Last Thursday PricewaterhouseCoopers presented an interesting Toronto breakfast seminar on IFRS conversion in Canada. It was the debut of their new publication IFRS in motion: Keeping on Track.
My first reaction was to the title. It made me recall the famous 1960 song Poetry in Motion made famous by Johnny Tillotson. Maybe there are parallels? You can read the lyrics here. Are there parallels with IFRS in motion? Perhaps not but you can have fun with it. Do you “love every moment” of IFRS and do you think that it’s “much too nice to rearrange”. Those sixties songs ah well.
Let’s get serious.
The main point in the PwC presentation was to consider treating the IFRS conversion exercise as an opportunity to gain operational and reporting efficiencies. I agree with this point. You can certainly unearth opportunities for improvement through proper in depth reviews and there most likely will be opportunities for positive change. They could even lead to cost efficiencies that defray some of the IFRS conversion costs. This extends to improvements in computer systems if they can be made without a major upheaval. Surely it’s too late to plan a parallel change in ERP systems? As a person who has held senior positions in industry and government I would have been reluctant to undertake a major computer system change at the same as an IFRS conversion. In addition, there is a lot of opposition to introducing mandatory XBRL in Canada at the same as IFRS. It is very unlikely that our Securities Regulators will follow the SEC and move to make it mandatory in Canada, even on a phased in basis. It would not be popular.
Some companies have started to make significant changes to computer systems as part of their IFRS conversions. This is especially true to meet the requirements for componentization of Property, Plant and Equipment (PPE). They started well in advance and this was a very smart thing to do if like major utilities if PPE is a material component of your financials.
If you are cynical, and many are in these stressful times more than I have ever known, you might say that this is what many said about the Sarbanes-Oxley (Sox) process and the Canadian equivalent. I am not going into that – opinions differ. Yes there were some companies that did rethink their processes as part of their Sox implementation but for many it was just plain compliance.
You can read the PwC publication for more ideas on the approaches to use and how you might gain efficiencies through careful planning.
There was a very interesting Q & A at the presentation. Two questions in particular elicited interesting responses.
Jason Boggs, a partner in PwCs Capital Market Group had extensive experience in implementing IFRS in other countries. Being part of the IFRS conversion team is apparently an alternative to joining the navy to see the world. This experience has given Jason some interesting insights.
What were the biggest mistakes observed in IFRS conversions?
- Starting too late without a proper plan. This is on everybody’s list as a major IFRS conversion mistake. A proper plan has many elements and it is dynamic and not static. You need to specify who is to be involved and when, who needs to be briefed and when. It needs to be very comprehensive and managed by a very strict project management process. The Plan needs to be updated as more information comes to light and lessons learned. The later the start the more rigorous the plan. I emphasize that many still do not really realize the extent of this IFRS conversion plan. Just ask those who have progressed further with their plans.
- Relying exclusively on the finance group or the financial reporting group in a company with little buy in from other areas or even involvement. Or if it such involvement happens it takes place to late and one can get into “fire fighting mode”. Yes we have all been there on other issues. I hate surprises too!
- Giving the Keys to the IFRS conversion to a consultant (either large or small) and letting them run with the whole thing delivering the product. This means that management and staff will not know the issues and reasons for decisions and they certainly are not embedded in processes. You must end up with the in-house knowledge in the company. It is critical to your conversion plan. There will inevitably be changes in processes and even accounting policies once the company gets involved and finally gets an understanding. It’s extremely risky to use hands off approach. Who needs restatements? These are generally career limiting events for CFOs. Not a good thing at any time particularly now!
- It is critical that the “face” of the company is intimately familiar with the IFRS rules as they apply in their company. How have the results changed and what do disclosures mean? If you are a CFO, CEO or Chief Investment Officer you must ace this knowledge and be smooth in its presentation or you risk losing credibility when presenting your results to Investment Analysts (especially your initial results). You will need to do a very comprehensive “devil’s advocate” process for Shareholders’ Meetings I would think as well . Preparation leads to confidence or your securities could get punished versus your competitors in the marketplace. Who knows you might even benefit from your transparency?
Thank you Jason for the very good advice. It’s better to look at these things now than on the fly and in crisis mode.
What was the view on whether IFRS conversion should proceed in Canada given the stress on company Budgets caused by the credit crisis?
This is a difficult question. I have reported before on my previous blog site that the AcSB reaffirmed the decision to proceed with the 2011 start date for “publicly accountable enterprises.” This was based on input from their external IFRS Advisory Group.
The gist of the response was that it was critical to consider costs and benefits during the conversion process. You need to work smarter not harder and certainly not throw money at it without proper planning. You must have the detailed plan so no time is wasted. You need to use the right people at the right time and for the right period of time. Consultants need to be employed intelligently as does the involvement of external auditors. – consider who, what, when, how, where…
Thanks to Jason Boggs (noted previously) and to Eric Clarke of PwC for an interesting presentation. Eric Clarke is a Partner who is the Practice Lead in PwC on Internal Core team strategy, Knowledge management and education initiatives.



