ACRA, Van der Horst Energy and FRS102

a quiet pavillion

What happened?
The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) has requested Catalist-listed Van der Horst Energy (VDHE) to restate its financial statements for fiscal 2008 on grounds that options granted to two executive directors should have been treated as an equity-settled share-based payment under a financial reporting standard (FRS).

ACRA confirmed that this is the first time it has directed a listed company to restate its financial statements under such circumstances.

What is the rule?
FRS102 ruled that every company that granted stock options have to account for them as a business expense in its income statement, instead of merely just having to mention them as a note in the annual report.

What is the implication?
After taking the fair value of the share options of $5.7 million as business expense, VDHE would now report a pre-tax loss of $2.83 million, instead of the pre-tax profit of $2.87 million that were earlier stated.

ACRA was not prepared to sit back and accept the auditor's qualification of the accounts on the basis of non-compliance with FRS102. ACRA has now ruled for restatement of the financial statements.

Audit opinion?

Based on Singapore’s accounting standards, auditors would put an 'emphasis of matter’ if an issue warrants deeper discussion but does not affect the auditors’ opinion.

Matters that affect their opinion would be highlighted by way of a qualified opinion, a disclaimer of opinion or an adverse opinion - in order of severity.

Is there a better way?

Perhaps we could follow the World Health Organisation's numerical approach on the level of seriousness on H1N1.

Alternatively, we could go on the colour-coding way.

Of course, I am not wholly serious about the above suggestions.

But the point here, let us not try to make our profession and our work complicated by using "chim" words/phrases that the ulitmate users of the auditor's report may not understand.

Can we do better?