Thursday, December 28, 2017

PPE: Relevance and Representational Faithfulness of Financial Reporting

Scope

For the purpose of the analysis of Property, Plant and equipment (PPE), AP Eagers Limited and the group (hereinafter referred as Company) general purpose financial statements for the financial year 2016 has been selected. The financial reporting practice of PPE is critically analysed with reference to the AASB 116 Property, Plant and Equipment, AASB 13 Fair Value Measurement, Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements (hereinafter referred to as Framework) and drawn inferences from the extant literature.


Background

The core business of the Company is retailing of branded automotive in Australia through ownership and dealership. These dealerships are strategically clustered and operated in the properties owned and leased by the Company throughout the country. The property accounts for 84% of total PPE and 17% of total assets, and therefore could be considered as a material account balance for the financial statement.

PPE Measurement

Land and building (property) are valued at fair value and other PPE are assessed at cost. The Company policy is to state property at fair value as per the assessment by directors which is supported by independent valuer’s periodic valuation. For the year 2016, the property valuation was made by the directors based on their assessment on market conditions and the knowledge of the Company on market and its activities. According to the general principle of AASB 13 on Fair Value para 67, the entity shall use observable inputs and minimise the use of unobservable inputs. However, the Company has used unobservable inputs where it falls under level 3 in the fair value hierarchy. Level 3 inputs are subjective and biased, thus renders higher risk.  To address this risk AASB 13 requires more disclosure than other 2 levels (Edgerton, 2016).

Relevance and faithful representation

The relevance and faithful representation are the fundamental characteristics of financial information[1]. It is however questionable whether the PPE of the Company could be compared with other retail listed companies in ASX as most of the entities use historical cost in their valuation (Edgerton, 2016). Notwithstanding to the fact that the Company measures property under revaluation model, it could enhance the relevance of the information published in the general purpose financial statements, the reliability qualitative characteristic has been compromised due to the estimates and the biasness in the revaluation model. On the other hand the Company reports its other assets, such as leasehold improvements, plant and equipment and motor vehicles, under cost model, which enhance the reliability characteristics and undermine the quality of relevance.
According to Framework faithful representation has 3 fundamental sub-qualitative characteristics as completeness, neutrality and free from error. When the Company elect to follow the revelation model for property, the valuation is subject to biasness. As per the Framework suggests that if an unobservable price is used (like fair value of Property reported at level 3 in this case) the amount should be explained precisely as being an estimate, the nature and limitations of the estimating process should also be stated for the information to be faithful (AASB, 2016). We noted that there is less information being presented on how the directors obtained the Key information inputs.

The Australian economy is still experiencing the property boom. In this context, the option of recording land at fair value will undoubtable result in revaluation gain. Further, reporting land at fair value will not impact on the profit or loss as land is not a depreciable asset. Therefore, it is questionable whether the attempt to revalue only property, which is subject to constant rise in price, and recording the other assets at cost, which in otherwise could have resulted in revaluation loss under fair value model, lead to faithful representation of information. It could be perceived as an attempt to inflate the balance sheet. Many critiques argue that the fair value accounting led the financial crisis by increasing the pro-cyclicality[2] of the financial system (Palea, 2014; Menicucci & Paolucci, 2016; Majercakova & Skoda, 2015).

The previous literature suggests that corporate relying on high debt tend to follow fair value model for PPE (Barlev, Fried, Haddad, & Livnat, 2007; Cotter & Zimmer, 1995; Barać & Šodan, 2011; Iatridis & Kilirgiotis, 2011; Brown, Izan, & Loh, 1992), especially for land (Guo, 1995). Having the same conviction, it could be argued that the Company has a higher propensity to revalue property as it experience a high total debt to equity ratio[3] of 1.01. Thus, it is questionable whether the motive of revaluation is to enhance the faithful representation of the of the Company’s affairs or to show an image that the management purported depict.

Conclusion

It could be concluded that the by electing to follow the revaluation model for property the relevance of the information could be enhanced at the expense of compromising the reliability. On the other hand the motive of the management for revaluing only property could be questioned in the context of rising property prices and not having a depreciation impact on the balance sheet. This could lead to impair the faithful representation of financial information.



References

AASB. (2016). Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements. Victoria: The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB).
AASB. (2015). Fair Value Measurement. Victoria: The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB).

AASB Australian Accounting Standards Board [Australian Government], (2009); [page 72] “Property, Plant and Equipment”; Australian Accounting Standards Board: Melbourne, Victoria.
AASB. (2014). Propoerty, plant and Equipment. Victoria: The Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB).
Aboody, D., Barth, M., & Kasznik, R. (1999). Revaluations of Þxed assets and future Þrm performance:Evidence from the UK. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 149-178.
2016 Annual Report. (2017). Brisbaine: A P Eagers Limited.
Barth, M. E., Clinch, G., 1996. International accounting differences and their relation to share prices, Evidence from U.K., Australian, and Canadian firms. Contemporary Accounting Research 13(1), 135-170.
Barać, Ž. A., & Šodan, S. (2011). Motives for asset revaluation policy choice in Croatia. Croatian Operational Research Review, 2.
Barlev, B., Fried, D., Haddad, J. R., & Livnat, J. (2007). Reevaluation of Revaluations: A Cross-Country Examination of the Motives and Effects on Future Performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 1025–1050.
Brown, P., Izan, H., & Loh, A. (1992). Fixed Asset Revaluations and Managerial Incentives. ABACUS, 28(1), 36-57.
Cotter, J., & Zimmer, I. (1995). Asset revaluations and assessment of borrowing capacity. ABACUS, 31(2), 136-151.
David Edgerton FCPA, (2016);[page 12] “Guide to valuation and depreciation for public and not for profit sectors under AASB accounting standards” ; Australia: CPA institute.
David Aboody, Mary E. Barth and Ron Kasnik, (1998);[page 13] “Revaluations of fixed assets and future firm performance” ; USA: University of California.
Edgerton, D. (2016). Guide to valuation and depreciation. Southbank: CPA Australia.
Frank Missioner Pieria, (2011);[page 124] “Motives for Fixed asset revaluation; and empirical analysis with Swiss data” ; France: ESSEC Business School.

Guo, M. (1995). The Economic Incentives and Consequences of Land Write-Ups. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 6(2), 115-129.
Henderson, S., & Goodwin, J. (1992). The case against asset revaluations. ABACUS, 75 -87.
Iatridis, G. E., & Kilirgiotis, G. (2011). Incentives for fixed asset revaluations: the UK evidence. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 13(1), 5-20.
Lopes, A. B. and Walker, M., (2012) “Asset revaluations, future firm performance and firm-level corporate governance arrangements: New evidence from Brazil”, The British Accounting Review, No. 44, pp. 5367
Lin, Y.C. and Peasnell, K.V., (2000), “Fixed Asset Revaluation and Equity Depletion in the UK”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, No. 27 (3) & (4), pp. 359-394
Majercakova, D., & Skoda, M. (2015). Fair value in financial statements after financial crisis. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 16(3), 312-332.
Menicucci, E., & Paolucci, G. (2016). Fair value accounting and the financial crisis: a literature-based analysis. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 14(1), 49-71.
Missonier-Piera, F. (2007). Motives for Fixed Asset Revaluation: An Empirical Analysis with Swiss Data. The International Journal of Accounting, 42(2), 186-205.
Palea, V. (2014). Fair value accounting and its usefulness to financial statement users. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 12(2), 102-116.





[1] According to Framework, for “financial information is to be useful, it must be relevant and faithfully represent what it purports to represent. The usefulness of financial information is enhanced if it is comparable, verifiable, timely and understandable.”  (AASB, 2016, p. 36). In this regard comparability is qualitative characteristics of usefulness.
[2] Pro-cyclicality refers to the ability to exaggerate financial or economic fluctuations (Majercakova & Skoda, 2015)
[3] The total debt to equity ratio is calculated by dividing borrowings from total equity. Other liabilities have been disregarded in the calculation. The total liabilities to total equity ratio is 1.3

No comments:

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Early Warning Signals of Corporate Collapse - Rats Desert the Sinking Ship

Rats desert the sinking ship is an old English proverb which is used to indicate that people start to bail out on a project or abandon co...