Acca F7

Answers Fundamentals Level – Skills Module, Paper F7 (INT) Financial Reporting (International) 1 (a) December 2008 Answers Pedantic Consolidated income statement for the year ended 30 September 2008 $’000 98,000 (72,000) ––––––– 26,000 (3,000) (7,600) (500) ––––––– 14,900 (5,400) ––––––– 9,500 ––––––– Revenue (85,000 + (42,000 x 6/12) – 8,000 intra-group sales) Cost of sales (w (i)) Gross profit Distribution costs (2,000 + (2,000 x 6/12)) Administrative expenses (6,000 + (3,200 x 6/12)) Finance costs (300 + (400 x 6/12)) Profit before tax Income tax expense (4,700 + (1,400 x 6/12)) Profit for the year Attributable to:Equity holders of the parent Non-controlling interest (((3,000 x 6/12) – (800 URP + 200 depreciation)) x 40%) (b) 9,300 200 –––à ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œ 9,500 ––––––– Consolidated statement of financial position as at 30 September 2008 Assets Non-current assets Property, plant and equipment (40,600 + 12,600 + 2,000 – 200 depreciation adjustment (w (i))) Goodwill (w (ii)) Current assets (w (iii)) Total assets Equity and liabilities Equity attributable to owners of the parent Equity shares of $1 each ((10, 000 + 1,600) w (ii)) Share premium (w (ii)) Retained earnings (w (iv)) 55,000 4,500 ––––––– 59,500 21,400 ––––––– 80,900 ––––––– 11,600 ,000 35,700 ––––––– 55,300 6,100 ––––––– 61,400 Non-controlling interest (w (v)) Total equity Non-current liabilities 10% loan notes (4,000 + 3,000) 7,000 Current liabilit ies (8,200 + 4,700 – 400 intra-group balance) 12,500 ––––––– 80,900 ––––––– Total equity and liabilities Workings (figures in brackets in $’000) (i) Cost of sales Pedantic Sophistic (32,000 x 6/12) Intra-group sales URP in inventory Additional depreciation (2,000/5 years x 6/12) $’000 63,000 16,000 (8,000) 800 200 ––––––– 72,000 ––––––– The unrealised profit (URP) in inventory is calculated as ($8 million – $5 ·2 million) x 40/140 = $800,000. 1 (ii) Goodwill in Sophistic Investment at cost Shares (4,000 x 60% x 2/3 x $6) Less – Equity shares of Sophistic (4,000 x 60%) – pre-acquisition reserves (5,000 x 60% see below) – fair value adjustment (2,000 x 60%) $’000 (2,400) (3,000) (1,200) –––––– Parent’s goodwill Non-controlling interest’s goodwill (per question) Total goodwill The pre-acquisition reserves are: At 30 September 2008 Earned in the post acquisition period (3,000 x 6/12) Alternative calculation for goodwill in Sophistic Investment at cost (as above) Fair value of non-controlling interest (see below) Cost of the controlling interestLess fair value of net assets at acquisition (4,000 + 5,000 + 2,000) Total goodwill Fair value of non-controlling interest (at acquisition) Share of fair value of net assets (11,000 x 40%) Attributable goodwill per question $’000 9,600 (6,600) –––––– 3,000 1,500 –––––– 4,500 –––––– 6,500 (1,500) –––––– 5,000 –––––– 9,600 5,900 ––––––– 15,500 (11,000) –à ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œ 4,500 ––––––– 4,400 1,500 –––––– 5,900 –––––– The 1 ·6 million shares (4,000 x 60% x 2/3) issued by Pedantic would be recorded as share capital of $1 ·6 million and share premium of $8 million (1,600 x $5). $’000 16,000 6,600 (800) 200 (600) –––––– 21,400 ––––––– (iii) Current assets Pedantic Sophistic URP in inventory Cash in transit Intra-group balance (iv) Retained earnings Pedantic per statement of financial position Sophistic’s post acquisition profit (((3,000 x 6/12) – (800 URP + 200 depreciation)) x 60%) (v) Non-controlling interest (in statement of financial position) Net assets per statement of financial position URP in inventory Net fair value adjustment (2,000 – 200) Share of goodwill (per question) 12 $’000 35,400 300 ––––––– 35,700 ––––––– 10,500 (800) 1,800 ––––––– 11,500 x 40% = 4,600 ––––––– 1,500 –––––– 6,100 –––––– (a) Candel – Statement of comprehensive income for the year ended 30 September 2008 $’000 297,500 (225,400) ––––––––– 72,100 (14,500) (21,900) (1,400) ––––––––– 34,300 (11,600) ––––––––– 22,700 Revenue (300,000 – 2,500) Cost of sales (w (i)) Gross profit Distribution costs Administrative expenses (22,200 – 400 + 100 see note below) Finance costs (200 + 1,200 (w (ii))) Profit before tax (Income tax expense (11,400 + (6,000 – 5,800 deferred tax)) Profit for the year Other comprehensive income Loss on leasehold property revaluation (w (iii)) (4,500) ––––––––– Total comprehensive income for the year 8,200 ––––––––– Note: as it is considered that the outcome of the legal action against Candel is unlikely to succeed (only a 20% chance) it is inappropriate to provide for any damages. The potential damages are an example of a contingent liability which should be disclosed (at $2 million) as a note to the financial statements. The unrecoverable legal costs are a liability (the start of the legal action is a past event) and should be provided for in full. (b) Candel – Statement of changes in equity for the year ended 30 September 2008 Balances at 1 October 2007 Dividend Comprehensive incom eBalances at 30 September 2008 (c) Equity shares $’000 50,000 Revaluation reserve $’000 10,000 ––––––– 50,000 ––––––– (4,500) –––––– 5,500 –––––– Retained earnings $’000 24,500 (6,000) 22,700 ––––––– 41,200 ––––––– Total equity $’000 84,500 (6,000) 18,200 ––––––– 96,700 ––––––– $’000 $’000 Candel – Statement of financial position as at 30 September 2008 Assets Non-current assets (w (iii)) Property, plant and equipment (43,000 + 38,400) Development costs 81,400 14,800 –––––––– 96,200 Current assets Inventory T rade receivables 20,000 43,100 ––––––– Total assets Equity and liabilities: Equity (from (b))Equity shares of 25 cents each Revaluation reserve Retained earnings 63,100 –––––––– 159,300 –––––––– 50,000 5,500 41,200 ––––––– Non-current liabilities Deferred tax 8% redeemable preference shares (20,000 + 400 (w (ii))) Current liabilities Trade payables (23,800 – 400 + 100 – re legal action) Bank overdraft Current tax payable Total equity and liabilities 13 6,000 20,400 ––––––– 23,500 1,300 11,400 ––––––– 46,700 –––––––– 96,700 26,400 36,200 –––––––– 159,300 â⠂¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œÃ¢â‚¬â€œ Workings (figures in brackets in $’000) (i) Cost of sales: Per trial balance Depreciation (w (iii)) – leasehold property – plant and equipmentLoss on disposal of plant (4,000 – 2,500) Amortisation of development costs (w (iii)) Research and development expensed (1,400 + 2,400 (w (iii))) (ii) $’000 204,000 2,500 9,600 1,500 4,000 3,800 –––––––– 225,400 –––––––– The finance cost of $1 ·2 million for the preference shares is based on the effective rate of 12% applied to $20 million issue proceeds of the shares for the six months they have been in issue (20m x 12% x 6/12). The dividend paid of $800,000 is based on the nominal rate of 8%. The additional $400,000 (accrual) is added to the carrying amount of the preference shares in the statement of financial position.As these share s are redeemable they are treated as debt and their dividend is treated as a finance cost. (iii) Non-current assets: Leasehold property Valuation at 1 October 2007 Depreciation for year (20 year life) 50,000 (2,500) –––––––– 47,500 (43,000) –––––––– 4,500 –––––––– Carrying amount at date of revaluation Valuation at 30 September 2008 Revaluation deficit Plant and equipment per trial balance (76,600 – 24,600) Disposal (8,000 – 4,000) Depreciation for year (20%) Carrying amount at 30 September 2008 Capitalised/deferred development costs Carrying amount at 1 October 2007 (20,000 – 6,000) Amortised for year (20,000 x 20%)Capitalised during year (800 x 6 months) Carrying amount at 30 September 2008 $’000 52,000 (4,000) –––––––– 48,000 (9,600 ) –––––––– 38,400 –––––––– 14,000 (4,000) 4,800 –––––––– 14,800 –––––––– Note: development costs can only be treated as an asset from the point where they meet the recognition criteria in IAS 38 Intangible assets. Thus development costs from 1 April to 30 September 2008 of $4 ·8 million (800 x 6 months) can be capitalised. These will not be amortised as the project is still in development. The research costs of $1 ·4 million plus three months’ development costs of $2 ·4 million (800 x 3 months) (i. . those incurred before 1 April 2008) are treated as an expense. 3 (a) Equivalent ratios from the financial statements of Merlot (workings in $’000) Return on year end capital employed (ROCE) Pre tax return on equity (ROE) Net asset turnover Gross p rofit margin Operating profit margin Current ratio Closing inventory holding period Trade receivables’ collection period Trade payables’ payment period Gearing Interest cover Dividend cover 20 ·9% 50% 2 ·3 times 12 ·2% 9 ·8% 1 ·3:1 73 days 66 days 77 days 71% 3 ·3 times 1 ·4 times (1,400 + 590)/(2,800 + 3,200 + 500 + 3,000) x 100 ,400/2,800 x 100 20,500/(14,800 – 5,700) 2,500/20,500 x 100 2,000/20,500 x 100 7,300/5,700 3,600/18,000 x 365 3,700/20,500 x 365 3,800/18,000 x 365 (3,200 + 500 + 3,000)/9,500 x 100 2,000/600 1,000/700 As per the question, Merlot’s obligations under finance leases (3,200 + 500) have been treated as debt when calculating the ROCE and gearing ratios. 14 (b) Assessment of the relative performance and financial position of Grappa and Merlot for the year ended 30 September 2008 Introduction This report is based on the draft financial statements supplied and the ratios shown in (a) above.Although covering many aspects of performance and financial position, the report has been approached from the point of view of a prospective acquisition of the entire equity of one of the two companies. Profitability The ROCE of 20 ·9% of Merlot is far superior to the 14 ·8% return achieved by Grappa. ROCE is traditionally seen as a measure of management’s overall efficiency in the use of the finance/assets at its disposal. More detailed analysis reveals that Merlot’s superior performance is due to its efficiency in the use of its net assets; it achieved a net asset turnover of 2 ·3 times compared to only 1 ·2 times for Grappa.Put another way, Merlot makes sales of $2 ·30 per $1 invested in net assets compared to sales of only $1 ·20 per $1 invested for Grappa. The other element contributing to the ROCE is profit margins. In this area Merlot’s overall performance is slightly inferior to that of Grappa, gross profit margins are almost identical, but Grappa’s operating profit ma rgin is 10 ·5% compared to Merlot’s 9 ·8%. In this situation, where one company’s ROCE is superior to another’s it is useful to look behind the figures and consider possible reasons for the superiority other than the obvious one of greater efficiency on Merlot’s part.A major component of the ROCE is normally the carrying amount of the non-current assets. Consideration of these in this case reveals some interesting issues. Merlot does not own its premises whereas Grappa does. Such a situation would not necessarily give a ROCE advantage to either company as the increase in capital employed of a company owning its factory would be compensated by a higher return due to not having a rental expense (and vice versa). If Merlot’s rental cost, as a percentage of the value of the related factory, was less than its overall ROCE, then it would be contributing to its higher ROCE.There is insufficient information to determine this. Another relevant point may be that Merlot’s owned plant is nearing the end of its useful life (carrying amount is only 22% of its cost) and the company seems to be replacing owned plant with leased plant. Again this does not necessarily give Merlot an advantage, but the finance cost of the leased assets at only 7 ·5% is much lower than the overall ROCE (of either company) and therefore this does help to improve Merlot’s ROCE. The other important issue within the composition of the ROCE is the valuation basis of the companies’ non-current assets.From the question, it appears that Grappa’s factory is at current value (there is a property revaluation reserve) and note (ii) of the question indicates the use of historical cost for plant. The use of current value for the factory (as opposed to historical cost) will be adversely impacting on Grappa’s ROCE. Merlot does not suffer this deterioration as it does not own its factory. The ROCE measures the overall efficiency of manage ment; however, as Victular is considering buying the equity of one of the two companies, it would be useful to consider the return on equity (ROE) – as this is what Victular is buying.The ratios calculated are based on pre-tax profits; this takes into account finance costs, but does not cause taxation issues to distort the comparison. Clearly Merlot’s ROE at 50% is far superior to Grappa’s 19 ·1%. Again the issue of the revaluation of Grappa’s factory is making this ratio appear comparatively worse (than it would be if there had not been a revaluation). In these circumstances it would be more meaningful if the ROE was calculated based on the asking price of each company (which has not been disclosed) as this would effectively be the carrying amount of the relevant equity for Victular. GearingFrom the gearing ratio it can be seen that 71% of Merlot’s assets are financed by borrowings (39% is attributable to Merlot’s policy of leasing its pl ant). This is very high in absolute terms and double Grappa’s level of gearing. The effect of gearing means that all of the profit after finance costs is attributable to the equity even though (in Merlot’s case) the equity represents only 29% of the financing of the net assets. Whilst this may seem advantageous to the equity shareholders of Merlot, it does not come without risk. The interest cover of Merlot is only 3 ·3 times whereas that of Grappa is 6 times.Merlot’s low interest cover is a direct consequence of its high gearing and it makes profits vulnerable to relatively small changes in operating activity. For example, small reductions in sales, profit margins or small increases in operating expenses could result in losses and mean that interest charges would not be covered. Another observation is that Grappa has been able to take advantage of the receipt of government grants; Merlot has not. This may be due to Grappa purchasing its plant (which may then be eligible for grants) whereas Merlot leases its plant.It may be that the lessor has received any grants available on the purchase of the plant and passed some of this benefit on to Merlot via lower lease finance costs (at 7 ·5% per annum, this is considerably lower than Merlot has to pay on its 10% loan notes). Liquidity Both companies have relatively low liquid ratios of 1 ·2 and 1 ·3 for Grappa and Merlot respectively, although at least Grappa has $600,000 in the bank whereas Merlot has a $1 ·2 million overdraft. In this respect Merlot’s policy of high dividend payouts (leading to a low dividend cover and low retained earnings) is very questionable.Looking in more depth, both companies have similar inventory days; Merlot collects its receivables one week earlier than Grappa (perhaps its credit control procedures are more active due to its large overdraft), and of notable difference is that Grappa receives (or takes) a lot longer credit period from its suppliers (1 08 days compared to 77 days). This may be a reflection of Grappa being able to negotiate better credit terms because it has a higher credit rating. Summary Although both companies may operate in a similar industry and have similar profits after tax, they would represent very different purchases.Merlot’s sales revenues are over 70% more than those of Grappa, it is financed by high levels of debt, it rents rather than owns property and it chooses to lease rather than buy its replacement plant. Also its remaining owned plant is nearing the end of its life. Its replacement will either require a cash injection if it is to be purchased (Merlot’s overdraft of 15 $1 ·2 million already requires serious attention) or create even higher levels of gearing if it continues its policy of leasing. In short although Merlot’s overall return seems more attractive than that of Grappa, it would represent a much more risky investment.Ultimately the investment decision may be determ ined by Victular’s attitude to risk, possible synergies with its existing business activities, and not least, by the asking price for each investment (which has not been disclosed to us). (c) The generally recognised potential problems of using ratios for comparison purposes are: – – – – – – inconsistent definitions of ratios financial statements may have been deliberately manipulated (creative accounting) different companies may adopt different accounting policies (e. g. use of historical costs compared to current values) different managerial policies (e. . different companies offer customers different payment terms) statement of financial position figures may not be representative of average values throughout the year (this can be caused by seasonal trading or a large acquisition of non-current assets near the year end) the impact of price changes over time/distortion caused by inflation When deciding whether to purchase a company, Victular should consider the following additional useful information: – – – – – 4 in this case the analysis has been made on the draft financial statements; these may be unreliable or change when being finalised.Audited financial statements would add credibility and reliance to the analysis (assuming they receive an unmodified Auditors’ Report). forward looking information such as profit and financial position forecasts, capital expenditure and cash budgets and the level of orders on the books. the current (fair) values of assets being acquired. the level of risk within a business. Highly profitable companies may also be highly risky, whereas a less profitable company may have more stable ‘quality’ earnings not least would be the expected price to acquire a company.It may be that a poorer performing business may be a more attractive purchase because it is relatively cheaper and may offer more opportunity for improving efficienci es and profit growth. (a) A liability is a present obligation of an entity arising from past events, the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of economic benefits (normally cash). Provisions are defined as liabilities of uncertain timing or amount, i. e. they are normally estimates. In essence provisions should be recognised if they meet the definition of a liability.Equally they should not be recognised if they do not meet the definition. A statement of financial position would not give a ‘fair representation’ if it did not include all of an entity’s liabilities (or if it did include, as liabilities, items that were not liabilities). These definitions benefit the reliability of financial statements by preventing profits from being ‘smoothed’ by making a provision to reduce profit in years when they are high and releasing those provisions to increase profit in years when they are low.It also means that the statement of financial po sition cannot avoid the immediate recognition of long-term liabilities (such as environmental provisions) on the basis that those liabilities have not matured. (b) (i) Future costs associated with the acquisition/construction and use of non-current assets, such as the environmental costs in this case, should be treated as a liability as soon as they become unavoidable. For Promoil this would be at the same time as the platform is acquired and brought into use. The provision is for the present value of the expected costs and this same amount is treated as part of the cost of the asset.The provision is ‘unwound’ by charging a finance cost to the income statement each year and increasing the provision by the finance cost. Annual depreciation of the asset effectively allocates the (discounted) environmental costs over the life of the asset. Income statement for the year ended 30 September 2008 Depreciation (see below) Finance costs ($6 ·9 million x 8%) Statement of financ ial position as at 30 September 2008 Non-current assets Cost ($30 million + $6 ·9 million ($15 million x 0 ·46)) Depreciation (over 10 years) Non-current liabilities Environmental provision ($6 ·9 million x 1 ·08) (ii) $’000 3,690 552 36,900 (3,690) –––––– 33,210 ––––––– 7,452 If there was no legal requirement to incur the environmental costs, then Promoil should not provide for them as they do not meet the definition of a liability. Thus the oil platform would be recorded at $30 million with $3 million depreciation and there would be no finance costs. However, if Promoil has a published policy that it will voluntarily incur environmental clean up costs of this type (or if this may be implied by its past practice), then this would be evidence of a ‘constructive’ obligation under IAS 37 and the required treatment of the costs would be the same as in part (i) above. 6 5 Year ended/as at: Income statement Depreciation (see workings) Maintenance (60,000/3 years) Discount received (840,000 x 5%) Staff training Statement of financial position (see below) Property, plant and equipment Cost Accumulated depreciation Carrying amount Workings Manufacturer’s base price Less trade discount (20%) Base cost Freight charges Electrical installation cost Pre-production testing Initial capitalised cost 30 September 2006 30 September 2007 30 September 2008 $ $ $ 180,000 270,000 119,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 (42,000) 40,000 –––––––– –––––––– –––––––– 198,000 290,000 139,000 ––––––– –––––––– –––––––– 920,000 (180,000) ––â €“––––– 740,000 –––––––– 920,000 (450,000) –––––––– 470,000 –––––––– 670,000 (119,000) –––––––– 551,000 –––––––– $ 1,050,000 (210,000) –––––––––– 840,000 30,000 28,000 22,000 –––––––––– 920,000 –––––––––– The depreciable amount is $900,000 (920,000 – 20,000 residual value) and, based on an estimated machine life of 6,000 hours, this gives depreciation of $150 per machine hour. Therefore depreciation for the year ended 30 September 2006 is $180,000 ($150 x 1 ,200 hours) and for the year ended 30 September 2007 is $270,000 ($150 x 1,800 hours).Note: early settlement discount, staff training in use of machine and maintenance are all revenue items and cannot be part of capitalised costs. Carrying amount at 1 October 2007 Subsequent expenditure Revised ‘cost’ 470,000 200,000 –––––––– 670,000 –––––––– The revised depreciable amount is $630,000 (670,000 – 40,000 residual value) and with a revised remaining life of 4,500 hours, this gives a depreciation charge of $140 per machine hour. Therefore depreciation for the year ended 30 September 2008 is $119,000 ($140 x 850 hours). 17Fundamentals Level – Skills Module, Paper F7 (INT) Financial Reporting (International) December 2008 Marking Scheme This marking scheme is given as a guide in the context of the suggested answers. Scope is given to markers to award m arks for alternative approaches to a question, including relevant comment, and where well-reasoned conclusions are provided. This is particularly the case for written answers where there may be more than one acceptable solution. Marks 1 (a) (b) Income statement: revenue cost of sales distribution costs administrative expenses inance costs income tax non-controlling interest 11/2 3 1/ 2 1 1/ 2 1/ 2 2 9 Statement of financial position: property, plant and equipment goodwill current assets equity shares share premium retained earnings non-controlling interest 10% loan notes current liabilities Total for question 2 (a) (b) (c) Statement of comprehensive income: revenue cost of sales distribution costs administrative expenses finance costs income tax other comprehensive income 2 5 11/2 1 1 2 2 1/ 2 1 16 25 1 5 1/ 2 11/2 11/2 11/2 1 12 Statement of changes in equity: rought forward figures dividends comprehensive income 1 1 1 3 Statement of financial position: property, plant and equipmen t deferred development costs inventory trade receivables deferred tax preference shares trade payables overdraft current tax payable Total for question 19 2 2 1/ 2 1/ 2 1 1 11/2 1/ 2 1 10 25 3 (a) (b) 1 mark per valid comment up to (c) Marks 8 Merlot’s ratios 1 mark per relevant point 12 Total for question 4 5 25 (a) 1 mark per relevant point 5 (b) (i) explanation of treatment depreciation finance cost non-current asset provision 2 1 2 1 7 (ii) figures for asset and depreciation if not a constructive obligation what may cause a constructive obligation subsequent treatment if it is a constructive obligation Total for question 5 1 1 1 3 15 Total for question 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 10 initial capitalised cost upgrade improves efficiency and life (therefore capitalise) revised carrying amount at 1 October 2007 annual depreciation (1 mark each year) maintenance costs charged at $20,000 each year discount received (in income statement) staff training (not capitalised and charged to income) 20