Join The Corporate Reporting Users’ Forum
Join a network of investors and analysts engaged in debates about accounting, governance and regulatory issues.
As investment professionals, we typically build our models from the “bottom up” and so rely on management to provide the financial and non-financial metrics that will allow us to forecast financial performance for a segment and to compare the operational performance and valuation metrics of a given segment against similar entities.
To do this, the CRUF encourage management, where possible, to consider including the following lines in their segment disclosures, particularly where such information is available as management is already using them to assess segmental performance:
We would like to stress “through management’s eyes” metrics – both financial and non-financial, and those that are required by IFRS 8 and are incremental, are most useful if they are reconciled to the IFRS basis used in the group accounts.
Whilst the CRUF welcomes a “common sense” check on the number of segments separately identified so they are not unreasonably numerous, where practicable, we encourage management to use the “business model” as the “unit of account” when deciding on the primary segmental split so that reported segments do not contain very dissimilar business activities.
The CRUF strongly encourages management to provide a net debt reconciliation. A net debt reconciliation allows us to assess how business financing has changed over time. Without it, we are left struggling to understand the impact of FX movements arising on debt, the value of debt acquired or disposed of in business combinations, the impact of fair value and fair value hedge adjustments, whether the increase in cash balances can be explained by a commensurate increase in debt, and so on.
As “net debt” is not defined under IFRS, we would also encourage companies to make clear how they calculate the figure and reconciling each component, and for companies to remain consistent in that definition from year to year, where possible.
The economic downturn and continued strain on the availability of financing have resulted in an increased focus on cash and an entity’s ability to fund working capital requirements, refinance existing debt and secure new debt. What are management’s plans for servicing existing debt and are there any risks associated with this? For investors to feel more comfortable with an entity’s funding arrangements, the CRUF encourage companies to:
As the investment community is interested in the underlying economic flows of a business, we encourage companies to provide better disclosure of the effective interest rates that they face and the effective currency of debt obligations.
Whilst the talk on conference calls and in investor presentations may focus primarily on lines from the income statement, to understand the quality and sustainability of performance we need to be able to tie across the key lines of the primary statements.
Given that most analysts will use the operating line in the income statement in analytical models, the CRUF would encourage companies to help us to tie across the statements by starting the cash flow statement at an operating line.
We would also welcome more detailed descriptions of the adjustments made to derive operating cash flow so that they can be more easily related to items on the balance sheet (e.g. changes in significant components of working capital assets and liabilities, differences relating to various provisions such as pensions, asset retirement obligations, derivatives, etc.).
If possible, we would appreciate the capex line being split into maintenance, growth and acquisition spend. We would also welcome greater clarity about non cash transactions and how they affect the cash flow statement (e.g. new finance leases, non-cash contributions to pension trusts, non-cash consideration in a business combination). Summarizing these would provide a clearer context for the analysis of amounts that are reported as cash flows.
M&A activity is on the increase. Given the size and significance of many of these transactions, we encourage management to provide us with enough information to assess the value created through such activities. In the absence of some clear description of how value has been extracted from the significant sums invested in M&A, it is hard for investors to have confidence that the return on such investment is sufficient.
To do this, we would welcome: