Sybarite
Well-Known Member
That constitutes an ear-marked reserve which is included in the amount of the total reserves.
RNLI 2013 accounts : highlights
- Thread starter Sybarite
- Start date
That constitutes an ear-marked reserve which is included in the amount of the total reserves.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Or in some cases in places of surf lifesaving clubs who have lost long-standing council funding as a result. As far as I am aware, councils do not just contribute to the wages: they pay them in full, and then some, as a commercial contract,
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
I await with baited breath to receive this lesson in accounting. You might like to know I was an FCA, European Finance Director, Finance Director in a household name company with a department of 160 people, and I have been responsible for the audit of several major charities, also Treasurer of a few.
I never said there was nor that they did. Yet another person who does not understand the concept of "reserves".
And you call me hysterical...!!!
And, how would you categorize the movement in total reserves from one year to the next?
Last edited:
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
That is just a perfect example of another of your brainless contributions. Try to think about what you are writing.
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
You excelled yourself there - getting a dig at the Catholics on the second post on an RNLI thread.
Do you not think that maybe your anti religious crusade is taking over your life and becoming a bit of an obsession that actually makes your contributions on here somewhat laughable?
Maybe what you should do is to stop moaning about how successful the Catholics are, and get the RNLI to introduce the same funding model? :encouragement:
Last edited:
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
What are they, then? I am interested and would like to know.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Another perfect example of what others have described as your hysterical yet comical responses.
The 50B is a readily accessible estimate which you are free to look at if you care to use google, though I concede that it should have read "reserves" as it did, and you well know, when I raised the point with you in #2 on this thread.
I note that you still haven't responded to the point which puts the sins of the RNLI in perspective.
As for "brainless"; I will only remind you of the ludicrous posting you made about Hugh Ross just a few days ago. Not only did you blindly copy and paste one of the most ludicrous examples of bogus logic, maths and science which we have seen for quite some time, but you also gleefully reproduced his "credentials" without stopping for one moment to think about them. It was then pointed out to you that his "qualifications" were, at best, trivial; at worst, gibberish (a spotty 17 year old a "director" of a scientific body...I ask you). You then simply compounded it by trying to claim scientific support from others about whom you clearly had no understanding.
I won't take any lectures from you about brainlessness. I will look to you for a comical demonstration of it.
Perhaps you should practice what you preach and think about what you are writing? Or perhaps you should just return to copy n' paste? You are clearly out of your depth in trying to think of something which is either original or imaginative.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
What if the RNLI used some of its reserves on buying SAR helicopters?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Years ago, for a few years, he did some post grad work at Caltech. His "directorship" at a scientific body.....which you lauded so much... turned out to be an unpaid appointment, when he was a spotty 17 year old, in an Astronomical club* consisting mainly of amateurs. Odds are he got the "job" simply because he turned up at a meeting. Ironically there is nothing wrong in a youngster doing something like that. What is pathetic is that decades latter, not only is he boasting about it and 'biging' it up but that the likes of you fall for it. Since that modest early career he has not been involved academically in anything. He makes a living as an apologist.
And you want to know how I can judge his capabilities!!!!!!! You have been blinded by bull****, but it is hilarious that you will neither admit it nor let it drop.
The point, as you well know, was about vastly more un-publicised resources sloshing around outside the RNLI
* Edit. To make your claims even more ludicrous....... The RASC Vancouver has a membership of just 300, not the 4300 you claimed. RASC is a loose affiliation of clubs of which the Vancouver centre is just one. The total membership of the separate clubs is 4300, but your hero was only involved as "director" in Vancouver. It really isn't as grand as you want to make it sound. It really isn't.
Nice try, but your ad hom seems to have backfired.
Last edited:
SimonFa
Well-Known Member
I am no fan of the Tories but that is just showing an egregious misunderstanding of the problem.
I'm not going to hijack this thread but I will post something in The Lounge.
SimonFa
Well-Known Member
That's an interesting point. I give my money, far more than the membership fee, to the people who are out collecting in all sorts of weather. I do that because I have collected for the Poppy Appeal and I really did feel my time had been well spent when the money was counted.
Perhaps I should split my donation so I can feel a bit better if I am unfortunate enough to to need to be rescued by the RNLI.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
They would have to design & build them first, could t possibly use one designed by others
Steve C Cronin
N/A
Some years ago, my next door neighbours were towed into Brest having suffered engine failure in the Rade. They were effectively arrested, put on a quarantine berth and guarded by dogs. They weren't allowed ashore until their insurers stumped up for the "salvage" fees. They were constantly harassed with lights being shone into their hatches throughout the period. Is THAT the sort of system you want here?
Daydream believer
Well-Known Member
That is a worrying post. It is of course quite short. I am sure there must be more to it than just that.
But i am aware the the French can be pretty anti British when they want
However, a separate thread on how people are treated by french sea rescue services would be an interesting one -
Although I have nothing to contribute - fortunately
in fact I have started one !!!
Last edited:
Aardee
Well-Known Member
I'm no expert, but for me there's a clear distinction in that we all live on the land by default, while a only a tiny proportion of us go to sea. I suspect a better comparison would be the RNLI and something like Mountain Rescue.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
SimonFa
Well-Known Member
I don't think the fire-brigade is good comparison because we all live in houses and protection is needed not just for ourselves but to stop others being affected, whereas people choose to go to sea. (OK some have less choice than other eg people who live in fishing communities, but in the end it is still choice.)
When everyone is affected then it is one of the few things that it makes sense to do collectively through the tax system, that way we avoid the free rider problem of trying to provide the service by voluntary contributions.
We could try it by subscription but that has its own problems when someone who hasn't subscribed becomes a high profile victim. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwJrPa8Ps7A.
The RNLI works because it is well funded and so we don't worry about free riders but also, and probably mainly, because we all as a community understand that we take more than the average risk and continue provide that funding and don't seem to care about the free rider problem.
When everyone is affected then it is one of the few things that it makes sense to do collectively through the tax system, that way we avoid the free rider problem of trying to provide the service by voluntary contributions.
We could try it by subscription but that has its own problems when someone who hasn't subscribed becomes a high profile victim. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwJrPa8Ps7A.
The RNLI works because it is well funded and so we don't worry about free riders but also, and probably mainly, because we all as a community understand that we take more than the average risk and continue provide that funding and don't seem to care about the free rider problem.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Oh dear me Sybarite. The most generous description one might use for Ross is that he is an ex-academic. He turned his back on academia several decades ago...and we don't know whether that was because he failed in that field or simply chose to do something else. We have, however, seen that he exaggerates his qualifications to create an impression.....his "directorship" being a splendid example of nothing being presented as something of substance.
My qualifications are obviously far better than yours; after all I was able to demonstrate the silliness of his "directorship" to you. Your accounting qualifications have obviously not prepared you to either see beyond bull**** or to appreciate that working in a field 40 years ago may not be the best qualification for pronouncing on other fields several decades later. However, your qualifications probably do ensure that you are good at blindly copying and pasting things without thought.
On your other point you are demonstrating your complete inability to read what people say. I have never said that I hate your god. I have always made it abundantly clear that, in my view, he simply doesn't exist. Nothing. Zilch. Naff all. It is really silly of you to claim that somebody can hate something that doesn't exist. So, once more your point is just a redundant nonsense.
I have however made it clear that I am intrigued that people like you are so ready to preach about your chosen lifestyle of "love and forgiveness", but so ready to put it to one side and become snarling, hate filled vipers. It does highlight the superficiality of your faith.
You haven't addressed the matter of vastly more funds than the RNLI's sloshing around elsewhere.
Last edited:
dom
Well-Known Member
OK,
Curiously this seemingly reasonable question has no meaning in accounting terms! Let me explain:
THE BORING BIT
Imagine us lot here raised £10m to set up a new anchor manufacturer called Spocna Ltd. Our Balance Sheet would initially comprise (Cash £10m and Shareholder Reserves £10m). Spocna Ltd might invest in a new factory costing £5m, in which case the Balance Sheet would show (Shareholder Reserves £10m, Factory £5m and Cash £5m). Spocna’s Shareholder Reserve’s would not go down a dime due to its factory purchase.
Next imagine Spocna hired some staff at a cost of £500K p.a. After one year its Balance sheet would show (Cash £4.5m, Factory £5m and Shareholder Reserves £9.5m). The principle here is straightforward: Shareholder Reserves are NOT reduced via investments, but by costs such as: salaries, heat, light, rates, etc; fixed asset depreciation; or when we incur a liability to someone.
NOW IMAGINE WE SETUP THE RNLI (assuming it didn’t exist)
We might start by raising £660m to donate to our new charity. The RNLI’s Balance Sheet would initially show (“Reserves” £660m and Cash £660m). These are just “Reserves”, not “Shareholder Reserves” because we no longer have any entitlement to this money.
Next we might purchase 150x lifeboats at a cost of £1m each and build 150x launch pads, also at a cost of £1m each. That tots up to £300m and the RNLI’s Balance Sheet would read (Reserves £660m (i.e. unchanged), Fixed assets £300m and Cash £360m). If the RNLI bought that SAR helicopter for £50m: Cash would fall from £360m to £310m, Fixed Assets would rise from £300m to £350m, but Reserves would remain constant at £660m! (£310m + £350m)
THE RNLI IN PRACTICE
Take a look at the RNLI’s accounts you will see a picture similar to the above. http://rnli.org/aboutus/aboutthernli/Documents/annual-report-13.pdf
The RNLI owns Fixed Assets of £364.5m (P39), which you can trace back to the Balance Sheet (P31 LHS). Notice how the RNLI’s only other significant asset is “Investments”, which total £278.7m. Adding investments to fixed assets gives £643.2m (£364.5m + £278.7m), which combined with a few other odds and sods gives the RNLI’s net-asset position of £661.7m (middle of P31). This £661.7m also equals the RNLIs “Total Reserves” (bottom of P31).
“Shareholder Funds” represent the accounting value of the shareholders’ stake in the company. A “Charity’s Reserves” are somewhat different; they represent the accounting value of the stake the charity’s future beneficiaries (in this case distressed sailors) have in the charity. A “Restricted Reserve” simply means for example that the beneficiaries’ collective right takes the form of say a lifeboat. The RNLI clearly can’t spend its "contingent obligation" to rescue you in the future! It can only spend the assets it has to fulfil that obligation.
“COLLECT & SPEND” vs. “ENDOWMENT” CHARITY MODELS
Charities can fund themselves along a spectrum defined by: (i) “Collect & Spend” on one end (e.g. a one-off disaster fund) and “Endowment” on the other. Endowments are pre-funded with sufficient assets to fulfil the majority of their aims out of investment income, e.g. the Welcome and Rowntree Trusts.
THE RNLI SITS ABOUT MIDWAY ALONG THIS SPECTRUM
P29 of the RNLI’s accounts (RHS) informs us that it spent £117.9m on lifesaving activities in 2013 (costs + equipment depreciation, etc). You might enquire as to how much money would be required to produce this £117.9m per annum.
A panel of fund managers and actuaries would tell you to expect a 6% investment return, without taking excessive risk. This turns out to be trend UK Nominal GDP, but that’s another story. The RNLI would therefore require an investment fund of £1.965 billion (£117.9m/.06) to operate a fully funded model. It only possesses £278.7m of investment assets, so we can conclude that it’s only 14% (£278.7m/£1.965bn) along the way to a fully funded endowment.
RNLI’s CORPORATE GOVERNACE
The RNLI has an internal Audit and Risk Committee, external auditors (Crowe Clark Whitehill), is regulated by the Charity Commission and has received numerous awards for its corporate governance. One is of course entitled to raise questions, but that is different from combining accounting-ignorance and business-twaddle into a noxious cocktail to throw in the men’s and women’s faces as they return from a shout.
PS: The above may be helpful to some peeps wishing judge for themselves the merits of RNLI’s model. I’m confident that an independent accountant or actuary will agree that it’s a simplified but commercially accurate description. As ever, I have no intention of responding to either Sybarite’s insults or bone-headed comments.
Curiously this seemingly reasonable question has no meaning in accounting terms! Let me explain:
THE BORING BIT
Imagine us lot here raised £10m to set up a new anchor manufacturer called Spocna Ltd. Our Balance Sheet would initially comprise (Cash £10m and Shareholder Reserves £10m). Spocna Ltd might invest in a new factory costing £5m, in which case the Balance Sheet would show (Shareholder Reserves £10m, Factory £5m and Cash £5m). Spocna’s Shareholder Reserve’s would not go down a dime due to its factory purchase.
Next imagine Spocna hired some staff at a cost of £500K p.a. After one year its Balance sheet would show (Cash £4.5m, Factory £5m and Shareholder Reserves £9.5m). The principle here is straightforward: Shareholder Reserves are NOT reduced via investments, but by costs such as: salaries, heat, light, rates, etc; fixed asset depreciation; or when we incur a liability to someone.
NOW IMAGINE WE SETUP THE RNLI (assuming it didn’t exist)
We might start by raising £660m to donate to our new charity. The RNLI’s Balance Sheet would initially show (“Reserves” £660m and Cash £660m). These are just “Reserves”, not “Shareholder Reserves” because we no longer have any entitlement to this money.
Next we might purchase 150x lifeboats at a cost of £1m each and build 150x launch pads, also at a cost of £1m each. That tots up to £300m and the RNLI’s Balance Sheet would read (Reserves £660m (i.e. unchanged), Fixed assets £300m and Cash £360m). If the RNLI bought that SAR helicopter for £50m: Cash would fall from £360m to £310m, Fixed Assets would rise from £300m to £350m, but Reserves would remain constant at £660m! (£310m + £350m)
THE RNLI IN PRACTICE
Take a look at the RNLI’s accounts you will see a picture similar to the above. http://rnli.org/aboutus/aboutthernli/Documents/annual-report-13.pdf
The RNLI owns Fixed Assets of £364.5m (P39), which you can trace back to the Balance Sheet (P31 LHS). Notice how the RNLI’s only other significant asset is “Investments”, which total £278.7m. Adding investments to fixed assets gives £643.2m (£364.5m + £278.7m), which combined with a few other odds and sods gives the RNLI’s net-asset position of £661.7m (middle of P31). This £661.7m also equals the RNLIs “Total Reserves” (bottom of P31).
“Shareholder Funds” represent the accounting value of the shareholders’ stake in the company. A “Charity’s Reserves” are somewhat different; they represent the accounting value of the stake the charity’s future beneficiaries (in this case distressed sailors) have in the charity. A “Restricted Reserve” simply means for example that the beneficiaries’ collective right takes the form of say a lifeboat. The RNLI clearly can’t spend its "contingent obligation" to rescue you in the future! It can only spend the assets it has to fulfil that obligation.
“COLLECT & SPEND” vs. “ENDOWMENT” CHARITY MODELS
Charities can fund themselves along a spectrum defined by: (i) “Collect & Spend” on one end (e.g. a one-off disaster fund) and “Endowment” on the other. Endowments are pre-funded with sufficient assets to fulfil the majority of their aims out of investment income, e.g. the Welcome and Rowntree Trusts.
THE RNLI SITS ABOUT MIDWAY ALONG THIS SPECTRUM
P29 of the RNLI’s accounts (RHS) informs us that it spent £117.9m on lifesaving activities in 2013 (costs + equipment depreciation, etc). You might enquire as to how much money would be required to produce this £117.9m per annum.
A panel of fund managers and actuaries would tell you to expect a 6% investment return, without taking excessive risk. This turns out to be trend UK Nominal GDP, but that’s another story. The RNLI would therefore require an investment fund of £1.965 billion (£117.9m/.06) to operate a fully funded model. It only possesses £278.7m of investment assets, so we can conclude that it’s only 14% (£278.7m/£1.965bn) along the way to a fully funded endowment.
RNLI’s CORPORATE GOVERNACE
The RNLI has an internal Audit and Risk Committee, external auditors (Crowe Clark Whitehill), is regulated by the Charity Commission and has received numerous awards for its corporate governance. One is of course entitled to raise questions, but that is different from combining accounting-ignorance and business-twaddle into a noxious cocktail to throw in the men’s and women’s faces as they return from a shout.
PS: The above may be helpful to some peeps wishing judge for themselves the merits of RNLI’s model. I’m confident that an independent accountant or actuary will agree that it’s a simplified but commercially accurate description. As ever, I have no intention of responding to either Sybarite’s insults or bone-headed comments.
Last edited: