Recent UK annual report reviews (identities masked)

Three UK reviews are published. These are real annual report reviews, run on the published annual reports of UK-listed companies, two years each, every page. Each one is shown as the client sees it: a summary, a findings register and every observation with the rule quoted, our workings, management’s likely defence, the consequence, the fix and the evidence described.

The companies are not named. Names, people, places, products, other companies, the auditor, index membership, figures and dates are masked, and amounts are removed. Every page passed two traceability tests before it was published: no run of six words may occur both in the company’s own annual reports and in none of the other reports we hold, and the most distinctive remaining phrases were searched on the web; wording that led back to the company was rewritten.

Each review leads with compliance and disclosure gaps: the fact is described on the page, the requirement is quoted, and management’s best defence has been tested and does not hold. Where a credible defence exists, the point is held back as a regulator-style question. The FRC asks questions. So do we, before it does.

How to read the masking. the Company stands for the reporting company; [amount] and [n] replace amounts, share counts and other figures (UK reviews show no amounts at all, and ratios we computed are rounded to whole numbers); [date] replaces dates (financial-year labels are kept); [name], [company], [place], [audit firm], [index] and similar stand-ins replace people, products, other companies, places, the auditor and index membership; [wording masked] replaces wording that could be searched back to the report. Page images are not shown for UK reviews.

Prepared by Pramanex from the company’s published annual reports, without the company’s involvement, to show how an annual report review reads. The company is not named, and nothing on this page is a statement about any identifiable company. Observations are not an audit, review or other assurance engagement, and not legal advice. A regulator-style question is a question, not a conclusion.