Is Toby the Gorilla more talented than you?

Gorillas are the largest member of the primate family and 98% of their DNA is the same as humans. They are amazing animals but unfortunately they live in areas of the world that have suffered from genocide, war and natural disasters. They are on the verge of extinction and have been classified as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

There are less than 900 mountain gorillas left in the world today.

This really is a shocking statistic but luckily there is hope out there.

The not for profit (charity) industry is a significant sized industry. The latest reported figures for the UK alone show that there are over 164,000 registered charities with a combined annual income of £64 billion.

Although these organisations are not for profit organisations they share a lot of business characteristics with commercial organisations but there is one key difference.

Commercial (for profit) organisations generate revenues and incur expenses. The expectation is that the income they generate will exceed the expenses incurred and as a result there will be a profit for the shareholders.

Not for profit organisations also generate revenues and incur expenses. The key difference though is that the focus isn’t on making a profit. Instead, they aim to have as high a surplus as possible between their revenue and their expenses so that this surplus can be spent on supporting the causes they want to support.

The revenue for a not for profit organisation includes for example donations from the public whilst the expenses would include the costs of running the charity such as staff salaries and office rental expenses.

In simple terms therefore, the more a charity can increase its income whilst keeping their expenses as low as possible means that they will have more to spend on the causes they are supporting.

One of the challenges facing charities in today’s environment is getting awareness of the work they do to the public in the hope that the public will help with donations. Awareness and PR campaigns can be very expensive and are out of the reach of most charities.

The Gorilla Organisation is an excellent charity. They have a team of hard working inspirational people who are doing as much as they can to help the critically endangered species. The brains behind the Gorilla Organisation have recently pulled together some fantastic volunteers who also just happen to have some amazing talent.

Some famous actors, producers, directors, editors and creatives have all got together to produce a series of short films.

If you go to mygorilla.org you can see some marvellous short videos featuring an extremely talented Gorilla called Toby.

As well as being the creators of what is in my opinion without a doubt the best series of short gorilla films, the Gorilla Organisation also hosts the iconic Great Gorilla Run where thousands of people dress up as Gorillas and run around the City of London.

In the film below, Toby the Gorilla is promoting the Great Gorilla Run as well as showing off his skills on the piano.

For details on the fantastic work the Gorilla Organisation does visit gorillas.org.

For details of the Great Gorilla Run visit greatgorillarun.org.

The image at the top of this post is courtesy of the Gorilla Organisation.

They are outside but still inside.

You don’t have to be working inside a company to be charged with insider dealing.

Insider dealing is where a person uses information which is not in the public domain to make money out of share price movements.

A typical example of insider dealing would be where an individual works for a company whose shares are quoted on a stock exchange. The individual becomes aware that the financial results of the company which are about to be released to the public are better than expected. Before this information is made public though the individual buys shares so that he or she can sell them for a profit when the unexpected good news about the financial results is made public and the share price increases.

In other words, the individual is making a financial gain by “dealing” in shares using information which is “inside” the company and not available outside of the company. Hence the name “insider dealing”.

Insider dealing is illegal and action taken by the authorities against individuals involved in insider dealing is normally taken against employees of the company in question who are undertaking the insider dealing and / or their friends or associates who may have been involved in the insider dealing activities.

Recently though there was an unusual case where it was announced that federal investigators in the US had broken an insider trading gang who had a rather different approach.

Their unusual approach was that rather than working for the organisation who were about to release their results the gang instead hacked into the systems of financial newswire services to get hold of press releases of companies who were about to release their financial results.

The key thing though was that by hacking into the systems of the newswire services they got hold of these press releases before they were made public and used the information in the press release to purchase shares before these shares increased in value once the results were made public by the press release.

This was a pretty sophisticated criminal activity as it was reported that more than 100,000 press releases were stolen and as a result over $100 million of illegal profits were made by the gang.

The gang was said to have been run from Ukraine and 32 people have been charged in connection with the offence.

In conclusion therefore, you can be outside the company and still be charged with insider trading.

No personal deliveries to the office please.

If you wanted to buy clothes 10 years ago the chances are that you would have purchased them in a shop. Nowadays though things have changed and in a lot of countries internet shopping is incredibly popular.

After all, why travel to the shops, try to find somewhere to park and then purchase your items when instead you can order the items in the comfort of your own home and they can be delivered to you the next day.

One challenge though is the delivery the next day as where will you get your shopping delivered? If you’re at work you don’t want your shopping delivered at home as you’re not there. The obvious solution is to get your internet order delivered to your office.

Well, if you thought that getting your internet shopping delivered at work was a good idea then you are not alone. According to the office for National Statistics in the UK, 75% of Britains have brought at least one item online during the last year and a lot of them are getting their shopping delivered to the office.

That’s great news for the companies that are selling online (more sales means more revenue), great for the buyer (items delivered to the office so no waiting at home for the postman) but it’s not so great for the employers.

The cost and security implications for handling all the personal parcels delivered to offices have caused a number of firms to tell their employees to stop having personal items delivered to the office.

In Canary Wharf, the east London financial centre, there were reportedly more than 130,000 parcels delivered in the last year alone. One Canada Square (the main office building in Canary Wharf) has over 11,000 deliveries per month with an estimated 30% of these being private parcels.

The extra cost of receiving, storing and security testing these parcels has resulted in a number of companies telling their staff not to have personal parcels delivered to the office. HSBC, Citigroup and JP Morgan have all now instructed their employees not to have personal parcels delivered.

Is this a good move in that it helps keep control of costs and minimize security risks or is it a bad move in that it could demotivate staff?

Only time will tell but one thing for sure is that other organisations are not standing still.

Doddle, which is a collection service where parcels can be delivered and people can pick them up has recently opened a depot at Canary Wharf. My guess is that they will soon have plenty of people picking up their parcels which can no longer be delivered to the office.

An impressive lady but competition is coming.

She’s an interesting lady.

Her full name is Barbara Millicent Roberts. She’s 56 years old and has had over 150 different careers including being a lifeguard, a doctor and a Spanish language teacher. Perhaps most impressively of all she travelled into space in 1965, four years before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.

She’s managed to do all of this despite being only 29 cm tall.

The Barbie doll is the centrepiece of many a child’s toy cupboard and it’s been estimated that over a billion of them have been sold in more than 150 countries since they were first introduced in 1959.

There have been a number of business issues faced by Barbie recently. Even though there’s an Accountant Barbie, I should in fact clarify that and say that there have been a number of business issues faced by Mattel, the owner of the Barbie brand.

Some of you may have heard of Bratz dolls.

Bratz dolls were a competitor to Barbie dolls back in the early 2000s and they were pretty successful. They were so successful that by 2004 they had taken more than 40% of the UK toy doll market and had in fact also taken the top spot for sales of dolls which had been held by Barbie since records began 10 years earlier.

In 2006 Mattel sued MGA Entertainment, the owners of the Bratz brand as they claimed that the Bratz doll creator Carter Bryant was working for Mattel when he developed the idea behind Bratz.

In essence Mattel argued that as they were paying Mr Bryant to work on Mattel matters and not those of another venture the Bratz doll idea was Mattel’s and not MGAs.

Back in 2008 a Californian judge agreed with Mattel’s claim and told MGA to stop making and selling Bratz dolls and also ordered MGA Entertainment to pay Mattel $100 million in damages.

However, MGA weren’t happy with this decision and the case went back to court in 2011 where a federal jury delivered a verdict supporting MGA.

Now whilst the court cases between Mattel and MGA are all very interesting, if you’re a parent of a young daughter what is probably of more relevance is that the Bratz dolls are being relaunched onto the market this coming weekend.

So, if you’re queuing up with your daughter to buy a Bratz doll this weekend you can impress her with your background knowledge of who owns the brand as well as let her know that the UK doll market is the second largest and second fastest growing segment of the UK toy market and has grown 11% over the last year to reach £288m.

I’m sure she’ll be very impressed with your discussion and won’t at all be interested in the doll she’s about to get….

How did he get away with this?

Picture the scene. It’s the office Christmas party and you’ve had a couple of drinks. You’re relaxed and are having a good time.

So far so good but what would you do next?

Would you:

a) Carry on in a chilled relaxed way to enjoy yourself and celebrate the festive period, or

b) Drink too much, tell one of the directors of the company and a senior project manager to (rude word removed so as not to offend any of our readers) off, make a female colleague cry by telling her that she was a stuck up (another rude word deleted), keep on pestering another female colleague to go horse riding together, hold another female colleague’s face in your hands and kiss her on the mouth and then finish the evening off by asking another female colleague what colour underwear she was wearing.

Whilst most normal people would opt for option a), Stephen Keenan, a team leader at Leighton Boral and Amey Joint Venture in Australia chose option b).

Mr Keenhan had reportedly had about 10 beers and one vodka and was by all accounts extremely drunk.

Telling a director to “go forth and multiply” as well as insulting female colleagues and kissing them against their wishes isn’t the most impressive way to act during a Christmas party and it was probably no surprise when he was called into the office on his return to work after the Christmas break to be told that he would be dismissed for sexual harassment.

However, what will probably come as a bit of a surprise though was that he made a claim for unfair dismissal at the Australian Fair Work Commission (FWC) and surprisingly enough he actually won his case.

Yes, despite insulting a number of his colleagues and trying to kiss a female colleague against her wishes he won his case for unfair dismissal.

Adam Hatcher, a vice-president at the FWC found that none of the incidents were valid grounds for dismissal and concluded that Mr Keenan had been unfairly dismissed.

The FWC tribunal found that there was no evidence the board member took offence or remembered the incident. They also found that proposing to meet up with a colleague was not sexual harassment and the kiss occurred in the upstairs bar after the function had officially ended. As a result it was not connected to Mr Keenan’s employment.

Mr Hatcher also said that “In my view, it is contradictory and self-defeating for an employer to require compliance with its usual standards of behaviour at a function but at the same time to allow the unlimited service of free alcohol at the function,”

In other words, the employee couldn’t be held responsible as the employer had partly contributed to the actions by serving unlimited free drinks.

Now whilst Mr Keenhan is no doubt pretty happy about the decision (and in fact will probably head out for a few celebratory drinks…), the decision of the tribunal is causing a fair amount of concern for some people in Australia. After all, the fact that an employee’s unacceptable behaviour was excused due to free alcohol being supplied by the employer has led some to worry that to avoid such a situation in the future, Australian firms may stop providing free alcohol at their Christmas parties.

Dancing towards a big mistake.

When you’re at work it’s always worth taking a step back and doing a reality check every now and then to check that everything is ok.

Steve Pallet, a Jersey politician is no doubt a busy man but he should have taken a step back to review things a couple of weeks ago.

Earlier this month, in what was probably one of the simpler tasks on his to-do list, he needed to fly from the UK to Bucharest, the capital of Romania to be present at the handover of the Dance World Cup.

This year’s Dance World Cup took place in Bucharest where nearly 3,000 competitors from 32 countries took place in the annual dance event.

Jersey is hosting next year’s Dance World Cup and Mr Pallet was flying to Bucharest to attend the official handover where he was due to make a speech and receive a special flag from his Romanian hosts marking the fact that Jersey will be hosting the next World Cup.

You’re probably thinking that there’s nothing particularly difficult about flying from one country to another to give a short speech, receive a flag, shake a few hands and no doubt have a nice meal and a couple of drinks.

Whilst most people would probably agree with the assumption that it was a fairly simple exercise, Mr Pallet decided to prove everyone wrong. Instead of flying to Bucharest in Romania he flew to Budapest, the capital of Hungary which is about 500 miles (800 km) short of where he should have been.

Mr Pallet only realised his mistake as his plane was coming in to land in Budapest. It was too late for him to arrange transport from Budapest to Bucharest and as a result he was unable to accept the official handover of the World Cup flag.

When the news of his error broke he pointed out that the flight booking had been made by a colleague of his but this isn’t really a particularly good excuse as it was him personally who got on a plane flying to the capital of Hungary expecting to land in Romania.

He did apologise though and said “It is really disappointing, I have to apologise for wasting taxpayers’ money and for letting down the Dance World Cup. I don’t know the exact cost as I’ve still got some figures to come back, but it won’t be less than £1,000. All I can do is apologise for what is a schoolboy error.”

He mentioned it was a “schoolboy error” but given Mr Pallet’s geographical knowledge (or rather, his lack of geographical knowledge), then I guess he probably made plenty of schoolboy errors in his geography lessons at school.

Is it a good thing to be smelling of beer?

I’ve checked the calendar and it’s July. It’s not April or to be more precise, it’s not 1 April.

It may sound like an April fool’s joke but it’s not.

Carlsberg, the famous Danish beer company has just released a new product.

“A new product?” I hear you say.

What would be a suitable new product for a beer company?

Some of you may be thinking that it’s a new flavour of beer or maybe a complimentary product such as a “stay chilled beer glass” but no, Carlsberg have taken the concept of brand extension a step further.

They have just announced the launch of a series of male grooming products. Yes, shampoo and body wash for men made out of Carlsberg beer.

In a partnership with cosmetics producer Urtegaarden, Carlsberg has launched a product range which contain the main ingredient found in Carlsberg lager (barley, hops and yeast) but instead of producing it in such a way that you drink it, it is produced in such a way that you rub it on your hair or body to wash.

Now, whilst some of us have no doubt ended up with beer on our hair and/or body when we were younger this time it would be a deliberate move to keep clean.

A survey conducted by Epinion found that 65% of men in the UK were daily groomers and nearly half of the men used their girlfriends or wives grooming products on a weekly basis.

Zoran Gojkovic, who not only has a great job title being “Director of Research at Carlsberg Laboratories”, was also quoted as saying “Men do care about looking good, but they often seem to lack alternatives to the more female-friendly beauty options available. And what better way to give them just that, than to introduce a grooming series made from beer?”

Each product in the Beer Beauty series contains 0.5 litres of real Carlsberg beer which is freeze-dried into powder and then mixed with organic ingredients in order to create products including shampoo, conditioner and body lotion.

More details can be found here and will this mean that wives and girlfriends the world over will no longer be criticising men when they say they “stink of beer”?

A very forward thinking leader…

She is the first female boss of a major accountancy company in the UK and Sacha Romanovitch is doing things differently.

At 47, Sacha who heads up Grant Thornton in the UK is one of the youngest leaders of a major City firm and has certainly got some innovative views in terms of how she plans to run Grant Thornton.

She has just announced a profit share scheme for the whole business which could boost salaries by 25%. She will oversee a “shared enterprise” scheme which will allow future profits to be shared between all of its 4,500 staff instead of being restricted to the most senior staff.

Ms Romanovitch was quoted as saying “The benchmark that we are working to is that in great organisations that do this, it ends up being between 10 and 25 per cent of a person’s salary. That is what they can potentially earn as a profit share. John Lewis [a prestigious UK department store] does it, Arup [an engineering firm] is the other one that does it really well.”

She has also announced plans to “crowd source” new business ideas and to consider allowing lower ranked staff to join board meetings.

In a move which will no doubt endear her to the team at Grant Thornton she has also agreed to cap her own salary. She has stated that her salary will be limited to a maximum of 20 times the average salary in the company.

This is an admirable move, especially when you consider that bosses of FTSE 100 firms (the largest 100 stock exchange quoted companies in the UK) have on average a salary which is 149 times the average salary in their respective firms.

In a recent newspaper interview Ms Romanovitch, who is a married mother of two and who works from home in the beautiful county of Devon on Fridays, said she was a fan of social media and thinks firms that restrict staff use of social media are wrong.

She said “A lot of firms don’t let their people use social media because they’re worried that they will say something they shouldn’t.

I find that a bit scary. I employ great people. If I was worried that they were going to say something on social media that they shouldn’t, I’d question whether I should employ them at all.”

Congratulations on a great start Sacha and if you’re interested, the marvellous photo of Sacha at the top of this article is from her twitter page which can be found here.

Who audits the auditors?

It’s a great life being an auditor. You visit your clients and can ask as many questions as you like.

After all, your job is to confirm the accounts are showing a “true and fair view” or to be more precise, your job according to “International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 700, Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements”, is to “form an opinion on whether the financial statements are prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework.”

So, that’s the job of the auditors.

Who checks the quality of the audits though?

In the UK, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) undertakes annual quality inspections of the largest auditing firms in the UK including Deloitte, EY, KPMG, pwc and a number of mid tier firms.

The latest annual report has been released and whilst there has been an improvement in the performance compared to previous years with 67% of all audits inspected in 2014/15 being assessed as either good or only requiring limited improvements, 33% of the audits inspected fell below the highest standards set by the accounting regulator and were classified as either requiring improvements or significant improvements.

Let’s just pause there for a moment.

What this is saying is that one in every three audits undertaken by the leading accounting companies in the UK have been classified as needing improvements or even worse, needing significant improvements.

Three of the more common issues identified in the report were:

  • Insufficient scepticism in challenging the appropriateness of assumptions in key areas of audit judgement such as impairment testing and property valuations.
  • Insufficient or inappropriate procedures being performed. This is common to many areas including revenue recognition.
  • The failure to adequately identify the threats and related safeguards to auditor independence and to appropriately communicate these to audit committees.

The FRC do however appear to be trying to improve things and have introduced various initiatives.

For example, they now “require firms to develop action plans to address the weaknesses identified in individual audit engagements and firm-wide procedures”. In conjunction with the development of these action plans they now require firms to undertake a detailed rootcause analysis of the factors contributing to the issues arising from the inspections and those action plans together with the related analyses will then be subject to follow-up inspections.

A copy of the report can be found here.

The FRC also prepared individual reports for the Big 4 and they can be found on the following links:

Deloitte

EY

KPMG

pwc

Is it clothing or a blanket?

If you’ve just had a baby the concept of taxation is probably one of the last things on your mind but for anyone who has purchased a SnuggleBundl for their baby there is an interesting link to taxation.

blog-Snugglebundl-268x275According to the manufacturers the SnuggleBundl is “the world’s first lifting wrap for babies. This beautiful multi-award winning hooded baby garment ties at the front and the soft, strong handles on this wearable wrap let you lift and lay your baby so gently that they’ll stay sleeping”.

It seems that they have been selling very well and there have no doubt been lots of parents, babies and possibly very small adults who are extremely pleased with the warmth and comfort of the SnuggleBundl.

The tax authorities though had different things on their minds. They were more concerned as to whether the SnuggleBundl was baby clothing or was a blanket.

And the reason the tax authorities were so concerned about the classification was because of?

Well, the reason was all down to VAT. As is the case in a number of countries, the UK tax authorities do not levy VAT on children’s clothes. They do however levy VAT at 20% on blankets.

The tax authorities claimed the product was a blanket whilst the company claimed it was clothing.

The simple difference was that if it was classified as clothing it would be sold for £34.99 whereas if it was classified as a blanket it would be sold for £41.99 (£34.99 plus 20% VAT of £7).

This difference in price would have a major impact on the number of SnuggleBundl’s sold as it’s a big difference for a parent if they have to pay £34.99 or £41.99 for the item.

Given that in both of these cases the company would end up with the same amount of money, it was obvious why the company wanted it to be classified as clothing (if the item was classified as a blanket and sold at £41.99 the £7 VAT would need to be paid over to the tax authorities by the company leaving them with £34.99).

In what no doubt caused a huge sigh of relief the company (plus a few happy gurgles by some babies) the company won the case and the courts found that the product was in fact clothing and not blankets.

The directors of the company can sleep peacefully now…