Background and objectives
There are concerns that financial statements no longer reflect the underpinning drivers of value in modern business (Bernanke 2011; Haskel and Westlake 2017; Lev and Gu 2016). Such concerns are particularly relevant to accounting for internally generated intangible assets and intangibles in general. International Accounting Standard (IAS) 38 Intangible Assets, which governs the treatment of the capitalisation of development costs, has been characterised as a standard reflecting prudence and conservatism with a corresponding prevalence of expensing (Mazzi et al. 2019a). Nonetheless, there is significant lack of evidence about the extent to which companies capitalise other internally generated intangible assets, especially those that fall outside the scope of IAS 38.
In this research, we complement the study by Mazzi et al. (2019a) and focus on the accounting treatment of Exploration and Evaluation expenditure (hereafter E&E) by companies in the extractive industry (hereafter EI). E&E expenses include: the acquisition of rights to explore; topographical, geological, geochemical and geophysical studies; exploratory drilling; trenching; sampling; and activities that relate to evaluating the technical feasibility and commercial viability of extracting a mineral resource. In essence, the accounting for E&E costs can be viewed as an extension of the debate on the recognition of intangible assets versus the level of accounting conservatism.
While there is scant literature on EI firms, and in relation to E&E expenditure in International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) reporting regimes, this research concentrates on the accounting policies used for the treatment of these expenditures. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, however, research on the amounts involved and hence recognised, expensed and impaired is not available. Furthermore, there is an absence of evidence on the characteristics of firms that capitalise and impair such expenditure. The overall objective of this research is to shed light on these areas.
Method
This research project was conducted in three key stages.
First, we identified a sample of firms in general mining, and oil and gas industry groups for 2018. These firms are listed in eight countries with significant constituents in the EI. From potentially 1,646 firms, the final sample used consisted of 1,096 firms that have an annual report available in English and perform direct exploration activities. Using this sample, we first categorised the firms’ accounting policy choices for E&E expenditure into four types, which ranged from more aggressive to more conservative reporting, namely: Full Cost, Area of Interest, Successful Efforts and Expense All. Subsequently, we categorised the firms on the basis of their policy choice and of their country of origin, industry, and company development stage.
Second, we collected the net book values of E&E amounts, E&E costs capitalised internally and externally and E&E costs impaired in the year. We then performed univariate statistical descriptive analysis, considering the different policy choices, country of origin, industry, and company development stage.
In the third and final stage, we performed multivariate regression analysis. This stage addressed three main research aims: i) identifying the factors influencing the decision of companies to capitalise; and identifying the factors affecting the magnitude of E&E expenditure capitalised in the year; ii) investigating companies’ decision to choose a certain accounting policy; and iii) identifying the factors driving the likelihood that companies would impair and provide the determinants of the impairment amounts.
Main findings
Overall, we find a general tendency of companies to capitalise and recognise significant amounts of internally generated E&E expenditure. Specifically, around 75% of the sample firms had a non-zero net book value of E&E assets on the balance sheet and 66% capitalised internally generated E&E assets in 2018. These, on average, accounted for 35% and 8% of companies’ total assets, respectively. We also find that impairments are significant and commonly occur (ie 36.6% recognised an impairment of E&E assets in 2018), with the mean value of E&E costs impairment accounting for a large proportion of the previous year’s non-current assets (mean 33.5%).
We have identified very different policies applied, resulting in capitalisation with materially different outcomes and a consequent lack of comparability. The Successful Efforts policy is the most common accounting method used and it is most common among Canadian and UK firms in the sample. The Area of Interest method is the second most common accounting method, being most common among Australian firms (where it is mandated under Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) 6 Exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources) (AASB 2004). The third most common method we identify is the so-called Expense All. This method is the most closely related to what is prescribed in IAS 38 with respect to other intangible assets. The Full Cost method is the least used (only 2.5% firms in the sample use it).
When we analyse these choices across industry groups, we find that mining firms appear to be more heterogeneous than oil and gas firms, with an almost equal split across the Successful Efforts, Area of Interest and Expense All methods. The application of the Area of Interest method is largely driven by the high number of Australian mining firms, highlighting a country effect. Oil and gas firms mostly follow the Successful Efforts method (70%) and 22% follow the Area of Interest method. This finding is what we would intuitively expect, given that only 20% of firms in this industry are from Australia.
When delving more into the characteristics of our sample firms, we identify the following.
Consistent with the classification of the Area of Interest method as a less conservative approach, we find that firms that follow this method report higher values of total E&E capitalised and internally generated E&E asset capitalised than firms following the Successful Efforts method. Nevertheless, the impairment in relation to E&E assets is of similar magnitude among firms using these two methods. The latter is attributed to the fact that, although companies choosing the Area of Interest method follow more aggressive reporting when capitalising costs that may relate to unsuccessful projects, they do not necessarily differ significantly with the firms following the Successful Efforts method in their choice of the unit of account for impairment testing.
Mining firms report higher values of total E&E capitalised, internally and externally generated E&E assets capitalised and E&E intensity. Even so, the likelihood of recognising an impairment is lower for mining firms and the magnitude of E&E assets impaired is not significantly different across mining and oil and gas firms.
Finally, we classified our sample firms into three categories: junior explorers, developers and producers, on the basis of the distribution of values of revenue. For example, junior explorers have zero revenue. We find that junior explorers have higher net-book value of capitalised E&E to total assets, and are overall more E&E intense. These values decrease monotonically as revenues increase. Further, more companies in the mining sector are junior explorers or developers while oil and gas involve more producers (who correspondingly have larger asset bases). Moreover, the mean (median) value of impairment relative to non- current assets at the end of the previous year for junior explorers is significantly larger than that for the developers and producers. Nonetheless, impairment recognition for E&E assets is not necessarily more frequent in smaller firms (junior explorers) than in developers or producers.
Conclusions and policy recommendations
The findings of this research are very timely. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is collecting information to help it make a decision on whether to start a project to replace or amend International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 6 Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources. It is also timely because IASB technical staff presented a paper to the Board in October 2020 on the accounting policy diversity when applying IFRS 6 (IASB 2020b). The evidence provided herein about the amounts companies capitalise, impair and expense complements the IASB staff paper (IASB 2020b) and provides a more holistic view of the significance of the amounts involved and the complexities facing users of the financial statements. The present report aims at supplying insights that would assist the IASB in its decisions on the replacement or amendment of IFRS 6 in the future. The key recommendations arising from our findings are summarised as follows.