The Covenant and the June Invoices at Waratah Logistics
Daniel Okafor is a CPA with 14 months' experience as financial controller of Waratah Logistics, a private company with a $40 million term loan. The loan covenant requires EBITDA of at least $8.0 million; the draft result is $7.6 million. On 26 June the CFO instructs Daniel to (a) capitalise $550,000 of recurring depot maintenance as 'software implementation', and (b) hold $150,000 of June supplier invoices until 2 July. 'Both are timing, not fraud, and the auditors never look at small items.' Daniel's remuneration includes a $15,000 bonus tied to covenant compliance and he carries a $620,000 mortgage. The audit committee meets on 30 July.
1. Are the two adjustments permissible? Apply the conceptual framework and set out, in sequence, what Daniel should do.
Read the worked answer
Substance, not timing
- Maintenance capitalisation. Recurring depot maintenance is day-to-day servicing; under AASB 116 it is expensed. Relabelling it as software implementation does not create an asset, because no future economic benefit arises and no control of a separable asset exists. This is a misstatement, not a reclassification.
- Held invoices. If the goods or services were received in June, the obligation exists in June. Delaying the invoice changes the paperwork, not the liability. Under AASB 101 accruals recognition is required; the omission understates liabilities and overstates EBITDA.
- Materiality. $700,000 is about 8.8% of the $8.0m covenant target and would convert a $0.4m shortfall into a $0.3m surplus. It is plainly material to users - the lender above all.
Threats: self-interest (the $15,000 bonus), intimidation (CFO's authority over Daniel's role and his mortgage exposure). Neither can be eliminated by a safeguard, so the adjustments must not be made.
Sequence of action
- Object in writing, citing the standards, and ask for the instruction to be confirmed in writing.
- Propose the correct entries and quantify the covenant breach.
- Escalate to the CEO, then to the audit committee before 30 July - with the memo and drafts.
- Seek confidential advice from CPA Australia's ethics advisory service.
- If the board ratifies the treatment, consider declining to certify, and resignation as a last resort, documented.
2. A colleague says: 'You're overreacting - everyone smooths earnings and the bank isn't really harmed.' Analyse this using at least two ethical perspectives.
Read the worked answer
Utilitarian analysis fails on the facts. The bank prices the loan on covenant information; a false covenant signal reduces the rate it charges and misallocates credit. When the shortfall surfaces - and it surfaces at the next covenant test - the breach is larger, renegotiation happens from a position of distrust, and the cost falls on employees and suppliers. The colleague is counting the visible benefit (keeping the loan) and ignoring the deferred, larger cost.
Deontological analysis. The maxim 'I will misstate when my bonus depends on it' cannot be universalised: a world of covenant reporting in which bonuses drive the numbers is a world without covenant reporting. Daniel is also treating the lender as a means to his bonus, not as a party entitled to the truth.
Virtue ethics. The honest, courageous, and professionally prudent action is to correct the accounts; the CFO's framing is a textbook neutralisation technique ('it's only timing').
The profession's social licence depends on members resisting exactly this rationalisation when it is most convenient.