cfa uk annual survey on financial reporting and analysis · pdf filecfa uk annual survey on...
TRANSCRIPT
CFA UK annual survey on Financial Reporting and Analysis The Financial Reporting and Analysis Committee devised a survey to investigate the
accounting concerns of the members of the CFA Society of the UK. The inaugural survey
was conducted between 25 March and 27 April 2015 and received a total of 292
responses.
Executive summary
Our survey sought CFA UK member views on a range of key reporting and accounting
matters. These covered the importance of the annual report and other forms of company
reporting, as well as perspectives on adjustments to IFRS numbers and issues with IFRS
accounts.
A persistent theme in the comments of participants was the “creep of seemingly
unproductive and irrelevant content” in annual reports. Most respondents indicate that
financial reports contain too much irrelevant information, yet suggest that at the same
time they omit important information. However, most agreed that the quality of financial
reporting hasimproved over the last 10 years.
The frequency of reporting has become an issue of debate with many (including, for
example John Kay in his Reviewof UK Equity Marketsand Long-Term Decision Making for
the Department of Business) arguing that quarterly reporting drives short-termism. Our
survey respondents were evenly split between those who favoured quarterly reporting and
those happy with just semi-annual with both options receiving 43% of the votes. The
remainder was split between those happy with just annual financial reports – making a
very slim majority overall favouring reporting less frequent than quarterly – and those at
the other end of the spectrum, who favoured increasing the reporting frequency to
monthly.
We asked participants what was their main source of financial information for analysing
companies and, contrary to frequent assertions that the annual report is irrelevant, the
statutory accounts were the most popular choice,at36%. Some respondents commented
that quarterly reports lack the level of detail seen inannual reports. However, at the same
time we received several comments that annual reports had “evolved into a corporate
brochure and regulatory box ticking exercise”. The area of the annual report that shows
greatest need for improvement is – by a considerable margin according to our respondents
–the disclosure of principal risks and uncertainties. Given that over 90% think this is a
useful disclosure this is clearly an area which deserves more attention from companies,
and perhaps also from regulators.
Non-GAAP reporting (also referred to as adjusted earnings measures, eg underlying or
recurring profits) remains a contentious issue. In our survey, 61% of respondents said
they use IFRS adjusted numbers in their analysis. However, only a third of respondents
say they that prefer non-IFRS measures over IFRS, with over half trusting the IFRS
numbers more. Some respondents commented that the management version of adjusted
earnings was useful “so long as the adjustments are disclosed”.One respondent noted that
even if the IFRS figures are subject to manipulation “seeing what management does to the
accounts through adjustments … is useful to see how transparent and honest they are”.
However, several respondents are not comfortable with management‟s adjusted figures
“because they tend to be inconsistent over time and across companies”. When asked to
consider which items should be excluded from IFRS figures to arrive at a measure of
underlying earnings, the majority of respondents were against exclusion of any the items
we had suggested. Two-thirds of respondents favour looking at both IFRS and adjusted
numbers as the combination of the two offers greater insights into the company and its
management.
Overall the biggest concerns that respondents have with regard to financial reporting are
in the following areas:
The abuse of non-GAAP/IFRS adjusted earnings measures
Excessive and redundant information in financial reporting
Fair value movements obscuring underlying earnings measures
Excessive focus on the income statement and not good enough disclosure of cash
flows
Poor disclosure of off-balance sheet exposures
Question 1: How useful do you generally find the following sections
of annual reports?
Respondents consider the financial statements (income statement, balance sheet, cash
flow statement) to be the most useful part of annual reports with 88% of respondents
opting for “Very” and 10% for “Somewhat” useful. This isfollowed by the CEO‟s review
(55% Very, 38% Somewhat), CFO‟s review (53%, 39%) and the principal risks disclosure
(47%, 44%). The Chairman‟s statement scored less well with just 33% finding it “Very”
useful and 17% considering it “Not at all” useful.
The weakest result, however, was for the Ethics report, which just 13% of respondents
find “Very” useful while 35% consider it “Not at all” useful.
In the free comment box several respondents highlighted the notes to the accounts and
the segmental analysis as important sections we had not included in the list. A number of
respondents noted the “creep of seemingly unproductive and irrelevant content continues”
and also called for “more and better disclosure” with “more clarity”.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fin
an
cia
l sta
tem
en
ts
Ch
ief E
xe
cu
tive
’s
revie
w
Ch
ief F
ina
ncia
l O
ffic
er’
s
revie
w
Pri
ncip
al r
isks a
nd
u
nce
rta
intie
s
Dir
ecto
r’s r
em
un
era
tio
n
Ch
air
ma
n’s
sta
tem
en
t
Au
dit r
ep
ort
Co
rpo
rate
go
ve
rna
nce
re
po
rt
Eth
ics c
om
mitte
e r
ep
ort
How useful do you generally find the following sections of annual reports?
Very
Somewhat
Not at all
Question 2: In which two of the following areas of annual reports
do you generally think there is the greatest need for improvement?
The section which respondents thinkgenerally has the greatest need for improvement
is“Principal risks and uncertainties” with 47% of respondents selecting this option. This
isfollowed by the “Financial statements” with 32% of the vote. The sections that
areconsidered least in need of improvement arethe CEO‟s and CFO‟s reviews –two of the
three most important parts of the annual report according to responses toQuestion 1. The
low vote for “Ethics committee report” in Questions 1and 2indicatesthat respondents do
not consider it important and are not interested in seeing it improved.
In the free comment box respondents again highlighted the notes to the financial
statements. One respondent noted how these “have grown exponentially – I am always
concerned as to what has been hidden in plain sight”. Another wrote that “often they are
opaque or presented inconsistently from year to year”.
There were also a number of comments about boilerplate language used in annual reports,
such as: “Annual reports now contain huge amounts of regulatory-induced useless
garbage”. Another respondent noted “Risks and uncertainties has become a general legal
tick-box exercise to note every risk and worst case rather than more bespoke review of
the firm‟s real current risks and smaller range of impacts.”
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Pri
ncip
al r
isks
an
d
un
ce
rta
intie
s
Fin
an
cia
l sta
tem
en
ts
Co
rpo
rate
g
ove
rna
nce
re
po
rt
Au
dit r
ep
ort
Dir
ecto
r’s
rem
un
era
tio
n
Eth
ics
co
mm
itte
e
rep
ort
Ch
air
ma
n’s
sta
tem
en
t
Ch
ief
Exe
cu
tive
’s
revie
w
Ch
ief
Fin
an
cia
l O
ffic
er’
s …
In which two of the following areas of annual reports do you generally think there is the greatest need for improvement?
Question 3: How far into the future do you typically forecast
company financial performance?
Of our respondents, nearly 80% seek to forecast financial performance for 3 or more
years, with 47% forecastingon a 3 year horizon and 32% forecasting for longer than this.
In contrast,just 3% of respondents saytheir company financial forecasts arefor less than 1
year, and 18% forecast for a singleyear.
In the free comment box a number of respondents note they used a 5 year forecast
period. However, there were some sceptics including one who wrote “forecasting is often a
mug‟s game” and another who wrote “beyond 1 year is a waste of time but people still
try....”.
Less than 1 year
1 year
3 years
More
How far into the future do you typically forecast company financial performance?
Question 4: For what time horizon are your investment
recommendations made?
As with the previous question, the results here indicate a longer-term perspective is taken
than is generally assumed. Just 14% of respondents indicate thattheir investment horizon
isless than 1 year, 31% saya year, 26% say 3 years and 29% havea time horizon of more
than 3 years. It is interesting to note that while 79% of respondents forecast company
financial performance for 3 years or more (Question 3), only 55% havean investment
horizon of three years or more. There is a discrepancy between the time horizons of buy-
and sell-side analysts: only 35% of sell-side respondents look out 3 or more years, while
well over half of the buy-side (who form the bulk of respondents – see Question 13) do.
The free comment box showeda mix of responses with many noting a 3- to 5-year horizon
withsome indicating a horizon of 6 to 12 months iscommonplace.
One quarter
6 months
1 year
3 years
More
For what time horizon are your investment recommendations made?
Question 5: With what frequency do you think public companies
should report their results?
This is a live issue currently given that the requirement for interim management
statements for the first and third fiscal quarters was recently withdrawn in the UK. Many
companies continue to report quarterly results voluntarily or because of US listing
requirements; the results of our survey offer some encouragement for maintaining
quarterly reporting, but a slim majority would be supportive of this being less
frequent.Nearly 5% of respondents would like companies to report results on a monthly
basis, 43% support quarterly, 43% opted for semi-annually and 9% would be happy with
only annual reporting.
The free comments were mixed. One participant noted: “More frequent reporting is a
distraction, and fosters short-termism in the market”. Another agreed that “Monthly or
quarterly reporting is excessive and diverts management focus from running the business
towards managing the share price”. However, quarterly reporting still has its fans. One
respondent argued that“Quarterly reporting makes it harder to manipulate the numbers”.
Another stated: “I was happy with shorter interim management statements at 3 and 9
months. Six months is a long time to go without a mandatory update.”
Monthly
Quarterly
Semi annually
Annually
With what frequency do you think public companies should report their results?
Question 6: To what extent do you agree with the following
statements?
Most participants either agree or strongly agree with all three statements i.e.there seems
a strong consensus that financial reports both contain too much irrelevant information yet
omit important information. However, the strongest response of all saw71% agreeingthat
the quality of financial reporting hasimproved over the last 10 years.
There was a wide range of comments for this question. One respondent wrote: “IFRS has
been the biggest improvement (but has its own set of problems)”. Another observed: “I
dislike the trend of presenting non-statutory financial data ahead of the statutory numbers
or trying to pass it off as some more accurate picture of the business.”
Question 7: What irrelevant information do you often come across
in financial reports and what useful information is missing?? We received over 50 responses to this optional question, many on the topic of segment
reporting where further information onrevenue, profit and cash flow breakdown is sought.
There were also many comments suggesting annual reports have“evolved into a corporate
brochure and regulatory box ticking exercise”. Another respondent noted: “Most of it is
irrelevant. Useful things are the primary risks faced that get under-reported if reported at
all. Auditors are to blame for not focussing more on quality over quantity.”
22% 19% 12%
19% 26%
17%
60% 55%71%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The majority of financial reports contain large amounts of irrelevant
information
The majority of financial reports omit important information about the company’s financial
performance and position
In general the quality of financial reporting has improved over the past
10 years
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Question 8: Do you routinely use the IFRS adjusted numbers
reported by management in your analysis?
Slightly over 60% of respondents said they use IFRS adjusted numbers (eg underlying
earnings) in their analysis.
In the comment box several respondents noted they made their own adjustments to IFRS
earnings but that the management version of adjusted earnings isuseful for a “quick
glance on reporting”. Others noted that they were comfortable with management-provided
adjusted numbers, “so long as the adjustments are disclosed”.However, many respondents
arenot comfortable with management‟s adjusted figures “because they tend to be
inconsistent over time and across companies”.Several respondentsexpresseda preference
for cash flow analysis over earnings.
Yes, 61%No, 39%
The majority of companies use IFRS adjusted numbers (eg underlying earnings) to communicate elements of their performance. Do you routinely use
the adjusted numbers reported by management in your analysis?
Question 9: To what extent do you agree with the following
statements?
Around two thirds of participants agree that having both IFRS and non-IFRS numbers
isuseful – with the commentary indicating that this allows greater insight into the company
and into management‟s approach. Just under 60% find it easier to compare IFRS numbers
across companies, and a similar percentage trust IFRS numbers more than non-IFRS. Only
one-third of respondents prefer the non-IFRS measures over IFRS, with nearly half neutral
on this point.
There were a number of sceptical comments about non-IFRS figures. One respondent
noted: “Management have an incentive to make their accounts obscure, release as little
information as possible, and select the most favourable light in which to portray their
company. This makes rules absolutely vital.” However, others noted that even if the IFRS
figures are subject to manipulation “seeing what management does to the accounts
through adjustments e.g. what they term a one-off event is useful to see how transparent
and honest they are”.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
I prefer the non-GAAP measures
as they give more insight into
performance
I trust IFRS/GAAP
numbers more than adjusted
numbers
It is easier to compare
IFRS/GAAP numbers across
companies
Having both sets of numbers gives me greater scope to “kick the tyres”
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Question 10: Which of these items do you believe it is appropriate
to exclude from IFRS figures to arrive at a measure of underlying
earnings?
Respondents are not generally keen on excluding any of the listed items to arrive at an adjusted measure of underlying earnings – a majority favouring inclusion in earnings for each of the numbers flagged in our question. The most popular choice
is“revaluation of contingent consideration” with 46% in favour of excluding it, and a similar number are willing to see the exclusion of gains or losses on disposals.
The least popular choice isshare-based compensation which only 20% thinkshould be excluded from underlying earnings.
Several participants commented that the key with adjusted earnings measures isthe transparency and consistency of the adjustments. One respondent noted:
“as long as clearly disclosed I don‟t mind as I can make own adjustments”.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Re
va
lua
tio
n o
f co
ntin
ge
nt
co
nsid
era
tio
n
Ga
ins/lo
sse
s o
n
dis
po
sa
l/sa
le
Acq
uis
itio
n s
tep
-up
s
Am
ort
isa
tio
n o
f a
cq
uir
ed
in
tan
gib
les
Imp
air
me
nt
ch
arg
es
Acq
uis
itio
n c
osts
Ch
arg
es/c
red
its
rela
ted
to
pe
nsio
n
fun
d d
eficit/s
urp
lus
Re
str
uctu
rin
g c
osts
Le
ga
l co
sts
Sh
are
ba
se
d
co
mp
en
sa
tio
n
Which of these items do you believe it is appropriate to exclude from IFRS figures to arrive at a measure of underlying earnings?
Exclude
Include
Question 11: How useful do you generally find these methods for
valuing assets?
Over 80% of respondents find fair value either useful or very useful. In contrast,
only 13% of respondents declare historical cost to be very useful while 30% consider it useful. Having said that, most comments reflected a desire for the disclosure of both valuation metrics, though both are regarded as having
shortcomings.
One respondent noted that fair value is“a number that you pay a 3rd party to
provide for you, to your specifications …. Historical cost has many virtues, not least reflecting cash movements, and its removal is causing enormous problems.”
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fair value (ie current market price) Historical cost (with impairments as required)
How useful do you generally find these methods for valuing assets?
1 (Very useful)
2
3
4
5 (Useless)
Question 12: What are the biggest current problems in financial
reporting that can obscure your understanding of company
performance? This open question received 49 responses which can be broadly categorised as follows:
Adjusted earnings: several respondents lament companies‟ abuse of non-GAAP reporting which one suggests introduces additional uncertainty around valuations.
Performance reporting: a number of responses complain that large fair value movements obscure the underlying operating performance.
Excessive and redundant information: several respondents note that financial
reports contain too much information about irrelevant matters that obscures the more important issues.
Excessive focus on EPS: a number of participants note that financial reporting placestoo much emphasis on the income statement and that better reporting of
cash flow performance and return on capital employed is needed.
Off-balance sheet items: some participants note that disclosures around off-balance sheet exposures are still not good enough.
Question 13: How would you describe your role? The majority (62%) of respondents identifythemselves as being on the “buy side”.
A further 17% are“sell side” while the remainder mainly comprises consultants, preparers, accountants and credit analysts.
Buy side62%
Sell side17%
Other21%
How would you describe your role?
Question 14: What asset classes do you focus on?
Respondents were asked what asset classes they focus on with multiple selections being possible. The majority (73%) of respondents saythey areequity-focussed, 40% aredebt-focussed and 19% cited other asset classes. On average
respondents selected 1.3 options (e.g. equity and debt).
Other asset classes cited were property, commodities, derivatives and currencies, among others.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Equity Fixed income Other
What asset classes do you focus on?
Question 15: To what extent is security analysis part of your
current role?
Just over a quarter (27%) of respondents say that security analysis isan integral
part of their role. Just under a fifth sayit isan important part of their role that they engage in a least once a week. A quarter saysecurity analysisisrelated to their role but they rarely perform it themselves. Just under a fifthsaythey use but donot
perform security analysis. The remainder, 11%, donot use or perform any security analysis.
It is an integral part of my role
and I undertake it daily.27%
It is an important part of my role
and I am involved in it at least
weekly.18%
Security analysis is related to my role, but I rarely
undertake it myself.
25%
I use security analysis, but don’t
perform it.19%
I neither perform nor use security
analysis11%
To what extent is security analysis part of your current role?
Question 16: How often do you use the financial information
provided directly by the company? Information on companies‟ financial performance can be found through „indirect‟ sources, such as Bloomberg, sell-side reports etc. or directly from the company
e.g. through annual reports, interim reporting, investor presentations, and so on. We asked participants how often they use the financial information provided
directly by the company. Just under 20% saythey use this information daily, 28% at least weekly, and 36% at least monthly. Just under a fifth saythey rarely use financial information reported directly by management.
At least daily19%
At least weekly28%At least monthly
37%
I rarely rely on the financial
information reported directly by management
16%
How often do you use the financial information provided directly by the company?
Question 17: Which is your main source of financial information for
analysing companies? The most popular source of financial information among our participants isthe annual report (36%), closely followed by databases such as Bloomberg. Just
under a fifth cite quarterly or interim reports as their main source while 11% rely mainly onsell-side research.
A number of participants comment that they use all of the sources listed as well as SEC filings, presentation slides, survey data, etc. One participant notesthat the
annual report containsmore information than the quarterlies, especially if companies have to produce an SEC filing.
Annual reports36%
Quarterly/interim reports
19%
Sell-side research reports
11%
Databases (Bloomberg, etc)
34%
Which is your main source of financial information for analysing companies?
About CFA UK and CFA Institute
The CFA Society of the UK (CFA UK) represents the interests of more than 10,000 leading members of the UK investment profession. The society, which was founded in 1955, is one of the largest member societies of CFA Institute and is committed to leading the development of the investment profession through the promotion of the highest ethical standards and through the provision of continuing education, advocacy, information and career support on behalf of its members. Most CFA
UK members have earned the Chartered Financial Analyst® (CFA®) designation, or are candidates registered in CFA Institute‟s CFA Program. Both members and candidates attest to adhere to CFA Institute‟s Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct. CFA Institute is the global association for investment professionals. It administers the CFA and CIPM curriculum and exam programs worldwide; publishes research; conducts professional development
programs; and sets voluntary, ethics-based professional and performance-reporting standards for
the investment industry. CFA Institute has more than 100,000 members in 140 countries, of which more than 90,000 hold the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation.