IFRS Foundation published Issue 5 of the investor publication “The Essentials.” The issue highlights attributes of free cash flow (FCF) measures reported by lessees that limit comparability with FCF measures reported by companies that buy assets. The publication demonstrates the incomparability through a simplified case study and offers an adjustment approach to compute comparable FCF measures that makes use of new information provided under IFRS 16 on leases. Investors may find this adjustment approach useful in making cross-company comparisons.
The article helps in exploring approaches to calculate or adjust reported FCF measures of lessees. The article will help to develop a better understanding of the financial reporting similarities and differences between lessee companies and companies that make outright purchases of assets. Moreover, it will help to develop an understanding of how to use information contained in the new disclosures under IFRS 16 to adjust lessee FCF measures to compare them with the FCF measures of companies that buy assets.
Investors and company managers generally view FCF as excess cash generated by the company that is available for distribution or reinvestment into the business. Consequently, these measures are widely used in analyzing companies’ financial health and intrinsic value. FCF is one of the most widely used non-GAAP performance measures by professional investors. It is common for companies to report such non-GAAP measures, although investors calculate them independently from the information provided in the financial statements. When calculating FCF for a lessee company from the information provided in its financial statements, investors need to pay special attention to how cash flows related to leases are reflected in the statement of cash flows. Comparing the FCF of lessee companies with companies that make outright purchase of assets may require analysts to perform adjustments to the amounts presented by lessee companies in the statement of cash flows.
Keywords: International, Banking, Securities, Accounting, IFRS 16, Leases, Free Cash Flow, Non-GAAP Performance Measures, IFRS
Previous ArticleBCBS Publishes Working Paper on Sectoral Application of CCyB
In a letter addressed to the industry, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) set out an updated schedule of policy priorities for the banking, insurance, and superannuation industries.
The European Commission (EC) adopted a comprehensive review package of Solvency II rules in the European Union.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Versions 1.0 of the "Earnings" and "Regulatory Reporting" booklets of the Comptroller's Handbook.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published results of its economy-wide climate stress test, which aimed to assess the resilience of non-financial corporates and euro area banks to climate risks.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a report on the use of digital platforms in the banking and payments sector in European Union.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) published updates on the policy measures that were announced in context of the ongoing pandemic.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), along with several other associations, submitted a joint response to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) consultation on preliminary proposals for the prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures.
BIS published the September issue of the Quarterly Review, which contains special features that analyze the rapid rise in equity funding for financial technology firms, the effectiveness of policy measures in response to pandemic, and the evolution of international banking.
The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) met in September 2021 and reviewed climate-related financial risks, discussed impact of digitalization, and welcomed efforts by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation to develop a common set of sustainability reporting standards
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a Cease and Desist Order against MUFG Union Bank for deficiencies in technology and operational risk governance.