Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
I do notice a discrepancy of $18m between 'Payments to suppliers and employees' being $329m in the cashflow statement (AR2020 p38), and 'Total Operating Expenses' of $311m (AR2020 p24). The latter also contains 'Rent and rates' of $13m which may be incorporated in the former. But it does look like 'rent' is now largely incorporated in the 'Cashflows from Financing Activities', the $23m you referred to earlier.

If the adoption of IFRS16 has lead to rent moving from an 'operating cashflow' to a 'financing cashflow', this does seem a perverse outcome, in terms of trying to understand the operating profitability of the business.
Moving on from EBITDA/I, I noticed than most companies when adopting IFRS16, simply threw their hands in the air, and told us they would not try to restate profits from previous periods. They would then go on to make various 'one off ' adjustments to their balance sheets, without fully explaining the reasoning behind that, and then carry on as though IFRS16 had always existed. However, there was one prominent listed NZX company that did not do this - Spark. Spark went to the trouble of rewriting their FY2018 and FY2017 results to show the impact of IFRS16 (and also IFRS15 on realigning income and expenses to the appropriate time period) on their income statements of those two years.

https://investors.sparknz.co.nz/Down...204/291769.pdf

It is useful to have a fully worked actual example of the implementation of the IFRS16 rules such as this.

SNOOPY