New Zealand investors are generally happy to rely on alternative financial reporting measures used by companies, provided they also have access to GAAP numbers, but are confused about whether the non-standard numbers are audited. Generally, they aren't.
That's one of the conclusions of a survey released this month by the External Reporting Board, the statutory body that sets reporting standards required under a range of New Zealand laws including the Companies Act. The XRB surveyed 87 external users of financial reports between November last year and January this year on whether alternative performance measures (APMs) such as 'underlying profits', 'normalised profits', earnings before interest and tax, and earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation are useful.
Those polled were evenly divided between professionals and non-experts, or mums and dads. It showed that 67 per cent found APMs useful and a further 22 percent found them sometimes useful, while just 12 per cent said they weren't useful, with some indicating cynicism that they were being used to "massage the figures" or "put a rosy gloss on performance." The survey also found they were generally used to supplement, or in conjunction with, GAAP measures and those polled deemed it important that there be clear reconciliation with GAAP numbers.
GAAP stands for generally accepted accounting practice, meaning globally accepted. In New Zealand's case accepted practice is the NZ version of the International Financial Reporting Standards.
Those polled also said they had a preference for APMs to have clear, standardised definitions and also wanted them to be "assured" or audited, meaning they had been independently verified. But in the conclusions to the survey, the XRB said there was "a lack of clarity and understanding of whether an APM and related information are assured or not, particularly where the information is not included within the audited financial statements, or where components of the APM are taken from audited statements."