is going back to the system we had in place for over 100 years a massive over reach?I personally think the mistake was allowing limited companies not to file full accounts. As Eric says limited liability is a privilege not a fundamental human right.
Anyone can now pull up a set of accounts filed up at companies house within seconds, with minimal effort and zero additional cost, any time of day or night.
And the increase in accounting regulations over the past 20 years has been significant, so what is being disclosed is much more than has been disclosed historically.
AndyAudi said:
You quoted me, but I didn’t say anything about disagreeing or agreeing with this - I’d expect though if the info is there it could be accessed in an instant now & shared widely between folk with limited understanding. I’d expect quite a few Ltd Co’s would cease either through decision not to go public with numbers or subsequent adverse publicity if they do.
Eg The guy that owns the chip shop is a Ltd co. Publishes his accounts - folk complain he’s making too much “profit” = local boycott from folk who object to the price increase in chips when they compare to the profits made a year or so ago…. Folk in my town to behave like this & used to object to the local Co’s profit levels when profits (before dividends) are published in local newspapers
There are people on social media who will do this for sure, but often there is a complete lack of understanding, you could take a higher salary and not dividends to reduce the profit. Ultimately very little has changed but the bottom line is much different. Eg The guy that owns the chip shop is a Ltd co. Publishes his accounts - folk complain he’s making too much “profit” = local boycott from folk who object to the price increase in chips when they compare to the profits made a year or so ago…. Folk in my town to behave like this & used to object to the local Co’s profit levels when profits (before dividends) are published in local newspapers
Well.. some stakeholders may complain the company is not profitable enough.
Puzzles said:
There are people on social media who will do this for sure, but often there is a complete lack of understanding, you could take a higher salary and not dividends to reduce the profit. Ultimately very little has changed but the bottom line is much different.
Yep - lack of understanding of the info there looking at/sharing/complaining about is the problem, this didn’t happen to nearly the same extent before.
Eric Mc said:
In my experience, as an accountant who has both sole trader and partnership clients (both classes operating without limited liability), it is those two categories who are more concerned about getting things wrong than those who operate through limited companies. A largish partnership or sole trader is far more careful than a small one man band limited company.
Operating through a limited company is usually done to MITIGATE risk to the shareholders and directors - often the same people. As a result, people who are running their business through a limited company are, shall we say, a little less careful about some aspects of their businesses.
I see the opposite to be honest.Operating through a limited company is usually done to MITIGATE risk to the shareholders and directors - often the same people. As a result, people who are running their business through a limited company are, shall we say, a little less careful about some aspects of their businesses.
This just reminded me of a customer service ticket that came in a couple of months ago. Our young 20 year customer service adviser phoned me as he was worried.
A wacky customer had searched the directors of the companies house and was threating to come pay them a visit at "insert address" to resolve the matter.
The order was for £20 and Royal Mail had delivered 2 days late.
But it spooked our employee who thought i might be in danger.
This was not a worry to me and i understand the "privileges" as operating as Ltd company. But in 2023 when online companies in a global marketplace where competitors do not require to publish accounts surely its a disadvantage.
A wacky customer had searched the directors of the companies house and was threating to come pay them a visit at "insert address" to resolve the matter.
The order was for £20 and Royal Mail had delivered 2 days late.
But it spooked our employee who thought i might be in danger.
This was not a worry to me and i understand the "privileges" as operating as Ltd company. But in 2023 when online companies in a global marketplace where competitors do not require to publish accounts surely its a disadvantage.
MaxFromage said:
Eric Mc said:
In my experience, as an accountant who has both sole trader and partnership clients (both classes operating without limited liability), it is those two categories who are more concerned about getting things wrong than those who operate through limited companies. A largish partnership or sole trader is far more careful than a small one man band limited company.
Operating through a limited company is usually done to MITIGATE risk to the shareholders and directors - often the same people. As a result, people who are running their business through a limited company are, shall we say, a little less careful about some aspects of their businesses.
I see the opposite to be honest.Operating through a limited company is usually done to MITIGATE risk to the shareholders and directors - often the same people. As a result, people who are running their business through a limited company are, shall we say, a little less careful about some aspects of their businesses.
Because of massive frauds that were perpetrated in the 19th century (especially regarding the expansion of the railways) legislation was brought in (the first Companies Acts) in order to try to bring in some control and oversight on how these companies were run and managed.
In the 1990s, the Thatcherite ideology was against oversight and regulation so virtually all the limits placed on companies, especially smaller companies, were relaxed or indeed, abolished. Maybe it is time that some semblance of third party oversight is brought back for ALL companies. At the moment, it is utter chaos.
Eric Mc said:
Maybe it is time that some semblance of third party oversight is brought back for ALL companies. At the moment, it is utter chaos.
I agree and that is what they are trying to propose with Companies House moving from a repository to a gatekeeper. How well that will work is another matter...youngsyr said:
I've got a bee in my bonnet because it's yet another massive over reach by the government spun as a solution to a problem that not only did no-one have in the first place, but doesn't actually do what it's said to do!
How is it over-reach when the very concept of a limited liability company is a government construct from various Companies Acts over the centuries? MaxFromage said:
Eric Mc said:
Maybe it is time that some semblance of third party oversight is brought back for ALL companies. At the moment, it is utter chaos.
I agree and that is what they are trying to propose with Companies House moving from a repository to a gatekeeper. How well that will work is another matter...These days wholly non-compliant (and even illegal) company accounts are filed and accepted at Companies House without any action being taken.
It's very frustrating.
AndyAudi said:
Eg The guy that owns the chip shop is a Ltd co. Publishes his accounts - folk complain he’s making too much “profit” = local boycott from folk who object to the price increase in chips when they compare to the profits made a year or so ago…. Folk in my town to behave like this & used to object to the local Co’s profit levels when profits (before dividends) are published in local newspapers
Most chip shops are likely to be sole traders. The ones that are limited companies will be probably less concerned about their customers looking at their margins and more at having to provide the same P&L to their suppliers and HMRC.Any company you'd be remotely interested in looking at this information will be doing something to minimise their profit in the UK. https://find-and-update.company-information.servic... will just be full of multinationals with £0 UK profit and lots of small companies with who-knows-what.
ecs said:
Any company you'd be remotely interested in looking at this information will be doing something to minimise their profit in the UK. https://find-and-update.company-information.servic... will just be full of multinationals with £0 UK profit and lots of small companies with who-knows-what.
The P&L of multinationals will already be disclosed and most likely audited wisbech said:
youngsyr said:
I've got a bee in my bonnet because it's yet another massive over reach by the government spun as a solution to a problem that not only did no-one have in the first place, but doesn't actually do what it's said to do!
How is it over-reach when the very concept of a limited liability company is a government construct from various Companies Acts over the centuries? Eric Mc said:
I'm not talking about very small sole traders. I'm talking about reasonably sized businesses. Since the 1990s there has been an explosion of limited companies because of the relaxation of the rules regarding oversight. Indeed, the concept of a "company" having only one person involved in it makes no sense. The idea of "companies" in trading was the notion of groups of people getting together to set up a business. Their history can be traced back to the great companies of the 18th century such as the East India Co or the early railway and canal building partnerships.
Because of massive frauds that were perpetrated in the 19th century (especially regarding the expansion of the railways) legislation was brought in (the first Companies Acts) in order to try to bring in some control and oversight on how these companies were run and managed.
In the 1990s, the Thatcherite ideology was against oversight and regulation so virtually all the limits placed on companies, especially smaller companies, were relaxed or indeed, abolished. Maybe it is time that some semblance of third party oversight is brought back for ALL companies. At the moment, it is utter chaos.
Your argument seems to be that companies aren't regulated enough (like they were back in the good old days, when there were never any frauds or scandals?) and so any additional regulations are a good thing.Because of massive frauds that were perpetrated in the 19th century (especially regarding the expansion of the railways) legislation was brought in (the first Companies Acts) in order to try to bring in some control and oversight on how these companies were run and managed.
In the 1990s, the Thatcherite ideology was against oversight and regulation so virtually all the limits placed on companies, especially smaller companies, were relaxed or indeed, abolished. Maybe it is time that some semblance of third party oversight is brought back for ALL companies. At the moment, it is utter chaos.
Completely nonsensical and even dangerous, IMO.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff