Attitude of Unlisted Companies Towards IFRS

Attitude of Unlisted Companies Towards IFRS SECTION I INTRODUCTION The adoption of international financial reporting standards across the European Union from 1st January 2005 is one of the biggest events in the accounting history. This is especially important after the capital markets were rocked by some big accounting frauds in recent years. In the first phase, 7000-plus listed European companies will have to implement new financial reporting standards from January 2005 (Fuller, Jan 2005). When European Union moved towards one market across Europe, it faced the prospect of different financial reporting regimes across EU participants. To achieve true scale of financial integration, it has become necessary to adopt common financial reporting standards. In June 2002, the European Commission adopted a regulation requiring all listed EU companies in regulated markets to prepare their financial statements in accordance with International Accounting Standards (IAS) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The regulation is applicable only on consolidated accounts and companies are free to choose their national GAAPs for subsidiaries and associate companies. The regulation came into force from January 2005. Companies Act 1985 governs the use of UK GAAP by UK based companies. Similarly other EU states have their own laws for accounting standards. The EU states have now modified their national laws to include IFRS regulation to offer a common financial reporting standard. Companies Act 1985 (International Accounting Standards and Other Accounting Amendments) Regulations 2004 has extended the application, on a non-compulsory basis, of the EU IFRS regulation to all non-charitable organisations. In the last quarter of previous century, the world economies have moved towards globalisation. Multinational companies are manufacturing and selling across the world and many of these firms are listed at foreign stock exchanges. Globalisation of markets and establishment of multinationals led to increased desire and awareness about international markets. This was soon followed by globalisation of financial markets which increased the value of understanding of international financial results and reporting formats. Rapid improvement in communication technologies and easy access through internet has further spread the profile of international investor. Now a day international investors are not limited to some portfolio managers in big banks. International investors are now as diverse as sophisticated equity manager to a small investor in a remote town. Investors too have diversified their portfolio by international equities and bonds. This rapid globalisation has fuelled the desire to h ave common international standards that could be understood and followed across nations. The ever increasing network of investors has not only opened new financing sources to countries, it has also put some pressure on the financial regulatory authorities to design and improve their financial reporting systems in a manner that is easily understood by wider audiences. The regulatory authorities have on one hand evolve the financial reporting system to match the ever increasing demands of international investors and on the other hand make sure that companies in their countries are not faced with sudden increase in time, resources and knowledge needed to cope with new regulations.   In 1973, 9 countries included UK formed International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) with an aim to develop common accounting standards. The membership has now grown well over hundred countries with each country, especially bigger economies, bringing in their own perspectives of accounting standards. IASC had to deal with accounting conflictions in coming up with common acceptable accounting standards. One would immediately think whether IASC has been successful in resolving all the conflicts with all member countries and the answer would easily be no. To fully satisfy more than hundred accounting bodies from across the world is almost an impossible task. Yet IASC has done a commendable job and from 1 January 2005, International Accounting Standards (IAS) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) is applicable in more than 90 countries. In EU, IFRS is compulsory only for listed companies. The standards that UK listed companies will follow are not those issued directly by the International Accounting Standards Board, but are those that have been endorsed by the European Commission. EU has now endorsed IFRS, except for IFRS 6 and some of the IFRIC interpretations, and some changes in IAS 39 relating to the fair value of financial instruments (PwC, 2005a). While the EU regulation is only enforceable on listed companies, it also says that a member state has an option to extend the use of IFRS to unlisted companies within their jurisdiction. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the government trade body responsible for company regulation in UK, has said that while there is no mandatory move to IFRS for unlisted companies, the unlisted companies would still be allowed to adopt IFRS over UK GAAP from 2005 onwards. The basic aim of new financial reporting standards is same as that of existing standards – to provide information about financial performance and position of a company to different stakeholders. Internal stakeholders – management – normally have a good grip of what’s going in the business. It is external stakeholders like investors, auditors, suppliers and creditors who need to be informed in a succinct and clear manner about financial implications of business decisions. The IFRS would aim to present a more complete picture of a business by making operating income a more encompassing number. As an example, the financial implications of stock options were kept out of income statements. Companies merely mentioned the number of stock options granted. But now onwards, companies will have to incorporate the fair costs of granting stock options in their income statements. This will allow investors to assess the true costs of executive remuneration. Though the overall aim is same, the differences in implementation and financial reporting do occur due to social, economic and political backgrounds of different nations. Will it be a good policy to allow two different accounting standards in UK – one standard for listed companies and another for unlisted companies. UK’s Accounting Standard Board clearly sees there is no merit in having two separate standards. ASB issued a Discussion Paper in March 2004 highlighting its strategy for convergence with IAS and says that convergence of UK accounting standards to IAS is a foregone conclusion. It has already introduced many changes in recent past to bring UK’s GAAP in line with IFRS. Smaller companies, even listed ones, will find it difficult to cope with extra work due to IFRS. Alternative Investment Market (AIM) realises that most of its companies won’t be in a position to meet IFRS requirements soon. So it changed its regulatory status in October 2004 and is now an â€Å"exchange regulated market† and out of purview of European Commission regulation on regulated markets. Now companies listed on AIM have time until January 2007 to implement IFRS. Accounting Standards Board is also sensitive to the needs placed on business in making a transition from UK accounting standards to IFRS. Big businesses probably have sufficient resources to cope with the change in one year. But the smaller businesses will find it difficult to make all required changes in one year. ASB has proposed a series of changes that would be implemented in 2005 and 2006 which will bring UK financial reporting standards more in line with IFRS. Thereafter ASB will carry out a series of step changes by replacing one or more UK standards. So by the end of 2005-2006, UK standards will almost be in line with IFRS and unlisted companies transition to IFRS in 2007 would be smooth. This research analyses the attitude of unlisted companies towards IFRS. Many research and surveys have been carried out on the acceptance and readiness of listed companies for transition to IFRS. But the issue has not been explored in depth with respect to unlisted companies. The research is based on primary and secondary data. Primary data is collected via interviews and questionnaires with companies and their auditors. A total of [34] interviews – [20] with companies and [14] with their auditors – were conducted to obtain primary data. [52] questionnaire responses by postal survey were also analysed. The results show that there is definitely a much scope in improving International Financial Reporting Standards for unlisted companies. Respondents were concerned about the costs associated with transition to IFRS and also the additional burden that will come with regular enhanced reporting. That IFRS will help in globalisation of capital markets and probably cheaper costs of capital is not of much significance for unlisted companies registered in UK. This research would be useful for institutes and associations framing accounting standards for unlisted companies. Mostly accounting standards have been framed with an eye for listed and large companies. But unlisted companies have much lesser resources to spend on large regulatory requirements and hence should have different reporting requirements that match the benefits obtained from such reporting. The time limitation and resource constraint mean that the primary data via interviews and questionnaire surveys could only be collected through a limited number of respondents. It would be useful to cover a larger data base before implementing the changes. Also more users of data in unlisted companies like banks and creditors should be contacted before policy formulation. The remaining paper is divided in the following sections. Section II is a literature review on justification and applicability of IFRS, and state of readiness in companies. Section III discusses the methodology used in this research. Section IV covers analysis of data obtained through the primary data collection and its interpretation. The paper concludes with section V. SECTION II LITERATURE REVIEW In June 2000, the European Commission proposed a new directive requiring that all publicly traded companies in the member states to adopt International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) standards by no later than January 2005. On 19 July 2002, the European Parliament and the Council approved the IAS regulation (EC) 1606/2002 which said ‘For each financial year starting on or after 1 January 2005, companies governed by the law of a Member State shall prepare their consolidated accounts in conformity with the international accounting standards adopted †¦ if, at their balance sheet date, their securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market of any Member State’ (EU, 2002). Rationale for EU’s adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards The main aim of International Financial reporting Standards is to bring convergence among different national financial reporting standards. Over time, the evolution of different national financial reporting standards has been influenced by local social, political and economic environments. Some of the major reasons for differences in accounting standards are: Political – Capitalist or Communist. Capitalist and communist countries have almost contrasting fundamental economic approach and their accounting standards reflect the same. Stage of economic development. Developed countries generally have better accounting standards in terms of transparency and clarity. Corporate finance – debt or equity. Companies in continental Europe are financed more by debt than the companies in UK. Accounting standards have over time evolved to reflect the importance placed by different sources of financing on different aspects of financial statements. Legal and taxation systems. Convergence will help investors and analysts to compare companies across borders in a better way. But it also implies that either member countries will lose their independence to make national accounting standards that reflect local economic conditions or if they start introducing some changes, IFRS may slowly lose its main strength of common standard. Local, political and economical conditions may force national accounting bodies to introduce variations in IFRS. EU has already introduced some changes in the IAS 39 dealing with financial instruments. It is beyond the scope of this research to see which member countries have introduced variations in IFRS. Convergence between UK GAAP and IFRS ASB has declared its intention to converge UK GAAP with IFRS. It has issued a number of new standards in December 2004 to speed up the convergence of UK GAAP with IFRS. So sooner, even unlisted companies would be following a substantial portion of IFRS due to this convergence. Comparison of UK GAAP and IFRS Similarities The ultimate goal of UK GAAP and IFRS is same – to present information about financial performance and position to all concerned stakeholders. If the aim is same, then should be the main approach adopted by both accounting standards. The UK’s Accounting Standard Board’s Statement of Principles for Financial Reporting is a vital contributor at macro level standard setting. It plays almost same role as International Accounting Standards Committee’s ‘Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements’. ‘It is a description of the fundamental approach that the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) believes should, in principle, underpin the financial statements of profit-oriented entities’ (ASB, 1999). The Statement of Principles has true and fair concept at its core, much like the focal point in International Accounting Standards. Also like IAS, Statement of Principles insists on financial information being relevant and comparable. It is beyond the scope of this research to highlight each and every similarity between UK GAAP and IAS. Differences Though the overall aim is same, the differences in implementation and financial reporting do occur due to social, economic and political backgrounds of different nations. Main concepts behind UK GAAP and IFRS are same, but when we look at micro level, we see many differences at the individual standards level. Following are the main differences between UK GAAP and IFRS: The Statement of Principles allows use of both historical cost and current value approaches in measuring balance sheet categories. The dual use of historical and current value methods is known as modified historical cost basis (ASB, 1999). Under historical cost, the carrying values of assets and liabilities are stated at the lower of cost and recoverable amount. This approach is more conservative as compared to IAS approach which uses fair value method. Also the choice of historical or current value method is based on subjective analysis of a company’s management and hence it is open to some manipulation. Fair value. If we look at global level, both UK GAAP and IFRS have adopted fair value method as the foundation of their accounting standards. IFRS takes fair value adoption even higher when it says that income statement will include the changes in the fair value of items that have not been yet traded like derivatives. The emphasis in new accounting standards is on mark-to-market fair value of assets and liabilities rather than on actual market price based fair values. Now both realised and unrealised changes in fair values would be incorporated in income statements. The first year of transition will see high volatility in earnings and balance sheet statements. Though this brings higher volatility, it will also test the management skills in proper presentation and explanation of changes. It may also change the benchmarks of success for managements. Acquisitions. Acquisition accounting will change under new accounting standards. Under UK GAAP, companies can choose between purchase and merger accounting. Under IFRS, companies will have to account under purchase method only. Goodwill. UK GAAP allowed amortisation of goodwill and companies had the option of not segregating intangible assets from goodwill. Under IFRS, intangible assets have to be separated from goodwill. Goodwill can not be amortised now but companies will have to undertake annual impairment tests to justify the value of goodwill on the balance sheets. BAT’s profits for year 2004 increased by  £454m because it no longer had to amortise goodwill of that amount (AccountancyAge, 2005b). Consolidation of accounts. Under new accounting rules, companies may have to consolidate certain additional subsidiaries into group accounts. On the other hand companies will have to exclude certain subsidiaries or special purpose vehicles which were not included till now. Research and development costs. Under IAS 39, research costs can’t be carried on the balance sheet and would have to write them off as incurred. Companies would still be allowed to capitalise development in line with UK GAAP. Stock options. Internet and share market last boom in late 1990s led to rapid increase in share options as a way to reward employees. The new requirements to record an expense on income statement for the value of share options granted to employees could have a significant impact on earnings. AstraZeneca said in its pro forma 2004 IFRS numbers that new accounting rules on stock options has made it re-consider the use of stock options in rewarding its employees (Tricks, 2005). Distributable profits. Organisations ability to pay dividends is dependent on their distributable profits. Following are some of the major impacts of IFRS on distributable profits Inability to discount deferred tax liabilities, higher provisions for deferred tax when companies move from historical costs to fair value and inclusion of pension deficits in income statement. All of the above will reduce distributable profits. Many companies would have to financially restructure themselves in order to have sufficient distributable profits to meet dividends paid in last year. Deferred tax credit. Deferred tax credit is available under UK GAAP but not under IFRS. GlaxoSmithKline’s restated its 2004 earning per share by (1.9p) due to non-availability of deferred tax credit under IFRS (AccountancyAge, 2005a). Inclusion of business disposals gains in profits from operations. BAT’s profits for year 2004 increased by  £1.3bn after it included gains from disposals to operating profits (AccountancyAge, 2005b). Adding disposal gains to operating profits will make it harder for investors and analysts to separate the earnings from continuing businesses. Derivative contracts. Under IFRS, some derivative contracts will not qualify as hedges as they wont meet the criteria. UK GAAP allowed deferment of such contracts until transaction took place. IFRS won’t allow the deferment of such contract and would impact the profit and loss account even before the transaction took place. It is better in a way that investors will know the current value of the firm as on date rather than historical costs of such instruments, especially if the duration of financial instruments was long. At the same time, it would increase the burden on the company to calculate the fair value of all such transactions. Agricultural. UK GAAP allowed companies to use a cost model for biological assets and all agricultural produce. But under IAS companies would have to use mark to market method for valuing such assets. Now companies would have to use market valuation even for assets in far off countries. Advantages of IFRS over UK GAAP Common financial language. Adopting common financial reporting standards will open up a company to more markets and investors. The growth in telecommunications has made it easier for smaller investors to invest across physical boundaries. Such investors are normally not as financially sophisticated as some big financial institutions. They would also not like to understand more than one accounting standards as they don’t have required resources in hand to do so. With one common accounting standard, more investors would like to explore companies across nations. Acquisitions. IFRS 3 is more open and transparent than UK GAAP on acquisitions. It will allow investors and analysts to judge faster the success of an acquisition. Many of the companies that have relied on acquisition as a key cornerstone for growth would now come under intense scrutiny and may have to develop a new strategy for growing business.    Consolidation. In IFRS, all entities will have to provide a cash flow statement. Additionally there would be more transparency within the group companies and this should make the consolidation process more straight-forward. Securitisation by businesses is likely to be impacted by the new ways governing how companies can show assets and liabilities on their financial statements. Companies have used securitisation to cash in assets like trade receivables sitting on their balance sheets. Securitisation helps companies to slim down their balance sheets and hence allows companies to show higher return on assets at same earnings. And it was one of the reasons why companies went for securitisation. But stringent criteria for moving assets and liabilities off balance sheet will threaten securitisation. Sue Harding, chief accountant at Standard Poor’s in Europe said that new international accounting standards were sweeping a lot of securitised assets back on to balance sheets (Jopson, Feb 2005). This will help investors compare like to like and avoid companies that have used securitisation only to make-up their balance sheets. There is no harm in using securitisation if used in a proper way and not to deceive stakeholders. But we have seen how corporations like Enron had used securitisation to disguise their true financial position. Annual impairment review. Annual impairment review will benefit investors because the companies then won’t like to take big goodwill cuts in one year and not do anything for years. Annual reviews would help investors judging whether the amount paid by companies in acquiring other company was justified or not. Access to cheaper capital. Increase in investor profile diversification would most probably lower the cost of capital for most of the companies. This is especially true for smaller companies which don’t have financial muscles and resources to tap international investors. Expensing research costs gives better information to investors and other stakeholders because at research stage the chances of success are quite uncertain. Investors can only be sure of development costs bringing in some returns in future. Also by segregating research and development costs, external stakeholders will now have a better chance to differentiate the suitability of costs incurred in developing new products. Multiple listings. Many companies now have multiple listings across different countries. Companies need to prepare financial statements as per each local accounting standard to meet listing requirements. With one accounting standard only it will save a lot of botheration for companies with multiple listings. Dividends. Under IFRS dividends are not provided for until the dividend recommended by the Board is approved by shareholders. This move will bring more convergence between accounting profits and cash flows. Disadvantages of IFRS Fair value. While fair value in a way conveys more up to date value of a company as compared to historic costs, it also puts a question mark on the methods used and the reliability of fair value. Derivative instruments which are commonly traded on various stock exchanges can be easily assigned value. So while valuing some of the assets or liabilities may not be difficult, the question still remains what impact such valuations will have on companies’ business models. Many companies use hedging instruments as a strategic tool rather than for intentional gains. Any short-term swings in such instruments may have a significant impact on income statement and probably adverse market reactions may deter companies’ from using such instruments. Then comes the more important issue of valuing assets and liabilities that don’t have a proper market. The companies may use some valuation model, which itself may not be the right way, to value an asset or liability. The model will incorporate some subjective assumptions. An example would be brand value. A same brand can have two different values for two different companies because of its strategic importance. So at one hand, investors and other external stakeholders are getting more objective information about a companies’ assets and liabilities, they are also getting valuation based on more subjective assessments. Only time will tell whether some individuals or companies will use it to manipulate results. An interesting thing to observe would be the treatment and importance given by analysts to unrealised fair value of assets and liabilities. Some investors may try to separate unrealised gains and losses from other operational performance. It may also prompt companies to issue adjusted earnings excluding unrealised gains and losses. An important point to note about fair value principle is that the financial statements should not be seen as perfect prediction of things to come. That depends on the strategic and business decisions management will take in future. Just having a fair value of assets and liabilities doesn’t mean that the company will be able to extract those values in future.    Dividend. New accounting standards promote payment of dividend from distributable reserves. With the inclusion of unrealised gains and losses and pension deficits, the first few years of new accounting standards may not leave enough of distributable reserves for dividend payments. Securitisation. Securitising assets into special purpose vehicles and re-financing them through had also helped companies raise funds at lower costs. The new accounting standards by restricting the use of special purpose vehicles, would diminish some sources of cheap financing. It is question yet to be fully tested in the practical world that since the assets are same, change in financing options shouldn’t change the returns on total assets. By refinancing at lower rates through securitisation should result in higher financing cost for remaining assets such that the overall costs remain same. But examination of this hypothesis is beyond the scope of this dissertation. But what is mostly observed in capital markets is that when companies announce refinancing, the share price rises. How much of the rise is from relief that company will survive and how much from the fact that the overall costs have lowered is not known. Annual impairment tests. Annual impairment tests are easier said than done. Companies would not only have to devote substantial resources to do that first would have to train its personnel to do that. Assessing true value of a goodwill is not easy. If there is a comparable market then companies can easily value it. Even then it may differ from case to case as it would be very unusual to see exactly two similar companies. Goodwill is very different from tangible assets or technologies and depends a lot on market perception and strategy. Companies would have to review the whole process of valuing goodwill and would have to review the valuation process at constant intervals. Net pension liability. The inclusion of net pension liability on the balance sheet may have severe impact on the shareholders funds. Companies will be required to have annual actuarial valuation of their pension liabilities and the same would be reflected in financial statements. Most of the pension funds invest in equity markets, which have been quite volatile in the recent years. So though over a longer period, the movements in pension liabilities may even out but in short to medium term, it may have a dramatic effect on balance sheets and earning statements. Segmental information. IAS 14 requires companies to report information on their business segments and on a scale more detail than UK GAAP. As of date, no agreed accounting practices have emerged on how much should be disclosed because companies may end up revealing sensitive information to its competitors. If companies disclose the turnover, earnings and expenditure for each segment, its profitable operations may come under intense competition. Ian Dilks of PwC said that â€Å"some companies have found they’re giving much more information than they’re comfortable with on sales and the profitability of product areas† (Tricks, 2005) Expensing research costs may result in listed companies focusing more on products in development stage than in research stage. This will keep their balance sheets healthy but may harm long term prospects. Complex and long IFRS compliant reports. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that an IFRS compliant financial report for insurance companies could be up to twice as long as those prepared under existing UK GAAP (Finn Zoon, 2004). The requirement for other industry sectors though may not be as intensive as for insurance sector, their IFRS compliant financial may also be longer and resource intensive than under UK GAAP. Any company that has makes an acquisition will have to do annual goodwill impairment analysis and most of them would like to explain the results also. Comparable formats. IAS 1 is less prescriptive than the UK GAAP when it comes to the format of the balance sheet and income statement. It just distinguishes current and non-current assets and liabilities. Investors, when faced with different formats, may find it difficult to compare companies. Modify organisation structures. Meall (2003) suggested that the additional burden of more financial reporting along different segments may force companies to modify their existing organisational structures within their financial systems to collect and analyse data. Impact of IFRS on different industries IFRS will have different impact on different industries. For some, most of the applied UK GAAP is almost same as IFRS and won’t feel the difference. But for some industries, the difference in accounting standards may have a substantial impact. Financial services and insurance companies are among them. Financial services companies would be affected by substantial change in recognition and measurement of financial instruments under IAS 39. UK GAAP has no equivalent to IAS 4 which deals with insurance contracts. Insurance companies would now have to account for this in their financial statements. Under IFRS, insurance companies would have to book financial instruments such as derivatives at market value rather than historical value allowed under UK GAAP. Many insurers have said that this will distort their earnings (Reuters, 2005a). IFRS will put more stringent criteria for classification of insurance products and this may lead to reclassification of some insurance products as investment products. Other industries that might face higher impact are the ones that heavily use hedging instruments in their day to day operations. Mostly companies using commodity materials like oil as a significant part of their input costs use hedging to smooth over the volatile changes in commodity markets. New accounting standards will reduce Tesco’s projected annual profit of  £2,000m by  £30m only, a reduction of 1.5%. But for some companies the impact would be much more. Royal Sun Alliance said that new accounting rules would reduce its net assets by  £400m (Reuters, 2005a). This is a big number by any standards and shareholders Attitude of Unlisted Companies Towards IFRS Attitude of Unlisted Companies Towards IFRS SECTION I INTRODUCTION The adoption of international financial reporting standards across the European Union from 1st January 2005 is one of the biggest events in the accounting history. This is especially important after the capital markets were rocked by some big accounting frauds in recent years. In the first phase, 7000-plus listed European companies will have to implement new financial reporting standards from January 2005 (Fuller, Jan 2005). When European Union moved towards one market across Europe, it faced the prospect of different financial reporting regimes across EU participants. To achieve true scale of financial integration, it has become necessary to adopt common financial reporting standards. In June 2002, the European Commission adopted a regulation requiring all listed EU companies in regulated markets to prepare their financial statements in accordance with International Accounting Standards (IAS) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The regulation is applicable only on consolidated accounts and companies are free to choose their national GAAPs for subsidiaries and associate companies. The regulation came into force from January 2005. Companies Act 1985 governs the use of UK GAAP by UK based companies. Similarly other EU states have their own laws for accounting standards. The EU states have now modified their national laws to include IFRS regulation to offer a common financial reporting standard. Companies Act 1985 (International Accounting Standards and Other Accounting Amendments) Regulations 2004 has extended the application, on a non-compulsory basis, of the EU IFRS regulation to all non-charitable organisations. In the last quarter of previous century, the world economies have moved towards globalisation. Multinational companies are manufacturing and selling across the world and many of these firms are listed at foreign stock exchanges. Globalisation of markets and establishment of multinationals led to increased desire and awareness about international markets. This was soon followed by globalisation of financial markets which increased the value of understanding of international financial results and reporting formats. Rapid improvement in communication technologies and easy access through internet has further spread the profile of international investor. Now a day international investors are not limited to some portfolio managers in big banks. International investors are now as diverse as sophisticated equity manager to a small investor in a remote town. Investors too have diversified their portfolio by international equities and bonds. This rapid globalisation has fuelled the desire to h ave common international standards that could be understood and followed across nations. The ever increasing network of investors has not only opened new financing sources to countries, it has also put some pressure on the financial regulatory authorities to design and improve their financial reporting systems in a manner that is easily understood by wider audiences. The regulatory authorities have on one hand evolve the financial reporting system to match the ever increasing demands of international investors and on the other hand make sure that companies in their countries are not faced with sudden increase in time, resources and knowledge needed to cope with new regulations.   In 1973, 9 countries included UK formed International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) with an aim to develop common accounting standards. The membership has now grown well over hundred countries with each country, especially bigger economies, bringing in their own perspectives of accounting standards. IASC had to deal with accounting conflictions in coming up with common acceptable accounting standards. One would immediately think whether IASC has been successful in resolving all the conflicts with all member countries and the answer would easily be no. To fully satisfy more than hundred accounting bodies from across the world is almost an impossible task. Yet IASC has done a commendable job and from 1 January 2005, International Accounting Standards (IAS) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) is applicable in more than 90 countries. In EU, IFRS is compulsory only for listed companies. The standards that UK listed companies will follow are not those issued directly by the International Accounting Standards Board, but are those that have been endorsed by the European Commission. EU has now endorsed IFRS, except for IFRS 6 and some of the IFRIC interpretations, and some changes in IAS 39 relating to the fair value of financial instruments (PwC, 2005a). While the EU regulation is only enforceable on listed companies, it also says that a member state has an option to extend the use of IFRS to unlisted companies within their jurisdiction. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the government trade body responsible for company regulation in UK, has said that while there is no mandatory move to IFRS for unlisted companies, the unlisted companies would still be allowed to adopt IFRS over UK GAAP from 2005 onwards. The basic aim of new financial reporting standards is same as that of existing standards – to provide information about financial performance and position of a company to different stakeholders. Internal stakeholders – management – normally have a good grip of what’s going in the business. It is external stakeholders like investors, auditors, suppliers and creditors who need to be informed in a succinct and clear manner about financial implications of business decisions. The IFRS would aim to present a more complete picture of a business by making operating income a more encompassing number. As an example, the financial implications of stock options were kept out of income statements. Companies merely mentioned the number of stock options granted. But now onwards, companies will have to incorporate the fair costs of granting stock options in their income statements. This will allow investors to assess the true costs of executive remuneration. Though the overall aim is same, the differences in implementation and financial reporting do occur due to social, economic and political backgrounds of different nations. Will it be a good policy to allow two different accounting standards in UK – one standard for listed companies and another for unlisted companies. UK’s Accounting Standard Board clearly sees there is no merit in having two separate standards. ASB issued a Discussion Paper in March 2004 highlighting its strategy for convergence with IAS and says that convergence of UK accounting standards to IAS is a foregone conclusion. It has already introduced many changes in recent past to bring UK’s GAAP in line with IFRS. Smaller companies, even listed ones, will find it difficult to cope with extra work due to IFRS. Alternative Investment Market (AIM) realises that most of its companies won’t be in a position to meet IFRS requirements soon. So it changed its regulatory status in October 2004 and is now an â€Å"exchange regulated market† and out of purview of European Commission regulation on regulated markets. Now companies listed on AIM have time until January 2007 to implement IFRS. Accounting Standards Board is also sensitive to the needs placed on business in making a transition from UK accounting standards to IFRS. Big businesses probably have sufficient resources to cope with the change in one year. But the smaller businesses will find it difficult to make all required changes in one year. ASB has proposed a series of changes that would be implemented in 2005 and 2006 which will bring UK financial reporting standards more in line with IFRS. Thereafter ASB will carry out a series of step changes by replacing one or more UK standards. So by the end of 2005-2006, UK standards will almost be in line with IFRS and unlisted companies transition to IFRS in 2007 would be smooth. This research analyses the attitude of unlisted companies towards IFRS. Many research and surveys have been carried out on the acceptance and readiness of listed companies for transition to IFRS. But the issue has not been explored in depth with respect to unlisted companies. The research is based on primary and secondary data. Primary data is collected via interviews and questionnaires with companies and their auditors. A total of [34] interviews – [20] with companies and [14] with their auditors – were conducted to obtain primary data. [52] questionnaire responses by postal survey were also analysed. The results show that there is definitely a much scope in improving International Financial Reporting Standards for unlisted companies. Respondents were concerned about the costs associated with transition to IFRS and also the additional burden that will come with regular enhanced reporting. That IFRS will help in globalisation of capital markets and probably cheaper costs of capital is not of much significance for unlisted companies registered in UK. This research would be useful for institutes and associations framing accounting standards for unlisted companies. Mostly accounting standards have been framed with an eye for listed and large companies. But unlisted companies have much lesser resources to spend on large regulatory requirements and hence should have different reporting requirements that match the benefits obtained from such reporting. The time limitation and resource constraint mean that the primary data via interviews and questionnaire surveys could only be collected through a limited number of respondents. It would be useful to cover a larger data base before implementing the changes. Also more users of data in unlisted companies like banks and creditors should be contacted before policy formulation. The remaining paper is divided in the following sections. Section II is a literature review on justification and applicability of IFRS, and state of readiness in companies. Section III discusses the methodology used in this research. Section IV covers analysis of data obtained through the primary data collection and its interpretation. The paper concludes with section V. SECTION II LITERATURE REVIEW In June 2000, the European Commission proposed a new directive requiring that all publicly traded companies in the member states to adopt International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) standards by no later than January 2005. On 19 July 2002, the European Parliament and the Council approved the IAS regulation (EC) 1606/2002 which said ‘For each financial year starting on or after 1 January 2005, companies governed by the law of a Member State shall prepare their consolidated accounts in conformity with the international accounting standards adopted †¦ if, at their balance sheet date, their securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market of any Member State’ (EU, 2002). Rationale for EU’s adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards The main aim of International Financial reporting Standards is to bring convergence among different national financial reporting standards. Over time, the evolution of different national financial reporting standards has been influenced by local social, political and economic environments. Some of the major reasons for differences in accounting standards are: Political – Capitalist or Communist. Capitalist and communist countries have almost contrasting fundamental economic approach and their accounting standards reflect the same. Stage of economic development. Developed countries generally have better accounting standards in terms of transparency and clarity. Corporate finance – debt or equity. Companies in continental Europe are financed more by debt than the companies in UK. Accounting standards have over time evolved to reflect the importance placed by different sources of financing on different aspects of financial statements. Legal and taxation systems. Convergence will help investors and analysts to compare companies across borders in a better way. But it also implies that either member countries will lose their independence to make national accounting standards that reflect local economic conditions or if they start introducing some changes, IFRS may slowly lose its main strength of common standard. Local, political and economical conditions may force national accounting bodies to introduce variations in IFRS. EU has already introduced some changes in the IAS 39 dealing with financial instruments. It is beyond the scope of this research to see which member countries have introduced variations in IFRS. Convergence between UK GAAP and IFRS ASB has declared its intention to converge UK GAAP with IFRS. It has issued a number of new standards in December 2004 to speed up the convergence of UK GAAP with IFRS. So sooner, even unlisted companies would be following a substantial portion of IFRS due to this convergence. Comparison of UK GAAP and IFRS Similarities The ultimate goal of UK GAAP and IFRS is same – to present information about financial performance and position to all concerned stakeholders. If the aim is same, then should be the main approach adopted by both accounting standards. The UK’s Accounting Standard Board’s Statement of Principles for Financial Reporting is a vital contributor at macro level standard setting. It plays almost same role as International Accounting Standards Committee’s ‘Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements’. ‘It is a description of the fundamental approach that the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) believes should, in principle, underpin the financial statements of profit-oriented entities’ (ASB, 1999). The Statement of Principles has true and fair concept at its core, much like the focal point in International Accounting Standards. Also like IAS, Statement of Principles insists on financial information being relevant and comparable. It is beyond the scope of this research to highlight each and every similarity between UK GAAP and IAS. Differences Though the overall aim is same, the differences in implementation and financial reporting do occur due to social, economic and political backgrounds of different nations. Main concepts behind UK GAAP and IFRS are same, but when we look at micro level, we see many differences at the individual standards level. Following are the main differences between UK GAAP and IFRS: The Statement of Principles allows use of both historical cost and current value approaches in measuring balance sheet categories. The dual use of historical and current value methods is known as modified historical cost basis (ASB, 1999). Under historical cost, the carrying values of assets and liabilities are stated at the lower of cost and recoverable amount. This approach is more conservative as compared to IAS approach which uses fair value method. Also the choice of historical or current value method is based on subjective analysis of a company’s management and hence it is open to some manipulation. Fair value. If we look at global level, both UK GAAP and IFRS have adopted fair value method as the foundation of their accounting standards. IFRS takes fair value adoption even higher when it says that income statement will include the changes in the fair value of items that have not been yet traded like derivatives. The emphasis in new accounting standards is on mark-to-market fair value of assets and liabilities rather than on actual market price based fair values. Now both realised and unrealised changes in fair values would be incorporated in income statements. The first year of transition will see high volatility in earnings and balance sheet statements. Though this brings higher volatility, it will also test the management skills in proper presentation and explanation of changes. It may also change the benchmarks of success for managements. Acquisitions. Acquisition accounting will change under new accounting standards. Under UK GAAP, companies can choose between purchase and merger accounting. Under IFRS, companies will have to account under purchase method only. Goodwill. UK GAAP allowed amortisation of goodwill and companies had the option of not segregating intangible assets from goodwill. Under IFRS, intangible assets have to be separated from goodwill. Goodwill can not be amortised now but companies will have to undertake annual impairment tests to justify the value of goodwill on the balance sheets. BAT’s profits for year 2004 increased by  £454m because it no longer had to amortise goodwill of that amount (AccountancyAge, 2005b). Consolidation of accounts. Under new accounting rules, companies may have to consolidate certain additional subsidiaries into group accounts. On the other hand companies will have to exclude certain subsidiaries or special purpose vehicles which were not included till now. Research and development costs. Under IAS 39, research costs can’t be carried on the balance sheet and would have to write them off as incurred. Companies would still be allowed to capitalise development in line with UK GAAP. Stock options. Internet and share market last boom in late 1990s led to rapid increase in share options as a way to reward employees. The new requirements to record an expense on income statement for the value of share options granted to employees could have a significant impact on earnings. AstraZeneca said in its pro forma 2004 IFRS numbers that new accounting rules on stock options has made it re-consider the use of stock options in rewarding its employees (Tricks, 2005). Distributable profits. Organisations ability to pay dividends is dependent on their distributable profits. Following are some of the major impacts of IFRS on distributable profits Inability to discount deferred tax liabilities, higher provisions for deferred tax when companies move from historical costs to fair value and inclusion of pension deficits in income statement. All of the above will reduce distributable profits. Many companies would have to financially restructure themselves in order to have sufficient distributable profits to meet dividends paid in last year. Deferred tax credit. Deferred tax credit is available under UK GAAP but not under IFRS. GlaxoSmithKline’s restated its 2004 earning per share by (1.9p) due to non-availability of deferred tax credit under IFRS (AccountancyAge, 2005a). Inclusion of business disposals gains in profits from operations. BAT’s profits for year 2004 increased by  £1.3bn after it included gains from disposals to operating profits (AccountancyAge, 2005b). Adding disposal gains to operating profits will make it harder for investors and analysts to separate the earnings from continuing businesses. Derivative contracts. Under IFRS, some derivative contracts will not qualify as hedges as they wont meet the criteria. UK GAAP allowed deferment of such contracts until transaction took place. IFRS won’t allow the deferment of such contract and would impact the profit and loss account even before the transaction took place. It is better in a way that investors will know the current value of the firm as on date rather than historical costs of such instruments, especially if the duration of financial instruments was long. At the same time, it would increase the burden on the company to calculate the fair value of all such transactions. Agricultural. UK GAAP allowed companies to use a cost model for biological assets and all agricultural produce. But under IAS companies would have to use mark to market method for valuing such assets. Now companies would have to use market valuation even for assets in far off countries. Advantages of IFRS over UK GAAP Common financial language. Adopting common financial reporting standards will open up a company to more markets and investors. The growth in telecommunications has made it easier for smaller investors to invest across physical boundaries. Such investors are normally not as financially sophisticated as some big financial institutions. They would also not like to understand more than one accounting standards as they don’t have required resources in hand to do so. With one common accounting standard, more investors would like to explore companies across nations. Acquisitions. IFRS 3 is more open and transparent than UK GAAP on acquisitions. It will allow investors and analysts to judge faster the success of an acquisition. Many of the companies that have relied on acquisition as a key cornerstone for growth would now come under intense scrutiny and may have to develop a new strategy for growing business.    Consolidation. In IFRS, all entities will have to provide a cash flow statement. Additionally there would be more transparency within the group companies and this should make the consolidation process more straight-forward. Securitisation by businesses is likely to be impacted by the new ways governing how companies can show assets and liabilities on their financial statements. Companies have used securitisation to cash in assets like trade receivables sitting on their balance sheets. Securitisation helps companies to slim down their balance sheets and hence allows companies to show higher return on assets at same earnings. And it was one of the reasons why companies went for securitisation. But stringent criteria for moving assets and liabilities off balance sheet will threaten securitisation. Sue Harding, chief accountant at Standard Poor’s in Europe said that new international accounting standards were sweeping a lot of securitised assets back on to balance sheets (Jopson, Feb 2005). This will help investors compare like to like and avoid companies that have used securitisation only to make-up their balance sheets. There is no harm in using securitisation if used in a proper way and not to deceive stakeholders. But we have seen how corporations like Enron had used securitisation to disguise their true financial position. Annual impairment review. Annual impairment review will benefit investors because the companies then won’t like to take big goodwill cuts in one year and not do anything for years. Annual reviews would help investors judging whether the amount paid by companies in acquiring other company was justified or not. Access to cheaper capital. Increase in investor profile diversification would most probably lower the cost of capital for most of the companies. This is especially true for smaller companies which don’t have financial muscles and resources to tap international investors. Expensing research costs gives better information to investors and other stakeholders because at research stage the chances of success are quite uncertain. Investors can only be sure of development costs bringing in some returns in future. Also by segregating research and development costs, external stakeholders will now have a better chance to differentiate the suitability of costs incurred in developing new products. Multiple listings. Many companies now have multiple listings across different countries. Companies need to prepare financial statements as per each local accounting standard to meet listing requirements. With one accounting standard only it will save a lot of botheration for companies with multiple listings. Dividends. Under IFRS dividends are not provided for until the dividend recommended by the Board is approved by shareholders. This move will bring more convergence between accounting profits and cash flows. Disadvantages of IFRS Fair value. While fair value in a way conveys more up to date value of a company as compared to historic costs, it also puts a question mark on the methods used and the reliability of fair value. Derivative instruments which are commonly traded on various stock exchanges can be easily assigned value. So while valuing some of the assets or liabilities may not be difficult, the question still remains what impact such valuations will have on companies’ business models. Many companies use hedging instruments as a strategic tool rather than for intentional gains. Any short-term swings in such instruments may have a significant impact on income statement and probably adverse market reactions may deter companies’ from using such instruments. Then comes the more important issue of valuing assets and liabilities that don’t have a proper market. The companies may use some valuation model, which itself may not be the right way, to value an asset or liability. The model will incorporate some subjective assumptions. An example would be brand value. A same brand can have two different values for two different companies because of its strategic importance. So at one hand, investors and other external stakeholders are getting more objective information about a companies’ assets and liabilities, they are also getting valuation based on more subjective assessments. Only time will tell whether some individuals or companies will use it to manipulate results. An interesting thing to observe would be the treatment and importance given by analysts to unrealised fair value of assets and liabilities. Some investors may try to separate unrealised gains and losses from other operational performance. It may also prompt companies to issue adjusted earnings excluding unrealised gains and losses. An important point to note about fair value principle is that the financial statements should not be seen as perfect prediction of things to come. That depends on the strategic and business decisions management will take in future. Just having a fair value of assets and liabilities doesn’t mean that the company will be able to extract those values in future.    Dividend. New accounting standards promote payment of dividend from distributable reserves. With the inclusion of unrealised gains and losses and pension deficits, the first few years of new accounting standards may not leave enough of distributable reserves for dividend payments. Securitisation. Securitising assets into special purpose vehicles and re-financing them through had also helped companies raise funds at lower costs. The new accounting standards by restricting the use of special purpose vehicles, would diminish some sources of cheap financing. It is question yet to be fully tested in the practical world that since the assets are same, change in financing options shouldn’t change the returns on total assets. By refinancing at lower rates through securitisation should result in higher financing cost for remaining assets such that the overall costs remain same. But examination of this hypothesis is beyond the scope of this dissertation. But what is mostly observed in capital markets is that when companies announce refinancing, the share price rises. How much of the rise is from relief that company will survive and how much from the fact that the overall costs have lowered is not known. Annual impairment tests. Annual impairment tests are easier said than done. Companies would not only have to devote substantial resources to do that first would have to train its personnel to do that. Assessing true value of a goodwill is not easy. If there is a comparable market then companies can easily value it. Even then it may differ from case to case as it would be very unusual to see exactly two similar companies. Goodwill is very different from tangible assets or technologies and depends a lot on market perception and strategy. Companies would have to review the whole process of valuing goodwill and would have to review the valuation process at constant intervals. Net pension liability. The inclusion of net pension liability on the balance sheet may have severe impact on the shareholders funds. Companies will be required to have annual actuarial valuation of their pension liabilities and the same would be reflected in financial statements. Most of the pension funds invest in equity markets, which have been quite volatile in the recent years. So though over a longer period, the movements in pension liabilities may even out but in short to medium term, it may have a dramatic effect on balance sheets and earning statements. Segmental information. IAS 14 requires companies to report information on their business segments and on a scale more detail than UK GAAP. As of date, no agreed accounting practices have emerged on how much should be disclosed because companies may end up revealing sensitive information to its competitors. If companies disclose the turnover, earnings and expenditure for each segment, its profitable operations may come under intense competition. Ian Dilks of PwC said that â€Å"some companies have found they’re giving much more information than they’re comfortable with on sales and the profitability of product areas† (Tricks, 2005) Expensing research costs may result in listed companies focusing more on products in development stage than in research stage. This will keep their balance sheets healthy but may harm long term prospects. Complex and long IFRS compliant reports. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that an IFRS compliant financial report for insurance companies could be up to twice as long as those prepared under existing UK GAAP (Finn Zoon, 2004). The requirement for other industry sectors though may not be as intensive as for insurance sector, their IFRS compliant financial may also be longer and resource intensive than under UK GAAP. Any company that has makes an acquisition will have to do annual goodwill impairment analysis and most of them would like to explain the results also. Comparable formats. IAS 1 is less prescriptive than the UK GAAP when it comes to the format of the balance sheet and income statement. It just distinguishes current and non-current assets and liabilities. Investors, when faced with different formats, may find it difficult to compare companies. Modify organisation structures. Meall (2003) suggested that the additional burden of more financial reporting along different segments may force companies to modify their existing organisational structures within their financial systems to collect and analyse data. Impact of IFRS on different industries IFRS will have different impact on different industries. For some, most of the applied UK GAAP is almost same as IFRS and won’t feel the difference. But for some industries, the difference in accounting standards may have a substantial impact. Financial services and insurance companies are among them. Financial services companies would be affected by substantial change in recognition and measurement of financial instruments under IAS 39. UK GAAP has no equivalent to IAS 4 which deals with insurance contracts. Insurance companies would now have to account for this in their financial statements. Under IFRS, insurance companies would have to book financial instruments such as derivatives at market value rather than historical value allowed under UK GAAP. Many insurers have said that this will distort their earnings (Reuters, 2005a). IFRS will put more stringent criteria for classification of insurance products and this may lead to reclassification of some insurance products as investment products. Other industries that might face higher impact are the ones that heavily use hedging instruments in their day to day operations. Mostly companies using commodity materials like oil as a significant part of their input costs use hedging to smooth over the volatile changes in commodity markets. New accounting standards will reduce Tesco’s projected annual profit of  £2,000m by  £30m only, a reduction of 1.5%. But for some companies the impact would be much more. Royal Sun Alliance said that new accounting rules would reduce its net assets by  £400m (Reuters, 2005a). This is a big number by any standards and shareholders

The impact of migration on families around the world

Migration has been an on going phenomena from past to present. Individuals, families or group of people may leave a country voluntarily because of events such as harsh environmental or economic conditions. Migration has always been an important part of human endeavour. Migration can have positive and negative impacts on the families and also the country. With pros such as freedom, job vacancies and benefits to host country, it's no surprise most people don't have second thoughts about the cons such as effects on child, decrease in economy and propagation of diseases. Firstly migrants frequently settle in places with lesser population. These places would be having a shortage of skilled labour due to the decreased population. The migrants bring with them enough skills that will help support the economy. The migrants may be skilled people like doctors or unskilled people like construction workers. Migrants may increase unemployment in certain areas, but this is compensated by their raising the overall level of demand like housing and household related goods, needs†¦This promotes both a higher level and a wider range of goods and services produced, stimulating the economy and job growth. Migrants help to reduce labor shortages and also attract international traders through their foreign knowledge and language skills. Secondly migrants will be usually willing to fill job vacancies that local people are unwilling to fill. These include jobs such as babysitting, cleaning and other activities. This is an advantage for the existing community. Migration benefits not only the migrants, but also the countries that receive them, and even the countries they have left. Migrants doing these jobs live a happy and free life in a country where they get equal opportunity and thereby secure a better future for themselves and their families. For many young people, the experience and skills they acquire in the jobs to which they have migrated can serve as a step to further migration for better paid jobs. In addition to this researchers concur unanimously in reporting that migratory workers use part of their savings from working to improve their homes, whether by decorating them, extending them or introducing basic services such as electricity, water and drainage. Similarly, it is common to find that localities with migrants benefit from their contributions by receiving monetary support that helps them to improve diverse services, whether urban infrastructure, health, religious, educational or entertainment services. In towns with migrants it is common to find acknowledgments from the residents to their fellow townsmen for having helped them build a school or health clinic, or to introduce drinking water or build or improve the church,†¦. However the importance of keeping in regular contact: e-mails and text messages can in no way substitute for the physical presence of a parent, but they can help a child feel connected with family members who are away. Finally, there is the importance of the family's relations and communication before the migration. Many parents presumably do not migrate unless they think their children can cope in the first place. A factor found to be extremely important is the child's understanding of, and support for, the family goal. In fact, an individual's migration can be highly valued within a family: it can give status, not only for the material objects the migration may bring, but in more symbolic form of being the family member who gives for others. Some of these observations might be extrapolated to the situation of children affected by HIV and AIDS. Moreover it is generally believed that those migrants who have had the courage to leave one country and move to another are often enterprising and entrepreneurial, even if poor. As such, in many countries, migrants often set up small businesses. They however, become easy targets when the general economic conditions in that host country worsen. In other cases, people become migrants because they have fleed worsening conditions or persecution. In that situation, although they may live in another country, it may initially be quite difficult to adapt and change practices and customs. In such situations migrants are clearly seen as different and in worsening economic times can be seen as sapping away resources that could otherwise have been used for local populations. Furthermore migrating parents may decide, whether by choice or due to untenable circumstances to leave their children in their country of origin, planning either to return to their household of origin or to reunite much later in their destination country. The decision of one or both parents to migrate and consequently, to leave children behind, may be the result of an individual altruistic decision to send remittances in order to make their family members' lives better, or the result of household utility maximization that may take into consideration also the risks and perils of travel. Children whose parents are working abroad have a similar profile to those living in mono-parental families resulting from the parents' separation or from the death of one parent. This shows that, although the work abroad is temporary, the impact on the children could be similar to that of the loss of a parent, through divorce or death. In conclusion, children whose parents are working abroad should be considered at risk. That would be a first recommendation to children protection authorities, who should find solutions to strengthen the relations between school and the social services system. For many migrants, migration represents an alternative for supporting their families. Nevertheless, while going to work abroad contributes significantly to household incomes, it also has many social costs. Migration also affects social relations. Migration also changes the roles within the family additional tasks must be assumed by those left behind.

Pain Control During Infant Circumcision

Pain Control During Infant Circumcision Circumcision is a painful surgical procedure frequently performed on newborn baby boys and often without available pain relief measures being used. The procedure, especially without pain relief, can cause short-term effects such as choking, gagging, and vomiting. Long term effects of circumcision without pain relief are not well understood, however, an increased incidence of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and/or periventricular leukomalacia (PVL) has been associated with pain and stress in the neonate (Leef, 2006). Crying time, facial expression, and sweating palms can indicate infant pain, as can increased heart rate, breathing rate, and blood pressure. Although these behavioral and physiological changes are present at other times, the infant usually displays them during a circumcision that is not accompanied with effective pain relief. This paper reviews various pain relief methods and current residency training practices regarding the use of analgesia during the circumcision procedure. Available treatments are used with the three most common circumcision surgical techniques: the Morgen clamp, the Gomco clamp, and the Plastibell method. Recent research suggests that the Morgen clamp is associated with a less painful procedure when compared with the other two (Leef, 2006; Yawman et al. , 2006). Preferred by trainees, the Morgen clamp is also faster to use than the Plastibell (Yawman et al. , 2006) and include local and topical pain relief methods, oral sucrose and oral acetaminophen. Dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB), which involves injecting anesthetic at the base of the penis, and subcutaneous ring block are the two most commonly used local anesthetics. Topically applied anesthetic creams include EMLA, a water-based cream that includes lidocaine and prilocaine. Although DPNB, ring block, and EMLA do not eliminate circumcision pain, all three are more effective than placebo or no treatment (Leef, 2006; Yawman et al. , 2006). Compared head to head, DPNB is substantially more effective than EMLA cream (Leef, 2006). However, DPNB can cause minor bruising, bleeding, or swelling at the injection site and EMLA can cause skin color changes or local skin irritation (Leef, 2006). When used alone during the entire surgical procedure, oral agents, such as sucrose and acetaminophen, have not been shown to be as effective when compared with either EMLA or DPNB (Leef, 2006). However, in 1998, Herschel et al. (as cited in Leef, 2006) found that when sucrose was compared with DPNB during â€Å"the initial time intervals of circumcision (surgical preparation, lateral clamping, lysis of adhesions) and the final period (excision of the foreskin and application of a dressing)† there was no significant difference in heart rate which suggests that sucrose is as effective as DPNB during these periods (Leef, 2006, p. 77). In 1991, Blass and Hoffmeyer (as cited in Leef, 2006) found that babies cried less often when given a sucrose-dipped pacifier compared to a water-dipped pacifier or no intervention when undergoing the procedure. Given these results, one can conclude that combining oral sucrose with DPNB would provide optimum pain relief. Since 1999, the American Aca demy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all recommended the universal use of local or topical anesthetics during neonatal circumcision (Yawman et al. 2006). In order to find out if there has been an increase in residency programs that teach effective forms of analgesia for newborn circumcision since previous data collection in 1998, Yawman et al. (2006) conducted a survey of US residency programs in family practice (FP), pediatrics (PED), and obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) in April, 2003 (N=940). The results showed that only 82% taught newborn circumcision and that FP residents (95%) were more likely to be taught the procedure than either PED (49%) or OB/GYN (86%) residents. These findings were not significantly different from the 1998 study. Ninety-seven percent of the programs that taught newborn circumcision also taught effective anesthetic techniques. This is a 26% increase compared with the previous study (71%). However, only 84% of the responding programs reported that a topical or local agent was always or at least frequently used. There was a statistically significant difference among residency programs, which showed that 93% of PED, 86% of FP and 76% of OB/GYN programs frequently or always used analgesia. The previous study did not gather this data so a comparative analysis could not be performed (Yawman et al. , 2006). There are several limitations to the Yawman et al. (2006) study. The survey relies on accurate reporting by respondents who may overestimate the frequency of how often effective pain management is taught. In addition, the respondents gave their personal opinion, which reflected on the practices of a whole department of which they may not be fully informed. The respondents completing the survey likely differed from the individuals who responded in the 1998 survey. Last, the study only surveyed teaching hospitals and may not reflect the practices of other community hospitals In spite of these limitations, the results showed that 16% of the residency programs do not always or at least frequently use analgesic agents during the surgical circumcision procedure. Based upon the overwhelming evidence of the safety and benefit to newborns of effective analgesia during circumcision this particular statistic of the Yawman et al (2006) study is both surprising and bothersome. This implies that although the teaching of effective analgesic techniques during circumcision has increased over the years, implementation of these practices is not yet universal. Furthermore, physicians that were trained in programs that did not teach the use of analgesics for circumcision, as was the case for the majority of programs just 15-20 years ago, are not likely to use pain management in their current practice. Therefore, the actual number of infants needlessly subjected to the surgical procedure without effective analgesia use is currently unknown. Further research, which attempts to quantify this number, is needed. The results may be alarming enough to create a standard policy in all hospitals, which states that effective pain management is required for all newborn circumcisions. References Leef, K. H. (2006). Evidence-based review of oral sucrose administration to decrease the pain response in newborn infants. Neonatal Network, 25, 275-284. Yawman, D. Howard, C. R. , Auinger, P. , Garfunkel, L. C. , Allan, M. , & Weitzman, M. (2006). Pain relief for neonatal circumcision: a follow-up of residency training practices. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 6, 210-214.

HM Pricing and Retail Strategy - 1217 Words

Pricing and Retail Strategy of HM Hennes Mauritz (HM) is a Swedish clothing retail company. The company was founded by Erling Pesson in 1947. The first HM store was opened in Vaesteras, Sweden in 1947. The mission of HM is to offer fashion and quality at the best price where â€Å"quality includes ensuring that products are manufactured in a way that is environmentally and socially sustainable† (HM, vision policy, n.d., para. 1). This essay is to highlight the current market analysis, pricing strategy, retail strategy, and competitive advantage analysis of the company. Current Market Analysis HM is the world’s second largest retailer, only behind its main rival Zara of Inditex (Petro, 2012). The company currently has 3006 stores in 53†¦show more content†¦Promotion HM utilizes multiple communication channels to promote its brand awareness. The most implemented method is featuring well-known celebrities, singers, and designers in its billboard, internet/mobile ads, and television ads. In addition, HM also promote its brand identity with social awareness ad campaigns like â€Å"Fashion Against Aids† or â€Å"Fashion for Conscious†. In addition, HM raises its brand awareness as well as brand loyalty through coupons offers, special promotions, mobile commerce, social networking sites, reward program, and its online sites. For instance, just on its Facebook page alone, there are more than 16 million fans, who constantly comment and respond to HM newsfeeds. This high social hype not only helps the company to create more brand familiarity but also helps the company to know what its customers want and demand Place Since the main target segments are the generation X, Y, and Z, most of HM stores are located in hip, visible, crowded part of shopping pavilions or inside the malls. Spaces within high-traffic volume outlet shopping centers are also ideal locations for the company. In addition, HM’s target market places also include mobile commerce and e-commerce. Competitive Advantage Analysis The HM focuses its sustainability on three areas: innovative technology, low-price strategy, and expansion. Innovative Technology HM prides itself for utilizing theShow MoreRelatedProduct, Pricing, and Channels Paper1364 Words   |  6 PagesProduct, Pricing, and Channels Paper HM online Since 2009 there has been a large decrease in offline retail sales, by 2015 Gap Inc. will be closing 189 store, Abercrombie and Fitch is planning to close 180 store and Aeropostale 175 stores (Business Insider). JCPenny’s store sales alone dropped 31.7% in store purchases (Business Insider). Where are consumers going? Online. In 2013, the top online purchases for U.S. consumers were consumer electronics, books, clothing and apparel, 63% customersRead MoreEssay about Zara Business Strategy1637 Words   |  7 Pagesrole in orchestrating physical flows of apparel btwn exporters and importers - retail; large retail played leading role in promoting QR (quick response); targeted at improving coordination between retailing and manufacturing (increase speed and flexibility of responses to market shifts) - QR led to significant compression of cycle times enabled by improvements in IT - markets and customers; in 2000 spending on retail clothing roughly eur900bln worldwide; europe (west) 34%, US 29%, asia 23% - mckinseyRead MoreH M : A Retail Store1541 Words   |  7 PagesWho Is HM? HM is a retail store that catered to men and women with affordable, yet chic clothing. HM originally known as Hennes, opened up their first women’s clothing store in Vasteras, Sweden in 1947. By 1964, they opened up their first outside store in Norway. The founder Erling Persson bought out an outdoor equipment store and began selling men’s and children’s clothing. This is when Hennes changed to Hennes Mauritz in 1968 (HM, 2013). In 1975, HM introduced cosmetics to their customersRead MoreCoca Cola Zero in Australia: Marketing Mix Strategy Analysis1286 Words   |  5 Pagesï » ¿Marketing Mix Strategy Analysis on Coca Cola Zero in Australia Introduction Marketing is a significant tool in the development and success of as a company or organization that is launching a new product in the market (Pride Ferrell, 2012). Coca Cola Company is among the leading beverage retailers in the world, specializing in non- alcoholic drinks. The company has several brands of beverages, with vast varieties of non-alcoholic drinks. The famous drink that propagated the company to the topRead MoreTools For Strategic Implementation Is The Mckinsey 7 S Model1187 Words   |  5 Pagesthe seven elements of the McKinsey model is (a) structure, (b) staff, (c) system, (d) shared values, (e) style, and (f) skills, which is helpful to implement change within an organization. These essentials designed to facilitate the execution of a strategy. The model used for as a tool to monitor and assess changes in the internal and external aspects of an organization implementing change (Singh, 2013). The purpose of this paper is to discuss a brief description of a chosen tool, assessment of theRead MoreMckinsey 7 S Model1323 Words   |  6 Pagesthe seven elements of the McKinsey model: (a) structure, (b) staff, (c) system, (d) shared values, (e) style, and (f) skills, which is helpful to implement change within an organization. These essentials designed to facilitate the execution of a strategy. The model used for as a tool to monitor and assess changes in the internal and external aspects of an organization implementing change (Singh, 2013). The purpose of this paper is to discuss a brief description of a chosen tool, assessment of theRead MoreSustainability of HM in Competitive Apparel Market3989 Words   |  16 Pagesï » ¿ Managing Customers and Markets Topic: Sustainability of HM in Competitive Apparel Market Name: ** Summary: With an ever-increasing numbers of competitors gaining traction globally and more big retailers stepping into the low-cost fast-fashion industry, HM has encountered difficulties in prolonging its competitiveness to retain consumers and surviving in the keen global apparel market. However, HM has set its insight in finding new ways to maintain industry leadershipRead MoreEvaluating The Performance And Primark s Position1309 Words   |  6 PagesAssess its performance and Primark’s position in the marketplace: Table A demonstrates that in 2015, Primark’s 325 retail stores generated  £5.347 Billion in sales representing an 8% growth over 2014 ( £4.95 Billion). This 8% growth in sales resulted in an additional  £11 Million in operating profit. Primark’s annual revenues have steadily increased over the past six years, from  £2,730,000,000 in 2010 to  £5,400,000,000 in 2015 (97% growth). This growth can largely be attributed to Primark expandingRead MoreZara - Marketing Research1034 Words   |  5 PagesTask 1 zara marketing research Zara is a spanish chain store in Inditex group, one of the worlds biggest retail store in the world who are also owners of zara home. Zara is a fast industry bt its unique business model is based on innovation and flexibilty. they design and distribute a garment to the market in just 15 days. they always have new products but in limited supply. the customer feels there is an exclusitivity , since only a few items are on display even though stores are plannedRead MoreRevenue Model : How Will The Organization Earn Money?1564 Words   |  7 Pagesorganization earn money?) Inditex owns Zara among others. They demonstrated a strong first-quarter profit and revenue growth across all of its major regions where they operate. From the stock market stance, their shares rose 5.5% in Madrid. Their strategy is that they do not spend on too much doing extravagant ad campaigns. Rather they invest their resources on developing store campaigns, ensuring that they focus on customers that they have a seamless experience shopping on their website and having