There has been a recent welcome increase in publications relating to improving fisheries stock assessment practices. Fortunately, this is in the form of describing ‘good’ practices rather than ‘best’ practices, as the latter would seem to suggest that further improvement is not needed (or possible). Much of this good advice stems from the northern hemisphere. Legislative requirements in the USA and the European Community (ICES) tends to mean that funding and personnel are less constrained than is typical in jurisdictions where cost-recovery is the norm (eg Australia and New Zealand). Within stock assessments, the aspirational goals of transparency, repeatability, and hence defensibility, can all be affected in a cost-constrained working environment. Accepting that this is the reality we can expect to operate within, this current work describes the nature of at least some of the potentially negative effects and suggests some strategies for mitigating their influence.