Jump to content

Talk:FCC Group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 28 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to FCC Group. As laid out in Wikipedia:Acronym (name) and suggested as an alternative as well. – robertsky (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas → FCC Group (Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas)

– * What do you think about transferring this page to FCC Group or FCC (Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas)?

Motive
  • This company is known as FCC Group in all media, even in several countries its registered trademark name is FCC or FCC Group and can lead to confusion that this page is called so, as I myself was looking for information about FCC and doubted if I was on the right page by name without adding the acronym, I would appreciate if you consider the transfer to a more appropriate name like FCC Group or FCC (Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas) which is how they are also known.

If I am not mistaken, right now Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas is an entity within the FCC Group, which manages, among other things, its corporate website, portal, etc. - View Trademark Registration

- In its own web site it indicates the history of the company and how it changed its name to FCC Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saranavas90 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct legal name of the company is FCC, S.A. At present FCC diverts to the US Federal Communications Commission. Happy to consider the views of other editors. Dormskirk (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the FCC Group might be the most appropriate, as it encompasses all the subsidiary companies. Thanks for your help, I am trying to get better day by day. Saranavas90 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most important issue is that of identifiability. "FCC" wins hands down on a Google search because FCC stands for so very many things, for example, in Nigeria: Federal Character Commission, in Canada: Farm Credit Canada. I am fairly sure that FCC Group is a terrible article name, but FCC Group (formerly Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas) would be acceptable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it makes more sense that way, so as not to lead to confusion. I would even leave it like this FCC Group (Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas), maybe it is not necessary to formerly, but well you have more experience in this, your decision will be more accurate. Are you in charge of the transfer? Saranavas90 (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed per Pppery, move instead to FCC Group which is more WP:CONCISE and an apparent WP:NATURALDAB, but if disambiguation is needed, then FCC Group/FCC; with (Spain)/(Spanish company) as the disambiguator or FCC, S.A. per WP:NCCORP. The parenthesis should be a disambiguator per WP:NCDAB and the outcome of Wikipedia:Acronym (name). Seems unlikely that its name is FCC Group (Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas) entirely, instead it is just "FCC Group", which is free to use. DankJae 15:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a DankJae. In my opinion the most appropriate would also be "FCC Group" adding the disambiguation if necessary. It is as they have it in the wikipedia in Spanish.
    Saranavas90 (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FCC Group. FCC Group (Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas) is not how we generally structures titles on Wikipedia and is unnecessary in any case since none of the other FCCs have this title (which is used in reliable sources). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operating profit

[edit]

It appears that for internal accounting purposes FCC uses a measure of operating profit which ignores depreciation and amortisation and which it refers to as "gross operating profit". This measure generated a result of €1,311.4 million for the year ended 31 December 2022. However the method used by FCC fails to comply with Financial Reporting Standard 102 which says in respect of operating profit "Similarly, it would be inappropriate to exclude items on the grounds that they do not involve cash flows, such as depreciation and amortisation expenses". See here. The audited financial statements quite correctly comply with FRS 102 and disclose a reduced amount for operating profit of £610.5 million, which takes into account depreciation and amortisation expenses (see Annual Report page 274). I have therefore shown £610.5 million (per the audited financial statements) in the infobox. Dormskirk (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, it appears that for internal accounting purposes FCC uses a measure of operating profit which ignores depreciation and amortisation and which it refers to as "gross operating profit". This generated a result of €1,529.6 million for the year ended 31 December 2023. As already explained above this fails to comply with Financial Reporting Standard 102. The audited financial statements quite correctly comply with FRS 102 and disclose a reduced amount for operating profit of £910.3 million, which takes into account depreciation and amortisation expenses (see Annual Results page 16). I had therefore shown £910.3 million (per the audited financial statements) in the infobox on the "operating profit" line. Saranavas90, for some reason continues to insert the "gross operating profit", rather than the "operating profit" as defined by Financial Reporting Standards. Dormskirk (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I keep changing it because I am not an economist, nor do I know if they take into account their depreciation and amortization expenses. I simply try to help to improve this page by adding data that I could see in the news (https://www.europapress.es/economia/noticia-fcc-dispara-87-beneficio-2023-591-millones-euros-impulsado-negocio-cemento-20240229185744.html) and that I corroborated both in their web page and in the CNMV web page ( https://www.cnmv.es/portal/otra-informacion-relevante/resultado-oir.aspx?nif=A-28037224&lang=en ) I am not an expert in economics to know if they take into account some things or others, I publish the data that I see, Net Profit and Gross Profit. I am no one to say if those data published in all the news and they are the same are correct or incorrect. Saranavas90 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not take depreciation into account in its announcements in clear breach of Financial Reporting Standard 102. However, it does make adjustments (to include depreciation) in its audited financial statements which is the only safe place to take the figures from. In fairness to the journslists, they are not appropriately qualified either and are just repeating the (non-compliant) figures published by the company. Dormskirk (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the audit that you mention, the data that I have put are shown, you are talking about other data (maybe translating them into English leads you to confusion). If the journalists are not qualified enough or not, I don't know, because I don't know them. If you do not trust what journalists publish you can check the official data in the CNMV that maybe they know a little more about this subject and are better qualified than journalists... https://www.cnmv.es/portal/otra-informacion-relevante/resultado-oir.aspx?nif=A-28037224&lang=en Saranavas90 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should always use the audited financial statements, rather than press releases issued by the company. Wikipedia uses the term "operating income". The Spanish for that is Resultado de Explotación. That appears in the consolidated income statement on page 16 as 910.251. Dormskirk (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Annual report for 2023 has now been published in English. See here. If you look at page 273 of the audited financial statements it quite clearly says OPERATING PROFIT / LOSS 910,251. Dormskirk (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
was already published when we had this discussion and it is the same as always, the data has not changed because they have published the document in English. Saranavas90 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say in your edit summary in relation to the audited financial statements (which are very clear on the matter) "The results they have modified are not correct". These are very serious allegations. What evidence do you have (other than press releases issued by the media department) for making these allegations? Dormskirk (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not accusing you of anything, I am simply making a modification because your data is wrong.
You are the one accusing that the data I am putting up (taken from FCC's own annual report and from several media outlets that have nothing to do with the company in question) are inflated and that they are not real figures.
And you tell me what evidence I have? Do you think the company's own report and the news from different newspapers are not enough? On the other hand, what proof do you have (apart from the fact that you yourself believe this to be the case when nowhere does it say so) to make these accusations? Saranavas90 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "my data" as you put it. It was the audited financial statements of the company that I used. You should always use the audited financial statements, rather than something a journalist has written based on press releases issued by the company. As Toddy1 has pointed out to you it is not reasonable to delete a citation to the most recently-published company accounts. Dormskirk (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You now seem to be citing page 423 of the annual report - this is part of the "management report" which includes a series of additional indicators. As made clear by the auditors, EY / Ernst & Young, on page 458, they "have audited the consolidated financial statements of Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas, S.A. (the parent) and its subsidiaries (the Group), which comprise the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2023, the consolidated income statement, the consolidated statement of recognised income and expense, the total statement of changes in the consolidated equity, the statement of consolidated cash flow, and the notes thereto, for the year then ended." So Page 423 does not form parted of the audited financial statements. I am citing page 273 which is the "consolidated income statement" which has been audited by EY / Ernst & Young. Dormskirk (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal in some countries (for example the U.K.) to prepare accounts that show the profit both (a) including and (b) excluding depreciation and amortisation. (b) is needed for tax purposes. (a) is needed to give a fair view of the company's finances. The infobox is meant to be a summary of the article. Nuances should be in the body of the article.

It is not reasonable to delete a citation to the most recently-published company accounts. Though since this is a primary source, citations to secondary sources are also of value. But please appreciate that comments by a non-expert journalist are probably only reliable as a source for what the journalist wrote WP:SELFSOURCE. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The revision as of 22:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC) has failed to match up the definitions in page 425 of the source to the definitions in the infobox template.

  • "Operating income" in the infobox template wikilinks to earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT).
  • "Net income" in the infobox template wikilinks to net income (an entity's income minus cost of goods sold, expenses, depreciation and amortization, interest, and taxes for an accounting period).

But the edit placed the "Gross Operating Profit (EBITDA)" from page 425 against "Operating income", which is wrong, and placed "Net Operating Profit (EBIT)" against "Net income", which is also wrong.

What it should have done was to place the "Net Operating Profit (EBIT)" [910.3] in the "Operating income" field, and "Net Income" [744.8] in the "Net income" field.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that on page 425 it says that the Net Income was 477.9 in 2022, and 744.8 in 2023 - so it decreased, not increased.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FCC_Group&oldid=1236513110"