Evaluering van twee groepe dubbelgenoteerde maatskappye, wat op die JSE Sekuriteitebeurs van Suid-Afrika genoteer is, vir suksesvolle omskakeling na internasionale finansiele verslagdoeningstandaarde teen 2005

The fact that investors increasingly invest in companies from another country thanthe investor himself and the consequential globalisation of capital markets, resultedin the European Parliament and Council (EP) accepting Regulation No. 1606/2002during 2002. The consequence of the regulation was that uniform accountingstandards had to be implemented throughout the European Union (EU). Theaccounting standards that were accepted, are the International Financial ReportingStandards (IFRS) (previously known as International Accounting Standards (IAS)).The regulation further determined that the effective date of this required compliancewith IFRS was 1 January 2005. At the time when the regulation was accepted, mostcompanies that were listed on the JSE Securities Exchange of South Africa (JSE) stillprepared their financial statements in accordance with South African Statements ofGenerally Accepted Accounting Practice (South African SGAAP). The implication ofthe acceptance of the regulation by the EP was that in the event that a company wasnot only listed on the JSE but also on a stock exchange in the EU, the financialstatements of that company would have to be prepared in accordance with IFRS.In this study two groups of companies were selected for evaluation. The one groupconsists of companies with a primary listing on the JSE and a secondary listing in theEU (first group) and the other group has a primary listing in the United Kingdom (UK)and thus the EU, with a secondary listing on the JSE (second group). The purpose ofthe study is to identify the implications of the acceptance of abovementionedregulation on the financial reporting of the selected companies.Firstly, a study was made of the differences between the Generally AcceptedAccounting Practice of the United Kingdom (UK GAAP) and IFRS. The reason for thislargely relates to the fact that there are still substantial differences between these twosets of accounting standards. No such study was conducted in respect of differencesbetween South African SGAAP and IFRS as South African SGAAP was completelyreplaced by IFRS during 2004 and hence no differences exist any more. The onlyexception relates to the 500 series of standards that are unique to South Africa.There are, however, only two issued standards in this series and hence no furtherattention was paid to that. Hereafter the 2002 financial statements of all the selected companies were evaluatedby measuring it against an IFRS disclosure checklist for 2002. The purpose was toidentify the extent to which the selected companies comply with IFRS by focusing onthe areas with regards to which they do not comply with IFRS. It was found that thecompanies of the first group largely fail to comply with IFRS in respect of matters ofdisclosure, whilst the second group of companies sometimes also, in their applicationof recognition requirements and measurement guidelines, used different practices tothose suggested by IFRS. This was largely attributable to the fact that there aresubstantial differences between UK GAAP and IFRS, whilst South African SGAAPand IFRS already were very similar until recently.Consequently, questionnaires were sent to interested selected companies in whichthey could give feedback on their level of awareness and perceptions of the requiredtransition to IFRS by 2005 as well as the procedures that they have followed or willfollow in their process of transition to IFRS.Fourthly the 2003 financial reports of the selected companies were evaluated forcompliance with IFRS by measuring it against the IFRS disclosure checklist thatwould be applicable on their 2004 financial periods. This was done in order todetermine whether the selected companies showed any progress in their level ofcompliance with IFRS. This process also identified which IFRS, which were issuedduring 2003/2004, will be applicable on the 2004 or later financial periods of theselected companies, as these are further areas that will demand the attention of theselected companies in their process of becoming IFRS compliant. It was found thatall selected companies showed rather little progress in their level of IFRScompliance. It is however concerning that even though South African SGAAP werepreviously very narrowly aligned with IFRS, the companies of the first group still fail tocomply with fairly simple disclosure requirements. It would thus appear that they donot take the process of transition to IFRS serious enough. The fact that the secondgroup of companies also did not make much progress can still be justified by the factthat UK GAAP were not aligned closer to IFRS during 2003 and most of the selectedcompanies were still busy with the planning process for the transition to IFRS. It isexpected that the financial statements of these companies will display substantialprogress in their 2004 financial periods. Finally the compliance mechanisms were studied in order to determine whichprocesses are in place to ensure that companies will indeed comply with IFRS. Thisstudy was done in respect of the EU, the UK and South Africa. All three theseregions either already have or will have bodies in the near future that will have thetask of evaluating the financial statements of listed companies for IFRS compliance.The conclusion is however that as a result of the negative consequences of noncompliancewith IFRS sufficient factors do exist that will motivate companies to fullycomply with IFRS. In addition, the listing requirements of the JSE has changed andfinancial reporting in accordance with IFRS is now a requirement.