Snags with new accounting rules #2: Comparisons become trickier
Despite some laudable aims, the introduction of a new accounting standard has the potential to cause investors a fair amount of confusion as accounts become harder to compare across timeframe and geography
In Snags with new accounting rules #1, we highlighted the latest International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) – number 16 – which was introduced at the beginning of January and sets out “to report information that (a) faithfully represents lease transactions and (b) provides a basis for users of financial statements to assess the amount, timing and uncertainty of cashflows arising from leases”.
While undeniably a most laudable aim, we suggested there is now the potential for a fair amount of confusion among those investors who choose to scrutinise company accounts – first, as we saw, in relation to how businesses are choosing to interpret IFRS 16; and second, as we will now cover, with regard to making proper comparisons between the accounting environments before and after the rule’s introduction.
Snag #2 - comparing businesses is trickier
Obviously this should prove a more short-term issue but IFRS 16 does have the effect of shifting where certain costs sit in different lines of a business’s accounts – for example, the cost of a lease is now split between a company’s operating costs and its interest payments.
This is particularly important to understand if you are looking at businesses on the basis of their free cashflow.
For example, you might see a boost in the business’s free cashflow and, if so, you should understand this may have nothing to do with the company performing better.
Rather, it has everything to do with a rule change that has removed 'lease costs' from the 'operating' section of the cashflow statement (which is part of free cashflow) and moved them to the 'financing' section. The financing section is not part of the free cashflow, given it handles movements in debts.
Before or after the rule changes?
Also, at present, when companies are giving guidance about their expected financial performance, it is often not clear whether they relate to before or after the rule changes.
Human and corporate nature being what it is, though, if it is after the rule changes, businesses tend to draw a lot more attention to any extra ‘debt’ going onto their balance sheets than to how any profit or cashflow guidance may be enjoying an artificial boost from the changes in the numbers.
Operating profits may also be boosted because a portion of the old operating lease charge is now allocated to interest instead.
The US is changing methods too - just differently
Just to introduce one more wrinkle to an area that is hardly short of complexity, the powers that be in the US are pursuing a similar aim of better reflecting operating leases in company balance sheets – just slightly differently.
That is because they have decided to leave unchanged how this is reflected in a business’s cashflow and profit & loss numbers.
Reasons for the US approach include avoiding the artificial precision of IFRS 16, whereby the lease charge is allocated between depreciation and interest – not to mention the potential for companies to game that aspect – and to retain a historic link with previous sets of accounts.
Arguably this makes for a better outcome but it does mean IFRS accounts are now difficult to compare not only with the past but also across geographies.
As such, investors do need to be aware of the potential for confusion in the short term and indeed the potential for misunderstanding over the longer term.
Fund Manager, Equity Value
I joined Schroders as a graduate in 2005 and have spent most of my time in the business as part of the UK equities team. Between 2006 and 2010 I was a research analyst responsible for producing investment research on companies in the UK construction, business services and telecoms sectors. In mid 2010 I joined Kevin Murphy and Nick Kirrage on the UK value team.
The views and opinions displayed are those of Nick Kirrage, Andrew Lyddon, Kevin Murphy, Andrew Williams, Andrew Evans, Simon Adler, Juan Torres Rodriguez, Liam Nunn, Vera German and Roberta Barr, members of the Schroder Global Value Equity Team (the Value Perspective Team), and other independent commentators where stated.
They do not necessarily represent views expressed or reflected in other Schroders' communications, strategies or funds. The Team has expressed its own views and opinions on this website and these may change.
This article is intended to be for information purposes only and it is not intended as promotional material in any respect. Reliance should not be placed on the views and information on the website when taking individual investment and/or strategic decisions. Nothing in this article should be construed as advice. The sectors/securities shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be considered a recommendation to buy/sell.
Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amounts originally invested.