Materiality And Disclosures In Summerset Group Holdings Limited Annual Report

Discuss About The Constructing Disciplined And Ethical Subject.

Reviewing various draft notes and disclosures mentioned in the annual report

Materiality is depicted as one of the significant scopes of audit, which needs to be taken into consideration by the auditors, while conducting the audit report. without the consideration of materiality present with the operations of the organisation the auditor is not able to successfully complete the audit process. Materiality is considered to be one of the financial factors, which is considered by investors before conducing investment decisions. The planning materiality is mainly conducted by the auditor for identifying the level of materiality misstatement, which can be conducted within the operations of the organisation (Pike, Curtis & Chui, 2013). The different items in which the overall materiality is shown are total assets, total sales generated, net profit before tax and revenue of the organisation. Hence, Summerset Group Holdings Limited materiality level is considered to be at the 3%, which can be used for identifying the materiality value present in total assets, revenue and net profit before tax.

The above table directly indicates the level of materiality, which is present with the operations of Summerset Group Holdings Limited during the fiscal year of 2017. The materiality percentage taken into consideration is at the levels of 3%, which is multiplied by the total assets of the company. This mainly holds the overall materiality value of 66,489,840 for the fiscal year of 2017 in the total assets of the organisation. Hence, with the overall value of materiality the organisation is able to depict the performance material of other items listed in the annual report. In this context, Ferrell and Fraedrich (2015) stated that with the presence of materiality the overall investors are able to make decision regarding the investments by identifying the loopholes in the current financial report of the organisation.

From the evaluation of annual report adequate disclosures that has been made by the organisation is identified, while there are not draft notes depicted in the financials. In addition, the relevant disclosures are mainly considered significant for audit process, which helps in understanding the current financial performance of the company Furthermore, disclosure are adequately depicted in the annual report, which indicates that the company has adopted NZ IFRS 9 – Financial Instruments from 1 July 2017. This has helped in drafting the accurate financial statement for the company in accordance with the IFRS regulations. Further disclosure regrinding the underlying profits has been conducted by the company in the annual report, which has also been discussed in the auditor’s report (Espinosa-Pike & Barrainkua, 2016).

Reviewing the annual report of Summerset Group Holdings Limited by using different ratios, while discussing the trend in the ratios

The company has futhre depicted the Market Disclosure and Communications Policy in the annual report with the Code of Ethics, Securities Trading Policy and Guidelines, Board and Committee Charters, Diversity and Inclusion Policy, Director and Executive Remuneration Policy, and Communication policy. The non-financial disclosure such as health and safety approaches used by the organisation is also depicted in the annual report. Lastly, the disclosure conducted by the organisation during the fiscal year was from the changes in the director’s remuneration, interest and other activities. The disclosures depicted by Summerset Group Holdings Limited mainly helps in understanding its current financial progress in comparison to previous years (Summerset.co.nz, 2018)

From the evaluation of above calculation conducted for Summerset Group Holdings Limited adequate financial position of the company can be identified. In addition, the ratios of profitability, liquidity and leverage ratio are calculated for understanding the current financial performance of the company. Therefore, from the evaluation it can be detected that the current liquidity ratio of Summerset Group Holdings Limited is declining to alarming levels. The values current ratio has been declining since 2014, where the values has shrunk to 0.31 in 2017 from 0.64 in 2014. This directly indicates the low accumulation of adequate current assets, which has not been conducted by the company (Bhandari & Iyer, 2013). Moreover, after evaluating the annual report it could be identified that the company does not have investors, which is also an essential part of current assets. The calculation of working capital indicates a steady decline in values of current assets, which increases the negative balance in working capital. Hence, the auditors need to evaluate the current assets and liabilities of the company for verifying the data presented in the annual report. Furthermore, the verification process initiated by the auditor would eventually help in detecting the actual values of assets, which is used by the company.

The second financial ratio that has been used for evaluating the financial performance of Summerset Group Holdings Limited is the profitability ratio. The profitability ratios listed in the above table has relevantly increased in value from 2014 to 2017, due to the increment in the net profits, revenues and gross profit of the company. The company has accumulated high end profits over four fiscal year, which indicates efficiency and demand for its products. The company’s net profit margin has mainly increased from 49.86% in 2014 to 68.02% in 2017, while the gross profit inclined from 58.65% in 2014 to 73.03% in 2017. In similar instance, the increment in net profit has inclined the values of return on assets from 5.19% to 10.8% in 2017, while the return on equity increased from 16.03% to 29.04%. Hence, the auditors need to check the current sales figures of the organisation for detecting the overall cash and credit sales, which has been conducted during the fiscal year (Eilifsen & Messier Jr, 2014). The use of vouching procedure can be initiated by the auditor for detecting the expenses conducted during the fiscal year. Lastly, the use of external sources can be conducted by for identifying the overall actual expenses, which has been conducted by the organisation.

The leverage ratios have been calculated for Summerset Group Holdings Limited, which directly indicates its overall debt position. In addition, the debt ratio of the company has mainly declined from the levels of 0.64 in 2014 to 0.60 in 2017, which directly indicates the overall reduction in debt that has been used by the company for increasing its assets. Furthermore, the relevant decline in debt to equity ratio of the company has also seen from the level of 2 in 2014 to 1.72 in 2017. This decline directly indicates that the company has been using equity capital for supporting its activities, while the high accumulated debt has been reducing. The leverage ratio indicates a positive attribute for Summerset Group Holdings Limited, which directly indicates the positive attributes of the company. Hence, the auditors need to evaluate the current risk attributes of the company by addressing the debt capital utilised by Summerset Group Holdings Limited. Further evaluation on debt condition of Summerset Group Holdings Limited needs to be conducted for understanding whether the accumulated debt is affecting its operations. The auditor also needs to evaluate whether the debt has been adequate depicted in the annual report based on their current valuation (Goh, Krishnan & Li, 2013).

Therefore, the auditor needs to evaluate the current profit and balance sheet statement of Summerset Group Holdings Limited for identifying the current financial valuation of the company. This valuation would eventually help in detecting the current position of the company and understand any kind of discrepancy in the annual report presented by the management.

Figure 1: Depicting the cash flow statement 2017 and 2016

(Source: Summerset.co.nz, 2018)

The above figure mainly helps in depicting the level of cash flow for Summerset Group Holdings Limited during 2017 to 2016. From the evaluation it can be detected that the cash balance of the company has mainly declined from 2016 to 2017, where the values of cash balance at the end of the period has deteriorated from 8,654,000 in 2016 to 7,566,000 in 2017 (Summerset.co.nz, 2018). Furthermore, this decline in ending balance mainly occurred due the negative net cash and cash equivalent balance during the fiscal year of 2017, which was not conducted during 2016. From further evaluation it can be detected that the net cash flow from operating activities has mainly increased from the levels of 192,610,000 in 2016 to 207,716,000 in 2017, which indicates the high income generated from operations by the company (Summerset.co.nz, 2018).

Further evaluation of the cash flow statement indicated the rising negative value for net cash from investing activities, which declined from the values of -199,857,000 in 2016 to -257,494,000 in 2017 (Summerset.co.nz, 2018). This was mainly possible due to the high expenses incurred by the organisation in the construction of new villages, purchase of land and refurbishment in established villages. In addition, sudden rise in the purchase of intangible assets were also seen, which led to the increment of cash outflow from investing activities. Furthermore, drastic change in net cash flow from financing activities was seen from 2016 to 2017, which occurred due to the proceeded from issue of retail bonds. This increment in the current cash inflow from financial activities was the main reason behind the reduction in the negative cash balance for the current fiscal year of 2017. From the overall evaluation of Summerset Group Holdings Limited cash flow statement, it could be identified that the rising cash flows from investing activities was the main reason behind the negative balance in net cash and cash equivalents for the fiscal year of 2017 (Summerset.co.nz, 2018).

Figure 2: Depicting the auditor’s report for 2017

(Source: Summerset.co.nz, 2018)

The above figure represents the overall auditors report for Summerset Group Holdings Limited, which has been prepared by Ernst and Young. The annual report indicates the level of auditor’s statement, which states the reliability on financial statement of Summerset Group Holdings Limited. The auditor has used the standards of International Standards on Auditing for evaluating the financial performance of the organisation. Furthermore, the responsibility led by the auditor is adequately depicted in the section Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements. The audit partner falls under the Professional and Ethical Standard 1 (revised) Code of Ethics for Assurance Practitioners issued by the New Zealand Auditing. This mainly ensures the reliability on the financial report of the company for the fiscal year of 2017 (Summerset.co.nz, 2018).

Moreover, adequate key audit mattes have been depicted in the auditor’s report, which helps in understanding the overall financial performance of the organisation. Further evaluation on the overall valuation of investment properties has been conducted to identify its actual values, which has been listed in the asset section of the balance sheet. In addition, the care facility valuation has also been conducted by the auditor’s report, as it taken 4.9% of the total assets. Moreover, the Recognition and Measurement of Capital Work in Progress has also been depicted in the auditor’s report, which helps in evaluating the actual financial performance of the organisation. The auditor’s report also depicts the Deferred Management Fee Revenue Recognition, which has been conducted in the annual report of the organisation for identifying its actual financial position during the fiscal year of 2017 (Summerset.co.nz, 2018).

References

Asx.com.au. (2018). Asx.com.au. Retrieved 2 September 2018, from https://www.asx.com.au/asx/share-price-research/company/SNZ

Bhandari, S. B., & Iyer, R. (2013). Predicting business failure using cash flow statement based measures. Managerial Finance, 39(7), 667-676.

Byrnes, A., Banks, M., Mudge, A., Young, A., & Bauer, J. (2018). Enhanced Recovery After Surgery as an auditing framework for identifying improvements to perioperative nutrition care of older surgical patients. European journal of clinical nutrition, 72(6), 913.

Eilifsen, A., & Messier Jr, W. F. (2014). Materiality guidance of the major public accounting firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(2), 3-26.

El-Kassar, A. N., Messarra, L., & Elgammal, W. (2015). Effects of ethical practices on corporate governance in developing countries: evidence from Lebanon and Egypt. Corporate Ownership and Control, 12(3), 494-504.

Espinosa-Pike, M., & Barrainkua, I. (2016). An exploratory study of the pressures and ethical dilemmas in the audit conflict. Revista de Contabilidad, 19(1), 10-20.

Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2015). Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. Nelson Education.

Goh, B. W., Krishnan, J., & Li, D. (2013). Auditor reporting under Section 404: The association between the internal control and going concern audit opinions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(3), 970-995.

Hay, D., Stewart, J., & Botica Redmayne, N. (2017). The Role of Auditing in Corporate Governance in Australia and New Zealand: A Research Synthesis. Australian Accounting Review, 27(4), 457-479.

Hayes, R. S., Gortemaker, H., & Wallage, P. (2014). Principles of auditing: an introduction to international standards on auditing. Prentice Hall, Financial Times.

Liu, T., Wang, Y., & Wilkinson, S. (2016). Identifying critical factors affecting the effectiveness and efficiency of tendering processes in Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs): A comparative analysis of Australia and China. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 701-716.

Louwers, T. J., Ramsay, R. J., Sinason, D. H., Strawser, J. R., & Thibodeau, J. C. (2015). Auditing & assurance services. McGraw-Hill Education.

Neu, D., Everett, J., & Rahaman, A. S. (2015). Preventing corruption within government procurement: Constructing the disciplined and ethical subject. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 28, 49-61.

Pike, B. J., Curtis, M. B., & Chui, L. (2013). How does an initial expectation bias influence auditors' application and performance of analytical procedures?. The Accounting Review, 88(4), 1413-1431.

Summerset.co.nz. (2018). Summerset.co.nz. Retrieved 2 September 2018, from https://www.summerset.co.nz/

Tucker, B. P., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). Comparing the research-practice gap in management accounting: A view from professional accounting bodies in Australia and Germany. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(3), 362-400.