Introduction

The focus of this study is to examine the relationship between the UK GAAP accounting standard FRS 17 and the impact it may have on UK companies as demonstrated by number of companies who currently use the accounting policy for the use in financial reports. This can be demonstrated by the movement in share prices as a result of the disclosure of the information concerning FRS 17.

The main objective of this new pension standard was to ensure that financial statements would reflect at fair value of both assets and liabilities that would have arisen from an employer's retirement obligations. This covers all the retirement benefits that an employer is committed to providing there employees. FRS 17 initially was issued as a disclosure standard to improve comparability and transparency. The ASB (Accounting Standards Board) had published FRS17 in November 2000. By July 2002 many of the largest UK companies reported pension funding ratios below 100%, thus forcing a greater cash contributions, pension plan terminations and/or reduced dividend payments (The Business, 5 August 2000). Throughout the whole project, concerns have been raised over the impact the standard will have on companies and consequently, the shareholder. These criticisms have increased in recent years due to companies experiencing difficulties with the every changing accounting standards. It is therefore important to ascertain whether the concerns regarding Frs 17 are justified, as if the shareholders are negatively impacted by the standard, then companies may switch to an International Standard IAS 19 the international equivalent.

The project begins with the statement of hypothesises to be tested before a review of literature regarding both the development of the standard the implementation by UK companies. The advantage of this standard is that shows more transparency in the accounts, thus showing the problems they would encounter. This chapter goes on to focus on the specific concerns that were expected to cause the greatest impact on the financial statements. There is also a review on the efficient market hypothesis as this will help the author conduct research.

The second part of this project goes on to discuss the methodology available for the use in testing the authors hypothesises. The next would be to see the benefits and drawbacks which in turn are used to justify and explain the method employed by the author to conduct research into a particular topic area. After this has been conducted the limitations of the research techniques will be fully examined to see if there was a problem with the technique. The results from the research will then be outlined in the findings section which will then be analysed. After this has been conducted the research that had been conducted for the literature review will be brought together therefore combining the theory of frs 17 with the movements in share prices in the UK.

Finally, the conclusions that can be made from the study that the author had conducted will be discussed. This in turn uses the information from the research to see if the hypothesises that have been developed.

History

The ASB (Accounting Standards Board) had published FRS17 in November 2000. By July 2002 many of the largest UK companies reported pension funding ratios below 100%, thus forcing a greater cash contributions, pension plan terminations and/or reduced dividend payments (The Business, 5 August 2000). FRS 17 replaced and widened the scope of the earlier UK Statements of Standard Accounting Practice SSAP 24. SSAP 24, which was used by UK companies for defined benefit pensions since 1988, came under pressure in the late 1990s for its poor disclosure requirements, lack of transparency in the figures it produces, and its inconsistency with US and international standards on pension accounting. The main reasons for the switch over to FRS17 was due to there were too many options available to the preparers of accounts, leading to inconsistency in accounting practice and allowing a great deal of flexibility to adjust results on a short-term basis. Also the disclosure requirements did not necessarily ensure that the pension cost and related amounts in the balance sheet were adequately explained. FRS 17 differs from SSAP 24 in three major aspects. First, FRS 17 requires both pension assets and pension liabilities to be valued by reference to current market conditions. Specifically, pension assets should be measured at market value at the balance sheet date and pension liabilities are measured using a discount rate based on the return available on AA corporate bonds at the balance sheet date. Under SSAP 24 the valuation of both pension assets and liabilities rely primarily on actuarial assumptions. Second, FRS 17 requires any actuarial gains or losses arising during the year to be recognized immediately in the statement of total recognized gains and losses. This implies that under FRS 17 actual rather than expected return on pension assets is reflected in shareholders' equity and comprehensive income. Finally, FRS 17 requires the total sur/deficit in the pension scheme to be recognized as an asset or a liability (net of deferred tax) on the balance sheet. Under SSAP 24 any pension sur/deficit was kept off balance sheet. FRS 17 arose from the perceived need for pension discounting assumptions to be more consistent with those underlying normal corporate securities valuation (Bulow, 1982) and have been incorporated into financial economists' views of pension valuation (e.g.: Black, 1981; Tepper, 1981).

The objective of the new pension standard was to ensure that financial statements reflect at fair value of assets and liabilities that have arisen from an employer's retirement benefit obligations and any related funds. This covers all retirement benefits that an employer is committed to providing, whether that is statutory, contractual or implicit in the actions of the employer. FRS 17 initially was issued as a disclosure standard to improve comparability and transparency. The ASB planned to make it a mandatory standard for expense and balance sheet for financial years ending on or after 22 June 2003. It could be adopted earlier on a voluntary basis. However, when the European Commission adopted International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the ASB decided to postpone the full application of FRS 17 so its adoption would coincide with the adoption of IFRS by listed companies in Europe, in particular IAS 19, for the financial year beginning in 2005. Extended transitional arrangements meant, however, that many companies were slow to implement the new standard, and by mid-2005 only 25% of FTSE 100 companies and 19% of FTSE Mid 250 companies had adopted it in full (Company Reporting, 2005). The Amendment aligns the disclosures in FRS 17 with those of the equivalent international standard, International Accounting Standard (IAS) 19. The ASB consulted on the amendment in May2006.The Amendment will be effective for financial statements covering periods beginning on or after 6 April 2007, although early adoption is encouraged. It was proposed in the Financial Reporting Exposure Draft (FRED) to have an effective date for accounting periods ending on or after 31 December 2006. The ASB has decided to allow a longer implementation period in response to concerns from some commentators regarding the time required to prepare for the amended disclosure requirements.

Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1: the concerns expressed prior to the publication of the first financial reports using FRS 17 ‘Retirement Benefits' were justified for companies on the FTSE 100

Hypothesis 2: the concerns expressed prior to the publication of the first financial reports using FRS 17 ‘Retirement Benefits' were not justified for companies on the FTSE 100

Hypothesis 3: the concerns expressed prior to the publication of the first financial reports using FRS 17 ‘Retirement Benefits' were justified for some of the sectors on the FTSE 100

Literature review

Introduction

The aim of the literature review is to develop an understanding of the issues with the FRS 17 as viewed by the companies prior to the implementation, focusing on the way in which they could impact on the assets and liabilities. The author will outline the benefits of accounting harmonisation before focusing on the concerns expressed prior to the implementation of the FRS 17 in the United Kingdom. The author will then discuss ……………..

Accounting Harmonisation

Harmonisation is defined as the “process of increasing the compatibility of accounting practices by setting bounds to their degree of variation,” (Nobes & Parker, 2006, p.75). Harmonisation is defined as a process by which accounting moves away from a total diversity of practice (Roberts, Weetman and Gordon, 2005). Research suggests a number of benefits associated with harmonisation, such as the cost savings achieved by avoiding translation of accounting information (Brown and Tarca, 2001). There has been much debate over the years with regards to harmonisation of accounting standards

General Concerns

Legislation

Since April 2005, new pension fund legislation has taken effect in the United Kingdom and will be completely implemented in April 2007.

The main points that this act reforms are:

  • An improvement in the state pension
  • An improvement in the governance of occupational schemes
  • Tax simplification
  • Creation of a Pension Protection Fund
  • Replacement of the Minimum Funding Requirement by a scheme-specific funding requirement

Since April 2005, in order to reduce poverty within pensioner households, the UK government has increased the minimum state pension. Thanks to the development of the Pension Credit, the new minimum pension is £109 per week, compared with a minimum of £69 in 1997. The government has also developed other measures that benefit all pensioners, such as winter fuel payments of £200 for every household that includes somebody aged 60 or over. The mainspring of the standard is that assets of the scheme are measured at market value, while the liabilities of the scheme are actuarially estimated, and a present value is arrived at using a prescribed discount rate. The asset or liability arising from the sum of these two component parts must be included in the balance sheet as a new and separate item. The changes in this new item are reported in three separate areas of the accounts. Operating profits incorporate the current and past service costs, while the interest cost (discount rate) and expected return on assets are recognised as other finance costs and contribute to total pre-tax profits. Actuarial gains and losses are recognised in the statement of total recognised gains and losses.

Timing

Development

Companies Act

Specific Concerns

Fair Value

Critics say fair value does provide a realistic view when price quotes are readily available, but when there is no market, or a market disappears as it did in the credit crunch, companies must use complex mathematical models to come up with values that can be just as confusing to investors. FRS 17 was introduced to eliminate some of the problems inherent in its predecessor, SSAP 24, which had been criticised for inconsistency and (lack of) disclosure. FRS 17 applies to all retirement benefits that an employer is committed to providing. For the UK Company this basically encompasses the funded defined benefit pension scheme, but for the multinational this also includes both unfunded pension schemes and post-retirement medical plans. The introduction of this standard leaves disclosure for defined contribution schemes unchanged. The key objective of FRS 17 is to ensure that financial statements reflect at fair value the assets and liabilities arising from an employer's retirement benefit obligations and any related funding. It aims to show the true economic realities of defined benefit schemes, namely that the assets and liabilities of such a pension scheme are economically, if not legally, the assets and liabilities of the employer. Thus any sur or deficit in a scheme represents a net asset (to the extent that it is recoverable) or a net liability (to the extent that there is a legal or constructive obligation to make good any deficit) of the employer.

Since the pension sur or deficit should be recognised on the balance sheet directly, the volatility of the P&L will be reduced, while the balance sheet will be more volatile. This may trigger loan covenants or borrowing limits. Furthermore, due to the non-cash pension items (e.g. current service cost and amortisation of past service costs within operating cost), the financial statements will be more complex.

In order to avoid significant volatility of their balance sheet, many companies are seeking solutions to reduce the risk. For example, some companies changed their asset allocation from equities to bonds. Since the discount rate is closely linked with the AA rated corporate bonds, the influence of the volatility of return on bonds will be partially offset by the change in discount rate. Some companies switched from defined benefit pension schemes to defined contribution pension schemes - according to an updated research report from SEI, in the past four years the majority of UK pension schemes have been closed to new entrants.

The fact that FRS 17 exposes risk on the company balance sheet is perhaps more interesting. It highlights for shareholders the risks inherent in this asset/liability. While the new disclosure presents only one snapshot in time, a picture of the risk assumed by the company can still be built up over a period. In addition, inter-company comparison becomes more meaningful through the generally more prescriptive assumption setting for liabilities. Both the size of pension fund assets relative to the group's net worth and the concentration of the pension funds risk assets relative to its liabilities, which are described with reference to AA rated bonds, will be issues for company management. It may be felt that the relative component of risk assets of the pension fund is too high for prudent management of financial results.

IFRS

Defined Benefit Scheme

Profit and Loss

Balance Sheet

Methodology

Jankowicz (2005, p.224) defines the methodology as “the analysis of, and rationale for, the particular method or methods used in a given study.” The aim of this chapter is to consider the methods of data collection available to the author for the completion of this study. The author will then provide a rationale for the data collection method selected in order to test the hypotheses set out above. The main justification for the method selected is linked to the benefits and drawbacks of each possible method and their suitability for achieving the objectives

Research Methods

Research sources are either primary or secondary (Collis & Hussey, 2000, p.160). Primary data has been “collected specifically for a particular purpose,” (Smailes & McGrane, 2000, p.4) and could be utilised in this study through the use of questionnaires or interviews with shareholders. The collection of this data is designed to be appropriate for the study requirements but can be difficult to collect as a result as some companies of the FTSE 100 don't use FRS 17 to calculate there pension benefits as they use the International Standard. Secondary data on the other hand is “originally collected for one project, but which then can be used for another purpose,” (Smailes & McGrane, 2000, p.5). It is usually “easier and cheaper to collect” (Lancaster, 2005, p.75) but may not be entirely appropriate for the study. For this study, secondary research sources could include press releases and annual reports from the companies. These could then be used to track their pension liabilities which in turn could allow the author to compare company's results.

The data can be either quantitative or qualitative, where quantitative can be “measured, counted or quantified,” (Smailes and McGrane, 2000, p.3) while qualitative is “non-measurable,” (Smailes and McGrane, 2000, p.2). For this study, qualitative techniques will be employed due to the need to link non-numerical information from the companies to the share price. Data can be collected using either a sample or a population, (Smailes & McGrane, 2000, p.4). The population is defined as “a complete set of people, occurrences or objects,” (Jankowicz, 2005, p.388), whereas the sample is “a set of people, occurrences or objects chosen from a larger population,” (Jankowicz, 2005, p.389). The population allows conclusions to be drawn about everything, whereas the sample is easier, cheaper and often more appropriate to collect. Due to the time constraints involved in this study, the sample collection will be utilised. The sample size will be 50, thus allowing enough companies to be studied in order to provide evidence to answer the question and formulate conclusions regarding thee hypothesises. Any additional companies studied after this point would add little extra information to the study in relation to the time required to gather the data. There are a variety of methods available to draw a representative sample from a population. The first method available to the author is simple random sampling where “all units in the population have the same chance of being included,” (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2002, p.114). To produce this type of sample, the author would give each company in the FTSE 100 a unique identification number and then use a random number generator (for example a calculator or computer) to select the companies to use.

Stratified random sampling is very similar to the previous method, however the population being investigated contains mutually exclusive groups where differing views may exist. In this method, the sample is drawn randomly in the same proportions as the population, (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2002, p.116). In this case, the author would identify distinct groups within the FTSE 100 and then use simple random sampling to select companies within these groups. This prevents an unrepresentative sample. An alternative to these methods that could be used in this study is systematic sampling where the data is assumed to be in random order and every nth unit is selected,” (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2002, p.115).

Research Methods Used

After looking at the different methods available for the selecting and representative of the unbiased sample of FTSE 100 companies, the author has decided to use a stratified random sampling technique due the companies listed on the FTSE 100. The author has placed each of the companies on the FTSE 100 in the different sectors as this will as a distinct groups required in the form of sampling. This will show that there is no bias and that the sample is representative of the FTSE 100 companies and therefore any impact on the share prices caused as a result of FRS 17 is not missed due to different sectors. For the purpose of this study the author has used secondary research only. This is due to the data being immediately available for analysis and also that the secondary research sources provided unbiased information. Whereas if primary research had been conducted the data required either may not have been available or very little information could have been gathered. Another reason for the lack of financial information could be attributed to the limitation due to commercial sensitivity and nowadays the ethical implications. Another point is that it is highly unlikely that there would be enough replies if the author had selected to interview shareholders or company directors. This is due to the numbers involved with each company and there willingness to talk about there financial situation. As the data for this project will be gathered from various sources which may not be specifically for the purpose of this study, any information gathered will need to be evaluated separately for accuracy and the appropriateness.

The author had only focused on companies listed on the FTSE 100 rather than the FTSE 250 and 350 as these companies are highly capitalised on the London Stock Exchange. It is therefore the thought of the author that the implementation of FRS 17 would be most noticeable within these companies. A stratified random sample of 25 companies will be drawn based on sectors by listing all companies on the FTSE 100 by their sectors (Appendix A). The reason for the assignment of sectors is that any differences in the level of impact from the standard are not bias. The data is then gathered from the company website and other secondary material regarding the implementation of FRS 17. The decision to include secondary research about companies rather than just their annual reports was made to capture all the possible reactions form the companies' point of view. The reason for this choice derives from the view of biased sources. The share price for the specific period of disclosure was plotted to determine the impact of the implementation of the accounting standard FRS 17. The percentage change is then calculated for each share price movement related to the disclosure and then used to compare the companies. Major changes recorded in any particular sector or company where FRS 17 had a major impact on the share prices. The percentages changes recorded were also considered in the context of previous and future share price movements for each of the companies. This ensures that the release of company information was not exacerbating previous anomalies.

The Limitations of the Methodology

There are sum limitations with the methodology used by the author. The author relies on the assumption that the FTSE 100 is efficient at any one time, therefore the data collected immediately and rationally, thus if the market is not efficient it would be difficult to match any share price movement to a specific piece reflected to and introduction of an accounting standard such as FRS 17. This assumption had been made after considering information taken for the literature review, regarding the market efficiency as well as its inefficiency. Another assumption the author took into account was that no other news was released the day of the introduction of FRS 17, which have an impact on the share price. Although the author tried to minimise the limitation of the study by searching for additional news on the date on its introduction. As there could have had an impact on the share prices due to news being released by other companies and other accounting standard internationally. On the other hand if this had occurred than it would be hard to deduce the influence it could have on both pieces on information and in turn the stock market. “Qualitative research is a mixture of the rational, explorative and intuitive, where the skills and experience of the researcher play an important role in the analysis of data,” (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2002, p.86), this therefore means that the use of qualitative research method may then limit the hypothesis due to the authors interpretations. This therefore means that the study could be interpreted differently by different people. Another limitation of the study was that reporting for frs 17 was pushed back until 31 December 2006. Which mean that sum companies had already started to use the standard as the ASB had delayed full the introduction. Thus the data collected may not give a full picture due to different times of usage.

Ethical Views

The research collected during this study consists of secondary data from companies so no people are directly involved. This means there are no ethical implications with regards to the collection of data as consent is implied by making the information publicly available. Despite this the ethical guidelines were still considered by the author throughout the study.

Findings

Companies

(%) Change in Share Price

3i

1.4% decrease

Antofagasta

0.1% decrease

Associated British Foods

1.0% increase

Astrazeneca

0.3% increase

BAE Systems

0.1% increase

Barclays

0.7% increase

BHP Billiton

1.2% decrease

0.3% decrease

BP

1.0% increase

British Airways

2.1% increase

British Land

0.5% decrease

British Sky Broadcasting Group

0.6% decrease

Cable and Wireless

0.2% decrease

0.8% decrease

Carnival

0.1% decrease

Carphone Warehouse

1.9% increase

Compass Group

0.3% decrease

Diageo

0.1% decrease

0.5% increase

Friends Provident

0.00%

GlaxoSmithKline

0.6% increase

HBOS

2.9% increase

0.1% increase

ICAP

0.5% decrease

1.3% decrease

Imperial Tobacco

0.7% decrease

1.1% increase

International Power

1.0% increase

Johnson Matthey

0.2% increase

1.3% increase

Legal and General

1.1% decrease

0.2% increase

Lonmin

0.7% increase

0.5% increase

Marks & Spencer

0.5% decrease

1.3% decrease

Next

0.5% decrease

Northern Rock

0.7% decrease

Pearson

0.7% increase

Prudential

0.7% decrease

RBS

0.2% decrease

Reckitt Benckiser

0.6% increase

0.8% decrease

1.2% decrease

Reed Elsevier

0.2% increase

0.5% decrease

Rentokil

0.4% decrease

REXAM

0.7% increase

0.6% decrease

Rio Tinto

1.1% increase

Rolls Royce Group

1.3% decrease

Royal and Sun Alliance

0.6% decrease

1.2% decrease

Sage

0.5% decrease

Sainsbury

1.7% decrease

0.9% decrease

Schroders

1.5% increase

Scottish & Newcastle

0.5% decrease

Scottish & Southern Energy

1.4% decrease

Smith & Nephew

0.4% increase

0.6% decrease

Tesco

1.0% increase

1.1% decrease

Unilever

1.4% increase

United Utilities

0.2% decrease

Vodafone Group

0.2% increase

1.1% increase

Whitbread

0.1% increase

Yell Group

0.3% decrease

The table above shows the percentage change in share price which may be due to the full introduction of FRS 17. There was no uniform reaction to the disclosure of information relating to FRS 17 both in terms of the direction and the magnitude of the change. 18 out of the 50 companies experienced an increase as a result of the disclosure, while 23 experienced a decrease. 8 companies experienced both an increase and a decrease at different times when releasing information concerning FRS 17. 27 out of the 50 companies studied had less than a 1% change in the share price as a result of the disclosure of information relating to FRS 17. Although 11 out of 50 companies had experienced a share price movement of between 1% and 2%.

Data Analysis

This particular chapter will go though the result of the study. Leading to the findings been discussed by the author in the context of the concerns expressed prior to the publication and introduction of the pension standard. This part will coincide with the literature review done earlier in the study. The share price movement outlined in the findings section (as shown in appendices)

The share price movement results recorded earlier can be found in Appendixes C-Y. It is the author's belief that although FRS 17 did effect the Balance sheet and Profit and Loss in a negative way, it however did not effect companies share prices largely. For example 3i group had experienced a 1.4 % decrease in share price although the company had reported an increase of 354 million of profit after tax. This in turn would mean that it would have a positive impact on the share price as would have been expected. On the other hand AstraZeneca, experienced a 0.3% increase in share price (Appendix C), despite restating the previous financials resulting in reductions in the Operating profit and the net profits (AstraZeneca, 2004). On this occasion it would have been expected that the poor financial statements would have had a negative impact on the share price. The greatest movement in share price as a result of FRS 17 had been the banking company HBOS. Their share price had increased by 2.9% (Appendix D) following the restatement of their 2004 financial accounts. It can be seen on the graph that during the full implementation of FRS 17 there was a steady growth on their share price. Also that their financial accounts have mainly been prepared using IFRS standard rather than using UK GAAP for which FRS 17 is part of. Frs 17 resulted in a decrease of £1 billion in net assets and £100 million in profit (HBOS, 2004). Although it is difficult track the share price movement to link to a specific standard such as FRS 17 do not have a major impact on shareholder, despite the fact of a reducing Profit & Loss and Balance Sheet.

British Airways experienced the second largest percentage change out of the 50 companies studied, with a share price of 2.1 % Increase (Appendix F)

Conclusion

References

Appendices

Appendix A: FTSE 100 Companies with sectors (2005)

Company

Sector

3i Group

General Financial

Admiral Group

Nonlife insurance

Alliance & Leicester

Banks

Alliance Trust

Equity investment instruments

AMEC

Oil equipment, services & distribution

Anglo American

Mining

Antofagasta

Mining

Associated British Foods

Food producers

AstraZeneca

Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology

Aviva

Life insurance

BAE SYSTEMS

Aerospace & Defense

Barclays

Banks

BG Group

Oil & gas producers

BHP Billiton

Mining

BP

Oil & gas producers

British Airways

Travel & Leisure

British American Tobacco

Tobacco

British Energy Group

Electricity

British Land Co

Real estate

British Sky Broadcasting Group

Media

BT Group

Fixed line Telecommunications

Cable and Wireless

Fixed line Telecommunications

Cadbury Schweppes

Food producers

Cairn Energy

Oil & Gas Producers

Capita Group (The)

Support services

Carnival

Travel & Leisure

Carphone Warehouse Group (The)

General Retailers

Centrica

Gas, Water & multiutilities

Compass Group

Travel & Leisure

Diageo

Beverages

Enterprise Inns

Travel & Leisure

Experian Group

Support services

FirstGroup

Travel & Leisure

Friends Provident

Life insurance

G4S

Support Services

GlaxoSmithKline

Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology

Hammerson

Real estate

HBOS

Banks

Home Retail Group

General Retailers

HSBC Holdings

Banks

ICAP

General Financial

Imperial Tobacco Group

Tobacco

InterContinental Hotels Group

Travel & Leisure

International Power

Electricity

ITV

Media

Johnson Matthey

Chemicals

Kazakhmys

Mining

Kingfisher

General Retailers

Land Securities Group

Real estate

Legal & General Group

Life insurance

Liberty International

Real estate

Lloyds TSB Group

Banks

London Stock Exchange Group

General Financial

Lonmin

Mining

Man Group

General Financial

Marks & Spencer Group

General Retailers

Morrison (Wm) Supermarkets

Food & Drug retailers

National Grid

Gas, Water & multiutilities

Next

General Retailers

Northern Rock

Banks

Old Mutual

Life insurance

Pearson

Media

Persimmon

Household goods

Prudential

Life insurance

Reckitt Benckiser Group

Household goods

Reed Elsevier

Media

Rentokil Initial

Support services

Resolution

Life insurance

Reuters Group

Media

REXAM

General industrials

Rio Tinto

Mining

Rolls-Royce Group

Aerospace & Defence

Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group

Nonlife insurance

Royal Bank of Scotland Group (The)

Banks

Royal Dutch Shell

Oil & gas producers

SABMiller

Beverages

Sage Group (The)

Software & Computer services

Sainsbury (J)

Food & Drug retailers

Schroders

General Financial

Scottish & Newcastle

Beverages

Scottish & Southern Energy

Electricity

Severn Trent

Gas, Water & multiutilities

Shire

Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology

Smith & Nephew

Health care equipment and services

Smiths Group

General industrials

Standard Chartered

Banks

Standard Life

Life insurance

Taylor Wimpey

Household goods

Tesco

Food & Drug retailers

Thomas Cook Group

Travel & Leisure

TUI Travel

Travel & Leisure

Tullow Oil

Oil & gas producers

Unilever

Food producers

United Utilities

Gas, Water & multiutilities

Vedanta Resources

Mining

Vodafone Group

Mobile telecommunications

Whitbread

Travel & Leisure

Wolseley

Support services

WPP Group

Media

Xstrata

Mining

Yell Group

Media

Source: ChinaStones - http://china-stones.info/free-essays/accounting/use-the-accounting-policy.php



About this resource

This Accounting essay was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.


Search our content:


  • Download this page
  • Print this page
  • Search again

  • Word count:

    This page has approximately words.


    Share:


    Cite:

    If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

    ChinaStones, Use the accounting policy. Available from: <https://china-stones.info/free-essays/accounting/use-the-accounting-policy.php> [19-06-19].


    More information:

    If you are the original author of this content and no longer wish to have it published on our website then please click on the link below to request removal:


     
    складные велосипеды

    отделочные работы

    http://protege.kiev.ua