Author Archives: Jane Bates - Partner

About Jane Bates - Partner

T +44 (0)20 7874 8806

Jane is a specialist in advising businesses operating in Property Development and Civil Engineering and works with some of the largest private companies in these sectors.

She has extensive experience in corporate restructuring for both companies and professional partnerships, advising on conversion to LLP status.

A welcome bit of reality is slowly appearing from our accounting standard setters.  The Financial Reporting Council has recently requested feedback from users and has now published an exposure draft, FRED 67, of the proposed changes to FRS 102, the ‘new’ UK GAAP.

Although there are a mass of changes there are a few proposals that should achieve some of their promised simplification.

Any simplification is welcome, but it would have been so much better if these had all been included in the original new UK GAAP, FRS 102, which has now been effective from 1 January 2015.  Unfortunately we can’t get too excited about these changes as they are unlikely to be in force earlier than December 2019 year ends, so we still have plenty of time to wait for these modest but welcome simplifications to come into effect.

What are the main changes they are proposing?

  • Director’s loans.

Many interest-free or below market interest rate loans provided by directors had to be included under FRS 102 at a discounted value.  As well as being difficult to understand, many companies have had challenges is identifying a suitable market rate of interest to use for the discount.

The proposal is that for small companies, loans from directors who are also shareholders can be shown without any discounting.

Very welcome but will not solve all the discounting issues, and we still have to discount in current sets of accounts

  • Intangible assets acquired in a business combination

The original FRS102 required intangibles such as customer lists to be identified, this resulted in any goodwill on acquiring a company being much lower than under old UK GAAP.

The cost of identifying these intangibles can be a burden, but some companies did like identifying the underlying assets that they had acquired.

The proposal is that there will now be flexibility to choose to identify or not.

This will be a useful reduction in costs when proposal is implemented; but ends up with a complete lack of consistency between companies.

  • Investment property rented to a group company

When the new FRS 102 came into force, any property rented to another group company had to show this property as an investment property, with all the resultant volatility in profits of changes in valuation going through profit or loss.  Always seemed very academic as in the consolidated accounts this adjustment was ‘undone’.

The proposal is that companies can choose to go back to old way of showing at cost less depreciation.

A welcome simplification – but why did we have to wait so long?

  • Financial instruments

FRS 102 split financial instruments into basic and other, with much more onerous measurement and disclosure if not basic.  This has had significant impact on property companies where the structure of their loans are often not simple.

The proposal is that there will be a  bit more wriggle room in some marginal cases, so there may be a few more basic financial instruments.

This is likely to be one of those areas where we need to wait for the final detailed rules before we can really assess whether it helps an individual case, but any simplification of this complex area must be welcome.

1

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

The government’s new policy to enable all housebuilders to access publically owned sites is certainly a positive step in the right direction. We will watch with interest to see how it plays out in practice.

However, as we constantly hear from our housebuilder clients, the planning process is still the single biggest business barrier. The larger building organisations are more able to cope with the funding and resourcing the drawn out process, but this is what really hurts the smaller, independent, unlisted businesses. If the government really wants to help those companies then a shake-up of the planning process would be a real business improver.

This was the main sentiment of the discussion at the Goodman Jones property reception in November when Liz Peace came to share some of her thoughts on the key issues for the sector.

Thoughts on the night, from Liz Peace, who was the CEO of the British Property Federation from 2002 to 2014 and is now involved in property, politics and the built environment, included:

  1. If we want private sector house builders to build more, then they need to do it where there is market demand. You cannot buck the market!!!
  2. And that is going to mean building where so far we have found it unpalatable to do – either upwards or outwards. Upwards – allowing an extra two stories in cities, and outwards for stifled cities to expand into selected Green Belt.
  3. We have to crack the affordability issue – and that means either more council houses or social housing stock. So we need to review the issues facing the Registered Social Landlords.
  4. More rigorously impose affordable housing targets – if that becomes an undisputed feature of any house building market then land prices will adjust automatically – in other words the market will take care of it.
  5. We should use public sector land – but use it more creatively. What happened to Mr Prescott’s £60k house? – keeping the freehold, just selling the building, like we do in flats
0

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...

Companies with investment properties will see their profit and loss accounts change when new accounting standards come into force. As headline results such as profit before tax are used for credit scoring this academic change may have a real world unexpected effect on a company’s credit rating.

Companies with investment properties have for many years followed existing UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (UK GAAP) and have been required to value their investment properties at market value each year. Any changes to that market value have not been shown in the reported profit or loss for the year but were in most cases only a balance sheet entry.

In March 2013 the new version of UK GAAP was published, FRS102, which is based on International Financial Reporting for small and medium entities. This new standard will be compulsory for accounting periods starting after 1 January 2015 and still requires investment properties to be at market value. The big difference is that the changes in the market value will now be shown as part of the reported profit or loss for the year. There will be no revaluation reserve in the balance sheet; instead all the previous revaluation reserve will need to be shown as part of the profit and loss account reserve.

A reduction in property value can be larger than the normal profit on the rental income, so there could easily be a reported loss for the year with these new standards; where previously that reduction in value would have hit the balance sheet only.

1 January 2015 still seems a long time away but the problem is that all the comparatives will need to be changed to the new presentation. The property value at 31 December 2013 will affect those comparatives – now the issue seems a lot more urgent.

If you are concerned about this then please contact me to discuss further.

0

The information in this article was correct at the date it was first published.

However it is of a generic nature and cannot constitute advice. Specific advice should be sought before any action taken.

If you would like to discuss how this applies to you, we would be delighted to talk to you. Please make contact with the author on the details shown below.

Comment on this...