Hi Doug
This one is ripe for a being a huge thread and a great debate, although it seems like everyone might be a wee bit busy at the mo. I certainly am, so just my immediate thoughts

I do wonder why a whole practice can move all of their clients wholesale on to one standard or another when all the guidance from the prof bodies seems to suggest each company should be considered on a case by case basis. Have to say the first thing that struck me was how in hell the Banks and lending institutions conduct their financial checks on businesses wanting new or extended funding (albeit only a small number lend to smaller companies these days) based on FRS105 when there is frankly bog all (technical term) listed at Companies House. I know, before anyone says it, that a full (er) set will be held by the company for the purposes of board meetings and CT returns but the Banks used to only accept a 'different' version to that held at Co House (ie unverified version) if it was from a well known, lots of letters after their name type of Accountant. So where does that leave the small one man band practice and their clients trying to get a business loan in the future. Other quick thought was do some opt for 105 because its easier than the 102 re-valuations bit.

Leger wrote:

---

All mine are FRS105, simply because they are micro entities!

Agree with you Joanne on the barest of info provided, but is it really that much different from abbreviated accounts that went before?

---

 Im assuming then thats on a turnover basis and they are some way off the limit John?

The abbreviated accounts werent great, but at least they do give you something to get your teeth stuck into (albeit not as much as the data used to provide).   Perhaps that was always why I never liked the business/commercial end of it all in my banking days, much preferred the real mid/large/mahoosive corporates.

Cheshire wrote:

---

I do wonder why a whole practice can move all of their clients wholesale on to one standard or another when all the guidance from the prof bodies seems to suggest each company should be considered on a case by case basis. 

---

 Hi Joanne & John

Thanks for the replies, what you wrote above was one of the reasons I posted the question as it seemed from the discussions and articles that I have read that some practices were moving there clients onto FRS105 just because they qualified and not treating them as individual cases and some just decided they did not want to change at all whether it could be better for the company or not.

So far from what I understand I get the impression that if you do have a low turnover company which does not expect to expand past the micro-entity limit then it would probably be best to report using FRS105 just for simplicity but if not then stick with FRS102   

Just trying to get a better understanding of both standards before I unleash myself on LTD Companies financial accounts (which will not be for a while yet)

Cheers