Published on: 04 Apr 2013
A few years ago Blackberry used to be the phone of choice amongst business people but the emergence of Apple’s iPhone and various Android smartphones has resulted in sales of Blackberry phones plummeting.
Earlier this year Blackberry launched their new phone, the Z10 and this was seen to be a make or break situation for the company behind Blackberry. Before the launch of the Z10 their latest set of sales results showed a fall of 47% from a year earlier and the Z10 was hoped to stop the fall in sales.
By all accounts it’s a pretty good phone and some commentators are saying that it could even be a rival for the ubiquitous iPhone.
It seems to be doing well but yesterday news emerged of a potential flaw in the design that could lead to some embarrassing situations.
It’s a sophisticated phone and one option it has is to share details of what music you’re listening to with your contacts on your phone. This alone makes you realise how far Blackberry has moved from a pure business phone where its main use was phone calls and emails.
Now, music sharing isn’t the embarrassing bit. Not even if your music listening habits include Justin Bieber.
No, the embarrassing bit is that when the music sharing option on the new Blackberry is turned on it not only shares what music you’ve been listening to but also shares what videos you’ve been watching on your phone.
There have been reports of people being surprised at what videos their contacts have been watching on their phones with some of those videos being how can I say it but, um, adult only videos with content of an adult nature.
A lot of you reading this are qualified accountants or are studying finance so I’m sure that most videos you watch on your phone are about the latest International Financial Reporting Standards so you’ve got nothing to worry about.
Then again there are some people who would maybe argue that it’s more embarrassing to be caught watching Financial Reporting videos than watching videos of people getting friendly with each other.
Published on: 09 Mar 2011
IFRS 2 Share Based Payments has never been a popular accounting standard with many in the business community.
It’s also often unpopular with students, especially the deferred tax elements of it. This is despite the fact that share based payments often provide an opportunity for easy marks (we promise!)
The reason given for finance directors’ dislike of IFRS 2 is often that it involves subjective estimation of the value of share options and other equity-based compensation. This can be complicated and subjective.
Another reason why it’s unpopular might be that it involves stating the full truth of how much executives are actually being paid, including non-cash related rewards.
One person who is feeling the heat of this at the moment is Bob Diamond, who is CEO of Barclays Bank. The bank has just published its remuneration report and it’s predictably controversial.
In an environment where many people, fairly or unfairly, blame perceived greed of bankers for the global financial crisis, CEO remuneration of a salary of £250,000 and a cash performance bonus of £550,000 might be considered brave by many.
But this is only a part of the story.
Once the expected value of equity based remuneration is included, the total figure rises to a bonus of £6,500,000. In the days before IFRS 2, the total reported remuneration would have been less than £1 million. No wonder some directors look on the pre-IFRS 2 days as the good old days!
If a person had invested £100 in Barclays shares on 31.12.05, those shares would now be worth £53. This compares with a profit of 26% on FTSE shares in general over the same period. At a time when shareholders have taken these substantial losses, this type of remuneration is likely to upset investors. This possibly explains why the bank takes up 18 full pages to explain (or perhaps justify) its remuneration policy!
Published on: 03 Nov 2010
My copy of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” weighs in at 1,024 pages. That is a big book.
Some day, I will get beyond page 20.
Dostoyevski’s “Crime and Punishment” is 448 pages. I’m up to page 25 on that one.
According to a recent survey by Deloitte of UK listed companies, the size of IFRS accounts grew from an average size of 44 pages in 1996 to 101 pages in 2010. That’s an annual growth rate of 6%, with a 7% rate of growth in the years from 2005. The rate of growth itself appears to be growing.
So, just for fun, if you’re of a mathematical bent, and assuming that the rate of growth in volume in IFRS accounts continues at its current pace, answer this question:
How many years will it be before the page count in a set of IFRS accounts exceeds the page count for “War and Peace” and for “Crime and Punishment”? The answer is at the bottom of this item.
Within all this bulk (which Deloitte criticises as being “swimming in words”), there is some notably useful information, such as 90% of companies clearly identified an average of 7 key performance indicators, up from 84% in 2009.
4% of companies (2009: 7%) received a modified audit opinion relating to going concern.
Surprisingly, only 35% of companies fully complied with the UK’s Combined Code on corporate governance. That leaves a fair bit of explaining to do, on the “comply or explain” approach.
If you’re interested in the answer to the question of how many years will it be before the page count in a set of IFRS accounts exceeds the page count for “War and Peace” and for “Crime and Punishment” then IFRS accounts, at their current rate of paper busting growth, will be longer than “War and Peace” in 35 years and “Crime and Punishment” in a mere 22 years.
Published on: 25 Oct 2010
Its ownership structure is dominated by News Corporation, the transnational media conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose other ventures include numerous newspapers and Fox studios in the USA.
It’s fair to say that Rupert Murdoch is a controversial figure.
A review of the most recent financial statements shows that News Corporation presently owns approximately 39.1% of the shares of BSkyB. The next two largest shareholders own 5.02% and 3.01% of the votes in the company.
In other words, resisting the might of News Corporation to impose its will on BSkyB would require something more akin to a peasants’ revolt than a more standard company vote in the AGM.
IFRS 3 defines a subsidiary as an entity that is controlled by another entity.
Looking at the evidence, it would appear that the 39.1% ownership would be enough to give control of BSkyB to News Corporation, on grounds that it would be almost impossible to resist decisions favoured by such a dominant investor.
One such decision was appointing James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch as chairman of BSkyB. Lots of investors didn’t like this, but Murdoch took the helm of the company.
News Corporation produces its financial statements under US GAAP and has always consolidated BSkyB using the equity method, as an associate.
Under IFRS, it would have been arguable that full consolidation as a subsidiary would have presented a more true and fair view, as IFRS uses more principles based recognition of control than US GAAP.
However, a shock recently came to News Corporation, when it tried to increase its holding from 39.1% to a clearly controlling 61%.
The board of BSkyB refused to agree with the chairman that an offer of 700p per share should be accepted. The board defied its biggest investor and said that they would recommend refusal of any offer less than 800p. This appears to have come rather as a surprise to the dominant Murdoch family, who show signs of thinking of BSkyB as their fiefdom.
It’s just a nice example of when apparent control is not control and thus how to be cautious in deciding when to consolidate a company as a subsidiary, even if it generally does everything you tell it to. If there appears to be a chance of the other investors saying “enough” and refusing to give into your will, it’s not a subsidiary.
Published on: 18 Oct 2010
After a long wait and a fair bit of speculation, rumour and expectation, we accountants now know who the next chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board is going to be.
Now, this might not sound quite as exciting as we’d like to make it sound, but this really is very significant. When a new pope is elected, crowds throng the Vatican, there is black smoke, followed by white smoke and a general excitement and drama. Our own global leader was announced by a modest press release from Cannon Street in London (home to the IASB) with a type of modesty that may be typical of our profession.
The successor to Sir David Tweedie will be Hans Hoogervorst, with effect from 1 July 2011.
Mr Hoogervost is a Dutch national, with an interesting background in both academia, politics and business.
Between 1998 and 2007, he held a number of positions in the Dutch Government, including minister of finance, minister of health, welfare and sport, and secretary for social affairs. Prior to this, he served both as a member and senior policy advisor to the Dutch parliament and the ministry of finance. He also spent three years as a banking officer for the National Bank of Washington in Washington, DC.
Mr Hoogervorst holds a Masters degree in modern history (University of Amsterdam, 1981) and a Master of Arts degree in international relations (Johns Hopkins University school of advanced international relations, majoring in international economics and Latin American studies).
This is a varied profile of experience and one that is probably very suited to the man that will take IFRS to the next level of development with the (hopeful) convergence of IFRS and US GAAP. We think that considerable assertiveness and diplomacy will be required in that task!
Whoever takes over from David Tweedie has a considerable job on his hands. Under Tweedie’s leadership, IFRS has moved from peripheral relevance to near global domination. Standards, on the whole, have become much better. David Tweedie is a tough act to follow.
We wish Mr Hoogervorst every success. We are pleased that we have the best part of a year to learn how to pronounce his name properly.
Published on: 29 Sep 2010
Last week one of the top policemen in the UK admitted to getting discounted flights for his family by using air miles obtained on tax payer funded flights.
John Yates, who is the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (i.e. the Greater London Police), is entitled to fly business class on official trips abroad. This enables him to amass significant amounts of air miles which can then be used for free flights in the future.
With a nice corporate governance angle the rules of the Metropolitan Police say that these air miles must be used for future work related flights and not personal ones. In what he claimed was an oversight, Mr Yates however used these air miles for a number of personal flights.
I’m sure it was the last thing on Mr Yates mind but from the Airline’s point of view, the provision of air miles can involve big figures.
The IFRS Interpretation Committee (formerly known as IFRIC) didn’t make many friends when they wrote IFRIC 13: Loyalty Programmes.
Broadly, IFRIC 13 says that when you are given loyalty programme points by a business, they have to recognise a proportion of the total sale to you as a sale of loyalty points. In other words, they are buying your loyalty, rather than rewarding it.
This means that each sale has to be unbundled into two components – a sale of loyalty points at the value to the customer (which is likely to be very much higher than the cost of delivering the promised service) and the underlying sale itself.
As the loyalty points are used up or expire, the deferred revenue from loyalty points sold is recognised as revenue.
Previously, the accounting policy of most companies had been to recognise loyalty costs as a provision at the expected marginal cost of delivering the service.
This can be a fairly significant figure. By “fairly significant”, we naturally mean “completely massive”. Have a guess what the effect was on shareholders’ equity in the restated 2008 accounts of British Airways for implementation of IFRIC 13.
The answer is £206 million. Nope, that’s not a typo; getting towards a quarter of a billion British Pounds. Ouch.
We at ExP travel fairly a lot for work and we’ve noticed that airline loyalty programmes have become a little less generous of late. Maybe the new accounting rules are something to do with this?
IFRS 911: Accounting for environmental catastrophes? The BP oil spill illustrates a number of issues in IFRS. Here are just the first few we thought of..
Published on: 18 Jun 2010
The failure of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform has been a catastrophe for lots of people. Stakeholders ranging from individual fishermen through to major shareholders have all been severely impacted.
Being natural accountants though, we couldn’t help but think how this would affect the accounts, given that it may well inspire some future exam questions.
The most obvious effect is the impairment of the well itself. Only the hardware is currently recognised in assets, since the value of the reserves is too uncertain to be recognised as an asset. Rigs cost vast amounts of money however and this is a significant impairment.
Similar drilling arrangements will also require major safety upgrades. This would cause an impairment, but no provision, since BP could always simply close down a well.
Then there is goodwill. BP grew to its vast size by organic growth and by acquisition. This activity may well have been through an acquired subsidiary. This is pretty solid external evidence of an impairment and so goodwill must be written off. Lots of goodwill needs to be written off.
Fines are a near certainty. The White House has been careful to ensure that the world knows that the $20 billion payment to a trust to settle damages is not a full and final settlement. This means that an estimate of likely costs will need to be made and disclosed in a very transparent way. BP and BP’s lawyers would probably prefer to avoid that transparency of how much they think this is going to cost them.
A number of years ago, IAS 10 was amended to require that only dividends that were legally required to be paid could be shown as liabilities. Many people commented on how this was not true and fair, since it was unthinkable that large companies could ever change their minds about dividends that had already been proposed. Well, BP changes that a little, given that they have agreed to skip this year’s dividend to shareholders, in response to huge pressure from wider stakeholders such as affected communities and the President of the United States. It turns out that companies do sometimes change their minds about dividends before the cheques get sent out!
What about recoverability of insurance proceeds? That one is simple; BP did not have insurance we believe. Ouch. Dare we breathe the words “going concern”?
Published on: 19 May 2010
At the time of writing, a number of UK airports have had to close because of drifting volcanic ash. This, it seems, is likely to be an ongoing problem, especially for more northern European countries.
I have a flight booked in a couple of weeks’ time. I am innately cost conscious and so booked a non-refundable, non-changeable ticket.
Under the Framework definition of an asset and a liability, the airline has received my money and the only obligation that they have is to incur the marginal costs of flying me there, which are likely to be fairly small. Using the logic of the Framework therefore (and the probable logic of the new accounting standard on revenue recognition that is likely to come through in a couple of years’ time), they would be able to book revenue at the time that the sale was made.
Under the approach of the extant accounting standard IAS 18, however, revenue can only be recognised when the service is provided. This means that none of my cash is currently in the airline’s profit or loss.
That approach has always seemed excessively prudent to me, as the chances of having to refund the money to the customer has always seemed remote. I’ve long believed that IAS 18 is in need of replacement with something that focuses more accurately on assets and liabilities.
Mount Eyjafjallajokull has made me wonder whether perhaps holding all revenue in deferred revenue as a liability until it’s sure that it’s no longer a liability might not be such a bad idea after all….
Published on: 17 May 2010
The troubled US airline industry is going through a period of consolidation. Consolidation in the sense of companies getting together to reduce their fixed costs per transaction, not consolidation in the sense of producing group accounts.
This article, however, is about group accounts. The circumstances of the Continental/ United merger do make it look like it’s a voluntary merger and the stock market was conspicuously unsurprised at the news.
The problem is that IFRS 3 requires that for all new business combinations (a new business combination is one that doesn’t arise from a reconstruction of a pre-existing group), an acquirer and acquiree is identified. This company is then the parent. Often, a merger happens by a share-for-share exchange and the new parent chooses to change its name to a suitably “merged” sounding name. But as far as the rules are concerned, one must be the acquirer and the other the acquiree.
So a decision will need to be made about which company becomes the parent. It’s likely that this will be the company with the greater retained earnings. It’s also likely that formal merger will happen on the first day of the parent’s accounting period, so that a full year of “merged” profits is consolidated.
The group retained earnings of the new group will certainly be less than the sum of their individual parts, since the acquiree’s pre-acquisition profits will not be consolidated.
This may seem harsh if it’s truly a genuine merger, since the idea of pre-acquisition reserves should perhaps be restricted to where there’s a genuine acquisition. So why is this option not allowed? You can probably guess – it was subject to creative interpretation of what constituted a merger. The IASB stated that they believed genuine mergers would probably happen globally about once every five years.
Perhaps Continental/ United is one such genuine merger?
Published on: 04 Dec 2009
Graham Holt, the examiner for ACCA paper P2, has long stated that he wishes P2 to remain a “cutting edge” paper. This means that he is fond of testing new accounting standards, especially those that are controversial. We at ExP think that this is both appropriate and fair.
We’ve been asked by a number of people via the “ask the tutor” facility whether the new standard for financial instruments, IFRS 9 could be examined in the December 2009 exam. The answer is that IFRS 9 is definitely not within the scope of the P2 exam in December 2009, though it will be from June 2010.
HOWEVER, the controversy around some of the perceived weaknesses of IAS 39 would be within the syllabus for the December 2009 exam. This means that the new rules won’t be examined, but we can easily imagine a question that asks, say, if the number of different classifications within IAS 39 is excessively confusing and asking students to criticise whether people can really be expected to know all of IAS 39’s rather piecemeal rules. For example, the treatment of transaction costs is rather inconsistent within IAS 39 depending on the initial categorisation of an investment; so that the same investment in the same shares could be required to include transaction costs (if classified as available for sale) or require that those transaction costs are written off (if classified as held at fair value through profit or loss).
Similarly, some weaknesses in IAS 39 that could be “inspired” by the terms of IFRS 9 could be in there, such as whether it really gives a true and fair view to have gains and losses on available for sale financial assets shown initially through equity, yet dividends from those same investments shown in profit. Wouldn’t it be more sensible to have a uniform treatment for all gains and losses relating to that instrument (as IFRS 9 does).
So the full answer is a bit more complicated than the basic answer. The examiner can’t test IFRS 9 directly, but he could test it through the “back door” by asking for criticism of the previous rules.