Re: Help with accounting standards - Stock provisions

In message <r8eoj1pgcrg1rr69rvrlq5lqgocngvikf3@xxxxxxx>, Peter Saxton <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes 
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:17:59 +0000 (UTC), "Tim" <me@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Peter Saxton wrote
>The policy of writing down to zero over five years is wrong.
>Net realisable value is the same as cost less "correct provision".
>The provision they are making is arbitary and illogical.
>
"Keith" wrote
Bollocks. 

Keith, can you tell us why you did *not* write down the value of the
"Bigshot microchips" to zero in your example earlier - like you did with the
butter?  [Seems very reasonable, but possibly at odds with your reply to
Peter here.]

And then explain why you *would* write down the value of the OP's tractor
parts to zero, just like the butter?

I don't think there was any thought in his comment. It was a tantrum.
This is shown by him lying low.

Err, pardon?
--
Keith                   replace nospam with ilf0rd
.