Background on IFRS and Australian Entities

On 1^st January 2005, it was declared by “Financial Reporting Council (FRC)” that the Australian entities needed to mandatorily adhere to the international accounting standards. In previous years the companies needed to comply with only Corporations Act, which was only standard to be followed for the Australian organisations. Therefore, AASB took the decision to introduce the different types of the standards associated to the “International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)”. However, the impact of the IFRS implementation was seen to be based on the changes in the reporting associated the liabilities, assets, equities and the surplus of the local government companies in Australia (Epstein, 2018).

The main discourse of the study is focused on evaluating the net impact of the implementation of IFRS in the Australian entities. The study has used excerpts from Wesfarmers annual report to support the findings regarding the impact of IFRS in relation to intangibles. The report has also focused on the impact of the IFRS in relation to the intangible assets. The latter part of the study has also commented on whether these concerns may be materialised (Karadag, 2015).

The objectives of the IAS 38 were seen to be depicted with the accounting treatment for the intangible which were not dealt with as per the specification of IAS. This standard was required for the enterprise to identify the intangible assets only in case certain criteria was not met. The standard has been also able to identify the measures to show the intangible assets recognition carried out with certain disclosures related to the intangible assets (Allais & Gobert, 2016).  The scope of the IAS is seen to be applicable to the intangible assets other than the financial assets. The accounting standard has been further related to the significant nature of the consideration associated to the mineral rights and exploration along with the developmental costs as per the gas companies and miming oil (Paul, Parthasarathy & Gupta, 2017).

The criterion of the categorization of the information as per the intangible assets has been also seen to be depicted with the different types of the consideration as per the non-monetary asset which is not seen with physical evidence. The asset is also depicted with the past events and future economic benefits. The three main critical attributes are seen to be based on the identifiability, future economic benefits and control factor (Bello et al., 2016).

The main concerns of the impact pertaining to the IFRS in this section relates to the introduction of “AASB 138, Intangible Assets” by the international accounting standards. The implementation of the IFRS is depicted to write off a substantial amount of the intangibles which was previously capitalised and revalued as per the Corporations Act.  The significant nature of the identifiable assets acquired in a business combination needed to recognise the goodwill separately. The IFRS needed the intangible asset to recognise the opening of the retained earnings which are included in opening balance of the retained earnings (Eniola, Entebang & Sakariyau, 2015).

Objectives of IAS 38

The differences pertaining to the measurements of the business combinations are depicted with the restructuring provisions and intangible assets.  In addition to this, the acquisition of the contingent liabilities needs to be also recognised as per the fair values in the consolidated financial statement in the IFRS. The impact of the aforementioned changes as per the accounting policy are considered with the different types of the purchasing methods which are no longer depicted to be appropriate (Hahn & Gold, 2014). There has been significant nature of the other rules in which the changes in the accounting policy for the having negative implications are seen with the first-time adoption in which the consolidated does not reopen the past acquisitions and other retrospective accounts. The ongoing changes pertaining to the IFRS is considered to be having a negative impact on the profit and loss and balance sheet, as the accounting going forward varied significantly under the Australian GAAP. For instance, the deferred tax liabilities in Wesfarmers limited are not recognised as per indefinite life of the intangibles based on which the carrying value is assessed as recoverable through sale (Saeidi et al., 2015).

As per the per IFRS method of the allocation of goodwill does not generate any independent cash inflows. For example, in the annual report 2018 of Wesfarmers Limited it can be found that the assets do not generate independent cash inflows and the estimation of the value in use for the assets as per the fair value is not possible. Moreover, the assets are considered for impairment only in case their carrying value exceeds the recoverable amount.

In previous accounting standards goodwill was recognised in the balance sheet and the necessary adjustments on the “cash generating units (CGU)” or the group of CGUs which were tested for the impairment in the allocated level. The various types of the changes in this policy was based on the increased susceptibility of the issues taking place in situations where the impairment may occur (Lovelock & Patterson, 2015).

The overall impact of the changes associated to the introduction of the IFRS has been depicted in terms of the business combinations which has led to more intangibles being recognised in the balance sheet. The mandatory expenditures on the specific costs are seen to be related to the expenditures which are generated internally with the research and development initiatives along with the start up costs needs to be taken into account with the expenses as and when incurred (Alfaro et al., 2015). For example, in Wesfarmers, the intangible assets are seen to be acquired separately and the same is measured as per initial cost of recognition. The cost of the acquired intangible assets are measured for the business combinations which are considered as per the fair value on the acquisition date (Bennedsen, Fan, Jian & Yeh, 2015).

Impact of IFRS Implementation on Australian Entities’ Intangible Assets

In general, the biggest firms in Australia are seen to be concerned with the winning an exemption with the new international accounting which will allow them to carve up amount of $ 50 Billion to the value in the corporate balance sheets next year. Companies such as Coca Cola and Foster’s Lion Nathan are concerned with the writing off the values for adopted as per the standards on the valuation on the intangible assets.  The main changes are concerned to be affecting the company’s and revaluing the intangible assets in which there has been no active and liquid market present. Some of these are considered with the inclusion of the newspaper mastheads and license agreements along with management of the rights at the property trusts. Implementation of the G 100 standards is seen to be having a significant effect on the balance sheet of the company which are associated to the implementation of the new rules. The intangible assets are seen to be considered with the carrying cost as there will be no write down. However, in case an asset is depicted to be generated as per the internal revaluation it is mandatory to write it off. The PBL annual report is seen to be considered as per the cost valuation and the cost considerations which are seen with the written down value (Tang, Li . & Yang, 2015).

AASB chairman David Boymal was seeking for exemption from the standards. The different types of the other standards as per the AASB was obliged with the directives of the FRC along with the international regulators and monitoring the accounting standards. in various cases the considerations for the FRC is seen to be having the sympathy for the plight of the corporates. Despite of this, it needs to be discerned that the new standards has overridden the demand pertaining to the exemption (Cristea & Nguyen, 2016).

The recognition of the various types of the intangible assets for the company is also categorised into concerns leading to impact on the volatile nature of the market. In general, the relevance of the intangible assets is seen with the negative impact with the volatile nature on the markets in which they operate. The actuaries in particular are depicted with the skills relating to the future accounting for the intangible assets (Hennart, Sheng & Pimenta, 2015).

The impact of IFRS among the media companies is expected to be more than $ 1 Billion pertaining to the non-cash write-downs at the time of adoption of new accounting standards. The problem is more evident among the media groups as the hybrid securities such as Seven Network must be able to reclassify the securities as debt for increasing the financial gearing ratio. Such a measure was not needed in the traditional accounting standards. Moreover, in case the intangible assets are carried at cost then no write-offs will be taken into account, only the assets generated from the internal revaluation will be written down. The television companies such as Seven reported in its annual report that needs to write back an amount of $480 million for increasing the independent valuer applied to its TV licences in 1998. This will significant increase the debt of the company by $315 million when TELYS (hybrid security) are reclassified as debt.

Impact of IFRS on Wesfarmers Limited

Materialisation of the concerns

The IFRS has comprehensively dealt with the initial recognition and the subsequent expenditure and the derecognition of the intangible assets. The various types of steps taken to materialise the present state of the concerns are seen with the IAS 38.124 disclosure. This stated that in case intangible assets are revalued then the entity needs to be considered with the various class of the intangible assets. The main implementation for this is seen with the effective data of the revaluation and carrying amount based on the revaluation of the intangible assets. In addition to this, CPA is introducing several types of the changes which will be focusing on the carrying value which will have to be recognised as per the revalued class of the intangible assets and measured after the recognition of the cost model. In addition to this, the revaluation amount has been depicted with the significant consideration of the reserved which are depicted to be related to the intangible assets in the beginning and end of financial which indicates the changes during a particular period. Some of the different types of the other considerations are seen with the introduction of IAS 38.128. This has including the entities and the disclosures and with the several types of the description which includes the fully amortised intangible asset. This disclosure has also adhered to the significant nature of the considerations for the intangible assets which are seen in the direct relevance with the recognised asset as they did not comply with IAS 38. The other improvement measures are seen with the inclusion of the brief description of the significant information on the intangible assets which are controlled with the recognition of the entity’s asset (Koh et al., 2015).   

Conclusion

The general issue with the intangible assets is seen with the negative impact with the volatile nature on the markets in which they operate. The actuaries are depicted with the skills relating to the future accounting for the intangible assets. The overall depiction from the discourse of the study has been able to state that the negative impact of the IFRS to the firms are seen with the changes in the introduction of “AASB 138, Intangible Assets” by the international accounting standards. This measure of the IFRS is depicted to write off a substantial amount of the intangibles which was previously capitalised and revalued as per the Corporations Act.  Some of the important nature of the other changes are depicted with the considerable amount of the identifiable assets acquired in a business combination needed to recognise the goodwill separately. In case of the IFRS the different types of the intangible asset to recognise the opening of the retained earnings which are included in opening balance of the retained earnings.

References

Alfaro, L., Antràs, P., Chor, D., & Conconi, P. (2015). Internalizing global value chains: A firm-level analysis (No. w21582). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Allais, R., & Gobert, J. (2016). A multidisciplinary method for sustainability assessment of PSS: Challenges and developments. CIRP journal of manufacturing science and technology, 15, 56-64.

Bello, D. C., Radulovich, L. P., Javalgi, R. R. G., Scherer, R. F., & Taylor, J. (2016). Performance of professional service firms from emerging markets: Role of innovative services and firm capabilities. Journal of World Business, 51(3), 413-424.

Bennedsen, M., Fan, J. P., Jian, M., & Yeh, Y. H. (2015). The family business map: Framework, selective survey, and evidence from Chinese family firm succession. Journal of Corporate Finance, 33, 212-226.

Cristea, A. D., & Nguyen, D. X. (2016). Transfer pricing by multinational firms: New evidence from foreign firm ownerships. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 8(3), 170-202.

Eniola, A., Entebang, H., & Sakariyau, O. B. (2015). Small and medium scale business performance in Nigeria: Challenges faced from an intellectual capital perspective. International Journal of Research Studies in Management, 4(1), 59-71.

Epstein, M. J. (2018). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental and economic impacts. Routledge.

Hahn, R., & Gold, S. (2014). Resources and governance in “base of the pyramid”-partnerships: Assessing collaborations between businesses and non-business actors. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1321-1333.

Hennart, J.F., Sheng, H.H. and Pimenta, G., 2015. Local complementary inputs as drivers of entry mode choices: The case of US investments in Brazil. International Business Review, 24(3), pp.466-475.

Hennart, J. F., Sheng, H. H., & Pimenta, G. (2015). Local complementary inputs as drivers of entry mode choices: The case of US investments in Brazil. International Business Review, 24(3), 466-475.

Koh, S., Durand, R. B., Dai, L., & Chang, M. (2015). Financial distress: Lifecycle and corporate restructuring. Journal of Corporate Finance, 33, 19-33.

Lovelock, C., & Patterson, P. (2015). Services marketing. Pearson Australia.

Paul, J., Parthasarathy, S., & Gupta, P. (2017). Exporting challenges of SMEs: A review and future research agenda. Journal of world business, 52(3), 327-342.

Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saaeidi, S. A. (2015). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of business research, 68(2), 341-350.

Tang, Y., Li, J., & Yang, H. (2015). What I see, what I do: How executive hubris affects firm innovation. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1698-1723.

Wesfarmers.com.au. (2018). Retrieved 10 August 2018, from https://www.wesfarmers.com.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2017-annual-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0