Mexico's General Accounting Practices


In Mexico, generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP) don't necessarily mirror those of the United States or European countries. Beginning in 1997, the National Banking and Securities Commission announced that the Mexican banking industry will adopt U.S. general accounting practices, which should make following the Mexican economic situation a little easier to understand.

Of further importance is the crisis of confidence concerning the peso that keeps the Mexican economy in its current helter-skelter situation, according to Roberto Salinas-León, director of the Center for Free Enterprise Research (CISLE) in Mexico City. The December 1994 devaluation of the peso, and the subsequent change to a more flexible, market-determined exchange rate, introduced a great deal of uncertainty regarding the day-to-day value of the peso. Business people entering transactions with Mexican firms now must worry whether the exchange rate they used to project the costs and benefits of the transactions will change suddenly, and simultaneously change the feasibility (profitability) of the transaction. The benefits of the devaluation--a growing trade surplus--have been offset by this uncertainty as well as growing inflationary pressure.

To better understand Mexico's economic picture, one can identify several areas where the country's accounting practices differ from those followed by companies in the United States.

1. Inflation Accounting: Here's how inflation accounting works: If a product generates an actual cost or revenue of 50 pesos, in a year with 50 percent inflation, the cost or sale is refigured and recorded as 100 pesos. It's the habit of Mexican companies to restate figures, taking inflation into account in this manner. This changes the balances on sales, cost of sales, depreciation, and other accounts as well as changing the book values of monetary assets and liabilities. This makes it hard for outsiders to judge a firm's relative performance across time periods. The adjustments may be openly reported as adjusting entries to a monetary result account but, to the uninitiated, proper interpretation of the reports may be difficult. U.S. accountants, more accustomed to recording and interpreting statements based on historical (actual) costs, may be particularly handicapped in this regard.

2. Business Consolidations: When one business entity is acquired by another, and the two are subsequently treated as a single firm, a business consolidation has occurred. In the U.S., consolidating firms are required to provide investors with relevant information on purchase price, asset values, etc. For example, they must report the economic circumstances of the parent and subsidiary firms as a unit. Mexican firms are not required to do this, again making it difficult for investors and others to make sound judgments regarding the value or profitability of a consolidated firm.

3. Deferred Income Taxes: U.S. firms typically record deferred taxes as liabilities, effectively lowering the net value of the firm. This is true whether the liability arises from either a recurring or a non-recurring activity. Mexican firms typically record only non-recurring liabilities, thus understating the actual liabilities of the firm.

4.Pooling vs. Purchase Accounting: When businesses are combined, it is necessary to assess the value of the acquired firm's assets so that they may be recorded in the books of the combined firm. If pooling accounting is used, the assets are simply valued at the book value reported by the acquired firm, regardless of the actual market value of the asset. Where purchase accounting is used, the asset is valued at its market value, and any excess is recorded as a payment for goodwill. In Mexico, only purchase accounting is used, while U.S. companies may use either method. Investors in Mexican firms, or any firm using purchase accounting, will need to use care in judging the actual value of the firm's assets.

5.Write-offs: This is defined as the transfer of the entire balance of an asset account into an expense or loss account. In Mexico, write-offs for intangible assets (such as goodwill) must be written off over a 20-year period, while U.S. companies have 40 years.

6.Investment Securities: In Mexico, a company's stocks and bonds are "marked to market," or recognized at the cost on their acquisition date, with the unrealized gain or loss recorded on the income statement. In the U.S., investments are separated into three categories: trading account, available for sale, or health and maturity. Trading account items are marked to market and appear on the profit-and-loss statement. Available for sale items also are marked to market and are recognized under shareholder's equity on a balance sheet. Health and maturity items remain at the lower market cost. These differences in reporting methods may again make it difficult for an investor to assess the asset values of Mexican firms.

7.Capitalized Interest: When a firm acquires a new asset, there may be a time lapse between the time that the firm begins to pay interest on the money borrowed to finance the acquisition of the asset, and the asset actually serving any productive purpose. For example, a firm building an addition to its factory will need to borrow the necessary funds--and pay interest on the funds--even before the addition is completed. If the interest is capitalized, rather than expensed out, the interest payments are added to the value of the asset. In the U.S., firms must capitalize the interest paid to finance new construction. Mexican firms, on the other hand, are able to choose whether to capitalize or expense their interest charges. This gives them a greater ability to move the interest expenses into the recording period, which is to their greatest advantage. If profits in the current period are low, they may choose to defer the interest cost by capitalization. If profits in the current period are unusually high, they may count the interest as a current expense and thus lower their profits and tax liability. In these cases, current profit results may inaccurately reflect the longer-term profitability of the firms.