This thread is being created from another discussion.
This thread is the result of a discussion between Michelle and myself where VT and Sage are being compared.
Where posts were made by Michelle I will indicate such at the start of the post.
All VT posts that cover technical aspects of the software will now bare the code VT-STM which should I hope make them easy to find.
The posts will now be removed from the original welcome thread which they took over.
-- Edited by Shamus on Thursday 8th of October 2015 05:11:06 PM
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
I responsed with this post attached below following a comment from Michelle in relation to how VT compared to Sage :
I have found that people coming from Sage do find VT more difficult to come to grips with as its as though one first has to unlearn Sage such as the idea of closing off periods, nominal codes and needing to journal accruals and prepayments.
Personally before using VT I did use Sage and my view is that it was not as good as VT for many types of clients. That said, VT does not have stock control which Sage does so if I were advising a client who was a box stacker and shifter I would not advise VT Transaction+ (although I would still quite happily process their Sage books through VT Accounts).
I agree totally with Michele that the VT website doesn't do them any favours.
I wouldn't say that the Excel comparison is completely fair for VT Transaction+ although VT Accounts is as you state a VT add on.
Would I call you a snob? No, Sage isnt exactly IRIS or SAP. Many people who can afford Sage still choose VT, not based on price but just that it's the closest thing I personally know of you you controlling the software rather than simply feeling like the end user working around the software... Hope that makes sense.
Lets try an analogy. Think the difference between driving a Chevelle SS compared to driving something like a far more refined Hyundai I40 which tries to do the thinking for you but leaves you feeling less in control. That I feel for me is the real key difference in that with VT I am getting the software to do what I want it to rather than Sagewhich can often feel as though you are working around it to get to where you want to be.
So no, you're not a snob. You just like one bit of software, others like another. I certainly would not say that Sage is any better than VT.
As a rule of thumb when advising clients on software I would go with :
Teachers, doctors, IT professionals, Website designers, Therapists, generally all service industries : VT Transaction+ and VT Accounts
Manufacturing : Sage + VT Accounts
Just my view on things.
All the best,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Thanks Shaun. Most of the software I have tried for bookkeeping (admittedly I don't think I have trialled the VT bookkeeping, but just saw the layout) I found to give restrictive control. Trying to add in codes was difficult, one wouldn't let me post to an expense code, if it was a bank payment rather than a supplier invoice; one didn't even have a supplier credit note function; posting took longer (which as you know, a few seconds on each adds up, in our job!); reports were awful to look at, VAT codes weren't up to scratch, audit trail was clunky and not always helpful in quickly finding the issue. Some just did weird @ss things.. like QB putting VAT into trade creditors (EH?!) I suppose it does help that I know Sage so well, I can pretty much get it to do anything I want, I feel 99% unrestricted by it. And, it allows me to work at an industrial speed... but I am yet to find a cloud or desktop package that ticks all the boxes, enough to make me leave Sage, as much as I am waiting for that holy grail! LOL
After Feb, I'll download the VT bookkeeping and have a gander at it. If its as unrestricted as you say, I may be able to cope with the front end :) And, at least I'll know I have lots of people to call on for advice, on here!! :))
In fact, here's my absolutely need list - maybe you guys can tell me about the different software you use and whether my wishlist is do-able?
Tab use on posting transactions.. with minimal mouse usage on that side. Having to mouse select a customer/supplier is not fun
Must not close the page I am working on every time I save a transaction, so I have to reopen it
Has to let me put a code anywhere I want it, without griping at me
Has to be able to cope with sub-codes - at least 01-99 on the end of normal numbers, but more if possible
PL must be easy to doctor to my own specific layout, as well as creating bespoke PLs that only account for some codes, not all. Or have a very good departmental function.
It has to have a VAT rec (ok that obvs, most do) and must be able to cope with EU stuffs like T8, T9, T22, T24 (its also nice when a program doesn't lump all the VAT codes together, meaning you have to manually add things up, when you hit an issue.. And reports should be accessible after a rec is run.
Decent bank rec - god some of the ones I have seen... not nice! And can it recover a bank rec if you need to double check anything?
Some form of year end cut off, so figures cant be changed after year end run.
Clearing off items should be simple, non of this "cant post a payment on account" etc
Audit trail - massively important.. has to have transaction numbers, and give a range of ways to view, such as date order, net order, VAT order, gross order, trans number order, code order.
Has to have memorising facility
Tabs/multi page - so when you are posting a transaction and want to go check something, you can, without having to discard what you are doing
That's all I can quickly think of right now... Can VT do all this? Or any other software?? If so, I am SOLD! And that is genuine, not just me trying to prove a point. I honestly need the above to work efficiently and provide the different things my clients need in one package that can be used for all.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
In fact, here's my absolutely need list - maybe you guys can tell me about the different software you use and whether my wishlist is do-able?
Tab use on posting transactions.. with minimal mouse usage on that side. Having to mouse select a customer/supplier is not fun
VT does that
Must not close the page I am working on every time I save a transaction, so I have to reopen it
Yep, you can keep drilling down through figures but the pages that you come from are still open.. I really get the most use from my multip screen settup
Has to let me put a code anywhere I want it, without griping at me
VT doesn't use codes... You can force it to but its one of those things that you look at and think why would anyone ever use nominal codes.
Has to be able to cope with sub-codes - at least 01-99 on the end of normal numbers, but more if possible
See above. Its one of the things that I mentioned in my post above in that to a certain extent the most difficult thing about learning VT is unlearning Sage.
PL must be easy to doctor to my own specific layout, as well as creating bespoke PLs that only account for some codes, not all. Or have a very good departmental function.
Fine with both. you can have unlimited departments (which I also use for contracts) You get one tabbed P&L for each contract / department / division plus a tab for general overheads and income not allocated to any specific other tab.
It has to have a VAT rec (ok that obvs, most do) and must be able to cope with EU stuffs like T8, T9, T22, T24 (its also nice when a program doesn't lump all the VAT codes together, meaning you have to manually add things up, when you hit an issue.. And reports should be accessible after a rec is run.
Again, codes are a Sage thing. You tell it the various VAT rates which you pick from a drop down. Next time you do a similar transaction it will default to that VAT code but can be overridden.
All VAT returns can be retrieved. You can also delete and rerun it with minimal effort.
Decent bank rec - god some of the ones I have seen... not nice! And can it recover a bank rec if you need to double check anything?
I've not had an issue with the bank rec on VT
Some form of year end cut off, so figures cant be changed after year end run.
Yes and no. Yes one exists in the software but like the fact that you can introduce nominal codes I do not see any reason why one would ever use that facility (but if you do periods are very eay to unlock).
Clearing off items should be simple, non of this "cant post a payment on account" etc
One of VT main strengths is the smplicicity of use and the fact that it assumes that if you use it you know what you are doing so there is far less of the Sage nanny type mentality. If you want to post a payment on account nothing will stop you doing that.
Audit trail - massively important.. has to have transaction numbers, and give a range of ways to view, such as date order, net order, VAT order, gross order, trans number order, code order.
The words audit trail mean different things to different people. To me it means the userid of the person who changed the data, a 26 digit time stamp and a terminal ID. That doesn't seem to be exactly the same definition that you are looking at.
With VT you can trace back every field from the financial statements to source via drill downs.
The front screen just shows transactions entered in entry sequence and you will find that such is good for seeing the last thing that you did you will find that you don't use it very much.
Far better to select spreadsheet mode, copy and past the whole lot into Excel and then sort away to your hearts content.
I use that a lot especially when looking for specific amounts because the clients called the same thing different things in different places. i.e. bank statement gives a company name and the invoice referes to the director by name rather than their company, that sort of thing.
Again with those codes, lol.
Has to have memorising facility
VT learns the more that you use it and will autofill ahead which can be overkeyed. Makes data entry very fast. My record so far is creating 128 new invoices in an hour (Shhh, don't tell the client that!).
Tabs/multi page - so when you are posting a transaction and want to go check something, you can, without having to discard what you are doing
Yes... You may also find it useful to copy the .vtr file and have a second occurence of VT running on the same machine (and all ok under one licence agreement).
That's all I can quickly think of right now... Can VT do all this? Or any other software?? If so, I am SOLD! And that is genuine, not just me trying to prove a point. I honestly need the above to work efficiently and provide the different things my clients need in one package that can be used for all.
I think the thing that people miss about VT is that it's software developed and sold by a practicing firm of Chartered accountants so its the software that they would want to make their life easier (possibly why its so popular over on Aweb).
Conversely I think that Sage tries to kill two birds with one stone in that it sells itself both to accountants and businesses with their main market being the businesses but knowing full well that if they are not accountant freindly then accountants won't push their product.
VT does take a little getting used to and when you do trial it I would suggest finding a small limited company with less than (say) 300 transactions for the year. Enter their opening balances for the prior period. Reenter into VT all transactions that you did into sage for the period and then make sure that what comes out at the other end is exactly the same as the accounts that were produced from Sage.
I know that it can be quite soul destroying redoing a set of accounts that you have already done once in different software but it really is the best way to learn VT.
I work with some chartered firms where the bookkeeping is done in software such as Sage and Xero but the accounts are produced in VT (you simply enter the trial balance directly into the accounts package) largely as the finished accounts are extremely professional, will stand shoulder to shoulder against ANY competition and the speed (instantaneous) of the iXBRL translation puts many of its higher priced competitors to shame.
Worth mentioning again here that although VT is a great bit of kit, it's not good for stock control and there is no inbuilt fixed asset register (although its easy enough to drill down to the fixed assets and recast the depreciation so that one's no biggy).
-- Edited by FoxAccountancyServices on Wednesday 7th of October 2015 01:40:34 PM
HTH,
Shaun.
p.s. I've tried to emphasise above where I am talking about VT Transaction+ and VT Accounts as they are very different products.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Hi Shaun, thanks so much for taking the time to go through all that! Perhaps the coding issue can be worked round by having a number at the beginning of the name? Does it let you determine the code name, or are they pre-determined?
Not that VT would be suitable for this job, but just to address why I need code numbers over text..
I have a client who is a charity. They do their own bookkeeping on Sage 2012 and employed me to build and maintain the structure/reports of it. (They are due new software, and I cant move from Sage until I give them a better option that I can support). They have two offices, and like to see PL's for each. They also have PLs for different managers, who need to hone in on certain areas.. such as their NHS contract performance for each office. I don't usually go for departments in Sage, as I find building a nominal list structure that separates absolutely everything, is much easier to re-craft in as many different ways as you like. Departments are a little more restrictive in that you cant give the transaction two department codes. (can VT do that, though? That would be ace!). They have a huge payroll journal, so that gets memorised (and it has to be, because there are nominal sub codes for each employee, their own Ers NIC, their mileage, travel, crumbs you name it! They wanted the lot showing!! - this is because each employee's costs subsequently gets apportioned off and its easier to do when its broken down. The coding is MAHoosive.. over 100 sales codes alone, and up to 7 digits. They love it thank god, and I have set it up so that the bookkeeper doesn't have to do any more work than she needs to, especially where codes are concerned.. it follows the usual sage structure as far as possible.. so all repairs and maintenance start with 78, for example.. that gets her roughly where she needs to go! They were copying everything into spreadsheets, as well as sage, before!! I think if the nominal list was only names, it would be very difficult to keep track off, as presumably they are in alphabetical order?? And, do you have to start typing the name, to get it to come up? That might be a pain given all the names that would need to be remembered on this job!
Will add VT BK to my list of priorities to review in March! You never know, I might find some fun work arounds. Thanks again for a great reply, really helps :)
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
it doesn't support two codes but you could build a coding structure that works around that.
i.e. First character is the office, next two characters is the manager, next three characters is the job / project.
The restriction that you will have is not on the number of characters that you can use but just the practical consideration that if you have a load of seperate P&L's (as well as thwe full consolidated one) then the less characters that you use the more readable the tabs will be at a glance.
I tend to set my maximum tab name size at 12 characters which you should find more than enough to build in a coding structure.
Each entry you allocate to a code and then the P&L's will have all of the fields specific to that code (income, costs, expenditure).
Taking the repairs example that you give. All that you would do is on the payments receipts screen screen enter 1 (for payment), Date, Repairs under description, the amounts, the analysis Ledger / account and then the code to allocate it to the specific site / manager / job.
Better still, next time that you do it as soon as you enter Repairs in the description it will autofill the other fields from the knowledge of what you did last time.
And if you make a mistake just edit the transaction, change the code and it moves to where it should be without any faffing with journals.
I think that you may be mising the name up with nominal codes. Thats not how it finds where to put things. I mentioned briefly before Analysis Ledger and Analysis Account. Thats what tells VT where to allocate something.
For example, an Analysis Ledger may be : Expenses
And an analysis Account may be : Bank Charges
Sage would give that a code where VT uses descriptions from the accounts.
You can add more analysis accounts although the one's VT comes with cover everything that I have ever needed. The accounts exist within the Ledgers which are fixed so VT knows exactly where in the accounts the new entries need to go.
So much easier than trying to remember codes that only mean anything within a given peice of software.
However, that also evidences that the software is aimed squarely at bookkeepers and accountants. Not end business users who do not necessarily understand how a set of accounts fits together.
Looking at how your person would want to use the software the big question has to be do they understand the basic structure of a set of accounts? And would they remember to add the department / manager / job code to each entry? I don't think that it can get much simpler than that as its removing the overhead of them needing to remember nominal codes and replacing it with simply saying (say) its a telephone expense which would be the same no matter which department/manager/job they were doing it for and then just appending the code to it.
I am assuming that there would be a lot less codes than there would be nominals.
HTH,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Followed by the following response from Michelle :
OH MY GOD! Its taken me so long to write this! I've stopped and started so many times!! Shaun, I so much appreciate you reviewing this with me. And Michele, I am super sorry for hijacking your post!!
Shamus wrote:
Hi Michelle,
it doesn't support two codes but you could build a coding structure that works around that. i.e. First character is the office, next two characters is the manager, next three characters is the job / project.
The numbers would have to run in line with Sage coding, as I couldn't cope with remembering anything else! LOL! As a quick example, the current coding would go something like this...
First 4 numbers are the general description
5th number shows the site - 0 is for combined (needing apportionment) 1 for Manchester, 2 for London
6th and 7th number - 01-99 which allows us to further breakdown of the site transactions, into sub category
Each code would need number and name in it - cos no one is that good at remembering! The number really just keeps it in order I suppose, as we run down the NL/PL. I wouldn't be able to put a manager element in, as two managers can need the same code in their report.
4000s = income codes
4000-4099299 = donations analysis (40000XX = combined, and nature of donation) (40001XX is Manchester and nature) (40002XX is London, and nature)
4100-4199299 is grants analysis
4500-4599299 is income resources for charitable activities
4600-4699299 is activities for generating funds analysis
Should they open a 3rd site, its easy to insert codes with a 5th number of 3
5000s = wages, ers nic and staff travel, pensions etc
5000101 -5000199 is Manchester gross wages analysed by staff member - so can have up to 99 staff
5000201 - 5000299 is London gross wages
5001101 - 5001199 is Manchester employers NI - again broken down per staff member
5001201-5001299 is London employers NI
5002101-5002199 is Manchester pensions by staff member
5002201-5002299 is London pensions by staff member
It carries on to analyse personnel and recruitment costs, which are analyse by site, then by type category, so 50071 is Personnel Costs - Manchester, and 01 would be CRB checks, 02 - advertising for staff and so on
6000s = direct costs
The have 13 different direct cost analysis, split down in different ways - as an example, 6000 is "publications costs" 60011 means its Manchester and the further 01 is a named publication, 02 another named publication costs
Another - 6100 is staff travel. 61001 means its Manchester . 6100101 is Staff Travel - Manchester - Staff members name. We also have mileage on its own, accommodation on its own - all analysed per staff member.
7000s = support costs
7700 - Computer and IT costs
77001 Computer and IT costs - Manchester
7700101 Computer and IT costs - Manchester - software & licences
7700102 Computer and IT costs - Manchester - support contracts
7700103 Computer and IT costs - Manchester - peripherals
And it goes on, and the same is done for Oxford, just using a 5th digit of 2
This is the format each code has "Description - Site - Sub-description"
The restriction that you will have is not on the number of characters that you can use but just the practical consideration that if you have a load of seperate P&L's (as well as thwe full consolidated one) then the less characters that you use the more readable the tabs will be at a glance.
The code name would be XXXXXXX Description - Site - Sub-description
I tend to set my maximum tab name size at 12 characters which you should find more than enough to build in a coding structure.
7 characters are already used up by the number - can it be more than 12? Say up to 50?
Each entry you allocate to a code and then the P&L's will have all of the fields specific to that code (income, costs, expenditure).
Do you mean like the chart of accounts? The one thing I do find restrictive about Sage, is that you have to set up your codes in line, if you want to group them on the PL. You cant "jump over a code", if you like. Hence why thinking about it, before setting up a code, is needed. But you can decide the order that things go into the PL, and group and separate as you like, which can be useful.
Taking the repairs example that you give. All that you would do is on the payments receipts screen screen enter 1 (for payment), Date, Repairs under description, the amounts, the analysis Ledger / account and then the code to allocate it to the specific site / manager / job.
I think this is similar to Sage where you go to Supplier invoice, or bank payment and put in the date, your ref, ex ref, you type "78" then arrow down to the code you want to post to. I wouldn't bother with department as the bespoke PLs I create are much more adaptable, although I have used them for simpler jobs - such as when a client wanted sales to be allocated to salesperson - we just posted all sales invoices to a department, whilst using the code to split them into sales type. Its typing that 78 that I find so convenient. All the repair codes pop up (which might not necessarily contain the word "repair" and then I can arrow down and press return (hate having to use the mouse to select!)
Better still, next time that you do it as soon as you enter Repairs in the description it will autofill the other fields from the knowledge of what you did last time.
And if you make a mistake just edit the transaction, change the code and it moves to where it should be without any faffing with journals.
If you make a mistake in Sage, you just go to corrections (even better on 2015 as they have combined financials and corrections, so no more file/maintenance/corrections or file/modules/financials - its just here on the left, one screen does all). How does VT cope with changing a transaction that has already been VAT reconciled? Lets say you change a supplier invoice from the previous quarter - Sage has a wee annoying habit of putting an adjustment in the sales section (to reverse the previous quarter claim) and then putting the new claim in purchases... I don't know why it doesn't put both to purchases!
I think that you may be mising the name up with nominal codes. Thats not how it finds where to put things. I mentioned briefly before Analysis Ledger and Analysis Account. Thats what tells VT where to allocate something.
For example, an Analysis Ledger may be : Expenses And an analysis Account may be : Bank Charges
Sage would give that a code where VT uses descriptions from the accounts.
Not sure if I have understood this properly, so bear with me. Sage gives an account number and an account name - this is what I call a "code" but its basically an "account" - sorry just what I am used to saying.. And the chart of accounts determines which analysis ledger the codes appear (sales, COGS, direct costs, overheads,). The number code just helps when posting a supplier invoice, because 78 takes me to repairs and renewals codes, and allows me to quickly find (in most cases, decide) the code I need, by arrowing down, which might not have "repairs" in the name. I am understanding (perhaps wrongly) that in software's that don't use codes, you have to start typing the name of your wanted code, for it to come up, so you first need to know the exact start of the name? Is that right? Also, scrolling though the 78 list helps me remember which codes I have to choose from, as each client can have codes set up and the names differ, so working on various jobs would mean remembering the names used by each and every client. I can see that its not a bad thing for a small firm that just needs one "repairs and renewals" code, though.
You can add more analysis accounts although the one's VT comes with cover everything that I have ever needed. The accounts exist within the Ledgers which are fixed so VT knows exactly where in the accounts the new entries need to go.
So much easier than trying to remember codes that only mean anything within a given peice of software.
I do like the fact that where a client has been posting to say "equipment hire" in the 7700 code, it can be represented in direct costs on the PL, if I want it to. But that's not something that happens often, and its changed after the year has ended! Presumably VT's charity format would be much the same as Sage? It will have donations ledger, grant ledger, income resources for generating funds, charitable activities etc? All populated by relevant accounts? And, will have a decent ledger for breakdown of all costs? I think I understand how I would set that up. Does VT allow you to arrange codes in the ledger as you wish? Or is it a set layout?
However, that also evidences that the software is aimed squarely at bookkeepers and accountants. Not end business users who do not necessarily understand how a set of accounts fits together.
Looking at how your person would want to use the software the big question has to be do they understand the basic structure of a set of accounts? And would they remember to add the department / manager / job code to each entry? I don't think that it can get much simpler than that as its removing the overhead of them needing to remember nominal codes and replacing it with simply saying (say) its a telephone expense which would be the same no matter which department/manager/job they were doing it for and then just appending the code to it.
The great thing is she doesn't need to understand how the accounts come together, all she needs to know is which site the transaction is for, and what income/expense account it needs to come under. She is the one that gave me the list of accounts she needed, and once I had put the basic structure together, we adapted it side by side, so she understands the 4, 5, 6 and 7 concept/number ranges. As she is an existing sage user, it helped! There is no department to remember, because it was too restrictive to use departments. The overheads codes are not such an issue, as they are pretty straightforward, she knows to type in 75 or 78 and she gets the list to choose from. Its the 4000-6000 codes that are more difficult as you would need to remember the exact name of the code... was it "couriers and delivery charges" or "delivery charges and couriers" or "postage" or "freight"... very simple example but you get my point. Also, numbers allow it to be listed in the order we want, as she runs down the nominal list. Does no numbers means the your account ledgers run in alphabetical order, or a predetermined one? Could be a bit higgly-piggly when scrolling up and down the nominal list of expenses, looking for the exact one you need to review the activity of when there's so many codes/accounts.
I've set up the coding and the COA to bring things together, as the accountant needs. We have a PL that groups things specifically as he would post into his accounts production package... so he enters the BS items from the TB, and then uses the PL we create, to save on him having to enter all those PL nominal codes we created on the TB.
I am assuming that there would be a lot less codes than there would be nominals.
The income/expense codes/accounts she needs would be that same whether number or text.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Now, we're hitting the risk of responses being too large to responsd to so the following break my answer down into bite size segments each of which may spawn its own discussion
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
OH MY GOD! Its taken me so long to write this! I've stopped and started so many times!! Shaun, I so much appreciate you reviewing this with me. And Michele, I am super sorry for hijacking your post!!
Shamus wrote:
Hi Michelle,
it doesn't support two codes but you could build a coding structure that works around that. i.e. First character is the office, next two characters is the manager, next three characters is the job / project.
The numbers would have to run in line with Sage coding, as I couldn't cope with remembering anything else! LOL! As a quick example, the current coding would go something like this...
First 4 numbers are the general description
5th number shows the site - 0 is for combined (needing apportionment) 1 for Manchester, 2 for London
6th and 7th number - 01-99 which allows us to further breakdown of the site transactions, into sub category
Each code would need number and name in it - cos no one is that good at remembering! The number really just keeps it in order I suppose, as we run down the NL/PL. I wouldn't be able to put a manager element in, as two managers can need the same code in their report.
4000s = income codes
4000-4099299 = donations analysis (40000XX = combined, and nature of donation) (40001XX is Manchester and nature) (40002XX is London, and nature)
4100-4199299 is grants analysis
4500-4599299 is income resources for charitable activities
4600-4699299 is activities for generating funds analysis
Should they open a 3rd site, its easy to insert codes with a 5th number of 3
5000s = wages, ers nic and staff travel, pensions etc
5000101 -5000199 is Manchester gross wages analysed by staff member - so can have up to 99 staff
5000201 - 5000299 is London gross wages
5001101 - 5001199 is Manchester employers NI - again broken down per staff member
5001201-5001299 is London employers NI
5002101-5002199 is Manchester pensions by staff member
5002201-5002299 is London pensions by staff member
It carries on to analyse personnel and recruitment costs, which are analyse by site, then by type category, so 50071 is Personnel Costs - Manchester, and 01 would be CRB checks, 02 - advertising for staff and so on
6000s = direct costs
The have 13 different direct cost analysis, split down in different ways - as an example, 6000 is "publications costs" 60011 means its Manchester and the further 01 is a named publication, 02 another named publication costs
Another - 6100 is staff travel. 61001 means its Manchester . 6100101 is Staff Travel - Manchester - Staff members name. We also have mileage on its own, accommodation on its own - all analysed per staff member.
7000s = support costs
7700 - Computer and IT costs
77001 Computer and IT costs - Manchester
7700101 Computer and IT costs - Manchester - software & licences
7700102 Computer and IT costs - Manchester - support contracts
7700103 Computer and IT costs - Manchester - peripherals
And it goes on, and the same is done for Oxford, just using a 5th digit of 2
This is the format each code has "Description - Site - Sub-description"
I think that you are still thinking in terms of the individual entries having their own nominals where that's not how it would work.
all of the entries are the same no matter where they are for but you append the location / department / manager code as needed so that when you produce P&L's the data is shown in the correct P&L.
If you do not include a code then it will go to a catch all P&L. Also there will be a consolidated P&L that brings them all together.
All of the P&L's are viewable on the same screen at the same time.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
The restriction that you will have is not on the number of characters that you can use but just the practical consideration that if you have a load of separate P&L's (as well as the full consolidated one) then the less characters that you use the more readable the tabs will be at a glance.
The code name would be XXXXXXX Description - Site - Sub-description
I tend to set my maximum tab name size at 12 characters which you should find more than enough to build in a coding structure.
7 characters are already used up by the number - can it be more than 12? Say up to 50?
Yes. I just find 12 a nice manageable size maximizing the number of tabs that I can see on the screen at any given time
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Each entry you allocate to a code and then the P&L's will have all of the fields specific to that code (income, costs, expenditure).
Do you mean like the chart of accounts? The one thing I do find restrictive about Sage, is that you have to set up your codes in line, if you want to group them on the PL. You cant "jump over a code", if you like. Hence why thinking about it, before setting up a code, is needed. But you can decide the order that things go into the PL, and group and separate as you like, which can be useful.
No, I'm talking about the department code which determines which P&L to allocate to. field to.
you can charge around the COA if you want to although I personally have always found the standard one's to be fine.
Also worth noting with the COA that you can opt to suppress any fields not used either in the current or comparative period which makes it look a whole lot less cluttered.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Better still, next time that you do it as soon as you enter Repairs in the description it will autofill the other fields from the knowledge of what you did last time.
And if you make a mistake just edit the transaction, change the code and it moves to where it should be without any faffing with journals.
If you make a mistake in Sage, you just go to corrections (even better on 2015 as they have combined financials and corrections, so no more file/maintenance/corrections or file/modules/financials - its just here on the left, one screen does all). How does VT cope with changing a transaction that has already been VAT reconciled? Lets say you change a supplier invoice from the previous quarter - Sage has a wee annoying habit of putting an adjustment in the sales section (to reverse the previous quarter claim) and then putting the new claim in purchases... I don't know why it doesn't put both to purchases!
If a VAT return has been filed then the entries that made up that return are locked unless you delete the return, make the change then regenerate the return.
That does not stop you adding things to the period that were not part of the return and then they are picked up for the next VAT return.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
I think that you may be mising the name up with nominal codes. Thats not how it finds where to put things. I mentioned briefly before Analysis Ledger and Analysis Account. Thats what tells VT where to allocate something.
For example, an Analysis Ledger may be : Expenses And an analysis Account may be : Bank Charges
Sage would give that a code where VT uses descriptions from the accounts.
Not sure if I have understood this properly, so bear with me. Sage gives an account number and an account name - this is what I call a "code" but its basically an "account" - sorry just what I am used to saying.. And the chart of accounts determines which analysis ledger the codes appear (sales, COGS, direct costs, overheads,). The number code just helps when posting a supplier invoice, because 78 takes me to repairs and renewals codes, and allows me to quickly find (in most cases, decide) the code I need, by arrowing down, which might not have "repairs" in the name. I am understanding (perhaps wrongly) that in software's that don't use codes, you have to start typing the name of your wanted code, for it to come up, so you first need to know the exact start of the name? Is that right? Also, scrolling though the 78 list helps me remember which codes I have to choose from, as each client can have codes set up and the names differ, so working on various jobs would mean remembering the names used by each and every client. I can see that its not a bad thing for a small firm that just needs one "repairs and renewals" code, though.
Whole concept of nominal codes is gone. Giving everything a code is something peculiar to Sage.
We may be getting slightly mixed up as I'm adding the complexity of having different P&L's for different departments (so giving each department a code) but that code has no relevance to where in the COA something appears.
If we didn't have the department code then there wouldn't be any numbers at all. Just the description from a dropdown of the ledger and account.
Once you get used to it it's much simpler to use than Sage but as mentioned before, the idea of nominal codes is one of those things that needs to be unlearned (although there is an option to build in a nominal structure... Just don't understand why anyone would).
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
You can add more analysis accounts although the one's VT comes with cover everything that I have ever needed. The accounts exist within the Ledgers which are fixed so VT knows exactly where in the accounts the new entries need to go.
So much easier than trying to remember codes that only mean anything within a given piece of software.
I do like the fact that where a client has been posting to say "equipment hire" in the 7700 code, it can be represented in direct costs on the PL, if I want it to. But that's not something that happens often, and its changed after the year has ended! Presumably VT's charity format would be much the same as Sage? It will have donations ledger, grant ledger, income resources for generating funds, charitable activities etc? All populated by relevant accounts? And, will have a decent ledger for breakdown of all costs? I think I understand how I would set that up. Does VT allow you to arrange codes in the ledger as you wish? Or is it a set layout?
VT does not have a built in Charity format but if you want one there are templates available (at additional cost) from third parties or you could simply recreate the template used by Sage in VT.
In VT accounts I move fields around on occasion but I haven't done that with the P&L's in transaction+ (why would I need to if I push everything into the accounts package).
In VT Accounts its simply Excel Formulae. You pick up the fields that you want and put them where you want.
The issue there of course is going to be that if there is a change of Taxonomy as there was this year you would need to recreate your reformatted spreadsheet to pick up the new tags.
That must be the same with any conversion software that if you have played with it and the tax rules change then you have to create it again.(you could just hack your version around but personally I would be petrified of missing something in the new Taxonomy).
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
However, that also evidences that the software is aimed squarely at bookkeepers and accountants. Not end business users who do not necessarily understand how a set of accounts fits together.
Looking at how your person would want to use the software the big question has to be do they understand the basic structure of a set of accounts? And would they remember to add the department / manager / job code to each entry? I don't think that it can get much simpler than that as its removing the overhead of them needing to remember nominal codes and replacing it with simply saying (say) its a telephone expense which would be the same no matter which department/manager/job they were doing it for and then just appending the code to it.
The great thing is she doesn't need to understand how the accounts come together, all she needs to know is which site the transaction is for, and what income/expense account it needs to come under.
Ok, this sounds a little as though your training monkeys but in theory if the person knew that she (say) wanted to post a bank service charge all that she would do is type the date of the transaction, start typing Bank and the rest of the row would be filled out for her (after she has done it (and saved it) once before.
So, she fills out the amounts and the department code and then when the P&L is requested the entry will be under the correct P&L
She is the one that gave me the list of accounts she needed, and once I had put the basic structure together, we adapted it side by side, so she understands the 4, 5, 6 and 7 concept/number ranges.
She would need to unlearn that with VT
As she is an existing sage user, it helped! There is no department to remember, because it was too restrictive to use departments. The overheads codes are not such an issue, as they are pretty straightforward, she knows to type in 75 or 78 and she gets the list to choose from. Its the 4000-6000 codes that are more difficult as you would need to remember the exact name of the code... was it "couriers and delivery charges" or "delivery charges and couriers" or "postage" or "freight"... very simple example but you get my point. Also, numbers allow it to be listed in the order we want, as she runs down the nominal list. Does no numbers means the your account ledgers run in alphabetical order, or a predetermined one? Could be a bit higgly-piggly when scrolling up and down the nominal list of expenses,
Yes, the list of descriptions is in alphanumeric order and its not unwieldy because its one list of accounts for each ledger. (first you choose the ledger in the one column and then the next column is simply a list of accounts for the chosen ledger).
If you forget the name then just give it another name. The name that you use has no relevance other than pulling up the previously defined entry.
As you are typing you see the list and if your entry isn't on it and you can't be arsed setting up another entry then try an alternate spelling or just go look at the last one that you did (you know the account so tit will be there).
looking for the exact one you need to review the activity of when there's so many codes/accounts.
I've set up the coding and the COA to bring things together, as the accountant needs. We have a PL that groups things specifically as he would post into his accounts production package... so he enters the BS items from the TB, and then uses the PL we create, to save on him having to enter all those PL nominal codes we created on the TB.
Now here we have a conundrum in that the separate reporting is surely a management reporting exercise done by yourself so the accountant doesn't need all of the breakdown of departments in order to prepare the stats.
The accountant needs a standard trial balance which of course you have as there has been no messing around with different nominal codes for different departments. An expense for (say) postage is an expense for postage no matter which department it was for.
The trial balance structure for the accountant would just be a bog standard trial balance.
Conversely, internal to VT you would be able to produce P&L's for management reporting purposes which break down by department.
I am assuming that there would be a lot less codes than there would be nominals.
The income/expense codes/accounts she needs would be that same whether number or text.
Except as noted above there would only be one of each but with a department appended to the individual records.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Shaun, you mentioned you can have different departments. How do you set up an extra department please?
And I didn't know about the VAT function for different rates. Was overwriting the 20% when doing gas/electric but have just added the 5% rate. Perfect.
__________________
John
Any advice given is for general guidance and professional advice should be sought applicable to your circumstances.
If you have any questions on departments, post them in that thread so that we keep good grouping.
As you will note I've now suffixed a few (about a handful) old threads with VT-STM so using that in the site search facility should now bring back all those that I have identified to date (they are only those advising on technical problems, not discussions as to what software to buy. Sure that I'll be adding more to the group as I re-find them).
HTH,
Shaun.
p.s. The more one uses VT the greater it becomes doesn't it. That software really deserves a better help facility as I for one can never find anything that I want when searching the built in help facility and then keep discovering all of these really clever things that it can do.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
