Consider this conversation between two rather earnest accountants:
“I suspect that I will need to report this to the MLRO, drastic I know, but needs must…”
“Are you sure you have your facts straight? Surely your client has a valid claim for WTA, and what he’s suggesting is a basic deferral to 2016-17. As far as I can see he should have no problem with a NRFR in 16-17?”
“But he’s stripping out all his F&F and not replacing like with like? The place will be groaning with Swedish furniture.”
“In that case ask him for a list. When you make the NRFR in 16-17 just claim for the R&R element. By the way. Did you get my update on the changes to capital v revenue distributions post April 16?”
And so it goes on.
The problem is many practitioners think that this way of talking is perfectly normal. Which is fine if you are talking to colleagues who understand the jargon, but what about your clients? Don’t make the mistake of littering your website or client conversations with impenetrable phrasing and acronyms.
There is an argument, somewhat dated now, that talking the talk (the double entry FRS version) impresses clients. Careful, that is not rapt attention you witness, it’s more like a pre-slumber glaze.
Next time you are tempted to slip into FRS 102 patois pinch yourself. Simply say accounting regulations are changing but don’t worry, we will make sure your filed accounts are compliant.