Don’t rely on APMs, disaggregate IFRS –

GlaxoSmithKline
Alternative performance measures (APMs) can be helpful for investors, but not necessarily the figure
itself. It is the disaggregation of performance that is the real benefit. Focusing solely on adjusted
measures means you will miss important aspects of profitability.
We explain how you can use APMs to better understand performance, but without missing key
elements. In our view this approach would provide a better basis for investor forecasts, as we
demonstrate by disaggregating the IFRS earnings of GlaxoSmithKline.
There is frequent criticism of the common practice of companies reporting adjusted performance
measures (APMs) – also referred to as non-IFRS or non-GAAP. Adjusted net income, underlying
operating profit and other similar adjusted metrics show profit excluding some gains and losses or
with the measurement of certain items modified. APMs are included in almost all management
commentary and presentations to analysts. In many cases they are also included in the financial
statements.
Some criticise the presentation of the adjusted measures themselves, arguing they simply represent
misleading management spin. Others suggest that the adjustments are not the problem but rather
the underlying IFRS accounting. In this view, management are trying to circumvent IFRS to provide
investors with supposedly more useful measures. While there is an element of truth in both of these,
we think these criticisms are overly simplistic.
Management spin
APMs are often criticised for being selective, with important items (most commonly losses) being
omitted because they are not part of ‘core’ or ‘underlying’ profits are ‘non-cash’ or they are
supposedly ‘non-recurring’. The suspicion is that some companies deliberately skew the metrics to
create a more favourable impression.
Some companies, undoubtedly, try to spin and obfuscate by using adjusted measures. As a result, it is
important for investors not to rely solely on such metrics when assessing and forecasting performance
and to be particularly careful when APMs incorporate measurement methods that are inconsistent
with IFRS.
However, we believe only a minority of companies abuse APMs. Most companies seek to be helpful
to investors and use APMs to help achieve this. APM reporting can undoubtedly be improved (we have
suggestions below), but the information and, critically, the disaggregation that this practice provides
is generally in the interests of investors. The fact that some companies are opportunistic in their use
of APMs is a reason to enforce better disclosure and to more tightly regulate rather than to eliminate
APMs entirely.
That APMs are often higher than IFRS metrics does not necessarily indicate bias or management spin

As adjustments to reverse losses invariably dominate, some commentators claim that the higher
adjusted performance metrics compared with the equivalent IFRS figures flatter performance. We
would argue that more adjustments for losses are to be expected when financial reporting is largely
based on historical cost and not current values. In historical cost accounting so-called ‘non-recurring’
losses will inevitably outnumber non-recurring gains.

Page 1 of 5
In our view, the problem with APMs arises when companies present the metric as though it should be
used instead of the reported IFRS result. Most companies might not do this explicitly, but the
presentation of APMs can give this impression. Adding to the confusion is that companies often adjust
IFRS measures by removing selected items to arrive at the ‘better’ non-IFRS APM measure. The implicit
suggestion is that the omitted items are less relevant to the investor in assessing and forecasting
performance. The use of descriptions such as ‘non-core’ or ‘underlying’ illustrates this. In our view, a
simple way to avoid this is to modify the current ‘reconciliation’ disclosure – we discuss this below.
Claims that IFRS is flawed
Some companies claim that their use of APMs is motivated by perceived inadequacies in accounting
standards. Most of these criticisms do not stand up to scrutiny and the accounting often simply reflects
an inconvenient truth. IFRS standards can certainly be improved and some items that appear in
financial statements can sometimes be difficult to reconcile with the underlying economics, but we
do not believe this suggests there is a fundamental problem with IFRS.
Most adjustments included in APMs do not arise because companies think the underlying accounting
is in need of change. For example, a common adjustment is to exclude asset impairment expenses.
This is not done because management are asserting IFRS is wrong to require impairments to be
reported in profit and loss when the balance sheet value of an asset can no longer be recovered.
Rather, it is to differentiate between different types of expense that have different persistency and
predictive value.
Reporting a profit measure before impairments and the impairment expense separately (rather than
aggregating this expense with other expenditure that may have different characteristics) is very
helpful for investors. The profit before impairment is clearly incomplete and few investors would be
foolish enough to only consider this figure. Nevertheless, in terms of assessing management
performance and forecasting future earnings and cash flow, separate presentation of impairments
provides investors with better information.
It is also common to see APM adjustments after business combinations and the accompanying use of
fair values for purchase price allocation. For example, at the point of acquisition the work in progress
and finished goods inventory of the acquired company is reported at fair value in the group accounts,
rather than at the book value reported in the subsidiary’s financial statements. The consequence of
this is that the consolidated results show a lower profit, and hence lower margin, than the individual
financial statements of the subsidiary itself. However, the consolidated results merely reflect the
reality that the entity has a different product mix in the period, with revenue related to both items
that have been purchased and others that have been manufactured.
In this situation IFRS earnings reflect the underlying economics, but it is also helpful if the entity
disaggregates the loss (reduced profit) arising from the temporary change in product mix.
Using Alternative Performance Measures in equity analysis
Even though APMs are invariably incomplete, they can be helpful in their own right as they may
provide more useful trend information. But this depends on the calculation being reasonable and
consistently applied. Part of the problem with APMs is that they are generally presented outside the
audited financial statements, with resulting greater uncertainly for investors regarding consistency
and comparability.
However, the most significant benefit of APMs for investors is not the metrics themselves but the
additional disaggregated information that is disclosed as a result. It is this disaggregation that adds
most to your analysis.
Alternative performance measures can be particularly helpful where they provide additional
disaggregation and analysis

Page 2 of 5
The key to understanding the performance of a business is to have a clear view of the different drivers
of profitability. This means thinking about growth, margins and returns, both for the business as a
whole and for the different business segments. It is also important to understand the impact of
external and internal forces on the different components of performance. In addition, understanding
attributes such as persistency and predictability of different gains and losses adds value to your
analysis.
The problem with existing APM disclosures is that these generally take the form of a reconciliation
from the IFRS metric to the APM. This can reinforce the view that the APM is superior and should be
used by investors instead of the more comprehensive IFRS measure. What we would like to see instead
is a clearer focus on a disaggregation of IFRS metrics into different components, based on their
differing characteristics, that add up to the IFRS amount. The difference in approach may seem trivial
– merely reversing the order and turning a ‘reconciliation’ into a ‘disaggregation’ – but we think it
would promote a different and more informed debate.
Pharmaceutical company GSK provides an adjusted version of each subtotal in its income statement
and extensive disclosures that explain the nature of those adjusted metrics and the adjustments
made. This includes a reconciliation table, which we show below. The disclosures are clear,
comprehensive and good, but in our view the wrong way round. We also think the disaggregation
could be more comprehensive.
GSK ‘adjusted’ earnings reconciliation

Source: GSK 2018 annual report

We wholeheartedly agree with GSK’s explanation of the nature of the adjusted metrics …. “Non-IFRS
measures may be considered in addition to, but not as a substitute for, or superior to, information
presented in accordance with IFRS”. However, there seems to be a suggestion by the company that
investors should focus more on the non-IFRS amounts …. “GSK believes that adjusted results are more
representative of the performance of the Group’s operations and allow the key trends and factors
driving that performance to be more easily and clearly identified by shareholders.”
Why there is build up ?
But single calculation the foucs is very different is same

Page 3 of 5
We agree that non-IFRS measures can help investors identify “trends and factors driving
performance”. However, we do not agree that non-IFRS measures are necessarily ‘more
representative’ of performance, as they are inevitably incomplete. Our view is that non-IFRS measures
can portray a particular component of performance very well, but that other components can be just
as relevant to investors.
Turning the reconciliation of IFRS to APM into a disaggregation of IFRS, where the APM and other
components sum to the IFRS total, is a simple change, but we think one that would enhance investor
understanding. It presents the APM as a component of a more comprehensive performance metric. It
also presents expenses as negatives and not the confusing positive values shown above.
Disaggregate and then disaggregate more
If the focus of the APM analysis by GSK was on disaggregating items with different characteristics,
including persistency and predictability, then more disaggregation should perhaps be provided,
particularly in respect of the “transaction related” items shown in the table. This relates to the
remeasurement of the liability for deferred consideration for previous acquisitions, as well as the
obligation they have to purchase the holdings of minority shareholders in subsidiaries (NCI puts).
Consider further analysis and disaggregation to identify what items are persistent and hence relevant
in forecasting.
It would be more insightful if this overall change were split into an interest accretion amount (the
unwinding of the present value calculation) and a residual change in the liability due to other factors,
principally changes in value of the subsidiaries. The reason is simple, the former has persistency and,
in a forecast, would not be zero, whereas the latter is much more volatile, does not have persistency
and in any forecast is likely to be zero.
Here is our alternative disaggregation-based view of GSK earnings for the last 5 years. It includes
separate presentation of legal expenses and our additional (estimated) analysis of the transaction
related items.
An alternative disaggregation of GSK IFRS earnings

Source: GSK financial statements and The Footnotes Analyst estimates

Page 4 of 5
(1) The company does not provide an analysis of the post-tax and post-NCI deferred consideration and
NCI put remeasurement. Our estimate is based on the balance sheet liability and the disclosed
discount rate. However, for 2016 and 2017 additional disclosure of the pre-tax accretion amount was
provided, which we use for the estimates in those periods.
(2) Legal expenses are aggregated with other items in the GSK reconciliation, although separately
disclosed in supporting notes. We think this item needs to be separately presented in the
disaggregation itself, given important differences in persistency. The definition of the legal expenses
excluded from adjusted earnings was changed in 2016.
Clearly the majority of the adjusting items presented in this table are volatile and hence result in a
very volatile IFRS earnings figure. It is difficult to get a sense of overall performance from this
aggregated amount. Understandably management chooses to focus on the adjusted amount when
communicating with investors, particularly when discussing trends. But what is also clear is that items
such as restructuring, legal expenses and impairments are significant expenses that are almost certain
to continue. The fact that these future expenses are likely to be volatile and difficult to forecast is not
a reason to ignore them.
Key insights for investors

 Analyse management APMs as a component of a more comprehensive disaggregation-

focused analysis of the full IFRS based performance.
 Pay attention to excluded volatile or so-called non-recurring items; they can still have
significant valuation implications and it may not be appropriate to use zero in your forecasts.
 Do further disaggregation and analysis if necessary, particularly where components of a gain
or loss reported as a single item have differences in persistence.

Page 5 of 5