International Human Resource management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

International Human Resource management - Essay Example The range of markets served by InterContinental Hotels Group span along the regions of America, Europe, American-European-African Nexus or AMEA and also encompasses Greater China. Total number of hotels encompassed by IHG in the global context range to 4,542 operating based on different brand portfolios (IGH-a, 2012). Current Global Position Pertaining to Global Ranking or Position IHG was found firstly to gain the award of Gifted Ranking in an evaluation made by the Digital IQ Index. The same Index related the hotel company to the Sixth Rank in comparison to around 52 other competing hotel brands (IHG-b, 2012). IHG’S Approach to Human Resource Management HRM in Hospitality IndustryThe recruitment of the people in the hospitality industries undergoes a process of evaluation of the personality traits and attributes of the individual to work in a challenging job atmosphere. Moreover the individual is subjected to different types of psychometric tests to understand the individual ’s problem-solving and team building abilities. Similarly different types of amenities and benefits related to work-time flexibility along with bonuses and increments are rendered to motivate the individual. Opportunities for growth are framed through incorporation of training programs in the work culture along with encouraging the people to intercommunicate amongst each other. Moreover incorporation of a 360 Degree Appraisal Process coupled with Empowering Individuals to take managerial and strategic decisions and rewarding.

Anabolic Steroids in the Enhancement of Muscle Development Essay Example for Free

Anabolic Steroids in the Enhancement of Muscle Development Essay People nowadays have been more conscious of their physical appearance. The will of others to be physically fit, enables them to enroll in different programs or even engage themselves in the administration of drugs that help enhance muscle development. One of these drugs is the Anabolic steroid. Anabolic steroids are defined as synthetic substances that are similar to the sex hormones in men. These are used as treatment for other conditions, and may also be used to increase the testosterone level in men. In addition to this, the use of such steroids also enhances the muscle mass of its users. Most of these, if not all, require a prescription upon purchase, for these may have effects on the body of the individual, causing irreversible health problems (National Institute of Drug Abuse, March 2007). These drugs are often used by athletes, bodybuilders, and people who are in need of excellent physical performance. Steroids are known to help in the increasing of the strength, aggressiveness, and body mass of its users. In addition to this, the continuous use of this drug increases the muscle size of users, at the same time helps in the improvement of the physical appearance through the reduction of the body fat (Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, 6 March 2006). The Mayo Clinic website defines that steroids may be administered in a number of different ways. Two of the most common routes of administration were oral and parenteral. For oral administration, these come in the form of tablets (Mayo Clinic, 1 January 2008). They may also be administered parenterally, either through the subcutaneous and intramuscular routes (Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, 6 March 2006). Some of the most common oral steroids used include Oxymetholone (Anadrol), Oxandrolone (Oxandrin), Dianabrol (Methandrostenolone), and Winstrol (Stanozolol). Injectable steroids, on the other hand, include Nandrolone decanoate (Deca-Durabolin), Nandron phenpropionate (Durabolin), Testosterone cypionate (Depo-Testosterone, and Bodlenon undecyclenate (Equipoise) (National Institute on Drug Abuse, April 2000, p2). Steroids help in the increase of muscle development in the body. This occurs when hypogonadal men receive treatments to increase their testosterone levels. The continuous use of anabolic steroids contribute to the increase in muscle mass of the user, most specifically in the mass of the upper part of the body. Furthermore, studies have shown that the administration of these drugs have an effect in the biochemistry and the morphology of the muscles. Biopsies have shown that there was a dramatical increase in the muscle fibers and the average fiber size, especially in the trapezius muscle upon continuous use of the steroid (Kuhn, 2002). The excessive use of anabolic steroids may result in negative effects in the body. Some of its major effects include liver tumors, jaundice, fluid retention, hypertension, trembling, severe acne, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle cramps, and stunted height. Some people take these symptoms for granted, associating them with another illness other than steroid use. Aside from these effects, there were also gender specific effects of steroid use (ATOD Prevention Center, n. d. ). Even adolescents, when given excessive doses of steroids are greatly affected. Puberty changes arise, with their skeletal system growing prematurely. Men, being the most users of steroids, are also affected. Their testicles tend to shrink, with their sperm count greatly reduced to that of normal. There is also a great risk of baldness and the possible development of breasts, and worse, the risk of acquiring prostate cancer. Women on the other hand, tend to grow facial hair, and have male-pattern baldness tendencies. Steroid administration also results to the stopping or irregularity of the menstrual cycle, and the tendency to be moon-faced. For others, the drug administration may also result in a deeper speaking voice, accompanied by clitoris enlargement (Narconon Trois-Rivieres, 2 April 2008). Aside from all these effects, steroid abuse may also have psychological effects on the user. Depression, irritability, distractions, forgetfulness, paranoia, aggression, and manic episodes are the most common psychological effects of steroid use (ATOD Prevention Center, n. d. ). The continued use results in the sudden change in an individuals way of thinking and their urge to hurt other people. The Drugtext website has stated that a test was made on three cases, marking their changes on their steroid use. All three resulted in a higher rate of aggression rates with the use of steroids, as compared to those who do not use the drug (Williamson, 1994). With the given data, it is just but necessary for people to learn how to control the use of these drugs. More lives may be saved, and addictions may be avoided. Let us all contribute to the upheaval of a healthy environment towards a drug-free life. Works Cited â€Å"Anabolic Steroid Abuse. † National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Report Series 4 (2000): 1- 8. â€Å"Drug Rehabilitation Center: Steroids. † 2 April 2008. Narconon Trois-Rivieres. 8 April 2008 http://www. narconon. ca/steroids. htm. Kuh, Cynthia M. â€Å"Anabolic Steroids. † 2002. Recent Progress in Hormone Research. 8 April 2008 http://rphr. endojournals. org/cgi/content/full/57/1/411. â€Å"NIDA: InfoFacts: Steroids (Anabolic-Androgenic). † January 2, 2008 National Institute On Drug Abuse. Retrieved 7 April 2008 http://www. nida. nih. gov/Infofacts/Steroids. html. â€Å"Steroids. † ATOD Prevention Center. 8 April 2008 http://www. umes. edu/atod/abuse/drugs/steroids. htm. â€Å"Steroids. † 6 March 2006. Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Retrieved 7 April 2008 http://www. gdcada. org/statistics/steroids. htm Williamson, Doug. â€Å"The Psychological Effects of Anabolic Steroids. † The International Journal of Drug Policy 5. 1 (1994): 8 April 2006 http://www. drugtext. org/library/articles/945104. htm.

Factors Influencing Corporate Strategy: UK Supermarkets

Factors Influencing Corporate Strategy: UK Supermarkets Tesco Plc Corporate Strategy The definition of corporate strategy has changed over the years. In the past it was deemed to be a set of internal plans and policies designed to enable a business to succeed in the pursuit of its aims and objectives (Pettigrew et al 2002). Robert Grant (2004, p.7) in his study stated that the implementation of successful strategy could not happen until the business managers had appraised the available or required resources, have an in-depth knowledge of the competitive environment they operated within and the whole team had agreed upon the objectives. More recently, the understanding of corporate strategy has been extended to include external forces and thus it can rely upon the definition statement made by Collis and Montgomery (1997, p.5) which observes that: â€Å"Corporate strategy is the way a company creates value through the configuration and coordination of its multimarket activities.† The purpose of this paper is to promote further understanding of the factors that influence corporate strategy within a particularly competitive industry sector. For this purpose the supermarket retail sector has been chosen for analysis. To assess how these factors impact upon the market players, the Tesco organisation has been used a focus for a case study. The reasoning behind this particular choice is that Tesco Plc has maintained a position of industry dominance, despite strong competition from other players, including Asda and Sainsbury Retail Industry Supermarkets During the course of the past four or five decades the Supermarket has taken a progressively increasing share of the grocery retailing market, with their store size and low prices driving local and independent stores in increasing numbers. In 2005 the organisations had reached a position where collectively their revenue accounted for approaching two thirds of total UK grocery sales. in Supermarket sales now account for around nearly two thirds of total grocery sales in the UK and were having an increasing impact in other retail sectors. However, as can be seen from the breakdown of the supermarket sales in grocery products, there is a considerable amount of competition between the supermarket players (see table 1). Table 1: Supermarket grocery sales 2005 (Source: BBC News 2006 and company reports) As can be seen from the above Tesco’s leads the industry sector by a considerable margin in terms of percentage. Furthermore , despite the intensity of competition that is focused upon around a dozen competitors, in revenue terms Tesco’s sales are almost equivalent to the sum of their three closet rivals, which gives them a commanding lead in terms of the number of consumers that are attracted to their stores. Tesco operates a total of 3,262 stores internationally, including 1,988 located throughout the UK. Employing in excess of 450,000 people globally, the business has so far achieved a market leadership position in four other countries as well as the UK and is currently considering expanding its operations in the US. Similarly, in line with other retailing organisations, the business is expanding its home delivery and Internet presence through the development of its online retailing website. (www.tesco.com). As Hill and Jones (2007) identify in their research into the subject of strategic management, the key drivers change and the market players have to respond positively to these changes. The supermarket industry is no exception to this rule. Initially supermarket organisations were driven by the need to create a competitive advantage. In essence this is achieved when the business reaches a position â€Å" â€Å"whenever it outperforms its competitors† (Pettigrew et al 2002, p.55), but as Grant (2004) observes, ultimately it needs to build upon that advantage, thereby reducing the opportunities for others to compete. Grant (2004, p.30), Collis and Montgomery (1998, p.65) state that competitive advantage can be gained through cost or differentiation, either of which return greater value to the consumer. However, competitive advantage is also relevant to the business marketing process, where it is important for the organisation to â€Å"understand its consumers and the decision processes they go through (Kolter et al 2004, p.29). However, advantage in this area is also achieved by a better understanding than that of competitors Consumers also drive the industry as has been seen through recent years. Initially the consumer determinant was for lower prices, wide range of selection, convenience and to a lesser extent the ability to do a one-stop shop, hence the development of the supermarket and out of town hypermarket locations, where all the weekly shop could be performed at one time. They have achieved the objective on price through a strategy of low cost and strategy through a process of low cost and the offering of substitute products (Hill and Jones 2007), which as a side effect, has also enable d the businesses to achieve a level of power over suppliers that has forced such organisations to address their own internal issues in order to remain economically viable. However, more recently consumer demands have changed and the emphasis has now moved to other areas of importance. These include the need for quality, customer service and â€Å"organic† and environmentally friendly products. Similarly, w ith the advent of concerns regarding the natural environment supermarkets are having to respond to these changes as well. To address consumer issues human resource management has also become an important driver in the industry development. The majority of researchers believe that the manner by which a business manages their HR resources has a significant impact on strategy (Collis and Montgomery 1998, p.163) and (Grant 2004, p.144). Thus the supermarket organisations have devoted a considerable amount of effort to increasing motivation and satisfaction within their workforce. The more successful organisations, such as Tesco’s and Asda have created the appropriate style of leadership and team building that has helped them achieve success in this area (Pettigrew et al 2002, p.285). As Hills and Jones (2007) have identified, the better the abilities of management and leaders in dealing with HR management, the easier it is to get a corporate strategy accepted and implemented. Technological developments have also brought about a change in the supermarket retailing industry. By incorporating these within all aspects of the supply chain, such as using new software and Internet systems that enable a closer control of stock, this has â€Å"set the overall context of competition for all firms in the industry (Porter 21004, p.142). It has also enabled organisations such as Tesco’s to continue to maintain their position within the industry. As the supermarkets have increased size and market share, so there have found themselves being increasing subject to the constraints of external forces being exerted upon them for the political and legislative stakeholders(Porter 2004, p.56 and Collis and Montgomery 1998, p.68). For example, the competition commission has often stepped in during the past few years to halt development of new stores on the grounds that it would be detrimental to fair competition. Similarly, as a result of the increasing concerns being expressed regarding health and environmental issues, the supermarket has be driven to introduce new â€Å"health† and â€Å"organic† brands and, as part of the brand management process, to increase the level of product knowledge in respect of these issues that appears upon the packaging. Therefore, all of these external issues are now having to be borne in mind during the planning of the strategy process.(Pettigrew et al 2002, p.190). In essence, at present the critical success factors for the industry can be identified as relating to three specific areas. The first of these is the efficient management of its supply chain, where the effective performance of each part is important to the smooth running of the whole (Porter 2004, p.311). Secondly, the quality of its products and customer services and effective marketing of the brand is important in order for the business to maintain both its market position and competitive advantage. Thirdly, is the effectiveness of its change management strategy. In this later respect it is essential that there is a â€Å"continuous interaction between strategy formulation and strategy implementation in which strategy is constantly being adjusted and revised in light of experience† Grant (2004, p.17). All of these factors are important to the industry players in that there form the vital elements that enable the maintenance of the business main objective, which is to continue to add value for the business stakeholders (Hills and Jones, 2007). The structure of an organisation, how it manages its resources and the relationship that it builds with employees and customers are key elements in a business that is seeking success and profitability. The level to which each organisation can achieve the harmonisation of all these factors will determine both the competitive advantage and the position that the organisation holds with the industry. As will be shown in the following section, Tesco’s has been consistently achieving a position of successfully incorporating all of these elements into their corporate strategy. Tesco Case Study During the past five years, and before this period, Tesco’s have based the main thrust of their corporate strategy on Porter’s â€Å"cost leadership.† By concentrating upon ensuring that all aspects of the supply chain were cost driven, thereby lowering unit price, the business has been able to maintain its policy of reduce prices to the consumer whilst at the same time ensuring that it has the funds and ability to invest in the new technology needed to maintain this advantage (Porter 2004, p36). In terms of the former, this can be evidenced by the fact that, as one of the current advertising campaigns states, there are able to maintain a price advantage over all of their competitors across a wide range of their products. Even given that, partially because of the business cycle, which can be said to have reached a level of some maturity (Hills and Jones 2007), together with the constraints that have been placed upon the industry by political, regulatory and legislative forces, the same low cost strategy is being maintained as the Tesco’s organisation seeks to enter and make an impact upon other market segments, for example fashion, home products and finance. For example, the current range of prices throughout all of these non-core products are still promoted using the organisation’s brand marketing message of â€Å"every little helps,† which indicates that the consumer will receive the same approach to low prices as has been offered within the grocery retail segment of the business revenue. However, as will be noted from their website[1], the business has taken info account the other factors that are important to the cusses of corporate strategy. For example, the human resources management policies are prominent in terms of the employee importance to the business, as is the relationship that the business is maintaining within both its suppliers and consumers, mainly through the increasing use of technology. Another import element of Tesco’s success has been its ability to manage change. As Porter (2004, p.21) suggests, different stages of the business life cycle can bring about change, as can the movement of the consumer demands and aspirations (Collis and Montgomery 1998, p.3). Tesco’s has respond quickly top both of these areas of change rapidly and in an efficient manner (Porter 2004, p.71 and Grant 2004, p.382). In the former instance, as indicated, it has moved into other market segments, and in terms of the latter, it has introduced new brands, including those that concentrate upon the environmental and health issues being raised by consumers and to address the issue of quality, where it now includes a â€Å"Tesco’s finest† range. However all of these moves have been performed whilst still maintaining a dedication to the core business strategy of cost leadership. As can be seen from the following graph, during the course of the past five years, as witness to the success of the Tesco corporate strategy, the business has consistently outperformed the FTSE 100 and the shares of its nearest UK quoted rival Sainsbury. The only time there was any near convergence of the two supermarket chains share value was earlier this year, and this was because of potential bidders showing an interest in Sainsbury, not related to their performance. Conclusion As has been shown during the course of this research, Tesco’s have consistently led the UK supermarket retailing sector of the business during the course of the past few years. This has been achieved by the implementation and maintenance of a successful corporate strategy, which has enabled the business to maintain a competitive advantage despite strong competition from other industry players. In reality this success, which has been evidenced from the financial performance, has been achieved by their turning this strategy into a unique business culture, which as Hofstede et al (2004) has created a situation where the business is seen to have, has resulted in the:- â€Å"†¦the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of the group or category of people from others† Anther major element of the organisation’s success is the effectiveness of the way in which they manage change, being able to respond appropriately and rapidly to anything that poses a threat to the business future. There is little doubt that as long as the management remain focus on these strategies, that the business will maintain its present marketplace position. References Collis, David J and Montgomery, Cynthia A (1998). Corporate Strategy: A resource Based Approach. McGraw Hill. US. BBC News (2006). Tesco’s market share still rising. Retrieved 19 November 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4694974.stm Faulkner, David and Campbell, Andrew (2006). The Oxford Book of Strategy: A Strategy Overview and Competitive Strategy. New ed. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK. Grant, Robert (2004). Contemporary Strategy Analysis. 5th Edition. Blackwell Publishers. Oxford, UK. Gregory, David (2005). Supermarkets and Standards. Presentation, UK. Retrieved 27 September 2007 from http://www.odi.org.uk/speeches/apgood/Agric_in_Africa_05/apgood_nov23/index.html Heavens, Andrew (2005). E-commerce soars by 88%. Times Online. Retrieved 25 September 2007 from http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article417278.ece Hill, C.W.L. Jones, G.R. (2007). Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach. (7th ed) Houghton Mifflin. Boston, US. Hofstede, G. Hofstede, G.J.(2004). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kelly, Sean. (2005). Customer intelligence From Data to Dialogue. John Wiley Sons Ltd. Chichester, UK. Lucas, R. Lupton, B. Mathieson, H. (2007). Human Resources Management in an International Context. London: CIPD. Pettigrew, Andrew M. Thomas, Howard and Whittington, Richard (2002). The Handbook of Strategy and Management. Sage Publications Ltd. London, UK. Porter, Michael E (1985). Competitive Advantage. The Free Press. New York. US. Porter, Michael E (2004). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries and Competitors. The Free Press. New ed. The Free Press. New York, US. Survey (2006). The UK’s Best Online Shopping Experience 2006. www.blastradius.com. Retrieved 26 September 2007 from http://www.blastradius.com/ukshopping2006.pdf Tesco (2007). Tesco at a glance. Retrieved 27 September from http://www.tescocorporate.com [1] http://www.tescocorporate.com/page.aspx?pointerid=3DB554FCAE344BD88EEEEFA63D71B831 Analysis of the Accrual Anomaly | Accounting Dissertation Analysis of the Accrual Anomaly | Accounting Dissertation Sloan (1996), in a determinative paper, added the accrual anomaly in the list of the market imperfections. Since then, academics have focused on the empirical investigation of the anomaly and the connection it has with other misspricing phenomena. The accrual anomaly is still at an embryonic stage and further research is needed to confirm the profitability of an accruals based strategy net of transaction costs. The current study investigates the accrual anomaly while taking into consideration a UK sample from 1991 to 2008. In addition, the predictive power of the Fama and French (1996) factors HML and SMB is being tested along with the industrial production growth, the dividend yield and the term structure of the interest rates. Chapter 1 Introduction Since the introduction of the random walk theory which formed the basis for the evolvement of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH hereafter) proposed by Fama (1965), the financial literature has made many advances but a piece of the puzzle that is still missing is whether the EMH holds. Undoubtedly, the aforementioned debate can be considered as one of the most fruitful and fast progressing financial debates of the last two decades. The Efficient Market Hypothesis has met many challenges regardless of which of its three forms are being investigated. However, the weak form and semi strong hypothesis have been the most controversial. A literally vast collection of academic papers discuss, explore and argue for phenomena that seem to reject that the financial markets are efficient. The famous label of â€Å"anomaly† has taken several forms. Many well-known anomalies such as the contrarian investment, the post announcement drift, the accruals anomaly and many others are just the beginning of an endless trip. There is absolutely no doubt that many more are going to be introduced and evidence for the ability for the investors to earn abnormal returns will be documented. Recently, academics try to expand their investigation on whether these well-documented anomalies are actually profitable due to several limitations (transaction costs etc) and whether the anomalies are connected. Many papers are exploring the connection of the anomalies with each other proposing the existence of a â€Å"principal† misspricing that is documented into several forms. The current study tries to look into the anomaly that was initially documented by Sloan (1996) and has been labelled as the â€Å"accrual anomaly†. The accrual anomaly can be characterised as being at an embryonic stage if the basis for comparison is the amount of publications and the dimensions of the anomaly that light has been shed on. The facts for the accrual anomaly suggest the existence of the opportunity for investors to earn abnormal returns by taking advantage of simple publicly available information. On the other hand, accruals comprising an accounting figure have been approached from different points of view with consequences visible in the results of the academic papers. Furthermore, Stark et al (2009) challenge the actual profitability of the accrual anomaly by simply taking transaction costs into consideration. The present paper employs an accrual strategy for a sample comprising of UK firms during 1991-2008. The aim is to empirically investigate the profitability of such strategies during the whole data sample. The methodology for the calculation of accruals is largely based on the paper of Hardouvelis et al (2009). Stark et al (2009) propose that the positive excess returns of the accruals’ strategy are based on the profitability of small stock. In order to investigate the aforementioned claim, the current study employs an additional strategy by constructing intersecting portfolios based on accruals and size. Finally, five variables are being investigating at the second part of the study for their predictive power on the excess returns of the constructed portfolios. The monumental paper of Fama and French (1996) documented an impressive performance of two constructed variables (the returns of portfolios named HML and SMB). In addition, the dividend yield of the FTSE all share index, the industrial production growth and the term structure of the interest rates will be investigated as they are considered as potential candidates for the prediction of stock returns. Chapter 2 Literature review 2.1. Introduction During the last century the financial world has offered many substantial advances. From the Portfolio Theory of Markowitz (1952) to the development of the Capital Asset Pricing Model of Sharpe (1964) and Lintner (1965), and from the market Efficient Market Hypothesis (hereafter EMH), developed by Fama (1965), to the recent literature that challenges both the CAPM and the EMH, they all seem to be a chain reaction.   The financial academic world aims to give difficult but important answers on whether markets are efficient and on how investors should allocate their funds. During the last two decades, many researchers have documented that there exist strategies that challenge the claim of the supporters of the efficient and complete markets. In this chapter, the effort will be focused on reviewing the financial literature from the birth of the idea of the EMH until the recent publications that confirm, reject or challenge it. In a determinative paper, Fama (1970) defined efficient markets and categorised them according to the type of information used by investors. Since then, the finance literature has offered a plethora of studies that aim to test or prove whether markets are indeed efficient or not. Well known anomalies such as the post announcement drift, the value-growth anomaly or the accruals anomaly have been the theme of many articles ever since. 2.2. Review of the value-growth anomaly We consider as helpful to review the literature for the value growth-anomaly since it was one of the first anomalies to be investigated in such an extent. In addition, the research for the value-growth anomaly has yielded a largely productive debate on whether the documented returns are due to higher risk or other source of mispricing. Basu (1970) concluded that stocks with high Earnings to Price ratio tend to outperform stocks with low E/P. Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny (1994) documented that stocks that appear to have low price to a fundamental (book value, earnings, dividends etc) can outperform stocks with high price to a fundamental measure of value. Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny (1994) initiated a productive period that aimed to settle the dispute on the EMH and investigate the causes of such â€Å"anomalies†. Thus, the aforementioned researchers sparked the debate not only on the market efficiency hypothesis but also on what are the sources for these phenomena. Fama and French (1992) supported the idea that certain stocks outperform their counterparts due to the larger risk that the investors bear. Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny (1994) supported the idea that investors fail to correctly react to information that is available to them. The same idea was supported by many researchers such as Piotroski (2001). The latter also constructed a score in order to categorise stocks with high B/M that can yield positive abnormal returns (namely, the F Score). Additionally, the â€Å"market efficiency debate â€Å"drove behavioural finance to rise in popularity. The value-growth phenomenon has yielded many articles that aim to find evidence that a profitable strategy is feasible or trace the sources of these profits but, at the same time, the main approach adopted in each study varies significantly. Asness (1997) and Daniel and Titman (1999) examine the price momentum, while Lakonishok, Sougiannis and Chan (2001) examine the impact of the value of intangible assets on security returns. In addition, researchers have found evidence that the value-growth strategies tend to be successful worldwide, as their results suggest. To name a few, Chan, Hamao and Lakonishok (1991) focused on the Japanese market, Put and Veld (1995) based their research on France, Germany and the Netherlands and Gregory, Harris and Michou (2001) examined the UK stock market. It is worth mentioning that solely the evidence of such profitable strategies could be sufficient to draw the attention of practitioners, but academics are additionally interested in exploring the main cause of these arising opportunities as well as the relationship between the aforementioned phenomena (namely, the value growth, post announcement drift and the accrual anomaly). In general, two schools of thought have been developed: the one that supports the risk based explanation or, in other words, that stocks yield higher returns simply because they are riskier, and the one that supports that investors fail to recognise the correct signs included in the available information. 2.3. The accruals anomaly 2.3.1. Introduction of the accrual anomaly. Sloan (1996) documented that firms with high (low) accruals tend to earn negative (positive) returns in the following year. Based on this strategy, a profitable portfolio that has a long position on stocks with low accruals and short position on stocks with high accruals yields approximately 10% abnormal returns. According to Sloan (1996) investors tend to overreact to information on current earnings. Sloan’s (1996) seminar paper has been characterised as a productive work that initiated an interesting to follow debate during the last decade. It is worth noting that even the very recent literature on the accrual anomaly has not reached reconciling conclusion about the main causes of this particular phenomenon and about whether a trading strategy (net of transaction costs) based solely on the mispricing of accruals can be systematically profitable. At this point it is worth mentioning that the accruals have been found to be statistically significant and negative to predict future stock returns. On the other hand, there are papers that examine the accruals and its relations with the aggregate market. A simple example is the paper published by Hirshleifer, Hou and Teoh (2007), who aim to identify the relation of the accruals, if any, with the aggregate stock market. Their findings support that while the operating accruals have been found to be a statistical significant and a negative predictor of the stock returns, the relation with the market portfolio is strong and positive. They support that the sign of the accruals coefficient varies from industry to industry reaching a peek when the High Tech industry is taken into account (1.15), and taking a negative value for the Communication and Beer/Liquor industry. 2.3.2 Evidence for the international presence of the phenomenon. Researchers that investigated the accruals anomaly followed different approaches. At this point, it is worth noting that the evidence shows the accrual anomaly (although it was first found to be present in the US market) to exist worldwide. Leippold and Lohre (2008) examine the accrual anomaly within an international framework. The researchers document that the accrual anomaly is a fact for a plethora of markets. The contribution of the paper though, is the large and â€Å"complete† number of tests used, so that the possibility of pure randomness would be eliminated. Although, similar tests showed that momentum strategies can be profitable, recent methodologies used by the researchers and proposed by Romano and Wolf (2005) and Romano, Shaikh and Wolf (2008), suggest that the accruals anomaly can be partially â€Å"random†. It is noteworthy that the additional tests make the â€Å"anomaly† to fade out for almost all the samples apart from the markets of US, Australia and Denmark. Kaserer and Klingler (2008) examine how the over-reaction of the accrual information is connected with the accounting standards applied. The researchers constructed their sample by solely German firms and their findings document that the anomaly is present in Germany too. We should mention at this point that, interestingly, prior to 2000, that is prior to the adoption of the international accounting standards by Germany, the evidence did not support the existence of the accrual anomaly. However, during 2000-2002, Kaserer and Klingler (2008) found that the market overreacted to accrual information. Hence, the authors support the idea that an additional cause of the anomaly is the lack of legal mechanisms to enforce the preparation of the financial statements according to the international accounting standards which might gave the opportunity to the firms to â€Å"manipulate† their earnings. Another paper that focuses on the worldwide presence of the accruals mispricing is that of Rajgopal and Venkatachalam (2007). Rajgopal and Venkatachalam examined a total of 19 markets and found that the particular market anomaly exists in Australia, UK, Canada and the US. The authors’ primal goal was to identify the key drivers that can distinguish the markets where the anomaly was documented. Their evidence supports the idea that an accrual strategy is favoured in countries where there is a common law tradition, an extensive accrual accounting and a low concentration of firms’ ownership combined with weak shareholders’ rights. LaFond (2005) also considers the existence of the phenomenon within a global framework. The author’s findings support the notion that the accrual anomaly is present worldwide. In addition, LaFond argues that there is not a unique driving factor responsible for the phenomenon across the markets. It is worth noting that LaFond (2005) documented that this particular market imperfection is present in markets with diverse methodology of accrual accounting. Findings are against the idea that the accrual anomaly has any relation with the level of the shareholders protection or a common law tradition, as suggested by Rajgopal and Venkatachalam (2007). Finally, the author suggests that, if any, it is not the different method of accrual accounting (measurement issues) that favours or eliminates the accrual anomaly, but the accrual accounting itself. 2.3.3. Further Evidence for the roots of the accruals anomaly. Additionally, papers such as those of Thomas and Zang (2002) or Hribar (2000) decompose accruals into changes in different items (such as inventory, accounts payable etc). The findings catholically suggest that extreme changes in inventory affect returns the most. On the other hand, many articles connect the accruals with information used by investors, such as the behaviour of insiders or analysts, as the latter can be considered a major signal to the investors for a potential manipulation of the firms’ figures. In particular, Beneish and Vargus (2002) documented that firms with high accruals and significant insider selling have substantial negative returns.  Bradshaw (2001) and Barth and Hutton (2001) examine the analysts’ reports and their relation with the accruals anomaly. Their findings support that the analysts’ forecasting error tends to be larger for firms with high accruals, while analysts do not revise their forecasts when new information for accruals is available. Gu and Jain (2006) decompose accruals into changes in inventory, changes in accounts receivable and payable and depreciation expenses and try to identify the impact of the individual components to the anomaly. Consistent with Sloan (1996), Gu and Jain (2006) document that the accrual anomaly exists at the components level. The findings are important since Desai et al (2004) supported the connection of the accrual anomaly with a single variable (cash flows from operations). The researchers suggest that the results yielded by Desai et al (2004) were highly dependent on the methodology used and thus, suggested that the accruals anomaly is â€Å"alive and well†. Moreover, other articles try to confirm whether the anomaly is mainly caused by the wrong interpretation of the information contained in accruals. Ali et al. (2000), investigate whether the naà ¯ve investors’ hypothesis holds. Following the methodology introduced by Hand (1990) and Walther (1997), they found that for smaller firms, which are more likely to be followed by sophisticated investors, the relation between accruals and negative future returns is weaker compared to larger firms, which are followed by many analysts. Therefore, the researchers suggest that, if anything, the naà ¯ve investors’ hypothesis does not hold. In contrast to other market anomalies where findings suggest that the naà ¯ve investors hypothesis holds, the accruals anomaly is suggested as unique. Shi and Zhang (2007) investigate the earnings fixation hypothesis suggesting that the accruals anomaly is based on the investors â€Å"fixation† or â€Å"obsession† on earnings. Their primal hypothesis is that if investors are highly based on the reports about earnings and misprice the value-relevant earnings, then the returns should be dependent not only on the accruals but also on how the stock’s price changes according to reported earnings.  The researchers’ hypothesis is confirmed and finding support that an accrual strategy for firms whose stocks’ price highly fluctuates according to earnings yields a 37% annual return. Sawicki and Shrestha (2009) aim to examine two possible explanations for the accruals anomaly. Sloan (1996) proposed the fixation theory under which investors fixate on earnings and thus overvalue or undervalue information for accruals. Kothari et al. (2006) proposed the â€Å"agency theory of overvalued equity† according to which managers of overvalued firms try to prolong the period of this overvaluation which causes accruals to increase.  The paper uses the insider trading and other firm characteristics and tries to compare and contrast the two major explanations. Evidence produces bd Sawicki and Shrestha (2009) support the Kothari et al. (2006) explanation for the accrual anomaly. In a relatively different in motif paper, Wu and Zhang (2008) examine the role that the discount rates play in the accrual anomaly. They argue that if anything, the anomaly is not caused by irrationality from the investors’side but by the rationality of firms as it is proposed by the q-theory of investment. They argue that since the discount rates fall and more projects become profitable (which makes accruals to increase) future stock returns should decline. In other words, if the capital investment correctly adjusts to the current discount rates, the accruals should be negatively correlated with the future returns and positively correlated with the current returns. The evidence of Wu and Zhang (2008) support that the accruals are negatively correlated with the future stock returns but the contribution of the paper is in that they document that current stock returns are positively correlated with the accruals. 2.3.4. The relation of the accrual anomaly with other market imperfections. Many papers examine the relation between the accruals anomaly and other well-known anomalies such as the post announcement drift or the value-growth phenomenon. Desai et al. (2002), suggest that the â€Å"value-growth† anomaly and the accruals anomaly basically interact and conclude that the  ¨accruals strategy and the C/P reflect the same underlying phenomena†. Collins and Hribar (2000) suggest that there in no link between the accruals anomaly and the â€Å"PAD†, while Fairfield et al. (2001) support that the accruals anomaly is a sub-category of an anomaly caused by the mistaken interpretation of the information about growth by the investors. Cheng and Thomas (2006) examine the claim that the accrual anomaly is a part of a broader anomaly (and more specifically, the value-glamour anomaly). Prior literature suggested that the operating cash flows to price ratio subordinates accruals in explaining future stock returns (Deshai et al (2004)). Their evidence suggests that the Operating CF to price ratio does not subsume neither abnormal nor total accruals in future announcement returns. This particular result does not confirm the claim that the accrual anomaly is a part of a broad value-glamour anomaly. Atwood and Xie (2005) focus on the relation of the accrual anomaly and the mispricing of the special items first documented by Burgstahler, Jiambalvo and Shevlin (2002). Their hypothesis that the two phenomena are highly related is confirmed since the researchers found that special items and accruals are positively correlated. Additionally, further tests yielded results that suggest that the two imperfections are not distinct, while the special items have an impact on how the market misprices the accruals. Louis and Sun (2008) aim to assess the relation between the abnormal accrual anomaly and the post earnings announcement drift anomaly. The authors hypothesize that both anomalies are related to the management of the earnings and thus, they aim to find whether the two are closely connected. The findings are consistent with the primal hypothesis, as they found that â€Å"firms with large positive change of earnings that were least likely to have manipulated earning downwards† did not suffer from PEAD, while the same result was yielded for firms that had large negative change of earnings that were least likely to have managed their earnings upwards. As supported by many researchers the value-growth anomaly and accruals anomaly might be closely related or they might even be caused by the similar or even identical roots.  Fama and French (1996) support that the book to market factor captures the risk of default, while Khan (2008) suggests that in a similar pattern firms with low accruals have a larger possibility to bankrupt. Therefore, many researchers try to connect the two phenomena or to answer whether a strategy based on the accruals can offer more than what the value growth strategy offers. Hardouvelis, Papanastopoulos, Thomakos and Wang (2009) connect the two anomalies by assessing the profitability of interacting portfolios based on the accruals and value-growth measures. Their findings support that positive returns are obtainable and magnified when a long position is held for a portfolio with low accruals while combined with stocks that are characterised as high market to book. The difference of a risked-based explanation or an imperfection of the markets is considered to be a major debate, as it can challenge the market efficiency hypothesis. Many researchers, such as Fama and French (1996) noted that any potential profitable strategy is simply due to the higher risk that the investors have to bear by holding such portfolios. In a similar way, the profitable accruals strategies are considered as a compensation for a higher risk. Stocks that yield larger returns are compared or labelled as stocks of firms that are close to a financial distress. Khan (2000) aims to confirm or reject the risk-based explanation of the accruals anomaly. The researcher uses the ICAPM in order to test if the risk captured by the model can explain the anomaly first documented by Sloan (1996). It is worth noting that the descriptive statistics results for the sample used showed that firms that had low accruals also had high bankruptcy risk.  The contribution of the paper is that, by proposing a four factor model enhanced by recent asset pricing advances, it showed that a great portion of the mispricing that results in the accrual anomaly can be explained within a risk-based framework. Furthermore, Jeffrey Ng (2005) examines the risk based explanation for the accrual anomaly which proposes that accruals include information for financial distress. As proposed by many papers, the accrual anomaly is simply based on the fact that investors bare more risk and thus low accrual firms have positive abnormal returns. The researcher tries to examine how and if the abnormal returns of a portfolio which is short on low accruals stocks and long on high accrual firms changes when controlling for distress risk. Evidence supports that at least a part of the abnormal returns are a compensation for bearing additional risk. Finally, the results support that the big portion of the high abnormal returns of the accrual strategy used in the particular paper is due to stocks that have high distress risk. 2.3.5. The accruals anomaly and its relation with firms’ characteristics. A noteworthy part of the academic literature examines the existence of some key characteristics or drivers that are highly correlated with the accruals anomaly. Many researchers have published papers that aim to identify the impact of firm characteristics such as the size of the firm, characteristics that belong to the broader environment of the firms such as the accounting standards or the power of the minority shareholders. Zhang (2007) investigates whether the accrual anomaly varies cross-sectionally while being related with firms’ specific characteristics. The researcher primarily aims to explain which the main reason for the accrual anomaly is. As Zhang (2007) mentions, Sloan (1996) attributes the accrual anomaly to the overestimation of the persistence of accruals by investors, while Fairfield (2003) argues that the accrual anomaly is a â€Å"special case of a wider anomaly based on growth†. The evidence supports the researcher’s hypothesis that characteristics such as the covariance of the employee growth with the accruals have an impact on the future stock returns. Finally, Zhang (2007) documents that that accruals co-vary with investment in fixed assets and external financing. Louis, Robinson and Sbaraglia (2006) examine whether the non-disclosure of accruals information can have an impact on the accruals anomaly. The researchers, dividing their sample into firms that disclose accruals information on the earnings announcement and firms that do not, investigate whether there exists accruals’ mispricing. The evidence supports that for firms that disclose accruals information, the market manages to correctly understand the discretionary part of the change of the earnings. On the contrary, firms that do not disclose accruals information are found to experience â€Å"a correction† on their stock price. Chambers and Payne’s (2008) primal aim is to examine the relation of the accrual anomaly and the auditing quality. The researchers’ hypothesis is that the accruals mispricing is related with the quality of auditing.  Additionally, their findings support that the stock prices do not reflect the accruals persistence characterising the lower-quality audit firms. Finally, their empirical work finds that the returns are greater for the lower-quality audit portfolio of firms. Palmon, Sudit and Yezegel (2008) examine the relation of the accruals mispricing and the company size. Evidence shows that company size affects the returns and, as the researchers documented, the negative abnormal returns are mostly due to larger firms while the positive abnormal returns come from the relatively small firms. Particularly, as the strategy with the highest profits they found the one that had a short position in the largest-top-accrual decile and a long position in the smallest-low-accrual decile. Bjojraj, Sengupta and Zhang (2009) examine the introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the FAS 146 and how these two changes affected the accrual anomaly. FAS 146 (liabilities are recognized only when they are incurred) reduced the company’s ability to â€Å"manipulate† earnings while the SOX aims to enhance the credibility of the financial statements. The evidence recognises a change on how the market conceives information about restructurings charges. The authors propose that a possible explanation is that before the introduction of SOX and the FAS 146, the market was reluctant due to the ability of the firms to manage earnings. Finally, Bjojraj, Sengupta and Zhang (2009) document that post to the FAS 146 and the SOX act, low accrual portfolios do not generate positive abnormal returns. 2.4. The applications of the accruals phenomenon and reasons why it is not arbitraged away. The importance of the analysis of the anomalies is substantial for two reasons. Firstly, the profitability of a costless strategy challenges the EMH, especially if the strategy is based on bearing no additional risk. Secondly, managers’ incentives to manipulate the financial statements and consequently the accruals would be obvious if a profitable strategy based on such widely available information existed. Chen and Cheng (2002) find that the managers’ incentive to record abnormal accruals is highly correlated with the accrual anomaly. The hypothesis of the researchers, which their findings support, was that the investors fail to detect when the managers aim to record abnormal accruals and that may contribute to the accruals anomaly. Richardson’s (2000) main objective is to examine whether the information contained in the accruals is utilized by short sellers. As the researcher mentions, previous articles such as that of Teoh and Wong (1999) found that sell side analysts were unable to correctly â€Å"exploit† the information contained in accruals for future returns. Richardson suggests that short sellers are considered as sophisticated enough to utilize the accruals information. Findings confirm previous work, such as that of Sloan (2000), who suggests that even short sellers do not correctly utilize the information contained into accruals. Ali, Chen, Yao and Yu (2007) examine whether and how equity funds benefit from the accrual anomaly by taking long position into low accruals firms. The researchers aim to identify how exposed are the equity firms to such a well known anomaly and what characteristics these funds share. By constructing a measure called â€Å"accruals investing measure† (AIM), they try to document the portion of the low accruals firms into the actively managed funds. The evidence shows that generally funds are not widely exposed to low accruals firms but when they do so, they have an average of 2.83% annual return. It is worth noting that the annual return is net of transaction costs. Finally, the side-effects of high volatility in returns and in fund flows of the equity funds that are partially based on the accrual anomaly might be the reason behind the reluctance of the managers. Soares and Stark (2009) used UK firms to test whether a profitable accrual strategy is feasible net of transactions costs. Their findings support that indeed the accrual anomaly is present in the UK market. The authors suggest that for such a strategy to be profitable, someone is required to trade on firms with small market capitalization. They also suggest that although the accruals’ mispricing seems to exist also in the UK, the transaction costs limit the profits to such an extent that the accrual anomaly could be difficult characterised as a challenge to the semi strong form of the efficient market hypothesis. Finally, we should not neglect to mention two papers that discourse on why the markets do not simply correct the accruals anomaly. According to the classical theory, markets are so imperfect that can produce the incentive to the market to correct the â€Å"anomalies† at any point of time. Mashruwala, Rajgopal and Shevlin (2006) examined the transactions costs and the idiosyncratic risk as possible reasons of why the accrual anomaly is not arbitraged away. The researchers aimed to investigate why the market does not correct the anomaly, but also to identify whether the low accruals firms are riskier. The paper poses the question of what stops the informed investors from taking long positions into profitable stocks according to the accrual anomaly so that they can arbitrage it away. The paper examines the practical difficulty of finding substitutes so that the risk can be minimized and its relation with the accrual anomaly. Additionally, the paper investigates the transaction co sts and findings support that according to the accrual anomaly, the profitable stocks tend to be the ones with low stock prices and low trading volume. Lev and Nissim (2004) focus on the persistence of the accr

Families Values in Knoxville, Tennessee, Those Winter Sundays, and Two Kinds :: Two Kinds, Amy Tan

Family. What do you think of when you hear that word? Some people think of relatives or the people that they live with. Maybe a stepfather, stepmother, brothers, or sisters. To me, family is love, devotion, and caring. People of a family want to be together and love to do things for each other, such as do the dishes or wash the car for them. The poems that most represent my family values are â€Å"Knoxville, Tennessee† by Nikki Giovanni and â€Å"Those Winter Sundays† by Robert Hayden. The one that does not represent my family as much as the others is â€Å"Two Kinds† by Amy Tan. I love the poem â€Å"Knoxville, Tennessee† by Nikki Giovanni. It gives me a sense of people wanting to be together, family, wanting to be together. Giovanni wrote this poem so that it is told through a child (under the age of ten). The child’s world is made up of his or her family. He or she is mostly with the family â€Å"at the church picnic† (Giovanni 50, line 12) or â€Å"at the church / homecoming† (Giovanni 50, lines17-18). The child goes places with the family and is with them all of the time. He or she has not reached the teenage stage of rebellion and does not mind being with his or her parents. That is why I like this poem. It shows love for family through the uncontaminated eyes of a child. â€Å"Those Winter Sundays† represents family devotion to me. The father in the poem is so devoted to his family that he gets â€Å"up early / and put his clothes on in the blueback cold† (Hayden 51, lines 1-2) to warm the house for them. He does not care about anything except driving the cold away for his family. That is the kind of thing that is done out of true, deep, unconditional love. Families stick together and support each other, even if one is not so kind, like the teenager who fears â€Å"the chronic angers of the house† (Hayden 51, line 9). Families forgive, forget, and keep loving each other. â€Å"Two Kinds† is a story that does not represent my idea of family. The young daughter (Tan) does not obey her mother and continually disappoints her. Her mother wants her to learn piano and believes that she has talent, but Tan does not agree. â€Å"Unlike my mother, I did not believe that I could be anything.

Malaysian Financial Reporting Standard 116 Essay

Malaysian Financial Reporting Standard 116 Property, Plant and Equipment This version includes amendments resulting from MFRSs with effective dates no later than 1 January 2012. Amendments with an effective date later than 1 January 2012 MFRS 116 has been amended by MFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement*. As those amendments have an effective date after 1 January 2012 they are not included in this edition. * effective date 1 January 2013 559 MFRS 116 CONTENTS paragraphs Preface INTRODUCTION IN1–IN15 MALAYSIAN FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARD 116 PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT OBJECTIVE SCOPE DEFINITIONS RECOGNITION Initial costs Subsequent costs MEASUREMENT AT RECOGNITION Elements of cost Measurement of cost MEASUREMENT AFTER RECOGNITION Cost model Revaluation model Depreciation Depreciable amount and depreciation period Depreciation method Impairment Compensation for impairment DERECOGNITION DISCLOSURE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE DATE WITHDRAWAL OF OTHER PRONOUNCEMENTS 1 2–5 6 7–14 11 12–14 15–28 16–22 23–28 29–66 30 31–42 43–62 50–59 60–62 63 65–66 67–72 73–79 80 81–81E 82–83 560  © IFRS Foundation MFRS 116 Malaysian Financial Reporting Standard 116 Property, Plant and Equipment (MFRS 116) is set out in paragraphs 1–83. All the paragraphs have equal authority. MFRS 116 should be read in the context of its objective and the Basis for Conclusions, the Foreword to Financial Reporting Standards and the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. MFRS 108 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors provides a basis for selecting and applying accounting policies in the absence of explicit guidance.  © IFRS Foundation 561 MFRS 116 Preface The Malaysian Accounting Standards Board (MASB) is implementing its policy of convergence through adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) for application for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2012. The IASB defines IFRSs as comprising: (a) International Financial Reporting Standards; (b) International Accounting Standards; (c) IFRIC Interpretations; and (d) SIC Interpretations. Malaysian Financial Reporting Standards (MFRSs) equivalent to IFRSs that apply to any reporting period beginning on or after 1 January 2012 are: (a) Malaysian Financial Reporting Standards; and (b) IC Interpretations. First-time application of MFRSs equivalent to IFRSs Application of this Standard will begin in the first-time adopter’s * first annual reporting period beginning on or after 1 January 2012 in the context  of adopting MFRSs equivalent to IFRSs. In this case, the requirements of MFRS 1 First-time Adoption of Malaysian Financial Reporting Standards must be observed. Application of MFRS 1 is necessary as otherwise such financial statements will not be able to assert compliance with IFRS. MFRS 1, the Malaysian equivalent of IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards, requires prior period information, presented as comparative information, to be restated as if the requirements of MFRSs effective for annual period beginning on or after 1 January 2012 have always been applied, except when it (1) prohibits retrospective application in some aspects or (2) allows the first-time adopter to use one or more of the exemptions or except ions contained therein. This means that, in preparing its first MFRS financial statements* for a financial period beginning on or after 1 January 2012, the first-time adopter shall refer to the provisions contained in MFRS 1 on matters relating to transition and effective dates instead of the transitional provision and effective date contained in the respective MFRSs. This differs from previous requirements where an entity accounted for changes of accounting policies in accordance with the specific transitional provisions contained in the respective Financial Reporting Standards (FRSs) or in accordance with FRS 108 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors when the FRS did not include specific transitional provisions. * Appendix A of MFRS 1 defines first-time adopter and first MFRS financial statements. 562 MFRS 116 In this regard the effective and issuance dates contained in this Standard are those of the IASB’s and are inapplicable in the new MFRS framework since MFRS 1 requirements will be applied on 1 January 2012. Comparison and compliance with IAS 16 MFRS 116 is equivalent to IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment as issued and amended by the IASB, including the effective and issuance dates. Entities that comply with MFRS 116 will  simultaneously be in compliance with IAS 16. 563 MFRS 116 Introduction IN1 International Accounting Standard 16 Property, Plant and Equipment (IAS 16) replaces IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment (revised in 1998), and should be applied for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. Earlier application is encouraged. The Standard also replaces the following Interpretations: ï‚ · ï‚ · ï‚ · SIC-6 Costs of Modifying Existing Software SIC-14 Property, Plant and Equipment—Compensation for the Impairment or Loss of Items SIC-23 Property, Plant and Equipment—Major Inspection or Overhaul Costs. IASB’s reasons for revising IAS 16 IN2 The International Accounting Standards Board developed this revised IAS 16 as part of its project on Improvements to International Accounting Standards. The project was undertaken in the light of queries and criticisms raised in relation to the Standards by securities regulators, professional accountants and other interested parties. The objectives of the project were to reduce or eliminate alternatives, redundancies and conflicts within the Standards, to deal with some convergence issues and to make other improvements. For IAS 16 the IASB’s main objective was a limited revision to provide additional guidance and clarification on selected matters. The IASB did not reconsider the fundamental approach to the accounting for property, plant and equipment contained in IAS 16. IN3 The main changes of IAS 16 IN4 The main changes from the previous version of IAS 16 are described below. Scope IN5 This Standard clarifies that an entity is required to apply the principles of this Standard to items of property, plant and equipment used to develop or maintain (a) biological assets and (b) mineral rights and mineral reserves such as oil, natural gas and similar non-regenerative resources. Recognition: subsequent costs  IN6 An entity evaluates under the general recognition principle all property, plant and equipment costs at the time they are incurred. Those costs include costs incurred initially to acquire or construct an item of property, plant and equipment and costs incurred subsequently to add to, replace part of, or service an item. The previous version of IAS 16 contained two recognition principles. An entity applied the second recognition principle to subsequent costs.  © 564 IFRS Foundation MFRS 116 Measurement at recognition: asset dismantlement, removal and restoration costs IN7 The cost of an item of property, plant and equipment includes the costs of its dismantlement, removal or restoration, the obligation for which an entity incurs as a consequence of installing the item. Its cost also includes the costs of its dismantlement, removal or restoration, the obligation for which an entity incurs as a consequence of using the item during a particular period for purposes other than to produce inventories during that period. The previous version of IAS 16 included within its scope only the costs incurred as a consequence of installing the item. Measurement at recognition: asset exchange transactions IN8 An entity is required to measure an item of property, plant and equipment acquired in exchange for a non-monetary asset or assets, or a combination of monetary and non-monetary assets, at fair value unless the exchange  transaction lacks commercial substance. Under the previous version of IAS 16, an entity measured such an acquired asset at fair value unless the exchanged assets were similar. Measurement after recognition: revaluation model IN9 If fair value can be measured reliably, an entity may carry all items of property, plant and equipment of a class at a revalued amount, which is the fair value of the items at the date of the revaluation less any subsequent accumulated depreciation and accumulated impairment losses. Under the previous version of IAS 16, use of revalued amounts did not depend on whether fair values were reliably measurable. Depreciation: unit of measure IN10 An entity is required to determine the depreciation charge separately for each significant part of an item of property, plant and equipment. The previous version of IAS 16 did not as clearly set out this requirement. Depreciation: depreciable amount  IN11 An entity is required to measure the residual value of an item of property, plant and equipment as the amount it estimates it would receive currently for the asset if the asset were already of the age and in the condition expected at the end of its useful life. The previous version of IAS 16 did not specify whether the residual value was to be this amount or the amount, inclusive of the effects of inflation, that an entity expected to receive in the future on the asset’s actual retirement date. Depreciation: depreciation period IN12 An entity is required to begin depreciating an item of property, plant and equipment when it is available for use and to continue depreciating it until it  © IFRS Foundation 565 MFRS 116 is derecognised, even if during that period the item is idle. The previous version of IAS 16 did not specify when depreciation of an item began and specified that an entity should cease depreciating an item that it had retired from active use and was holding for disposal. Derecognition: derecognition date IN13 An entity is required to derecognise the carrying amount of an item of property, plant and equipment that it disposes of on the date the criteria for the sale of goods in IAS 18 Revenue would be met. The previous version of IAS 16 did not require an entity to use those criteria to determine the date on which it derecognised the carrying amount of a disposed-of item of property, plant and equipment. An entity is required to derecognise the carrying amount of a part of an item of property, plant and equipment if that part has been replaced and the entity has included the cost of the replacement in the carrying amount of the item. The previous version of IAS 16 did not extend its derecognition principle to such parts; rather, its recognition principle for subsequent expenditures effectively precluded the cost of a replacement from being included in the carrying amount of the item. IN14 Derecognition: gain classification IN15 An entity cannot classify as revenue a gain it realises on the disposal of an item of property, plant and equipment. The previous version of IAS 16 did not contain this provision. 566  © IFRS Foundation MFRS 116 Malaysian Financial Reporting Standard 116 Property, Plant and Equipment Objective 1 The objective of this Standard is to prescribe the accounting treatment for property, plant and equipment so that users of the financial statements can discern information about an entity’s investment in its property, plant and equipment and the changes in such investment. The principal issues in accounting for property, plant and equipment are the recognition of the assets, the determination of their carrying amounts and the depreciation charges and impairment losses to be recognised in relation to them. Scope 2 This Standard shall be applied in accounting for property, plant and equipment except when another Standard requires or permits a different accounting treatment. This Standard does not apply to: (a) property, plant and equipment classified as held for sale in accordance with MFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations; 3 (b) biological assets related to agricultural activity (see MFRS 141 Agriculture); (c) the recognition and measurement of exploration and evaluation assets (see MFRS 6 Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources); or (d) mineral rights and mineral reserves such as oil, natural gas and similar non-regenerative resources. However, this Standard applies to property, plant and equipment used to develop or maintain the assets described in (b)–(d). 4 Other Standards may require recognition of an item of property, plant and equipment based on an approach different from that in this Standard. For example, MFRS 117 Leases requires an entity to evaluate its recognition of an item of leased property, plant and equipment on the basis of the transfer of risks and rewards. However, in such cases other aspects of the accounting treatment for these assets, including depreciation, are prescribed by this Standard. An entity using the cost model for investment property in accordance with MFRS 140 Investment Property shall use the cost model in this Standard. 5 Definitions 6 The following terms are used in this Standard with the meanings specified:  © IFRS Foundation 567 MFRS 116 Carrying amount is the amount at which an asset is recognised after deducting any accumulated depreciation and accumulated impairment losses. Cost is the amount of cash or cash equivalents paid or the fair value of the other consideration given to acquire an asset at the time of its acquisition or construction or, where applicable, the amount attributed to that asset when initially recognised in accordance with the specific requirements of other MFRSs, eg MFRS 2 Share-based Payment. Depreciable amount is the cost of an asset, or other amount substituted for cost, less its residual value. Depreciation is the systematic allocation of the depreciable amount of an asset over its useful life. Entity-specific value is the present value of the cash flows an entity expects to arise from the continuing use of an asset and from its disposal at the end of its useful life or expects to incur when settling a liability. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An impairment loss is the amount by which the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its recoverable amount. Property, plant and equipment are tangible items that: (a) are held for use in the production or supply of goods or services, for rental to others, or for administrative purposes; and (b) are expected to be used during more than one period. Recoverable amount is the higher of an asset’s fair value less costs to sell and its value in use. The residual value of an asset is the estimated amount that an entity would currently obtain from disposal of the asset, after deducting the estimated costs of disposal, if the asset were already of the age and in the condition expected at the end of its useful life. Useful life is: (a) the period over which an asset is expected to be available for use by an entity;  or (b) the number of production or similar units expected to be obtained from the asset by an entity. Recognition 7 The cost of an item of property, plant and equipment shall be recognised as an asset if, and only if: (a) it is probable that future economic benefits associated with the item will flow to the entity; and (b) the cost of the item can be measured reliably.  © 568 IFRS Foundation MFRS 116 8 Spare parts and servicing equipment are usually carried as inventory and recognised in profit or loss as consumed. However, major spare parts and stand-by equipment qualify as property, plant and equipment when an entity expects to use them during more than one period. Similarly, if the spare parts and servicing equipment can be used only in connection with an item of property, plant and equipment, they are accounted for as property, plant and equipment. This Standard does not prescribe the unit of measure for recognition, ie what constitutes an item of property, plant and equipment. Thus, judgement is required in applying the recognition criteria to an entity’s specific circumstances. It may be appropriate to aggregate individually insignificant items, such as moulds, tools and dies, and to apply the criteria to the aggregate value. An entity evaluates under this recognition principle all its property, plant and equipment costs at the time they are incurred. These costs include costs incurred initially to acquire or construct an item of property, plant and equipment and costs incurred subsequently to add to, replace part of, or service it. 9 10 Initial costs 11 Items of property, plant and equipment may be acquired for safety or environmental reasons. The acquisition of such property, plant and equipment, although not directly increasing the future economic benefits of any particular existing item of property, plant and equipment, may be necessary for an entity to obtain the future economic benefits from its other assets. Such items of property, plant and equipment qualify for recognition as assets because they enable an entity to derive future economic benefits from related assets in excess of what could be derived had those items not been acquired. For example, a chemical manufacturer may install new chemical handling processes to comply with environmental requirements for the production and storage of dangerous chemicals; related plant enhancements are recognised as an asset because without them the entity is unable to manufacture and sell chemicals. However, the resulting carrying amount of such an asset and related assets is reviewe d for impairment in accordance with MFRS 136 Impairment of Assets. Subsequent costs 12 Under the recognition principle in paragraph 7, an entity does not recognise in the carrying amount of an item of property, plant and equipment the costs of the day-to-day servicing of the item. Rather, these costs are recognised in profit or loss as incurred. Costs of day-to-day servicing are primarily the costs of labour and consumables, and may include the cost of small parts. The purpose of these expenditures is often described as for the ‘repairs and maintenance’ of the item of property, plant and equipment. Parts of some items of property, plant and equipment may require replacement at regular intervals. For example, a furnace may require relining  © 13 IFRS Foundation 569 MFRS 116 after a specified number of hours of use, or aircraft interiors such as seats and galleys may require replacement several times during the  life of the airframe. Items of property, plant and equipment may also be acquired to make a less frequently recurring replacement, such as replacing the interior walls of a building, or to make a nonrecurring replacement. Under the recognition principle in paragraph 7, an entity recognises in the carrying amount of an item of property, plant and equipment the cost of replacing part of such an item when that cost is incurred if the recognition criteria are met. The carrying amount of those parts that are replaced is derecognised in accordance with the derecognition provisions of this Standard (see paragraphs 67–72). 14 A condition of continuing to operate an item of property, plant and equipment (for example, an aircraft) may be performing regular major inspections for faults regardless of whether parts of the item are replaced. When each major inspection is performed, its cost is recognised in the carrying amount of the item of property, plant and equipment as a replacement if the recognition criteria are satisfied. Any remaining carrying amount of the cost of the previous inspection (as distinct from physical parts) is derecognised. This occurs regardless of whether the cost of the previous inspection was identified in the transaction in which the item was acquired or constructed. If necessary, the estimated cost of a future similar inspection may be used as an indication of what the cost of the existing inspection component was when the item was acquired or constructed. Measurement at recognition 15 An item of property, plant and equipment that qualifies for recognition as an asset shall be measured at its cost. Elements of cost 16 The cost of an item of property, plant and equipment comprises: (a) its purchase price, including import duties and non-refundable purchase taxes, after deducting trade discounts and rebates. (b) any costs directly attributable to bringing the asset to the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management. (c) the initial estimate of the costs of dismantling and removing the item and restoring the site on which it is located, the  obligation for which an entity incurs either when the item is acquired or as a consequence of having used the item during a particular period for purposes other than to produce inventories during that period. 17 Examples of directly attributable costs are: (a) costs of employee benefits (as defined in MFRS 119 Employee Benefits) arising directly from the construction or acquisition of the item of property, plant and equipment; 570  © IFRS Foundation MFRS 116 (b) costs of site preparation; (c) initial delivery and handling costs; (d) installation and assembly costs; (e) costs of testing whether the asset is functioning properly, after deducting the net proceeds from selling any items produced while bringing the asset to that location and condition (such as samples produced when testing equipment); and professional fees. (f) 18 An entity applies MFRS 102 Inventories to the costs of obligations for dismantling, removing and restoring the site on which an item is located that are incurred during a particular period as a consequence of having used the item to produce inventories during that period. The obligations for costs accounted for in accordance with MFRS 102 or MFRS 116 are recognised and measured in accordance with MFRS 137 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets. Examples of costs that are not costs of an item of property, plant and equipment are: (a) costs of opening a new facility; 19 (b) costs of introducing a new product or service (including costs of advertising and promotional activities); (c) costs of conducting business in a new location or with a new class of customer (including costs of staff training); and (d) administration and other general overhead costs. 20 Recognition of costs in the carrying amount of an item of property, plant and equipment ceases when the item is in the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management. Therefore, costs incurred in using or redeploying an item are not included in the carrying amount of that item. For example, the following costs are not included in the carrying amount of an item of property, plant and equipment: (a) costs incurred while an item capable of operating in the manner intended by management has yet to be brought into use or is operated at less than full capacity; (b) initial operating losses, such as those incurred while demand for the item’s output builds up; and (c) 21 costs of relocating or reorganising part or all of an entity’s operations. Some operations occur in connection with the construction or development of an item of property, plant and equipment, but are not necessary to bring the item to the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management. These incidental operations may occur before or during the construction or development activities. For example, income may be earned through using a building site as a car park until construction starts. Because incidental operations are not  © IFRS Foundation 571 MFRS 116 necessary to bring an item to the location and condition necessary  for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management, the income and related expenses of incidental operations are recognised in profit or loss and included in their respective classifications of income and expense. 22 The cost of a self-constructed asset is determined using the same principles as for an acquired asset. If an entity makes similar assets for sale in the normal course of business, the cost of the asset is usually the same as the cost of constructing an asset for sale (see MFRS 102). Therefore, any internal profits are eliminated in arriving at such costs. Similarly, the cost of abnormal amounts of wasted material, labour, or other resources incurred in self-constructing an asset is not included in the cost of the asset. MFRS 123 Borrowing Costs establishes criteria for the recognition of interest as a component of the carrying amount of a self-constructed item of property, plant and equipment. Measurement of cost 23 The cost of an item of property, plant and equipment is the cash price equivalent at the recognition date. If payment is deferred beyond normal credit terms, the difference between the cash price equivalent and the total payment is recognised as interest over the period of credit unless such interest is capitalised in accordance with MFRS 123. One or more items of property, plant and equipment may be acquired in exchange for a non-monetary asset or assets, or a combination of monetary and non-monetary assets. The following discussion refers simply to an exchange of one non-monetary asset for another, but it also applies to all exchanges described in the preceding sentence. The cost of such an item of property, plant and equipment is measured at fair value unless (a) the exchange transaction lacks commercial substance or (b) the fair value of neither the asset received nor the asset given up is reliably measurable. The acquired item is measured in this way even if an entity cannot immediately derecognise the asset given up. If the acquired item is not measured at fair value, its cost is measured at the carrying amount of the asset given up. An entity determines whether an exchange transaction has commercial substance by considering the extent to which its future cash flows are expected to change as a result of the transaction. An exchange transaction has commercial substance if: (a) the configuration (risk, timing and amount) of the cash flows of the asset  received differs from the configuration of the cash flows of the asset transferred; or 24 25 (b) the entity-specific value of the portion of the entity’s operations affected by the transaction changes as a result of the exchange; and (c) the difference in (a) or (b) is significant relative to the fair value of the assets exchanged. For the purpose of determining whether an exchange transaction has commercial substance, the entity-specific value of the portion of the entity’s 572  © IFRS Foundation MFRS 116 operations affected by the transaction shall reflect post-tax cash flows. The result of these analyses may be clear without an entity having to perform detailed calculations. 26 The fair value of an asset for which comparable market transactions do not exist is reliably measurable if (a) the variability in the range of reasonable fair value estimates is not significant for that asset or (b) the probabilities of the various estimates within the range can be reasonably assessed and used in estimating fair value. If an entity is able to determine reliably the fair value of either the asset received or the asset given up, then the fair value of the asset given up is used to measure the cost of the asset received unless the fair value of the asset received is more clearly evident. The cost of an item of property, plant and equipment held by a lessee under a finance lease is determined in accordance with MFRS 117. The carrying amount of an item of property, plant and equipment ma y be reduced by government grants in accordance with MFRS 120 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance. 27 28 Measurement after recognition 29 An entity shall choose either the cost model in paragraph 30 or the revaluation model in paragraph 31 as its accounting policy and shall apply that policy to an entire class of property, plant and equipment. Cost model 30 After recognition as an asset, an item of property, plant and equipment shall be carried at its cost less any accumulated depreciation and any accumulated impairment losses. Revaluation model 31 After recognition as an asset, an item of property, plant and equipment whose fair value can be measured reliably shall be carried at a revalued amount, being its fair value at the date of the revaluation less any subsequent accumulated depreciation and subsequent accumulated impairment losses. Revaluations shall be made with sufficient regularity to ensure that the carrying amount does not differ materially from that which would be determined using fair value at the end of the reporting period. The fair value of land and buildings is usually determined from market-based evidence by appraisal that is normally undertaken by professionally qualified valuers. The fair value of items of plant and equipment is usually their market value determined by appraisal. If there is no market-based evidence of fair value because of the specialised nature of the item of property, plant and equipment and the item is rarely 32 33  © IFRS Foundation 573 MFRS 116 sold, except as part of a continuing business, an entity may need to estimate fair value using an income or a depreciated replacement cost approach. 34 The frequency of revaluations depends upon the changes in fair values of the items of property, plant and equipment being revalued. When the fair value of a revalued asset differs materially from its carrying amount, a further revaluation is required. Some items of property, plant and equipment experience significant and volatile changes in fair value, thus necessitating annual revaluation. Such frequent revaluations are unnecessary for items of property, plant and equipment with only insignificant changes in fair value. Instead, it may be necessary to revalue the item only every three or five years. When an item of property, plant and equipment is revalued, any accumulated depreciation at the date of the revaluation is treated in one of the following ways: (a) restated proportionately with the change in the gross carrying amount of the asset so that the carrying amount of the asset after revaluation equals its revalued amount. This method is often used when an asset is revalued by means of applying an index to determine its depreciated replacement cost. 35 (b) eliminated against the gross carrying amount of the asset and the net amount restated to the revalued amount of the asset. This method is often used for buildings. The amount of the adjustment arising on the restatement or elimination of accumulated depreciation forms part of the increase or decrease in carrying amount that is accounted for in accordance with paragraphs 39 and 40. 36 If an item of property, plant and equipment is revalued, the entire class of property, plant and equipment to which that asset belongs shall be revalued. A class of property, plant and equipment is a grouping of assets of a similar nature and use in an entity’s operations. The following are examples of separate classes: (a) land; 37 (b) land and buildings; (c) machinery; (d) ships; (e) (f) aircraft; motor vehicles; (g) furniture and fixtures; and (h) office equipment. 574  © IFRS Foundation MFRS 116 38 The items within a class of property, plant and equipment are revalued simultaneously to avoid selective revaluation of assets and the reporting of amounts in the financial statements that are a mixture of costs and values as at different dates. However, a class of assets may be revalued on a rolling basis provided revaluation of the class of assets is completed within a short period and provided the revaluations are kept up to date. If an asset’s carrying amount is increased as a result of a revaluation, the increase shall be recognised in other comprehensive income and accumulated in equity under the heading of revaluation surplus. However, the increase shall be recognised in profit or loss to the extent that it reverses a revaluation decrease of the same asset previously recognised in profit or loss. If an asset’s carrying amount is decreased as a result of a revaluation, the decrease shall be recognised in profit or loss. However, the decrease shall be recognised in other comprehensive income to the extent of any credit balance existing in the revaluation surplus in respect of that asset. The decrease recognised in other comprehensive income reduces the amount accumulated in equity under the heading of revaluation surplus. The revaluation surplus included in equity in respect of an item of property, plant and equipment may be transferred directly to retained earnings when the asset is derecognised. This may involve transferring the whole of the surplus when the asset is retired or disposed of. However, some of the surplus may be transferred as the asset is used by an entity. In such a case, the amount of the surplus transferred would be the difference between depreciation based on the revalued carrying amount of the asset and  depreciation based on the asset’s original cost. Transfers from revaluation surplus to retained earnings are not made through profit or loss. The effects of taxes on in come, if any, resulting from the revaluation of property, plant and equipment are recognised and disclosed in accordance with MFRS 112 Income Taxes. 39 40 41 42 Depreciation 43 Each part of an item of property, plant and equipment with a cost that is significant in relation to the total cost of the item shall be depreciated separately. An entity allocates the amount initially recognised in respect of an item of property, plant and equipment to its significant parts and depreciates separately each such part. For example, it may be appropriate to depreciate separately the airframe and engines of an aircraft, whether owned or subject to a finance lease. Similarly, if an entity acquires property, plant and equipment subject to an operating lease in which it is the lessor, it may be appropriate to depreciate separately amounts reflected in the cost of that item that are attributable to favourable or unfavourable lease terms relative to market terms. 44  © IFRS Foundation 575 MFRS 116 45 A significant part of an item of property, plant and equipment may have a useful life and a depreciation method that are the same as the useful life and the depreciation method of another significant part of that same item. Such parts may be grouped in determining the depreciation charge. To the extent that an entity depreciates separately some parts of an item of property, plant and equipment, it also depreciates separately the remainder of the item. The remainder consists of the parts of the item that are individually not significant. If an entity has varying expectations for these parts, approximation techniques may be necessary to depreciate the remainder in a manner that faithfully represents the consumption pattern and/or useful life of its parts. An entity may choose to depreciate separately the parts of an item that do not have a cost that is significant in relation to the total cost of the item. The depreciation charge for each period shall be recognised in prof it or loss unless it is included in the carrying amount of another asset. The depreciation charge for a period is usually recognised in profit or loss. However, sometimes, the future economic benefits embodied in an asset are absorbed in producing other assets. In this case, the depreciation charge constitutes part of the cost of the other asset and is included in its carrying amount. For example, the depreciation of manufacturing plant and equipment is included in the costs of conversion of inventories (see MFRS 102). Similarly, depreciation of property, plant and equipment used for development activities may be included in the cost of an intangible asset recognised in accordance with MFRS 138 Intangible Assets. Depreciable amount and depreciation period 50 51 The depreciable amount of an asset shall be allocated on a systematic basis over its useful life. The residual value and the useful life of an asset shall be reviewed at least at each financial year-end and, if expectations differ from previous estimates, the change(s) shall be accounted for as a change in an accounting estimate in accordance with MFRS 108 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors. Depreciation is recognised even if the fair value of the asset exceeds its carrying amount, as long as the asset’s residual value does not exceed its carrying amount. Repair and maintenance of an asset do not negate the need to depreciate it. The depreciable amount of an asset is determined after deducting its residual value. In practice, the residual value of an asset is often  insignificant and therefore immaterial in the calculation of the depreciable amount. The residual value of an asset may increase to an amount equal to or greater than the asset’s carrying amount. If it does, the asset’s depreciation charge is 46 47 48 49 52 53 54 576  © IFRS Foundation MFRS 116 zero unless and until its residual value subsequently decreases to an amount below the asset’s carrying amount. 55 Depreciation of an asset begins when it is available for use, ie when it is in the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management. Depreciation of an asset ceases at the earlier of the date that the asset is classified as held for sale (or included in a disposal group that is classified as held for sale) in accordance with MFRS 5 and the date that the asset is derecognised. Therefore, depreciation does not cease when the asset becomes idle or is retired from active use unless the asset is fully depreciated. However, under usage methods of depreciation the depreciation charge can be zero while there is no production. The future economic benefits embodied in an asset are consumed by an entity principally through its use. However, other factors, such as technical or commercial obsolescence and wear and tear while an asset remains idle, often result in  the diminution of the economic benefits that might have been obtained from the asset. Consequently, all the following factors are considered in determining the useful life of an asset: (a) expected usage of the asset. Usage is assessed by reference to the asset’s expected capacity or physical output. 56 (b) expected physical wear and tear, which depends on operational factors such as the number of shifts for which the asset is to be used and the repair and maintenance programme, and the care and maintenance of the asset while idle. (c) technical or commercial obsolescence arising from changes or improvements in production, or from a change in the market demand for the product or service output of the asset. (d) legal or similar limits on the use of the asset, such as the expiry dates of related leases. 57 The useful life of an asset is defined in terms of the asset’s expected utility to the entity. The asset management policy of the entity may involve the disposal of assets after a specified time or after consumption of a specified proportion of the future economic benefits embodied in the asset. Therefore, the useful life of an asset may be shorter than its economic life. The estimation of the useful life of the asset is a matter of judgement based on the experience of the entity with similar assets. Land and buildings are separable assets and are accounted for separately, even when they are acquired together. With some exceptions, such as quarries and sites used for landfill, land has an unlimited useful life and therefore is not depreciated. Buildings have a limited useful life and therefore are depreciable assets. An increase in the value of the land on which a building stands does not affect the determination of the depreciable amount of the building. If the cost of land includes the costs of site dismantlement, removal and restoration, that portion of the land asset is depreciated over the period of benefits obtained by incurring those costs. In some cases, the land itself may 58 59  © IFRS Foundation 577 MFRS 116 have a limited useful life, in which case it is depreciated in a manner that reflects the benefits to be derived from it. Depreciation method 60 61 The depreciation method used shall reflect the pattern in which the asset’s future economic benefits are expected to be consumed by the entity. The depreciation method applied to an asset shall be reviewed at least at each financial year-end and, if there has been a significant change in the expected pattern of consumption of the future economic benefits embodied in the asset, the method shall be changed to reflect the changed pattern. Such a change shall be accounted for as a change in an accounting estimate in accordance with MFRS 108. A variety of depreciation methods can be used to allocate the depreciable amount of an asset on a systematic basis over its useful life. These methods include the straight-line method, the diminishing balance method and the units of production method. Straight-line depreciation results in a constant charge over the useful life if the asset’s residual value does not change. The diminishing balance method results in a decreasing charge over the useful life. The units of production method results in a charge based on the expected use or output. The entity selects the method that most closely reflects the expected pattern of consumption of the future economic benefits embodied in the asset. That method is applied consistently from period to period unless there is a change in the expected pattern of consumption of those future economic benefits. 62 Impairment 63 To determine whether an item of property, plant and equipment is impaired, an entity applies MFRS 136 Impairment of Assets. That Standard explains how an entity reviews the carrying amount of its assets, how it determines the recoverable amount of an asset, and when it recognises, or reverses the recognition of, an impairment loss. [Deleted by IASB] 64 Compensation for impairment 65 Compensation from third parties for items of property, plant and equipment that were impaired, lost or given up shall be included in profit or loss when the compensation becomes receivable. Impairments or losses of items of property, plant and equipment, related claims for or payments of compensation from third parties and any subsequent purchase or construction of replacement assets are separate economic events and are accounted for separately as follows: (a) impairments of items of property, plant and equipment are recognised in accordance with MFRS 136; 66 578  © IFRS Foundation MFRS 116 (b) derecognition of items of property, plant and equipment retired or disposed of is determined in accordance with this Standard; (c) compensation from third parties for items of property, plant and equipment that were impaired, lost or given up is included in determining profit or loss when it becomes receivable; and (d) the cost of items of property, plant and equipment restored, purchased or constructed as replacements is determined in accordance with this Standard. Derecognition 67 The carrying amount of an item of property, plant and equipment shall be derecognised: (a) on disposal; or (b) when no future economic benefits are expected from its use or disposal. 68 The gain or loss arising from the derecognition of an item of property, plant and equipment shall be included in profit or loss when the item is derecognised (unless MFRS 117 requires otherwise on a sale and leaseback). Gains shall not be classified as revenue. However, an entity that, in the course of its ordinary activities, routinely sells items of property, plant and equipment that it has held for rental to others shall transfer such assets to inventories at their carrying amount when they cease to be rented and become held for sale. The proceeds from the sale of such assets shall be recognised as revenue in accordance with MFRS 118 Revenue. MFRS 5 does not apply when assets that are held for sale in the ordinary course of business are transferred to inventories. The disposal of an item of property, plant and equipment may occur in a variety of ways (eg by sale, by entering into a finance lease or by donation). In determining the date of disposal of an item, an entity applies the criteria in MFRS 118 for recognising revenue from the sale of goods. MFRS 117 applies to disposal by a sale and leaseback. If, under the recognition principle in paragraph 7, an entity recognises in the carrying amount of an item of property, plant and equipment the cost of a replacement for part of the item, then it derecognises the carrying amount of the replaced part regardless of whether the replaced part had been depreciated separately. If it is not practicable for an entity to determine the carrying amount of the replaced part, it may use the cost of the replacement as an indication of what the cost of the replaced part was at the time it was acquired or constructed. The gain or loss arising from the derecognition of an item of property, plant and equipment sha ll be determined as the difference between the net disposal proceeds, if any, and the carrying amount of the item. 68A 69 70 71  © IFRS Foundation 579 MFRS 116 72 The consideration receivable on disposal of an item of property, plant and equipment is recognised initially at its fair value. If payment for the item is deferred, the consideration received is recognised initially at the cash price equivalent. The difference between the nominal amount of the consideration and the cash price equivalent is recognised as interest revenue in accordance with MFRS 118 reflecting the effective yield on the receivable. Disclosure 73 The financial statements shall disclose, for each class of property, plant and equipment: (a) the measurement bases used for determining the gross carrying amount; (b) the depreciation methods used; (c) the useful lives or the depreciation rates used; (d) the gross carrying amount and the accumulated depreciation (aggregated with accumulated impairment losses) at the beginning and end of the period; and (e) a reconciliation of the carrying amount at the beginning and end of the period showing: (i) (ii) additions; assets classified as held for sale or included in a disposal group classified as held for sale in accordance with MFRS 5 and other disposals; acquisitions through business combinations; increases or decreases resulting from revaluations under paragraphs 31, 39 and 40 and from impairment losses recognised or reversed in other comprehensive income in accordance with MFRS 136; impairment losses recognised in profit or loss in accordance with MFRS 136; impairment losses reversed in profit or loss in accordance with MFRS 136; (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) depreciation; (viii) the net exchange differences arising on the translation of the financial statements from the functional currency into a different presentation currency, including the translation of a foreign operation into the presentation currency of the reporting entity; and (ix) other changes. 580  © IFRS Foundation MFRS 116 74 The financial statements shall also disclose: (a) the existence and amounts of restrictions on title, and property, plant and equipment pledged as security for liabilities; (b) the amount of expenditures recognised in the carrying amount of an item of property, plant and equipment in the course of its construction; (c) the amount of contractual commitments for the acquisition of property, plant and equipment; and (d) if it is not disclosed separately in the statement of comprehensive income, the amount of compensation from third parties for items of property, plant and equipment that were impaired, lost or given up that is included in profit or loss. 75 Selection of the depreciation method and estimation of the useful life of assets are matters of judgement. Therefore, disclosure of the methods adopted and the estimated useful lives or depreciation rates provides users of financial statements with information that allows them to review the policies selected by management and enables comparisons to be made with other entities. For similar reasons, it is necessary to disclose: (a) depreciation, whether recognised in profit or loss or as a part of the cost of other assets, during a period; and (b) accumulated depreciation at the end of the period. 76 In accordance with MFRS 108 an entity discloses the nature and effect of a change in an accounting estimate that has an effect in the current period or is expected to have an effect in subsequent periods. For property, plant and equipment, such disclosure may arise from changes in estimates with respect to: (a) residual values; (b) the estimated costs of dismantling, removing or restoring items of property, plant and equipment; (c) useful lives; and (d) depreciation methods. 77 If items of property, plant and equipment are stated at revalued amounts, the following shall be disclosed: (a) the effective date of the revaluation; (b) whether an independent valuer was involved; (c) the methods and significant assumptions applied in estimating the items’ fair values; (d) the extent to which the items’ fair values were determined directly by reference to observable prices in an active market or recent market transactions on arm’s length terms or were estimated using other valuation techniques;  © IFRS Foundation 581 MFRS 116 (e) for each revalued class of property, plant and equipment, the carrying amount that would have been recognised had the assets been carried under the cost model; and the revaluation surplus, indicating the change for the period and any restrictions on the distribution of the balance to shareholders. (f) 78 In accordance with MFRS 136 an entity discloses information on impaired property, plant and equipment in addition to the information required by  paragraph 73(e)(iv)–(vi). Users of financial statements may also find the following information relevant to their needs: (a) the carrying amount of temporarily idle property, plant and equipment; 79 (b) the gross carrying amount of any fully depreciated property, plant and equipment that is still in use; (c) the carrying amount of property, plant and equipment retired from active use and not classified as held for sale in accordance with MFRS 5; and  (d) when the cost model is used, the fair value of property, plant and equipment when this is materially different from the carrying amount. Therefore, entities are encouraged to disclose these amounts. Transitional provisions 80 The requirements of paragraphs 24–26 regarding the initial measurement of an item of property, plant and equipment acquired in an exchange of assets transaction shall be applied prospectively only to future transactions. Effective date 81 An entity shall apply this Standard for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005. Earlier application is encouraged. If an entity applies this Standard for a period beginning before 1 January 2005, it shall disclose that fact. An entity shall apply the amendments in paragraph 3 for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2006. If an entity applies MFRS 6 for an earlier period, those amendments shall be applied for that earlier period. MFRS 101 Presentation of Financial Statements (IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements as revised by IASB in 2007) amended the terminology used throughout MFRSs. In addition it amended paragraphs 39, 40 and 73(e)(iv). An entity shall apply those amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2009. If an entity applies MFRS 101 (IAS 1 revised by IASB in 2007) for an earlier period, the amendments shall be applied for that earlier period. 81A 81B 582  © IFRS Foundation MFRS 116 81C MFRS 3 Business Combinations (IFRS 3 Business Combinations as revised by IASB in 2008) amended paragraph 44. An entity shall apply that amendment for annual periods beginning on or after 1 July 2009. If an entity applies MFRS 3 (IFRS 3 revised by IASB in 2008) for an earlier period, the amendment shall also be applied for that earlier period. Paragraphs 6 and 69 were amended and paragraph 68A was added by Improvements to MFRSs (Improvements to IFRSs issued by IASB in May 2008). An entity shall apply those amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2009. Earlier application is permitted. If an entity applies the amendments for an earlier period it shall disclose that fact and at the same time apply the related amendments to MFRS 107 Statement of Cash Flows. Paragraph 5 was amended by Improvements to MFRSs (Improvements to IFRSs issued by IASB in May 2008). An entity shall apply that amendment prospectively for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2009. Earlier application is permitted if an entity also applies the amendments to paragraphs 8, 9, 22, 48, 53, 53A, 53B, 54, 57 and 85B of MFRS 140 at the same time. If an entity applies the amendment for an earlier period it shall disclose that fact. 81D 81E Withdrawal of other pronouncements 82 83 [Deleted by MASB] [Deleted by MASB]  © IFRS Foundation 583 MFRS 116 Deleted IAS 16 text Deleted IAS 16 text is produced for information only and does not form part of MFRS 116. Paragraph 82 This Standard supersedes IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment (revised in 1998). Paragraph 83 This Standard supersedes the following Interpretations: (a) SIC-6 Costs of Modifying Existing Software; (b) SIC-14 Property, Plant and Equipment—Compensation for the Impairment or Loss of Items; and (c) SIC-23 Property, Plant and Equipment—Major Inspection or Overhaul Costs. 584  © IFRS Foundation