Providers of credit reports on construction companies?

I would not dare to assess the financial statements of large construction companies either.

I A. not any more than that and B. there is enough room to manipulate so that the customer - whether a financial statement expert or not - should simply adhere to it.

and then, after consulting with the boss, promised completion bonds and warranty bonds without any further ado.

To demand these two instruments. A healthy company has no reason to hesitate here, as it "almost as a formality" finds issuers for this. If one stammers solemnly with hollow arguments instead of providing the bonds, this basically already gives the customer the switch tension for their warning lights and the indication to remove this company from their list of marriage candidates.

I A. not at all and B. you can fiddle enough there so that the customer - whether a lot, a little, or not at all a financial statement expert - should simply stick to it.

OT: I find the German HGB still very conservative in terms of requirements and options. Usually, the company is presented worse than it actually is. Last year I switched to a group-affiliated company, so that accounting is done according to both HGB and IFRS. As someone familiar with HGB and tax law, it somehow makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Apart from the fact that I have no idea about IFRS, I always get the feeling that things are shaken, guessed, and gambled there.

I find the German HGB still very conservative regarding requirements and options. [...] I switched last year to a company belonging to a corporation, so accounting is done according to IFRS as well as HGB.

I have the feeling that especially German-American corporations always have one foot or the other in jail, because stock corporation law requires them to report the same business development fact in one country and to remain silent about it in the other (or vice versa). Both the shareholder himself and the legislator protecting him can perceive him both as a shareholder and as a securities holder; in addition or opposed to that, there is also the creditor's trust in the substance value of the capital. If Schrödinger’s cat is called Pandora, her box is made of porcelain (especially for shareholders this means praying that the velvet gloves are rough enough at the same time to have enough grip). Unfortunately, practitioners have been and still are nearly none of the political decision-makers.

That's why you prepare multiple financial statements: HGB, tax law, IFRS, and USGAAP. Everything is correct, yet different results come out. I once had an interesting conversation with someone who managed fixed assets in a joint project of an American and a European parent company. They were each proportionally included in the consolidated financial statements of the parent companies and treated the fixed assets completely differently in IFRS and USGAAP, depending on the preferences of the parent companies, alongside the regular German HGB approach. I admire the medium-sized company for that; there you only have to manage the balancing act between HGB and tax law.

That’s why you prepare several financial statements: HGB, tax law, IFRS, and USGAAP. [...] I appreciate the medium-sized company; there you only have to manage the balancing act between HGB and tax law.

I understand the medium-sized company that, thanks to Brexit, is going offshore right on its doorstep.