IFRS 16 påverkan på företagens finansiella rapporter : En kvantitativ studie om IFRS 16 påverkan på nordiska börsnoterade företag inom detaljhandeln, tjänstesektorn och byggbranschen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and problem: IAS 17, the name of the previous standard of leasing, allowed firms to showcase their leasing as either operational or financial. This allowance led to the financial reports of firms not presenting the leasing requirements and therefore showing misleading financial ratios. After a review performed by the IASB and FASB and the given conclusions, IFRS 16 was implemented in January 2019. This led to leasing contracts required to be presented in financial form, with the exception of leasing contracts with duration below 12 months and assets valued less than 5 000 United States Dollar. As of today, it is mandatory to report a leasing contract in the balance sheets, which facilitates economic comparisons and eliminates potential flaws when analysing financial situations of certain firms. IFRS 16 is expected to affect the financial ratios, cash flow analysis and income statement and balance sheet of companies that are included. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to aid build an understanding of the impact on the financial ratios of firms operating on Nasdaq OMX Nordic after the implementation of IFRS 16. Additionally, this study aims to analyse if certain sectors are affected in different ways. Methodological approach: The methodological approach of this study is a quantitative method. To collect the data for this approach, interim reports for the first quarter of 2019 are used. In this study, the calculations of the financial rations have been done with the support of a census survey based on 103 publicly quoted companies within retailing and construction & service industries within Nordic. Lastly, the cross-over effects following the change to IFRS 16 within the financial ratios of these companies are constructed within the same industries. Results: The introduction and implementation of IFRS 16 showed significant effects across all sectors. This is explained due to, the firms in the selected sectors of this study, mainly being financed through leasing. The results of this study show that effects of the implementation of IFRS 16 were most significant in the retailing industry, followed by the service industry. The construction industry was impacted the least by observing the financial ratios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".