- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2024 16:53
|
|
- Zakutambah
- Jan 17, 2007
-
#include <Mastodon.h>
#include <Pterodactyl.h>
#include <Triceratops.h>
#include <SaberToothed_Tiger.h>
#include <Tyrannosaurus.h>
void megazordSequence();
-
College Slice
|
Best post in a couple pages is definitely college kid commenting on crunch time. Nothing really speaks volumes more than a kid who’s experience in the world is “working really hard on this project” one time.
I hope he gets his dream job at CIG and can see for himself how fun constant crunch time is; especially since he can be salaried.
He can enjoy working to the breaking point and going home tired, with enough time to eat a meal and maybe watch a tv show before it’s time for bed.
He can enjoy the sound of an alarm bright and early to wake him up for a fresh 12+ hour day! Maybe since he’s still young and definitely sexy (because all programmers are sexy) he can read the text messages from his girlfriend as she asks about the weekend.
When he’s at his desk, looking over a Jira list with 200 entries he can find time to respond with a quick “working on the dream this weekend, sorry!”
He can enjoy a couple weeks of this, and maybe at the end of it he can be told his work wasn’t good enough for the new version other developers working on the other side of the world did, and none of his changes could be merged in; and he can start over.
He can enjoy that while he’s grinding into the third month, and his last day off was last Sunday, a video conference with the CEO, who’s in Monaco this week. The connection isn’t too good though because the internet is only so good on the yacht, but he did inform the manager to make sure the Porsche is serviced before he gets back, and also that all the programmers will need to switch shifts next week and work at night because Sandi is having another indie film made, and she doesn’t want anybody getting in her way; nobody there is competent enough to be trusted.
He can remember his girlfriend who left him last week while he cashes his slightly over minimum wage pay check one day during a lunch break a month later. But he’s got to hurry because there’s a new emergency today that’s asap and the jira list is 250 items long and the sprints are a confused knot and nobody really knows what’s going on.
He can realize he’s living the dream at that moment. 
Now the thread's getting scary real...
Crunch sucks. It sucks in every industry. You burn out. You get out of shape. You eat garbage. You're exhausted all the time. You lose track of friends and family. And it is always, always a symptom of piss-poor management. Usually management that makes big noise about 'oh, just have to push through this', 'the ones that worked on this in the beginning will be remembered', 'don't worry, there's light at the end of the tunnel'... before laying a good chunk of staff off once whatever arbitrary milestone is met and he\she collects their bonus.
Remember, management and the company are not your friends. You don't 'owe' them anything; you do what your contract says in exchange for pay. That's it.
gently caress gremlins like Crobbits, the PA guy Khoo, and all others like them that place no value whatsoever on worker's labour.
Zakutambah fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Nov 6, 2017
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:27
|
|
- shrach
- Jan 10, 2004
-
daylight ssssaving time
|
Today's accounting error/mistake is the final one. It builds on the ones that were previously highlighted but this is actually more a series of deliberate decisions. I'm struggling to find a generously innocuous word that conveys making deliberate decisions that are possibly not correct.
4.) Prior year adjustments.
At some point a set of accounts will be filed that are incorrect. Humans can make mistakes. I'll give an example. Say in 2015 a client paid you in cash for £1000 and you accidentally lost the sales receipt and accidentally banked the money in your personal bank account instead of the company bank account. Later on in 2016, the client asks for a receipt and this helps you remember this event. You're now faced with three options.
(i) You could file an amended set of accounts for 2015 that makes corrections. This seems intuitive and I'm sure textbooks and "experts" online will tell you this is the right thing to do. No one ever files amended accounts. To be honest I'm not entirely sure why, but it doesn't happen.
(ii) You can "do nothing". This doesn't really mean you do nothing. It means when you file the 2016 accounts, you add on those £1000 sales that were really in 2015 and you pay the company back the cash from your personal account. So now the company is declaring that missing income, albeit in the wrong period.
(iii) You make a prior year adjustment to the 2015 figures in the comparative when you compile the 2016 accounts. You disclose all of these items and you can file an amended tax return, without adjusting the 2015 accounts themselves.
The UK CIG group were faced with such a situation. Here is the disclosure in the Foundry 42 Ltd accounts that explains the decision:
So the original turnover amount was £15,169,773 and it was adjusted to be £12,737,713. A reduction in turnover of £2,432,060. This means they also had to add £2,432,060 to the balance sheet, as a liability. Since they now owed Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd that amount. You can see they did all this correct (since they were owed £83,979 separately, this is netted off against this amount due to CIG UK).
So far this is all correct from an accounting angle. However, the UK group of companies are all irrevocably linked. Because of the way the accounts were filed, we have access to the individual filings for 2015 but not the group accounts. In 2016 we have the accounts for Foundry 42, RSI and the group accounts (but not the individual accounts for the CIG company). We can pretty much recreate the missing sets of accounts.
Here is a summary of the 2015 accounts, as they were originally filed. It should be noted that the linked green items, do not appear in the group accounts. These inter-company transactions cancel each other.
Here is an extract from the 2016 consolidated group accounts. Note the profit for the year 2015 shown as £1,088,498.
So the group profit in my summary differs from the 2015 group profit that is disclosed in the 2016 accounts by £2,432,060. Now we know what that is, it's that prior year adjustment. But nowhere in the 2016 group accounts is any prior-year adjustment disclosed. What is disclosed is that the CIG company profit was the same as filed in 2015 at £265,299 profit.
So now we have a big problem. How can we adjust the summary of the 2015 accounts to correct for this prior-year adjustment. Remember all the linked boxes in my summary that can't be changed individually? If we are reducing Foundry 42s turnover figure by £2,432,060 we also have to reduce CIGs cost of sales by £2,432,060 since that is where the turnover came from. We know that CIG (the company) profit stayed the same though, so we know we have to reduce CIGs turnover, also by £2,432,060. So now we also need to reduce RSIs cost of sales by £2,432,060. All good so far. We know that that RSIs profit remains zero also, because we know the groups profit so we also have to reduce their turnover by £2,432,060 however this goes outside the UK group because this is a refund to Roberts Space Industries Corporation, in the USA. So this is going to be an amount in dollars, so it may not match exactly and we have to rely on the accountants to get this right.
We arrive at a new summary, something like this. Bolded numbers are the figures that have been adjusted:
For some reason, they changed the cost of sales in RSI by adding £239,986 to the costs. I've noted it down as a suspense amount because we have no idea why they did this. So to maintain a zero profit, we need to counter this by adding £239,986 to their revenue. This seems like a leap of faith but our summary now matches the group accounts exactly.
So now the group accounts match our summary there are some implications to this. The UK group derives all its income from RSI International Ltd, which derives all its income from the USA company RSI Corporation. Now we can solve why the 2015 turnover figures don't match and the 2016 ones do match. Note the figure does match our summary for RSI, that we have recreated with our own turnover figure by deduction from the group accounts.
We sort of have to now conclude that there must be two different sets of RSI accounts for them to get this "correct" in the group accounts. The RSI accounts that were filed were never corrected for any prior-year adjustment and yet, there must exist a set of RSI accounts that have been corrected in order to get a set of group accounts that is accurate.
The implications here are decidedly tricky. Back in 2015 the US companies would have presumably filed accounts and tax returns to US authories that claimed a dollar amount of expenses equal to £15.3m. Any audits done at this time, would have confirmation letters and invoices for these amounts. As far as audit trails for this £2.4m refund that would have gone back to the United States, well I hope I have demonstrated that this trail is really unclear for anyone that might investigate it. If it were accidentally paid to the wrong entity and then never declared, there would not be any trail.
So the corrections were handled appropriately in the Foundry 42 Ltd accounts. Adjustments were made and disclosures for those adjustments. They used option (iii) from my opening statement. The CIG accounts are slightly trickier, since we have the company accounts for 2015 and the group accounts for 2016 but we can safely say that some adjustments were made but absolutely no disclosures at all. That is sort of an incorrectly implented option (iii) from my opening statement. The RSI accounts have not had any adjustments made and therefore no disclosures and we have some pretty firm suspicions that there may in fact be two different sets of RSI accounts and they are certainly aware that the filed RSI accounts do not match the RSI accounts used for the consolidation of the group accounts that were filed. So it turns out that there was a hidden fourth option that you will not find in any text books and Chris Roberts has developed new solutions to problems and a way to make money apparently disappear.
I can only imagine the state of the dozen or so American companies that are open to zero public scrutiny.
Unrelated hypothetical paragraph
Imagine your company is sitting on £2.4m in the bank that it should not have, that should be refunded to another company in another country. However, in that country, that company does not know it's due any money from years ago. It was all audited and balances confirmed at that time and it's not asking or expecting any money. However, this company with the money in the bank has to get rid of it to make its books balance, it sure should go to the right place and I'm sure anyone would make certain that the right people get this £2.4m.
So as a disclaimer I should stress that I am in no way suggesting that anything unlawful was actually done here. I guess this highlights the "perils" of having multiple shell companies with regard to nice clean audit trails.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:33
|
|
- MarcusSA
- Sep 23, 2007
-
|
Today's accounting error/mistake is the final one. It builds on the ones that were previously highlighted but this is actually more a series of deliberate decisions. I'm struggling to find a generously innocuous word that conveys making deliberate decisions that are possibly not correct.
4.) Prior year adjustments.
At some point a set of accounts will be filed that are incorrect. Humans can make mistakes. I'll give an example. Say in 2015 a client paid you in cash for £1000 and you accidentally lost the sales receipt and accidentally banked the money in your personal bank account instead of the company bank account. Later on in 2016, the client asks for a receipt and this helps you remember this event. You're now faced with three options.
(i) You could file an amended set of accounts for 2015 that makes corrections. This seems intuitive and I'm sure textbooks and "experts" online will tell you this is the right thing to do. No one ever files amended accounts. To be honest I'm not entirely sure why, but it doesn't happen.
(ii) You can "do nothing". This doesn't really mean you do nothing. It means when you file the 2016 accounts, you add on those £1000 sales that were really in 2015 and you pay the company back the cash from your personal account. So now the company is declaring that missing income, albeit in the wrong period.
(iii) You make a prior year adjustment to the 2015 figures in the comparative when you compile the 2016 accounts. You disclose all of these items and you can file an amended tax return, without adjusting the 2015 accounts themselves.
The UK CIG group were faced with such a situation. Here is the disclosure in the Foundry 42 Ltd accounts that explains the decision:
So the original turnover amount was £15,169,773 and it was adjusted to be £12,737,713. A reduction in turnover of £2,432,060. This means they also had to add £2,432,060 to the balance sheet, as a liability. Since they now owed Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd that amount. You can see they did all this correct (since they were owed £83,979 separately, this is netted off against this amount due to CIG UK).
So far this is all correct from an accounting angle. However, the UK group of companies are all irrevocably linked. Because of the way the accounts were filed, we have access to the individual filings for 2015 but not the group accounts. In 2016 we have the accounts for Foundry 42, RSI and the group accounts (but not the individual accounts for the CIG company). We can pretty much recreate the missing sets of accounts.
Here is a summary of the 2015 accounts, as they were originally filed. It should be noted that the linked green items, do not appear in the group accounts. These inter-company transactions cancel each other.
Here is an extract from the 2016 consolidated group accounts. Note the profit for the year 2015 shown as £1,088,498.
So the group profit in my summary differs from the 2015 group profit that is disclosed in the 2016 accounts by £2,432,060. Now we know what that is, it's that prior year adjustment. But nowhere in the 2016 group accounts is any prior-year adjustment disclosed. What is disclosed is that the CIG company profit was the same as filed in 2015 at £265,299 profit.
So now we have a big problem. How can we adjust the summary of the 2015 accounts to correct for this prior-year adjustment. Remember all the linked boxes in my summary that can't be changed individually? If we are reducing Foundry 42s turnover figure by £2,432,060 we also have to reduce CIGs cost of sales by £2,432,060 since that is where the turnover came from. We know that CIG (the company) profit stayed the same though, so we know we have to reduce CIGs turnover, also by £2,432,060. So now we also need to reduce RSIs cost of sales by £2,432,060. All good so far. We know that that RSIs profit remains zero also, because we know the groups profit so we also have to reduce their turnover by £2,432,060 however this goes outside the UK group because this is a refund to Roberts Space Industries Corporation, in the USA. So this is going to be an amount in dollars, so it may not match exactly and we have to rely on the accountants to get this right.
We arrive at a new summary, something like this. Bolded numbers are the figures that have been adjusted:
For some reason, they changed the cost of sales in RSI by adding £239,986 to the costs. I've noted it down as a suspense amount because we have no idea why they did this. So to maintain a zero profit, we need to counter this by adding £239,986 to their revenue. This seems like a leap of faith but our summary now matches the group accounts exactly.
So now the group accounts match our summary there are some implications to this. The UK group derives all its income from RSI International Ltd, which derives all its income from the USA company RSI Corporation. Now we can solve why the 2015 turnover figures don't match and the 2016 ones do match. Note the figure does match our summary for RSI, that we have recreated with our own turnover figure by deduction from the group accounts.
We sort of have to now conclude that there must be two different sets of RSI accounts for them to get this "correct" in the group accounts. The RSI accounts that were filed were never corrected for any prior-year adjustment and yet, there must exist a set of RSI accounts that have been corrected in order to get a set of group accounts that is accurate.
The implications here are decidedly tricky. Back in 2015 the US companies would have presumably filed accounts and tax returns to US authories that claimed a dollar amount of expenses equal to £15.3m. Any audits done at this time, would have confirmation letters and invoices for these amounts. As far as audit trails for this £2.4m refund that would have gone back to the United States, well I hope I have demonstrated that this trail is really unclear for anyone that might investigate it. If it were accidentally paid to the wrong entity and then never declared, there would not be any trail.
So the corrections were handled appropriately in the Foundry 42 Ltd accounts. Adjustments were made and disclosures for those adjustments. They used option (iii) from my opening statement. The CIG accounts are slightly trickier, since we have the company accounts for 2015 and the group accounts for 2016 but we can safely say that some adjustments were made but absolutely no disclosures at all. That is sort of an incorrectly implented option (iii) from my opening statement. The RSI accounts have not had any adjustments made and therefore no disclosures and we have some pretty firm suspicions that there may in fact be two different sets of RSI accounts and they are certainly aware that the filed RSI accounts do not match the RSI accounts used for the consolidation of the group accounts that were filed. So it turns out that there was a hidden fourth option that you will not find in any text books and Chris Roberts has developed new solutions to problems and a way to make money apparently disappear.
I can only imagine the state of the dozen or so American companies that are open to zero public scrutiny.
Unrelated hypothetical paragraph
Imagine your company is sitting on £2.4m in the bank that it should not have, that should be refunded to another company in another country. However, in that country, that company does not know it's due any money from years ago. It was all audited and balances confirmed at that time and it's not asking or expecting any money. However, this company with the money in the bank has to get rid of it to make its books balance, it sure should go to the right place and I'm sure anyone would make certain that the right people get this £2.4m.
So as a disclaimer I should stress that I am in no way suggesting that anything unlawful was actually done here. I guess this highlights the "perils" of having multiple shell companies with regard to nice clean audit trails.
So they do their accounting exactly how they are making the "game".
These are excellent write-ups btw. Thanks for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:39
|
|
- ZenMaster
- Jan 24, 2006
-
I Saved PC Gaming
|
Unrelated hypothetical paragraph
Imagine your company is sitting on £2.4m in the bank that it should not have, that should be refunded to another company in another country. However, in that country, that company does not know it's due any money from years ago. It was all audited and balances confirmed at that time and it's not asking or expecting any money. However, this company with the money in the bank has to get rid of it to make its books balance, it sure should go to the right place and I'm sure anyone would make certain that the right people get this £2.4m.
So as a disclaimer I should stress that I am in no way suggesting that anything unlawful was actually done here. I guess this highlights the "perils" of having multiple shell companies with regard to nice clean audit trails.
I, too, watched The Smartest Men in the Room.
But seriously, could someone just have pocketed that money?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:46
|
|
- Rad Russian
- Aug 15, 2007
-
Soviet Power Supreme!
|
I hope they do a car cross promotion next just to see how many whales go into debt. Buy a brand new Aston Martin DB11 and get a code for an RSI Sabre Vulture!*
*Please note: the Aston Martin DB11 has a faster top speed than the space ship variant that you will be getting.
For Chris Roberts, this would also be an emotional return to his real passion: car sales.
Rad Russian fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Nov 6, 2017
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:54
|
|
- TheAgent
- Feb 16, 2002
-
The call is coming from inside Dr. House
-
Grimey Drawer
|
Today's accounting error/mistake is the final one. It builds on the ones that were previously highlighted but this is actually more a series of deliberate decisions. I'm struggling to find a generously innocuous word that conveys making deliberate decisions that are possibly not correct.
4.) Prior year adjustments.
At some point a set of accounts will be filed that are incorrect. Humans can make mistakes. I'll give an example. Say in 2015 a client paid you in cash for £1000 and you accidentally lost the sales receipt and accidentally banked the money in your personal bank account instead of the company bank account. Later on in 2016, the client asks for a receipt and this helps you remember this event. You're now faced with three options.
(i) You could file an amended set of accounts for 2015 that makes corrections. This seems intuitive and I'm sure textbooks and "experts" online will tell you this is the right thing to do. No one ever files amended accounts. To be honest I'm not entirely sure why, but it doesn't happen.
(ii) You can "do nothing". This doesn't really mean you do nothing. It means when you file the 2016 accounts, you add on those £1000 sales that were really in 2015 and you pay the company back the cash from your personal account. So now the company is declaring that missing income, albeit in the wrong period.
(iii) You make a prior year adjustment to the 2015 figures in the comparative when you compile the 2016 accounts. You disclose all of these items and you can file an amended tax return, without adjusting the 2015 accounts themselves.
The UK CIG group were faced with such a situation. Here is the disclosure in the Foundry 42 Ltd accounts that explains the decision:
So the original turnover amount was £15,169,773 and it was adjusted to be £12,737,713. A reduction in turnover of £2,432,060. This means they also had to add £2,432,060 to the balance sheet, as a liability. Since they now owed Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd that amount. You can see they did all this correct (since they were owed £83,979 separately, this is netted off against this amount due to CIG UK).
So far this is all correct from an accounting angle. However, the UK group of companies are all irrevocably linked. Because of the way the accounts were filed, we have access to the individual filings for 2015 but not the group accounts. In 2016 we have the accounts for Foundry 42, RSI and the group accounts (but not the individual accounts for the CIG company). We can pretty much recreate the missing sets of accounts.
Here is a summary of the 2015 accounts, as they were originally filed. It should be noted that the linked green items, do not appear in the group accounts. These inter-company transactions cancel each other.
Here is an extract from the 2016 consolidated group accounts. Note the profit for the year 2015 shown as £1,088,498.
So the group profit in my summary differs from the 2015 group profit that is disclosed in the 2016 accounts by £2,432,060. Now we know what that is, it's that prior year adjustment. But nowhere in the 2016 group accounts is any prior-year adjustment disclosed. What is disclosed is that the CIG company profit was the same as filed in 2015 at £265,299 profit.
So now we have a big problem. How can we adjust the summary of the 2015 accounts to correct for this prior-year adjustment. Remember all the linked boxes in my summary that can't be changed individually? If we are reducing Foundry 42s turnover figure by £2,432,060 we also have to reduce CIGs cost of sales by £2,432,060 since that is where the turnover came from. We know that CIG (the company) profit stayed the same though, so we know we have to reduce CIGs turnover, also by £2,432,060. So now we also need to reduce RSIs cost of sales by £2,432,060. All good so far. We know that that RSIs profit remains zero also, because we know the groups profit so we also have to reduce their turnover by £2,432,060 however this goes outside the UK group because this is a refund to Roberts Space Industries Corporation, in the USA. So this is going to be an amount in dollars, so it may not match exactly and we have to rely on the accountants to get this right.
We arrive at a new summary, something like this. Bolded numbers are the figures that have been adjusted:
For some reason, they changed the cost of sales in RSI by adding £239,986 to the costs. I've noted it down as a suspense amount because we have no idea why they did this. So to maintain a zero profit, we need to counter this by adding £239,986 to their revenue. This seems like a leap of faith but our summary now matches the group accounts exactly.
So now the group accounts match our summary there are some implications to this. The UK group derives all its income from RSI International Ltd, which derives all its income from the USA company RSI Corporation. Now we can solve why the 2015 turnover figures don't match and the 2016 ones do match. Note the figure does match our summary for RSI, that we have recreated with our own turnover figure by deduction from the group accounts.
We sort of have to now conclude that there must be two different sets of RSI accounts for them to get this "correct" in the group accounts. The RSI accounts that were filed were never corrected for any prior-year adjustment and yet, there must exist a set of RSI accounts that have been corrected in order to get a set of group accounts that is accurate.
The implications here are decidedly tricky. Back in 2015 the US companies would have presumably filed accounts and tax returns to US authories that claimed a dollar amount of expenses equal to £15.3m. Any audits done at this time, would have confirmation letters and invoices for these amounts. As far as audit trails for this £2.4m refund that would have gone back to the United States, well I hope I have demonstrated that this trail is really unclear for anyone that might investigate it. If it were accidentally paid to the wrong entity and then never declared, there would not be any trail.
So the corrections were handled appropriately in the Foundry 42 Ltd accounts. Adjustments were made and disclosures for those adjustments. They used option (iii) from my opening statement. The CIG accounts are slightly trickier, since we have the company accounts for 2015 and the group accounts for 2016 but we can safely say that some adjustments were made but absolutely no disclosures at all. That is sort of an incorrectly implented option (iii) from my opening statement. The RSI accounts have not had any adjustments made and therefore no disclosures and we have some pretty firm suspicions that there may in fact be two different sets of RSI accounts and they are certainly aware that the filed RSI accounts do not match the RSI accounts used for the consolidation of the group accounts that were filed. So it turns out that there was a hidden fourth option that you will not find in any text books and Chris Roberts has developed new solutions to problems and a way to make money apparently disappear.
I can only imagine the state of the dozen or so American companies that are open to zero public scrutiny.
Unrelated hypothetical paragraph
Imagine your company is sitting on £2.4m in the bank that it should not have, that should be refunded to another company in another country. However, in that country, that company does not know it's due any money from years ago. It was all audited and balances confirmed at that time and it's not asking or expecting any money. However, this company with the money in the bank has to get rid of it to make its books balance, it sure should go to the right place and I'm sure anyone would make certain that the right people get this £2.4m.
So as a disclaimer I should stress that I am in no way suggesting that anything unlawful was actually done here. I guess this highlights the "perils" of having multiple shell companies with regard to nice clean audit trails.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:00
|
|
- Solarin
- Nov 15, 2007
-
|
accounting is some stimpirical poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:01
|
|
- Solarin
- Nov 15, 2007
-
|
like hey, here's a bad thing: we are running out of money to develop a game
and yeah, we've taken out a few loans and are really, really hoping no one looks too closely at this whole UK tax credit thing and yeah, yeah we are down almost 30% in revenue from last year so far
but also! intel paid for our last two shows, amazon floated us some monies and we're only a wee bit behind
but hey, here's a good thing: we got a loving major cash injection from a movie production company to do their digital effects! the company is saved
also I need all the art teams focused on the movie stuff because we have a four month deadline for our portion of the vfx, but this is also okay because we need six months or so to get our programmers to finish our engine
Sounds like everything is gonna be okay after all
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:03
|
|
- Wuxi
- Apr 3, 2012
-
|
So on a scale of 1-10, how many new limited edition porsches are we talking about here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:04
|
|
- MedicineHut
- Feb 25, 2016
-
|
moma, one day I hope we can speak frankly about star citizen and your employment there
Has anyone said yet that MoMA is Toast?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:04
|
|
- AbstractNapper
- Jun 5, 2011
-
I can help
|
Archering from KQ3:
The most hideous looking being has made its appearance. It's Medusandi!
> Quick! Kill Medusandi with fire
How can you do that?
Your eyes fall upon a face so hideous, so gruesome, that the horror of it is beyond description. People who look upon the face of Medusandi, with her hair of writhing, live snakes, turn instantly to stone. Suddenly, your body feels cold and stiffens hard as a rock. You make a nice statue, Citizen.
> Restore savegame1
The most hideous looking being has made its appearance. It's Medusandi.
> show mirror to Medusandi
Averting your eyes, you aim the wizard's hand mirror at Medusandi's face. A scream pierces the air as she beholds her own hideous reflection... then... nothing. You dare to look. Medusandi has turned herself to stone!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:10
|
|
- Orange Carlisle
- Jul 14, 2007
-
|
Being that this game was just a way to get Chris rich and his foot back into the door of the movie industry again (by any means possible - working with real actors (and Sandi) on motion capture for a game, perhaps?) after being laughed out of it why would anyone be surprised that he's using backer money to finance lovely bombs? They shouldn't be.
Here's to hoping he pisses away even more backer money for failed Sandi scenes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:11
|
|
- thatguy
- Feb 5, 2003
-
|
I'm a gas owner, AMA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:16
|
|
- thatguy
- Feb 5, 2003
-
|
How do you feel about Star Ci-
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:16
|
|
- thatguy
- Feb 5, 2003
-
|
How do you feel about Star Ci-
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:16
|
|
- shrach
- Jan 10, 2004
-
daylight ssssaving time
|
I, too, watched The Smartest Men in the Room.
But seriously, could someone just have pocketed that money?
I mean, that is a possibility that I'm not suggesting happened here at all. Imagine though, you were in charge of a bunch of companies. There's a danger you might start to look at the company money as your own personal money. There's all this money sloshing around that is very much company money. We have no idea what the state of the American companies is but now you have to account for this extra cash that you apparently didn't really spend a few years ago. You'd have to assume there are tax implications, since we assume at some point, the American companies were running at a surplus.
So this company in America may not be asking for any money, not expecting it. Furthermore, if this unexpected money shows up there could be extra back-dated tax to pay. It may not be in the interests of you as the owner of all the various shell companies to now be receiving money into this company. It also sounds like the sort of thing that creates attention with regard to a USA style tax audit.
I'm sure it's all fine though and just something innocent like gross incompetency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:25
|
|
- peter gabriel
- Nov 8, 2011
-
Hello Commandos
|
Leading on from this, I am an oil owner AMA
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:32
|
|
- Golli
- Jan 5, 2013
-
|
I mean, that is a possibility that I'm not suggesting happened here at all. Imagine though, you were in charge of a bunch of companies. There's a danger you might start to look at the company money as your own personal money. There's all this money sloshing around that is very much company money. We have no idea what the state of the American companies is but now you have to account for this extra cash that you apparently didn't really spend a few years ago. You'd have to assume there are tax implications, since we assume at some point, the American companies were running at a surplus.
So this company in America may not be asking for any money, not expecting it. Furthermore, if this unexpected money shows up there could be extra back-dated tax to pay. It may not be in the interests of you as the owner of all the various shell companies to now be receiving money into this company. It also sounds like the sort of thing that creates attention with regard to a USA style tax audit.
I'm sure it's all fine though and just something innocent like gross incompetency.
Something else shells are good for are games.
Probably just an unfortunate coincidence -
"In practice, however, the shell game is notorious for its use by confidence tricksters who will typically rig the game using sleight of hand to move or hide the ball during play and replace it as required. Fraudulent shell games are also known for the use of psychological tricks to convince potential players of the legitimacy of the game – for example, by using shills or by allowing a player to win a few times before beginning the scam."
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:33
|
|
- big nipples big life
- May 12, 2014
-
|
I crop dusted a row of cubicles once, big time gas owner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:39
|
|
- Thoatse
- Feb 29, 2016
-
Lol said the scorpion, lmao
|
imagine putting in, say, $300,000 into a film to ensure you got at least 10 speaking lines in or roughly 90 seconds of screentime, only to find our your entire scene had been cut and that the movie is a tremendous failure and will, without a doubt, net an extreme loss even after the streaming and tv rights are sold
so your 300k is just gone but that's okay since the company kicked in for it anyway but goddamn are you pissed about not seeing yourself on the big screen
at what point do you mention to the backers that you're financing film careers? that you're starting to broadcast yourself as a digital effects company, with access to superior motion capture and CGI technologies? don't you think someone on this great big internet is going to loving find out about it?
I mean, I guess you can hope that the game comes out to rousing success before then, and of course, of course! hollywood and special effects are a perfect fit for chris roberts, so its no big deal he's spending a lot of time and resources and backer money doing hollywood things
but goddamn chris, y'all playing with loving fire
like hey, here's a bad thing: we are running out of money to develop a game
and yeah, we've taken out a few loans and are really, really hoping no one looks too closely at this whole UK tax credit thing and yeah, yeah we are down almost 30% in revenue from last year so far
but also! intel paid for our last two shows, amazon floated us some monies and we're only a wee bit behind
but hey, here's a good thing: we got a loving major cash injection from a movie production company to do their digital effects! the company is saved
also I need all the art teams focused on the movie stuff because we have a four month deadline for our portion of the vfx, but this is also okay because we need six months or so to get our programmers to finish our engine
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:40
|
|
- a real rude dude
- Jan 23, 2005
-
|
Nice, my second favourite Roberts brother.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:46
|
|
- Strangler 42
- Jan 8, 2007
-
SHAVE IT ALL OFF
ALL OF IT
|
imagine putting in, say, $300,000 into a film to ensure you got at least 10 speaking lines in or roughly 90 seconds of screentime, only to find our your entire scene had been cut and that the movie is a tremendous failure and will, without a doubt, net an extreme loss even after the streaming and tv rights are sold
so your 300k is just gone but that's okay since the company kicked in for it anyway but goddamn are you pissed about not seeing yourself on the big screen
Imagine being completely unable to do anything about it because utilizing any form of legal coercion will bring to light your part in funneling company cash into a pet project to further your acting career. So you just have to sit and stew about it while going through open casting call listings online.
But hey, we'll always have the unrated directors cut!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:49
|
|
- D_Smart
- May 11, 2010
-
by FactsAreUseless
-
College Slice
|
Today's accounting error/mistake is the final one. It builds on the ones that were previously highlighted but this is actually more a series of deliberate decisions. I'm struggling to find a generously innocuous word that conveys making deliberate decisions that are possibly not correct.
4.) Prior year adjustments.
At some point a set of accounts will be filed that are incorrect. Humans can make mistakes. I'll give an example. Say in 2015 a client paid you in cash for £1000 and you accidentally lost the sales receipt and accidentally banked the money in your personal bank account instead of the company bank account. Later on in 2016, the client asks for a receipt and this helps you remember this event. You're now faced with three options.
(i) You could file an amended set of accounts for 2015 that makes corrections. This seems intuitive and I'm sure textbooks and "experts" online will tell you this is the right thing to do. No one ever files amended accounts. To be honest I'm not entirely sure why, but it doesn't happen.
(ii) You can "do nothing". This doesn't really mean you do nothing. It means when you file the 2016 accounts, you add on those £1000 sales that were really in 2015 and you pay the company back the cash from your personal account. So now the company is declaring that missing income, albeit in the wrong period.
(iii) You make a prior year adjustment to the 2015 figures in the comparative when you compile the 2016 accounts. You disclose all of these items and you can file an amended tax return, without adjusting the 2015 accounts themselves.
The UK CIG group were faced with such a situation. Here is the disclosure in the Foundry 42 Ltd accounts that explains the decision:
So the original turnover amount was £15,169,773 and it was adjusted to be £12,737,713. A reduction in turnover of £2,432,060. This means they also had to add £2,432,060 to the balance sheet, as a liability. Since they now owed Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd that amount. You can see they did all this correct (since they were owed £83,979 separately, this is netted off against this amount due to CIG UK).
So far this is all correct from an accounting angle. However, the UK group of companies are all irrevocably linked. Because of the way the accounts were filed, we have access to the individual filings for 2015 but not the group accounts. In 2016 we have the accounts for Foundry 42, RSI and the group accounts (but not the individual accounts for the CIG company). We can pretty much recreate the missing sets of accounts.
Here is a summary of the 2015 accounts, as they were originally filed. It should be noted that the linked green items, do not appear in the group accounts. These inter-company transactions cancel each other.
Here is an extract from the 2016 consolidated group accounts. Note the profit for the year 2015 shown as £1,088,498.
So the group profit in my summary differs from the 2015 group profit that is disclosed in the 2016 accounts by £2,432,060. Now we know what that is, it's that prior year adjustment. But nowhere in the 2016 group accounts is any prior-year adjustment disclosed. What is disclosed is that the CIG company profit was the same as filed in 2015 at £265,299 profit.
So now we have a big problem. How can we adjust the summary of the 2015 accounts to correct for this prior-year adjustment. Remember all the linked boxes in my summary that can't be changed individually? If we are reducing Foundry 42s turnover figure by £2,432,060 we also have to reduce CIGs cost of sales by £2,432,060 since that is where the turnover came from. We know that CIG (the company) profit stayed the same though, so we know we have to reduce CIGs turnover, also by £2,432,060. So now we also need to reduce RSIs cost of sales by £2,432,060. All good so far. We know that that RSIs profit remains zero also, because we know the groups profit so we also have to reduce their turnover by £2,432,060 however this goes outside the UK group because this is a refund to Roberts Space Industries Corporation, in the USA. So this is going to be an amount in dollars, so it may not match exactly and we have to rely on the accountants to get this right.
We arrive at a new summary, something like this. Bolded numbers are the figures that have been adjusted:
For some reason, they changed the cost of sales in RSI by adding £239,986 to the costs. I've noted it down as a suspense amount because we have no idea why they did this. So to maintain a zero profit, we need to counter this by adding £239,986 to their revenue. This seems like a leap of faith but our summary now matches the group accounts exactly.
So now the group accounts match our summary there are some implications to this. The UK group derives all its income from RSI International Ltd, which derives all its income from the USA company RSI Corporation. Now we can solve why the 2015 turnover figures don't match and the 2016 ones do match. Note the figure does match our summary for RSI, that we have recreated with our own turnover figure by deduction from the group accounts.
We sort of have to now conclude that there must be two different sets of RSI accounts for them to get this "correct" in the group accounts. The RSI accounts that were filed were never corrected for any prior-year adjustment and yet, there must exist a set of RSI accounts that have been corrected in order to get a set of group accounts that is accurate.
The implications here are decidedly tricky. Back in 2015 the US companies would have presumably filed accounts and tax returns to US authories that claimed a dollar amount of expenses equal to £15.3m. Any audits done at this time, would have confirmation letters and invoices for these amounts. As far as audit trails for this £2.4m refund that would have gone back to the United States, well I hope I have demonstrated that this trail is really unclear for anyone that might investigate it. If it were accidentally paid to the wrong entity and then never declared, there would not be any trail.
So the corrections were handled appropriately in the Foundry 42 Ltd accounts. Adjustments were made and disclosures for those adjustments. They used option (iii) from my opening statement. The CIG accounts are slightly trickier, since we have the company accounts for 2015 and the group accounts for 2016 but we can safely say that some adjustments were made but absolutely no disclosures at all. That is sort of an incorrectly implented option (iii) from my opening statement. The RSI accounts have not had any adjustments made and therefore no disclosures and we have some pretty firm suspicions that there may in fact be two different sets of RSI accounts and they are certainly aware that the filed RSI accounts do not match the RSI accounts used for the consolidation of the group accounts that were filed. So it turns out that there was a hidden fourth option that you will not find in any text books and Chris Roberts has developed new solutions to problems and a way to make money apparently disappear.
I can only imagine the state of the dozen or so American companies that are open to zero public scrutiny.
Unrelated hypothetical paragraph
Imagine your company is sitting on £2.4m in the bank that it should not have, that should be refunded to another company in another country. However, in that country, that company does not know it's due any money from years ago. It was all audited and balances confirmed at that time and it's not asking or expecting any money. However, this company with the money in the bank has to get rid of it to make its books balance, it sure should go to the right place and I'm sure anyone would make certain that the right people get this £2.4m.
So as a disclaimer I should stress that I am in no way suggesting that anything unlawful was actually done here. I guess this highlights the "perils" of having multiple shell companies with regard to nice clean audit trails.
This is fantastic. You're doing God's work, son.
----------------
This thread brought to you by a tremendous dickhead!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:57
|
|
- bbchops
- Jul 26, 2001
-
Ho ho ho! I'll have the same again!
-
Nap Ghost
|
gently caress these people
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:17
|
|
- Toops
- Nov 5, 2015
-
-find mood stabilizers
-also,
|
Just remember, only one banker was prosecuted as a result of the financial meltdown of 2008.
ONE.
Ortwin is a master, none of the higher ups will get anything but rich from this.
Calling it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:21
|
|
- Redundant
- Sep 24, 2011
-
Even robots have feelings!
|
Apparently depriving Agent of pancakes leads to some seriously scorched Earth. Hell, I'm glad. For the Earth scorching obviously, not the pancake deprivation. Nobody deserves that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:26
|
|
- zcrow
- May 6, 2014
-
Ah.. yeah... um... tup tup tup tup tup.. this is something we'll add down the line
|
Are CIG in the Paradise Papers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:36
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2024 16:53
|
|
- Strangler 42
- Jan 8, 2007
-
SHAVE IT ALL OFF
ALL OF IT
|
also I need all the art teams focused on the movie stuff because we have a four month deadline for our portion of the vfx, but this is also okay because we need six months or so to get our programmers to finish our engine
Ship porn is what brings in all the money, what can they shovel out to keep the sales running and the backers convinced that progress is being made?
And don't say a working game engine, you know that was never an option
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 23:42
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:21
C-Bangin' it 
Welcome to the