OFR - Never Mind - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Government // Enterprise Architecture

OFR - Never Mind

Chancellor of the Exchequer abruptly cancels reporting requirements

VentanaView™

Summary
For a while, it seemed that public companies in the United Kingdom would have to assess the adequacy of their internal reporting systems because of a requirement to beef up the breadth and depth of information provided to investors in their Operating and Financial Review (OFR, which is akin to the management discussion and analysis section in U.S. public company reports). OFR reform is now a dead letter, but Ventana Research recommends companies still examine carefully whether their finance and reporting IT systems adequately support their business requirements.

View
Early in December, Gordon Brown, the U.K.’s chancellor of the exchequer, announced companies would not be required to adhere to pending regulations for the Operating and Financial Review (OFR). The Review was a regulation of the Department of Trade & Industry that came into force in March and required a much broader range of annual disclosure. For many companies, preparing such a detailed and consistent discussion of their corporate strategy and operations would have taxed their existing systems and staffs. While these issues might have been addressed over time, Ventana Research found several factors that helped abort the OFR (beyond Mr. Brown’s political motivations).

One of the issues U.K. companies faced was legal liability for what in the U.S. are called “forward-looking statements.” Until the U.S. Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, a law that shields companies from lawsuits over good-faith guidance about their prospects, executives were reluctant to publish anything about the future. The U.K. has not had as many securities lawsuits and therefore has seen no need for this kind of rule. Yet even before class-action lawsuits by investors became fashionable in the 1970s, U.S. public corporations would not include opinions about the future or even broad future trends for fear of being sued. Unless and until U.K. companies get legal protection for such statements, investors are unlikely to get much guidance.

Another factor, in our judgment, is the cultural difference between the United States and the rest of the world with respect to the rights of shareholders to information. For the U.S., these rights were enshrined in the 1933 Securities Act and 1934 Securities Exchange Act. The thriving institutional investment business that developed in the 1960s pushed successfully for “full disclosure,” and the increase in individual investing that accompanied mass adoption of the Internet led to “fair disclosure.” In our view, while the U.K. is far ahead of continental European countries in this respect, it lags far behind the U.S. in the sense of entitlement.

It also did not help that there were requirements for companies reporting on social and environmental strategies relevant to their business, since from a corporate standpoint these requirements were (to quote Mr. Brown) “gold plated.” Some companies already tout their contributions to the community and the environment. Some, however, would prefer not to have to make hard assertions on such soft subjects, while others do not see this as a legitimate part of their charter.

Assessment
We continue to advise companies against making IT investments simply to comply with regulatory requirements. Management, particularly in the finance department, must (and, we believe, easily can) find ways to achieve real business benefits from these sorts of investments. For example, U.K. companies that take more than a week to complete their monthly close or are unable to provide executives and managers with useful information about performance should recognize that IT investments aimed at remedying these issues would be worthwhile.

Related Research Note:
OFR, Reporting and Business Intelligence 
Don’t invest in IT just to satisfy regulations.  

About Ventana Research
Ventana Research is the leading Performance Management research and advisory services firm.  By providing expert insight and detailed guidance, Ventana Research helps clients operate their companies more efficiently and effectively. These business improvements are delivered through a top-down approach that connects people, process, information and technology. What makes Ventana Research different from other analyst firms is a focus on Performance Management for finance, operations and IT. This focus, plus research as a foundation and reach into a community of over two million corporate executives through extensive media partnerships, allows Ventana Research to deliver a high-value, low-risk method for achieving optimal business performance. To learn how Ventana Research Performance Management workshops, assessments and advisory services can impact your bottom line, visit www.ventanaresearch.com.

© 2005 Ventana Research

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
News
Can Cloud Revolutionize Business and Software Architecture?
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  1/15/2021
Slideshows
10 IT Trends to Watch for in 2021
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  12/22/2020
News
How CDOs Can Build Insight-Driven Organizations
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  1/15/2021
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you.
Slideshows
Flash Poll