The Examiner's Answers – F2 - Financial Management Sept 2011

The Examiner's Answers – F2 - Financial Management Some of the answers that follow are fuller and more comprehensive than would be expected from a well-prepared candidate. They have been written in this way to aid teaching, study and revision for tutors and candidates alike.

SECTION A Answer to Question One (i) Goodwill on acquisition (calculated at date control gained – on I July 2010) $000 Consideration transferred for 60% of shares Non-controlling interest at fair value at 1 July 2010 Less fair value of net assets acquired: Share capital Retained earnings Goodwill arising

1,000 2,760

$000 3,250 1,960

(3,760) 1,450

(ii) Group retained earnings

Retained earnings of SD at 30 June 2011 60% x RE of KL from acquisition to 1 March 2011 60% x [($3,400,000 - $2,760,000) x 8/12] 80% x ($640,000 x 4/12) Adjustment to parent’s equity (W1) Group share of unrealised profit on inventories transferred 80% x (40% x $750,000 x 25/125)

$000 9,400 256 171 66 (48) 9,845

(iii) Non-controlling interests

On acquisition Share of post-acquisition profits to 1 March 2011 40% x [($3,400,000 - $2,760,000) x 8/12)] NCI value at disposal date Disposal of 20% of 40% holding Share of profit for last 4 months 20% x ($640,000 x 4/12) Less NCI share of unrealised profit on inventories 20% x (40% x $750,000 x 25/125) NCI at reporting date

Financial Management

1

$000 1,960 171 2,131 (1,066) 1,066 43 (12) 1,096

September 2011

Working 1 Adjustment to parents’ equity Value of NCI transferred to SD (20%/40%) Consideration paid by SD Adjustment to parent’s equity (credit to RE)

$000 1,066 1,000 66

Answer to Question Two

(a) Financial instruments (i)

Available for sale (AFS) Investment initially recorded at fair value plus transactions costs: Dr AFS Investment (40,000 shares x $2.68) £107,200 Cr Bank $107,200 Being initial recognition of AFS asset Dr AFS Investment £5,360 Cr Bank $5,360 Being 5% commission paid on purchase The investment is subsequently measured at the fair value of the shares with the gain or loss calculated as fair value of the investment less its carrying amount.

This is a valuation exercise, not a transaction, so there is no need to account for commission when calculating the year end valuation [(40,000 x $2.96) $112,560].

Dr

AFS Investment Cr Equity – other reserves Being subsequent measurement of AFS asset (ii)

£5,840 $5,840

In accordance with IAS 39, all derivative contracts are classified as fair value through profit and loss, therefore any gain or loss in the value of the derivative contract is taken directly to the income statement. Gains or losses on available for sale investments are normally recorded through other comprehensive income. However, as hedge accounting can be applied (because it has been designated as a hedge) then the gain/loss on both the investment (hedged item) and the derivative contract (hedging instrument) can be offset within the income statement. Hedge accounting (for this fair value hedge) ensures that the gain/loss on the AFS investment is taken to profit or loss and matched against the gain/loss on the hedging instrument.

(b) Share-based payment Year ended 31 July 2010 (500-20-50) x 1,000 x $1.30 = $559,000 over 4 years Charge for the year = $559,000/4 = $139,750 Year ended 31 July 2011 (500-20-18-30) x 1,000 x $1.30 = $561,600 Recognisable to date = $561,600 x 2/4 = $280,800 Charge for year ended 31 July 2011= $280,800 - $139,750 = $141,050 Charge for the year ended 31 July 2011 of $141,050 will be recorded as: Dr Income statement – staff costs $141,050 Cr Other reserves (equity) $141,050 Being the charge for share-based payment for the year ended 31 July 2011

September 2011

2

Financial Management

Answer to Question Three

(a) Pressures to extend financial reporting to include voluntary disclosures on environmental policies, impacts and practices.

The overall objective of financial statements is to provide information to users that is useful in helping them make economic decisions. This is particularly important for existing and potential investors who need to make decisions about whether or not to invest in the entity.

However, financial statements are by their nature backward-looking, based primarily on historical information and are therefore limited in their usefulness for decision-making. This has led to general pressure by the markets and investors for entities to provide additional information to that contained in the financial statements. Disclosures on matters such as human and intellectual capital and environmental issues are increasingly being provided on a voluntary basis.

Many investors nowadays have sophisticated needs when it comes to assessing their investments. Whilst financial returns are very important, many investors want to invest in and support entities that have good social and environmental practices and are considered to be good corporate citizens. Financial statements do not traditionally provide the necessary information for such investors to assess entities’ social and environmental policies.

There has also been a marked interest generally over the last 10 to 20 years in the environment, with numerous pressure groups pushing for greater corporate responsibility on environmental issues. The activities of corporate entities often have a direct impact on the environment and investors want to know details of that impact and the policies that entities are adopting to address it if required.

These issues are among the most common that have resulted in increasing pressures for financial reporting to be extended and for voluntary narrative disclosures to be encouraged.

(b) Advantages and disadvantages to SRT If SRT were to provide environmental disclosures, there would clearly be a benefit to investors in terms of the additional information, which ultimately should help to keep the share price stable or indeed improve it. The advantages and disadvantages to SRT of providing such disclosures centre around the impact on investors and the share price.

There is no IAS or detailed guidance giving SRT the freedom to interpret what to include in such a report. The downside of this is that it is likely to be judged by investors by what its competitors are producing – if their reports are more comprehensive there may be pressure on SRT to provide more information or some investors may think by omitting disclosures that SRT has something to hide and hence the share price could fall.

The report could be used to promote any particularly positive policies or practices that SRT has developed or adopted. This may attract new investors to the entity who are particularly interested in good environmental practices. Also if SRT has a good track record on limiting environmental impact then it would be good for its reputation. The potential drawback would be if there was something negative to report in the future as there would be pressure to maintain the level of detail contained in the voluntary disclosures.

The information provided will have a cost of production and once it is produced it will be expected by users in the future, although there will be no additional costs of regulation as these statements are not audited.

Financial Management

3

September 2011

Answer to Question Four

(a)

Recognition of inventories

The economic substance of the arrangement is determined by analysing which party holds the significant risks and benefits of ownership of the vehicles.

Factors indicating that the risks and benefits of ownership are with OVS: • •

OVS is responsible for insuring the vehicles whilst at their premises.

OVS is able to use the vehicles for demonstration purposes and to move them between sites freely. However, this is slightly mitigated by the fact that there is a mileage limit (see later).

Factors indicating that the risks and benefits of ownership are with GH: • • •

OVS is free to return any vehicle free of charge within six months. This means that the most significant risk of obsolescence rests with GH. GH, by setting a mileage limit, is still effectively in control of the vehicles.

Legal title remains with GH, hence should a dispute arise GH should be able to recover the vehicles.

OVS does hold some of the risks and rewards of ownership associated with the vehicles, however, the significant risk of obsolescence is held by GH. OVS can return the vehicles at any time without penalty and, as noted above, would indicate that the risk of obsolescence is in fact with GH. As this is seen as the most significant risk, GH should continue to recognise the goods within its inventories.

(b)

Historical cost accounting

In times of increasing prices, historical cost accounting shows the following defects: Revenues are stated at current values but are matched with costs incurred at an earlier date and therefore a reduced price. As a result, reported profits are overstated.

Current values of property, plant and equipment may be significantly higher than the carrying value (depreciated historic cost, if the cost model of IAS 16 is adopted). This will not only affect the statement of financial position but will impact profits via the depreciation charge.

The depreciation charge based on the historic cost may be an unrealistic estimate of the consumption of the asset and again being artificially low will result in overstated profits.

Overstatement or understatement of profit can affect performance ratios that OVS is likely to be relying on in its assessment of RT, including return on capital employed, and profitability ratios.

September 2011

4

Financial Management

Answer to Question Five Limitations of same sector comparison The accounting policies that an entity selects can impact on ratios. For example an entity that revalues PPE will have higher depreciation charges than an entity that doesn’t revalue, which will reduce the gross profit margin and lower the ROCE. Although IFRS is committed to reducing the alternative treatments, there is still an element of choice in, for example, measurement of PPE and accounting for joint ventures.

Entities could be operating at different ends of the sector – low price/high volume versus luxury items with high sales prices. This means that their profit margins are not likely to be comparable.

Many entities are classified as being in the same sector but some might have a range of activities within the business eg supermarkets now operate in food, retail clothing, and financial services – and are likely to have quite different margins.

The size of the entity could impact the margins. Larger entities may be benefiting from economies of scale which will improve profit margins.

The classification of costs such as depreciation between cost of sales and administrative costs could impact gross profit margins.

Business decisions like whether to lease PPE under operating or finance leases may reduce the comparability of two similar entities. The capital element of a finance lease would be included in the capital employed in the business, therefore reducing the ROCE, whereas an entity that leases equipment using operating lease will only have an expense included in the profit or loss but nothing in the SOFP. The age of the business could impact on the P/E ratio, which is often an indication of how risky the market feels the entity is. A new entity with a minimum track record may have a lower P/E ratio than an established entity, regardless of the fact their activities and other ratios are similar.

P/E ratios are also often impacted by factors outside of the control of the entity eg factors influencing the market generally or macro-economic factors such as interest rate changes.

This may reduce comparability as some entities will be impacted more than others.

Limitations of international comparisons Preparing financial statements using different accounting standards is likely to have an impact on the financial ratios. Different measurement rules for major elements like PPE, inventories and provisions are likely to impact on profit margins and ROCE. In addition, differences in the tax regimes that entities are subject to would affect the comparison of the profit margin.

The entities being compared may also be operating in different economic environments with different cultural pressures – minimum wage, quotas or local taxes on goods shipped in or out of the country. This will affect the margins and in turn may reduce the ROCE. Entities being compared may be listed on stock markets with quite different levels of liquidity.

A small more illiquid market may have lower share prices as there is less activity in the market. This will in turn affect the P/E ratio reducing comparability between it and an entity listed on another market.

Financial Management

5

September 2011

SECTION B

Answer to Question Six Consolidated statement of cash flows for AB Group for the year ended 30 June 2011.

Cash flows from operating activities Profit before tax Add back non-operating and non-cash items: Depreciation Goodwill impairment (W1) Share of profit of associate Investment income Finance costs Changes in working capital: Decrease in inventories (W2) Decrease in receivables (W2) Decrease in payables(W2) Cash inflow from operating activities Less interest paid Less tax paid (W3) Net cash inflow from operating activities

$000 6,290

$000

3,100 570 (1,500) (320) 1,350 4,800 200 (2,300) 12,190 (1,350) (2,650) 8,190

Cash flows from investing activities Acquisition of property, plant and equipment (W4) Acquisition of subsidiary, net of cash acquired (500 – 200) Investment income received on HTM asset Dividend received from associate (W5) Cash outflow from investing activities

(5,950) (300) 120 620

Cash flows from financing activities Proceeds of share issue (W6) Dividend paid to shareholders of parent (W7) Dividend paid to non-controlling interest (W8) Repayment of long term borrowings (53,400 – 41,100) Cash outflow from financing activities

10,450 (2,130) (800) (12,300)

Net outflow of cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents at 1 July 2010 Cash and cash equivalents at 30 June 2011

(5,510)

(4,780) (2,100) 12,300 10,200

Workings 1. Goodwill $000 7,200 1,370 8,570 (570) 8,000

Opening balance Arising on acquisition (see below) Impairment (balancing figure) Closing balance Goodwill on acquisition Consideration transferred (1m x $3.95) + Cash $500,000 Non-controlling interest (30% x $4,400,000) Less fair value of net assets acquired Goodwill arising

September 2011

6

$000 4,450 1,320 (4,400) 1,370

Financial Management

2. Changes in WC

Opening balance On acquisition Movement (balancing figure) Closing balance

Inventories $000 36,000 3,600 39,600 (4,800) 34,800

Receivables $000 26,400 2,000 28,400 (200) 28,200

Payables $000 30,600 3,800 34,400 (2,300) 32,100

$000 (2,700 + 600)

$000 3,300 1,800 250 5,350 (2,650) 2,700

3. Tax paid Opening balance Tax on profit Tax on OCI Movement (balancing figure) Closing balance

(1,800 + 900)

4. Acquisition of PPE $000 44,400 2,400 46,800 1,450 (3,100) 45,150 5,950 51,100

Opening net book value On acquisition Revaluation Depreciation Additions (balancing figure) Closing balance 5. Dividend received from associate Opening balance Share of associate’s profit Share of OCI of associate Dividend received from associate (balancing figure) Closing balance

$000 23,400 1,500 120 25,020 620 24,400

6. Proceeds of share issue $000 30,000 3,950 33,950 10,450 44,400

Opening balance Issued on acquisition Issue for cash (balancing figure) Closing balance ($36m + $8.4m) 7. Dividends paid to shareholders of parent Opening balance Profit for year attributable to equity holders Dividend paid (balancing figure) Closing balance

Financial Management

7

$000 20,100 3,880 23,980 2,130 21,850

September 2011

8. Dividend paid to non-controlling interest Opening balance NCI On acquisition (see W1) NCI share of TCI for year Dividend paid to NCI (balancing figure) Closing balance NCI

$000 18,300 1,320 680 20,300 (800) 19,500

Tutorial note Revaluation reserve breakdown Revaluation in the year Less deferred tax arising on revaluation gain Share of associate’s revaluation gains NCI share of subs OCI

September 2011

8

$000 1,450 (250) 120 (70) 1,250

Financial Management

Answer to Question Seven Report to supervisor Re LKJ for year ended 30 April 2011 Financial performance We are aware the LKJ has expanded recently which has had a positive impact on revenue with an increase of 30% since last year. We know that as a result of the expansion a new range of products were launched on 1 October, hence we have not as yet seen a full year’s impact. However, it would appear that this significant improvement in revenues has been at the expense of profitability as gross margins have actually fallen from 25.6% to 21.7%. The strategic move to cheaper products targeting the lower-priced market is likely to be one of the main reasons for this decline in margin. Another reason may be that LKJ has reduced the sales prices of the new products in order to undercut competitors and gain market share.

The directors have, however been pro-active in addressing overheads and as a result the operating profit margin has reduced by 1% to 6.5%. Within this, there has been a significant reduction in administrative expenses from the outsourcing of payroll. Administrative expenses have fallen from 8.0% to 4.3% of revenue which is a significant improvement.

There has been an increase in distribution costs, but this is likely to be from supplying new customers as a result of the expansion. The control of overheads and the pro-active nature of the directors in this respect suggest good management.

The investment in associate has generated a good return for LKJ and as a result the net profit margin has increased from 4.1% to 6.1%.

The interest cover has fallen from 25.2 to 12.5 as a result of a significant increase in finance costs from $6 million to $20 million. The additional finance costs have arisen because of the change in the entity’s financial structure. LKJ has moved from having a positive cash balance of $144 million to an overdraft of $58 million plus an increase of $140 million in long-term borrowings.

ROCE has suffered a significant decrease from 13.6% to 12.0% due mainly to the increased borrowings and the revaluation of non-current assets. The profit has increased slightly but perhaps the returns from the investments in PPE and inventories are still to come. It appears from the statement of financial position as if the cash has been utilised for the expansion.

There has been an increase in property, plant and equipment, albeit some of this increase is likely to be from the revaluation in the year. It is likely that cash has also been used to invest in inventories which have more than doubled in the period. The increase in inventories could be in line with the expansion strategy by holding greater amounts of the new products to meet increased future demand. However the inventories days have increased from 32 days to 51 days and hence, LKJ is tying up valuable working capital resources. LKJ must ensure that the more expensive original products are not held at an overstated value as a new cheaper alternative may render them obsolete.

The directors of LKJ appear to have made a sound investment in the associate as it has generated good returns in the period. It is unusual that they have chosen to make such a large investment in the same period as implementing an expansion strategy, unless the associated entity is involved in the supply chain of the new product and LKJ wanted to be able to exercise influence over it.

The receivables days have increased from 47 to 65 days. This would normally suggest poor working capital management, however given that the directors have actively sought to control costs (outsourcing the payroll requirement) it is less likely that they have failed to control receivables while being short of cash. It could be that the new customer base has been offered more advantageous credit terms in order to increase customers and market share. It

Financial Management

9

September 2011

would still be a recommendation to review these terms to ensure that LKJ are offering something that it can actually afford to offer.

The current and quick ratios have both been affected by the reduction in cash but the increase in inventories has softened the impact on the current ratio. Both ratios still indicate adequate cover, but the fact remains that LKJ are in need of immediate funds.

The increased borrowings have resulted in gearing more than doubling, however a gearing ratio of less than 20% would not normally be a concern and since there is still reasonable interest cover, the entity should still be able to afford to repay the interest on any new finance.

One point to note is that the revaluation of PPE is a continuation of an existing policy rather than a deliberate attempt to boost capital employed and improve gearing.

A positive sign is that LKJ has approached us for long-term funding rather than compromising its position with suppliers by increasing payment period, which again indicates that the directors understand that an expansion will need to be funded by longer term borrowings.

The payable days has increased only slightly from 31 to 35 days. In addition, the bonus issue in lieu of paying a dividend is a smart move. The entity cannot afford to pay a dividend but has significant retained earnings. The issue will still show shareholders that the directors are continuing to focus on meeting shareholder expectations.

LKJ appears to be a well-managed organisation in the process of expansion and I would recommend that the borrowing is considered further.

September 2011

10

Financial Management

Appendix A All workings in $m

Gross profit margin (GP/Revenue x 100)

2011

2010

572/2,630 x 100% = 21.7%

517/2,022 x 100% = 25.6%

(572 – 114 – 288)/2,630 x 100% = 6.5%

(517 – 163 – 203)/2,022 x 100% = 7.5%

160/2,630 x 100% 6.1%

82/2,022 x 100% 4.1%

(230 + 20)/20 = 12.5 times

(145 + 6)/6 = 25.2 times

170/(1,295 + 200 + 58 140) x 100% = 12.0%

151/(1,047 + 60) x 100% = 13.6%

Inventories Inventories / cost of sales x 365

290/2,058 x 365 days = 51 days

130/1,505 x 365 days = 32 days

Payables Payables/cost of sales x 365

199/2,058 x 365 days = 35 days

128/1,505 x 365 days = 31 days

Receivables Receivables /revenue x 365

468/2,630 x 365 days = 65 days

263/2,022 x 365 days = 47 days

Current ratio Current asset/current liabilities

758/257 = 2.9

537/128 = 4.2

Quick CA – liabilities

468/257 = 1.8

407/128 = 3.2

2,630/554 = 4.7

2,022/418 = 4.8

2,630/(1,752 – 140 – 300) = 2.0

2,022/(1,235 – 280) = 2.1

(58 + 200)/1,295 = 19.9%

60/1,047 = 5.7%

Operating profit (Profit before associate and finance costs/revenue x 100) Profit margin PFY/revenue x 100 Interest cover Operating profit/finance cost ROCE % Operating profit/capital employed

inventories/current

NCA turnover Revenue /PPE Total asset turnover Revenue / Total assets Gearing Debt/Equity

Financial Management

11

September 2011

Appendix B (i)

The bonus issue brings no additional resources into LKJ and therefore for comparative purposes we must treat the bonus issue as if it was in issue from the earliest date reported. The number of shares used in the EPS calculation for 2011 will be 300 million, effectively treating the bonus issue of shares as if had been in issue throughout the year. The 2010 comparative will also be restated as if the bonus issue had occurred at the start of 2010.

(ii) 2011

2010

Earnings

$160,000,000

$82,000,000

Share capital (inc bonus)

300,000,000

300,000,000

53.3 cents

27.3 cents

EPS

September 2011

12

Financial Management