Sharechat Logo

The Warehouse phone numbers don't add up

By Alan J Robb

Friday 14th July 2000

Text too small?
The recent half-yearly report of The Warehouse proclaimed profits up $11.3 million or 31% compared with the corresponding six months of the previous year. The profit margin on sales is said to be up from 7.2% to 8%.

A closer examination of the report shows these improvements are largely the result of a policy of capitalising losses on the sale of mobile telephones.

As reported (NBR, March 3) the justification for treating trading losses as assets is very questionable. This is even more so as the amount capitalised has risen by $6.638 million.

Capitalising this amount has had a material effect on the profit performance as Table 1 shows.

The unaudited result was an after-tax profit of $48.259 million, up 30% from $37.029 million. Had The Warehouse treated the losses for what they are the result would have been an increase in profit of only 12%.

Likewise the ratio of net profit to total revenue actually falls, to 6.77% and the increase in the return on equity is virtually halved, when the loss on the phones is not treated as an asset.

The amount of the capitalised losses is increasing in relation to the numbers of phones sold as Table 2 shows.

In the previous annual report shareholders were told that between May and 31 July the company had sold "in excess of 75,000 phones."

Sales revenue was reported as being $3.199 million and the loss on sales was $866,000. That equates to an average cost per phone of $54, sales revenue of $42 and a loss of $12 per phone.

In the latest report shareholders are told The Warehouse has quickly established itself as an important retailer of pre-paid mobile phones "with over 112,000 phones sold since May 1999."

If that is so then simple arithmetic tells us about 37,000 phones were sold in the past six months. The revenue from those sales is reported as $7.337 million and the loss as $6.638 million. This gives an average cost per phone of $377, a selling price of $198 and a loss per phone of $179.

Perhaps The Warehouse is now allocating overheads to the cost of phones. Such a policy would not be inconsistent with generally accepted accounting practice although it is repugnant to commonsense.

A recent advertisement showed The Warehouse was giving 200 free minutes call time with each phone. The equivalent amount in July 1999 was 50 minutes.

Perhaps the company is now capitalising the extra free minutes as part of the cost. If so, the logic becomes very questionable - they sell the phones at a loss to encourage the sale of phone cards and make a loss giving away extra phone cards to encourage the sale of phones. And these losses are treated as an asset!

Whatever the explanation it will still be a mystery to many how the loss can increase eightfold from $866,000 to $6.638 million when in dollar terms sales of the same product increased only two and a half times from $3.2 million to $7.3 million and in unit terms the sales halved.

The mental gymnastics which allow The Warehouse to consider losses as assets lead to more confusion for shareholders when it comes to reading the statement of cash flows.

The loss capitalisation should be shown as part of the "Adjustments for non-cash items" in the note reconciling net profit and operating cash flow. Instead the company has created a subsection headed "Items classified as investing or financing activities." Within this is shown "Telephone handset capitalisation (6,638)."

It would be very natural to interpret this as meaning cash flows of $6.638 million have been reclassified and reported as an investing cash outflow. This is not so and is prohibited under financial reporting standard FRS10.

Paragraph 4.14 states specifically that "cash flows from investing activities do not include receipts and payments relating to current assets, such as accounts receivable, or inventories which are routine and repetitive in the ordinary course of business."

Prepaid telephones are indisputably part of the inventories of The Warehouse. Their purchase and sale is routine and repetitive in the ordinary course of business. Consequently the cash flows must be shown as arising from operating activities.

In fact, The Warehouse does include the cash flows relating to phones in its operating cash flows, but the implication is that they are a part of the reported investing cash flows. The presentation used by The Warehouse is misleading and unhelpful.

The Warehouse is making expansionary moves into Australia and may be expected to face strong pricing competition as it seeks market share. It may find its accounting policy of capitalising losses less acceptable there. Losses carried forward are not financial resources - they are simply evidence of wishful thinking.

It is to be hoped that when the results for the full year are prepared the auditors will heed the warning of the chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission that "wishful thinking may be winning the day over faithful representation."

The auditors will improve the quality of the Warehouse report if they reject the reporting of trading losses as assets.

Alan Robb is a senior lecturer in accountancy at the University of Canterbury. He holds no shares in The Warehouse

Table 1Warehouse figures (unaudited) $ millionRestated to recognise losses on phones
Profit after tax six months to Jan 31, 2000$48.259$41.621
Increase over six months to Jan 31,199930%12%
After-tax profitto total turnover (Jan 31, 1999 and 2000) 7.14% and 7.85% Increase7.14% and 6.77% Decrease
Return on equity (Jan 31, 1999 and 2000)22.9% and 28.6% Up 5.7%22.9% and 25.8% Up 2.9%

Table 2Year to July 31, 1999Six months to January 31, 200018 months to January 31, 2000
Phones sold75,00037,000112,000
Average revenue per phone $42$198$94
Average cost capitalised per phone $54$377$161
Loss per phone$12$179$67

  General Finance Advertising    

Comments from our readers

No comments yet

Add your comment:
Your name:
Your email:
Not displayed to the public
Comments to Sharechat go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved. It is allowable to use some form of non-de-plume for your name, however we recommend real email addresses are used. Comments from free email addresses such as Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc may not be approved.

Related News:

Steel & Tube Holdings Limited (NZX: STU) Appoints CFO
NZX Market Operations - Promisia Integrative Limited (“PIL”) - Name Change
The New Zealand Refining Company Limited (NZX: NZR) Operational Update for November/December 2020
Mercury NZ Limited (NZX: MCY) FY2021 EBITDAF Guidance Revised to $535 Million
Heartland Group Holdings Limited (NZX: HGH) Heartland Australia Group Issues Australian MTNs
Oceania Healthcare Limited (NZX: OCA) Half Year Result and Interim Report
Promisia Integrative Limited (NZX: PIL) Change of Company Name and Ticker Code
T&G Global Limited (NZX: TGG) Announces New Chief Financial Officer
Seeka Limited (NZX: SEK) Advises the DRP Strike Price
Sky Network Television Limited (NZX: SKT) Andrew Hirst Joins Sky as Interim CFO

IRG See IRG research reports