Frank Wood Accounting Books


D

desperado98

Hi,

I had ordered this book by Frank Wood from Amazon (http://
www.amazon.co.uk/Business-Accounting-v-Frank-Wood/dp/0273681494/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196172259&sr=8-1)
however as the order is being delayed I've decided to remove the book
from that order and place a new one so I can get the book quickly.

Since the book is no longer 'purchased', I thought I would also take
the opportunity to ask those of you in the know which book you would
buy for somebody like me who is wanting to learn more about
accountancy to HELP (I don't expect to be an expert!) produce my own
business accounts.

Frank Wood seems to be the one most people talk about so here are all
the Frank Wood books on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss...field-keywords=frank+wood&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

If you have any other suggestions however it would be very much
appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

desperado98

Hi,

I had ordered this book by Frank Wood from Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Business-Accounting-v-Frank-Wood/dp/0273681494/ref=p...)
however as the order is being delayed I've decided to remove the book
from that order and place a new one so I can get the book quickly.

Since the book is no longer 'purchased', I thought I would also take
the opportunity to ask those of you in the know which book you would
buy for somebody like me who is wanting to learn more about
accountancy to HELP (I don't expect to be an expert!) produce my own
business accounts.

Frank Wood seems to be the one most people talk about so here are all
the Frank Wood books on Amazon:http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_?url=search-alias=aps&field...

If you have any other suggestions however it would be very much
appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
I forgot to add (again). I have also purchased this book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0273663348 (and waiting for
it too). Just wondering whether it's worth purchasing both or whether
the Frank Wood book will be all I need.
 
P

PeterSaxton

I forgot to add (again). I have also purchased this bookhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0273663348(and waiting for
it too). Just wondering whether it's worth purchasing both or whether
the Frank Wood book will be all I need
Even Frank Wood books have started being produced in dumbed down
versions. You want books with lots of examples and tests to work
through.
 
T

Troy Steadman

Hi,

I had ordered this book by Frank Wood from Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Business-Accounting-v-Frank-Wood/dp/0273681494/ref=p...)
however as the order is being delayed I've decided to remove the book
from that order and place a new one so I can get the book quickly.

Since the book is no longer 'purchased', I thought I would also take
the opportunity to ask those of you in the know which book you would
buy for somebody like me who is wanting to learn more about
accountancy to HELP (I don't expect to be an expert!) produce my own
business accounts.

Frank Wood seems to be the one most people talk about so here are all
the Frank Wood books on Amazon:http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_?url=search-alias=aps&field...

If you have any other suggestions however it would be very much
appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
You can start right away here:

http://www.nrbarton.co.uk/about/ourservices_bookkeeping01.html
 
T

Tim

Tim won't like that site!

"All sizes of business that use a bank account (or their
accountant) must perform this. It is an essential business control."

http://www.nrbarton.co.uk/about/ourservices_bookkeeping11.html
Well, let's look at it a little closer:-

<QUOTE>

Bank Reconciliation

All sizes of business that use a bank account (or their
accountant) must perform this. It is an essential business control.

You must reconcile the balance per your bank statement
at the year-end (or month-end) date to the balance
per your bank "T" account in your nominal ledger.

There are several reasons why they might not agree:

[1]Bank deposit before the year-end but not yet cleared (uncleared
lodgements).
[2]Cheques paid before the year-end but not yet cleared (unpresented
cheques).
[3]Bank deposits gone through the bank, not included in your nominal ledger
(untraced bankings).
[4]Payments gone though the bank, not included in your nominal ledger
(untraced payments).
[5]Bank error (must notify the bank).
[6]Recording error (must adjust your records).
[7]Wrong additions in your books (adjust).

The correct balance is the balance per your bank statements (assuming
no bank errors) plus uncleared lodgements less unpresented cheques.

</QUOTE>

OK - as I've said all along, all you need to do is ensure
that your a/c's records are always correct as you go along,
and then you don't need to reconcile the bank statement.

This site AGREES with me! ...

They say "The correct balance is the balance per your bank statements
(assuming no bank errors) plus uncleared lodgements less unpresented
cheques."
That means you ignore any differences under their items [1], [2] & [5]
above (i.e. use the a/c's anyway, not the bank statement, for these).

Any items under [3] or [4] are nothing to do with the
business, because they'd actually be in the nominal
ledger if they *were* valid -- so we ignore those too.

There also won't be any items under [6] or [7] above,
because (remember!) you keep your records correct...

So -- what differences will you find? NONE!!
Isn't it therefore *UNNECESSARY* ? ;-)
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

desperado98

Tim won't like that site!
"All sizes of business that use a bank account (or their
accountant) must perform this. It is an essential business control."
Well, let's look at it a little closer:-

<QUOTE>

Bank Reconciliation

All sizes of business that use a bank account (or their
accountant) must perform this. It is an essential business control.

You must reconcile the balance per your bank statement
at the year-end (or month-end) date to the balance
per your bank "T" account in your nominal ledger.

There are several reasons why they might not agree:

[1]Bank deposit before the year-end but not yet cleared (uncleared
lodgements).
[2]Cheques paid before the year-end but not yet cleared (unpresented
cheques).
[3]Bank deposits gone through the bank, not included in your nominal ledger
(untraced bankings).
[4]Payments gone though the bank, not included in your nominal ledger
(untraced payments).
[5]Bank error (must notify the bank).
[6]Recording error (must adjust your records).
[7]Wrong additions in your books (adjust).

The correct balance is the balance per your bank statements (assuming
no bank errors) plus uncleared lodgements less unpresented cheques.

</QUOTE>

OK - as I've said all along, all you need to do is ensure
that your a/c's records are always correct as you go along,
and then you don't need to reconcile the bank statement.

This site AGREES with me! ...

They say "The correct balance is the balance per your bank statements
(assuming no bank errors) plus uncleared lodgements less unpresented
cheques."
That means you ignore any differences under their items [1], [2] & [5]
above (i.e. use the a/c's anyway, not the bank statement, for these).

Any items under [3] or [4] are nothing to do with the
business, because they'd actually be in the nominal
ledger if they *were* valid -- so we ignore those too.

There also won't be any items under [6] or [7] above,
because (remember!) you keep your records correct...

So -- what differences will you find? NONE!!
Isn't it therefore *UNNECESSARY* ? ;-)
Guys for GODS SAKE CAN YOU STOP BLOODY ARGUING?!? It's like watching a
primary school classroom. Can we all just stop the sniping, bitching,
back stabbing and general childish stuff and give everybody what they
come here for ACCOUNTANCY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS?!?!

No doubt I'll get abuse for that but somebody needs to say it.
 
R

Ronald Raygun

Guys for GODS SAKE CAN YOU STOP BLOODY ARGUING?!? It's like watching a
primary school classroom. Can we all just stop the sniping, bitching,
back stabbing and general childish stuff and give everybody what they
come here for ACCOUNTANCY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS?!?!

No doubt I'll get abuse for that but somebody needs to say it.
Hey, this is our party and we'll bloody well argue if we want to. :)

Tim and Peter have been arguing about bank reconciliation for
months on and off. They love it.

Just be grateful they're not arguing with you, and that Peter seems
to be showing you his Dr Jekyll side for the moment.
 
T

Tim

Guys for GODS SAKE CAN YOU STOP BLOODY ARGUING?!? It's
like watching a primary school classroom. Can we all just stop the
sniping,
bitching, back stabbing and general childish stuff and give everybody what
they come here for ACCOUNTANCY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS?!?!

No doubt I'll get abuse for that but somebody needs to say it.
I actually tried to forget about this many months ago, but (for
some reason) Peter keeps bringing it up again and again....
 
D

desperado98

I actually tried to forget about this many months ago, but (for
some reason) Peter keeps bringing it up again and again....
Without sounding like your mother Tim ... ignore him :) If you think
you're right and thinks he is right arguing ain't going to sort it
out ... handbags at dawn would do that but somebody got hurt last time
I tried that so it s too dangerous now.
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

desperado98

Hey, this is our party and we'll bloody well argue if we want to. :)
Sorry ... but really ... come on ...
Tim and Peter have been arguing about bank reconciliation for
months on and off. They love it.
Each to their own I suppose. It's not hurting anybody at the end of
the day.
Just be grateful they're not arguing with you, and that Peter seems
to be showing you his Dr Jekyll side for the moment.
Not wanting to rock the boat I am saying nothing.
 
P

PeterSaxton

Tim won't like that site!
"All sizes of business that use a bank account (or their
accountant) must perform this. It is an essential business control."
Well, let's look at it a little closer:-

<QUOTE>

Bank Reconciliation

All sizes of business that use a bank account (or their
accountant) must perform this. It is an essential business control.

You must reconcile the balance per your bank statement
at the year-end (or month-end) date to the balance
per your bank "T" account in your nominal ledger.

There are several reasons why they might not agree:

[1]Bank deposit before the year-end but not yet cleared (uncleared
lodgements).
[2]Cheques paid before the year-end but not yet cleared (unpresented
cheques).
[3]Bank deposits gone through the bank, not included in your nominal ledger
(untraced bankings).
[4]Payments gone though the bank, not included in your nominal ledger
(untraced payments).
[5]Bank error (must notify the bank).
[6]Recording error (must adjust your records).
[7]Wrong additions in your books (adjust).

The correct balance is the balance per your bank statements (assuming
no bank errors) plus uncleared lodgements less unpresented cheques.

</QUOTE>

OK - as I've said all along, all you need to do is ensure
that your a/c's records are always correct as you go along,
and then you don't need to reconcile the bank statement.

This site AGREES with me! ...
The site says: "All sizes of business that use a bank account (or
their
accountant) must perform this. It is an essential business
control." [Ronald, please note that the purpose of the quotes is to
indicate the text is the same as what the site says. If I had said
"The site says all sizes of business that use a bank account (or their
accountant) must perform this. It is an essential business control."
people like Ronald and Tim would have not have known whether there was
any difference between the two statements. Of course the rest of us
would have understood what the quotes meant!]

If the site says that how is the site agreeing with you.
They say "The correct balance is the balance per your bank statements
(assuming no bank errors) plus uncleared lodgements less unpresented
cheques."
That means you ignore any differences under their items [1], [2] & [5]
above (i.e. use the a/c's anyway, not the bank statement, for these).

Any items under [3] or [4] are nothing to do with the
business, because they'd actually be in the nominal
ledger if they *were* valid -- so we ignore those too.

There also won't be any items under [6] or [7] above,
because (remember!) you keep your records correct...

So -- what differences will you find? NONE!!
Isn't it therefore *UNNECESSARY* ? ;-)
It's clear you don't understand either what happens in an accounts
department or what a control is.
 
P

PeterSaxton

"PeterSaxton" wrote
Well, let's look at it a little closer:-

Bank Reconciliation
All sizes of business that use a bank account (or their
accountant) must perform this. It is an essential business control.
You must reconcile the balance per your bank statement
at the year-end (or month-end) date to the balance
per your bank "T" account in your nominal ledger.
There are several reasons why they might not agree:
[1]Bank deposit before the year-end but not yet cleared (uncleared
lodgements).
[2]Cheques paid before the year-end but not yet cleared (unpresented
cheques).
[3]Bank deposits gone through the bank, not included in your nominal ledger
(untraced bankings).
[4]Payments gone though the bank, not included in your nominal ledger
(untraced payments).
[5]Bank error (must notify the bank).
[6]Recording error (must adjust your records).
[7]Wrong additions in your books (adjust).
The correct balance is the balance per your bank statements (assuming
no bank errors) plus uncleared lodgements less unpresented cheques.

OK - as I've said all along, all you need to do is ensure
that your a/c's records are always correct as you go along,
and then you don't need to reconcile the bank statement.
This site AGREES with me! ...
They say "The correct balance is the balance per your bank statements
(assuming no bank errors) plus uncleared lodgements less unpresented
cheques."
That means you ignore any differences under their items [1], [2] & [5]
above (i.e. use the a/c's anyway, not the bank statement, for these).
Any items under [3] or [4] are nothing to do with the
business, because they'd actually be in the nominal
ledger if they *were* valid -- so we ignore those too.
There also won't be any items under [6] or [7] above,
because (remember!) you keep your records correct...
So -- what differences will you find? NONE!!
Isn't it therefore *UNNECESSARY* ? ;-)
Guys for GODS SAKE CAN YOU STOP BLOODY ARGUING?!? It's like watching a
primary school classroom. Can we all just stop the sniping, bitching,
back stabbing and general childish stuff and give everybody what they
come here for ACCOUNTANCY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS?!?!

No doubt I'll get abuse for that but somebody needs to say it.-
Do you think it matters whether accounts are correct or not?

If somebody advised you and lots of other people to do something that
was a bad idea should they be unchallenged or should you be allowed to
mess up your accounts because you don't know any better?

What if people said to you that you should stop complaining about the
treatment you perceive you have received from accountant. Would you
stop?

Is what I said what you would describe as abuse? Do you have an
obsession with abuse?
 
P

PeterSaxton

I actually tried to forget about this many months ago, but (for
some reason) Peter keeps bringing it up again and again....
Maybe you say a lot of ridiculous things in all sorts of areas of your
life so you find it easy to forget them.

It's not often that most people come across ridiculous statements such
as bank reconciliations are unnecessary and single quotation marks
don't indicate a quote!
 
T

Tim

It's not often that most people come across ridiculous statements
such as ... single quotation marks don't indicate a quote!
They do indicate a quote. Who do you think said they didn't?
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

PeterSaxton

They do indicate a quote. Who do you think said they didn't?
You.

A reasonable definition of a quote is "to repeat (a passage, phrase,
etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority,
illustration, etc."

You have put forward the argument that something different can be a
quote. You cited an alternative view from the main explanation in
Wikipedia and you even tried to propose that what desperado said was
supported by the alternative view when it clearly wasn't.

Ronald even said that quotation marks would need to be supported by an
explanation that a quote was a quote but if that was the case then
quotation marks would serve no purpose at all.
 
T

Tim

I think you'll have a job producing any evidence of that.

In fact, I suggested that the following extract from
Wikipedia applies:- "...single quotation marks as
marking a paraphrased quotation or a quotation where..."

.... which clearly calls the phrase inside the
(single) quotation marks a "quotation".

Would you care to point out anywhere that I have said
anything like 'single quotation marks don't indicate a quote'?
If you can't, doesn't that make you a liar?

... You cited an alternative view from the main explanation in
Wikipedia and you even tried to propose that what desperado
said was supported by the alternative view when it clearly wasn't.
Eh? It clearly supports it!
 
P

PeterSaxton

I think you'll have a job producing any evidence of that.

In fact, I suggested that the following extract from
Wikipedia applies:- "...single quotation marks as
marking a paraphrased quotation or a quotation where..."

... which clearly calls the phrase inside the
(single) quotation marks a "quotation".

Would you care to point out anywhere that I have said
anything like 'single quotation marks don't indicate a quote'?
If you can't, doesn't that make you a liar?
What do you think a quote is?
Eh? It clearly supports it!
This is the paragraph you quoted:

"However, another convention when quoting text in the body of a
paragraph or sentence, for example in philosophical essays, is to
recognise double quotation marks as marking an exact quotation, and
single quotation marks as marking a paraphrased quotation or a
quotation where grammar, pronouns or plurality have been changed in
order to fit the sentence containing the quotation (this is the same
as reported speech)."

Desperado didn't change grammar, pronouns or plurality in order to fit
the sentence containing the quotation.

Therefore I stand by my assertion the quotation didn't support what
desperado did.
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

Tim

What do you think a quote is?
A quotation. [The word 'quote' being an abbreviation.]
This is the paragraph you quoted:

"However, another convention when quoting text in the body
of a paragraph or sentence, for example in philosophical
essays, is to recognise double quotation marks as marking
an exact quotation, and single quotation marks as marking a
paraphrased quotation or a quotation where grammar, pronouns
or plurality have been changed in order to fit the sentence
containing the quotation (this is the same as reported speech)."

Desperado didn't change grammar, pronouns or plurality
in order to fit the sentence containing the quotation.
Did anyone suggest that he did?
Try reading your snippet again. Look more carefully
this time at the bit that says "... single quotation marks as
marking a PARAPHRASED QUOTATION OR ..."
Note the word "OR" between the two possibilities;
so that if *EITHER* the bit before the word "or", *OR*
the bit after the word "or" applies, then it's valid.

Do you think his quote wasn't paraphrased? ...

Therefore I stand by my assertion the
quotation didn't support what desperado did.
Ah, I see - you *don't* think he paraphrased it.
Does that mean it was an *exact* quote? ;-)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top