XOM
In the world of financial analysis, data quality and consistency are paramount. Financial statements serve as the backbone for company analysis, helping investors, analysts and corporate executives make informed decisions. Two of the most common sources of financial statement data are LSEG Data & Analytics (formerly Refinitiv) and S&P Global Market Intelligence.
On October 1, after a year of programming and testing, we finalized our transition to S&P Global for fundamental company data and consensus earnings estimates.
This shift impacts the “raw” company data you see online as well as “derived” ratios, multiples, growth rates and A+ Stock Grades that are calculated using financial statement data.
For this installment of Making the Grade, we touch on a key difference between LSEG and S&P Global, namely the use of data normalization, or standardization.
While LSEG provides as-reported financial statement data, S&P Global offers normalized, or standardized, data.
As-Reported Data:
Normalized/Standardized Data:
The easiest way to illustrate the impact of S&P Global’s data standardization is with a real-world example: Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM). The table below shows select income statement items for Exxon for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023. We illustrate the as-reported data from the company’s Form 10-K report along with the standardized data you see on AAII.com.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, Exxon reported “sales and other operating revenue” of $334,697 million. S&P Global provides total revenue for the period of $338,293 million. This includes additional “other income” of $3,500 million, deducts the net gain on asset sales of $513 million and adds back the $609 million currency translation loss for the year. These adjustments add $3,596 million of additional revenue to Exxon’s fiscal year.
LSEG reported cost of goods sold (COGS) for Exxon of $229,914 million, which is the sum of crude oil and product purchases ($193,029 million) and production and manufacturing expenses ($36,885 million). The standardized cost of goods sold from S&P Global is the $229,914 million reported by Exxon, less $2,687 million of other non-income tax, for a total of $227,227 million.
Differing sales and cost of goods sold figures between as-reported and standardized data leads to gross income for Exxon of $104,783 million and $111,066 million, respectively. As a result, the gross margin for Exxon is slightly higher for the standardized data (32.8%) compared to the as-reported data (31.3%).
LSEG’s as-reported depreciation and amortization expense for Exxon was $20,641 million in 2023. From this amount, S&P Global added back Exxon’s $3,300 million in asset write-downs, lowering the standardized depreciation and amortization expense to $17,341 million. In effect, S&P Global does not view asset write-downs as operating expenses.
LSEG designated Exxon’s $751 million “exploration expenses, including dry holes” as research and development costs in 2023. S&P Global used the $879 million of research and development expenses Exxon reported in its “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” from its 2023 Form 10-K filing.
The balance of other operating expenses for Exxon on an as-reported basis is $29,011 million, which it reported as “other taxes and duties.” As part of S&P Global’s standardization process, $493 million for other taxes included in selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and $2,687 million for other taxes included in production and manufacturing expenses are added to the as-reported number.
In aggregate, Exxon reported operating expenses of $287,450 million in 2023, compared to $287,650 million on a standardized basis.
Even though standardized operating expenses were higher in 2023 than as-reported operating expenses, standardized revenue was higher as well. Therefore, standardized operating income was $50,643 million, versus $47,247 million on an as-reported basis. This translates to a slightly higher operating margin using standardized data compared to as-reported data,15.0% versus 14.1%.
Exxon’s 2023 non-operating interest expense is the same for as-reported and standardized data: $849 million.
As we progress down the income statement, the need arises for as-reported and standardized data to reconcile. For Exxon, other non-operating expense/(income) is where this takes place. Exxon reported income from equity affiliates of negative $6,385 million in 2023 and put it at the top of the income statement as part of total revenues and other income.
LSEG assigns this to other non-operating income, boosting operating income to arrive at pretax income of $52,783 million.
S&P Global’s standardization process reduces income from equity affiliates by $3,300 million—the amount of asset write-downs for the year—reversing the adjustment it made to depreciation and amortization earlier on the income statement that boosted operating income. This is S&P Global assigning the write-down of assets as a non-operating expense. This lower non-operating income leads to the same pretax income level of $52,783 million. However, because S&P Global has a slightly higher revenue figure for Exxon, the pretax margin using standardized data is slightly lower than that using the as-reported data: 15.6% compared to 15.8%.
For the rest of the income statement, the same figures are reported using as-reported and standardized data for income taxes and adjustments to income. The income tax expense of $15,429 million matches what Exxon reported in its Form 10-K. The adjustment to income is the portion of a consolidated subsidiary’s income applicable to common stock not owned by Exxon (minority interest) of $1,334 million.
In the end, the bottom-line net income to common value of $36,010 million is the same whether you are using as-reported or standardized data. However, again, since the revenue figure is higher using standardized data, the standardized net margin of 10.6% is slightly lower than the 10.8% figure derived using as-reported data.
While the final net income for Exxon remains the same between as-reported and standardized data, the differences in how revenue, expenses and certain line items are categorized highlight the impact and value of standardized financials.
By making adjustments such as excluding asset write-downs from operating income or incorporating additional revenue components, S&P Global’s data standardization provides a more consistent comparison across companies. These refinements can influence key financial metrics like operating margin and net margin, allowing for a clearer evaluation of a company’s financial performance in relation to its peers.
1. Improved Comparability
2. Enhanced Accuracy and Reliability
3. Enhanced Analytical Capabilities
Despite the advantages of switching to standardized data, there are some challenges and considerations to be aware of:
1. Loss of Granularity
2. Potential Overreliance on Standardization
3. Learning Curve
1. Valuation
2. Trend Analysis
3. Risk Assessment
With our transition to S&P Global, our sector and industry classifications will now follow the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), replacing The Reference data Business Classification (TRBC) system. This shift aims to enhance the consistency and depth of the data you access. GICS is a widely recognized system that will align our classifications with industry standards, providing better insights and comparability.
Our industry classifications took a broader view in the past, as we are moving from 154 industry classifications for TRBC to 74 for GICS. Under the old classifications, some industries only comprised a handful of companies. Industry median values are more meaningful by taking a higher-level view of industry classifications.
You may also notice a change in the stock universe we use for the AAII Stock Screens, A+ Stock Evaluator, A+ Stock Grades Screener and Custom Stock Screener.
As before, our stock universe captures companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges with recent trading histories and financial filings, ensuring that our database tracks companies with current financial data that are actively traded.
In addition, we have now instituted a minimum share price of $1.00 for stocks trading over the counter (OTC) to improve the quality of data, analysis and investment decisions.
Shifting from as-reported financial statement data to standardized data can impact “derived” data such as financial ratios, multiples and growth rates. Standardized data adjusts for inconsistencies across companies, providing more comparable metrics. However, these adjustments might exclude specific items that some companies report, potentially leading to differences in key ratios like the price-earnings ratio, debt-to-equity ratio or profit margins. Growth rates may also be affected, as standardized data aims for consistency over time, which may smooth out fluctuations or exceptional items that would otherwise influence growth trends in as-reported data.
Switching from LSEG’s as-reported data to S&P Global’s standardized data can significantly enhance the quality of financial analysis. The standardized approach offers improved comparability, accuracy and efficiency, allowing investors to perform more insightful and actionable company analyses. However, it’s essential to recognize the potential limitations of standardized data, such as the loss of granularity, and to ensure that any analysis is grounded in an understanding of both the normalized and as-reported figures.
The transition represents an opportunity to leverage the benefits of consistency and enhanced analytical capabilities, ultimately leading to more informed investment decisions, improved financial modeling and a deeper understanding of company performance. As the financial landscape continues to evolve, embracing standardized data sources like that offered by S&P Global will become increasingly crucial for staying competitive and making data-driven decisions.
In the months ahead, we will revisit this topic and the impact that the data vendor change has on the data available to A+ Investor and Platinum subscribers.
