Leave a comment

danieldwilliam March 6 2014, 12:09:23 UTC
I was surprised that the % of operating costs attributable to the crew was as high as 44%.

I managed to track down a sample page of the report I think the figure is based on.

Sure, enough, crew costs per year for a Handy Sized Tanker $1,547k out of total operating costs of $2,828 for a % of 43.3%.

But looking at what’s in operating costs, or rather what’s not in operating costs I’m not sure the 44% figure means much. The % quoted seems to exclude from operating costs fuel and financing costs.

Reply

philmophlegm March 6 2014, 13:11:59 UTC
I used to audit a shipping company. Outside of financial sector, shipping is possibly the most complicated industry to audit. One year I ended up doing this quite large shipping group audit pretty much on my own (me - then an almost-qualified ACA - plus a first year trainee were the only full-time, on-site members of the audit team) because everybody else went to great lengths to avoid it.

Reply

danieldwilliam March 6 2014, 13:34:58 UTC
Why is it so complicated?

Reply

philmophlegm March 6 2014, 14:00:57 UTC
Firstly the terminlogy is unique to the industry - there are so many terms that are routine maritime terms to sailors but which you'll see on a trial balance. I remember we always used to send first years on that audit to a legendary old guy called Jim to learn about "demurrage". Jim was about 65, had been working for this company all his adult life, and had the broadest, most impenetrable scouse accent you can imagine - and it was one of those scouse accents where the speaker doesn't pronounce 'r' sounds correctly. This made it quite funny when the young trainee returned knowing full well what "demurrage" was, but having no idea how it should really be pronounced, or even spelled ( ... )

Reply

cartesiandaemon March 6 2014, 14:18:51 UTC
Thank you, that was fascinating. Although I'm glad I don't have to solve it :)

Reply

philmophlegm March 6 2014, 15:22:53 UTC
Tragically, the shipping company in question (Harrison Line) no longer exists. When I was auditing it, it had been in a state of managed decline for decades, but it was once one of the great independent Liverpool shipping companies. The novel and film 'Whisky Galore' was based on a real incident involving one of their ships.

Reply

danieldwilliam March 6 2014, 14:26:42 UTC
Thanks - very, very interesting.

I hear you on the fixed asset verification. When I worked for a power company I was once asked by the new audit trainee how I knew that my fixed asset register was materially correct and that no one had stolen any of the kit.

I replied (rather haughtily, because, auditors) that there was only one asset on my fixed asset register, a 1MW power station, a massively complicated machine weighing several hundred tonnes, and unless he had urgent news that Liverpool and Manchester were suffering a huge black out I could be pretty certain that no one had stolen it. Furthermore, there was a picture of it in the file.

Mark to market on our long term power sale agreements was always the complicated bit. Both for us and for the audit team.

Reply

philmophlegm March 6 2014, 15:24:25 UTC
Never audited a power company, although I used to advise a water company audit team on methodology issues.

"I replied (rather haughtily, because, auditors)..." Yeah, I've been on the other end of that a few times!

Reply

danieldwilliam March 6 2014, 15:37:42 UTC
I’ve sat in on numerous conversations about the appropriate and allowed levels of rudeness to be directed towards auditors. In some organisations I’ve been in it’s felt like it was corporate policy to be utter bastards. Other, better managed places tend to agree the audit plan and outputs much better in advance. This makes for much smoother interactions at an operational level.

I genuinely try not to be discourtious towards auditors. I have often been praised for my diplomacy and restraint but the guy in the story was being a total fudd.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up