Intangible Assets and the Effects of AASB 138CO5123 Group Assignment Names: Xinyu Chen and Shannon Frick Student IDs: 11906467 and 11159183 Subject Name: Advanced Issues in Accounting Subject Code: CO5123 Subject Coordinator: David Smorfitt Due Date: 5th May, 2009

11906467, 11159183

Table of ContentsAbstract......................................................................................................................................3 Introduction................................................................................................................................3 Intangible Assets: An Overview.............................................................................................3 Accounting for Intangible Assets Pre- and Post- January 2005.............................................4 Changes to Accounting Treatment Caused by AASB 138.....................................................6 Independent Reports on the Effects of AASB 138.....................................................................6 Australian Accounting Review Report 2008..........................................................................6 PriceWaterhouseCoopers Report on Australian Intangible Assets 2007................................8 Student Investigation of Two Industry-Dissimilar ASX-listed Entities.................................8 How Intangible Assets Affect the Balance Sheet................................................................9 Proportion of Intangible Assets to Total Assets..................................................................9 Debt Ratio.........................................................................................................................11 Return on Assets (ROA)...................................................................................................12 Asset Turnover..................................................................................................................13 Further Industry Comparison............................................................................................13 Conclusion................................................................................................................................14 References................................................................................................................................16 Appendices...............................................................................................................................18 Appendix A: Technology One Limited Balance Sheet 2007/2008.......................................18 Appendix B: Technology One Limited Income Statement 2007/2008................................19 Appendix C: Dominos Pizza Limited Balance Sheet 2007/2008........................................19 Appendix C: Dominos Pizza Limited Balance Sheet 2007/2008........................................20 Appendix D: Dominos Pizza Limited Income Statement 2007/2008.................................21 Appendix E: Peer Reviews...................................................................................................22

2

11906467, 11159183

AbstractIntangible assets have been given a lot of attention by accounting professionals and other parties involved with their financial reporting lately, due to the difficulty they present in being precisely valued, classified and accounted for. For some companies, intangible assets make up the majority of their total companys assets; for other companies, intangible assets are very small part of their total assets. In either case, accounting treatment of intangible assets has seen some interesting twists occur in the accounting world, especially after the introduction of AASB 138 Intangible Assets in 2005. This paper aims to expose some of the new ways intangible assets are being accounted for in financial reporting regarding intangible assets since the inception of the new standard.

IntroductionIntangible Assets: An OverviewIntangible assets are those assets that are identifiable, have no physical substance, and are non-monetary. Companies frequently use their resources, or incur liabilities, upon acquiring development, maintenance or enhancement of intangible assets (CPA Australia, 2009a). Some common examples of intangible assets include software, patents, copyrights, motion picture films, customer lists, mortgage servicing rights, fishing licenses, import quotas, franchises, customer or supplier relationships, customer loyalty, market share and marketing rights (CPA Australia, 2009a). Common headings that intangible assets fall under include systems, technology, licenses, intellectual property, market knowledge, trademarks (including brand names and publishing titles), copyright, franchises, patents, marketing rights and customer lists (Government of Western Australia Department of Treasury and Finance [GWADTF], 2009). Accounting treatment for intangible assets is outlined in the Australian Accounting Standards Boards standard AASB 138 Intangible Assets, which was originally introduced on January 1 2005, along with 40 other standards in an initiative to comply with International Financial Reporting Standards. Under AASB 138, an intangible asset must be identifiable, proven to give future economic benefits that of which are in control by the entity, and be able3

11906467, 11159183 to be valued at a specific cost. (GWADTF, 2009) Expenses incurred on acquiring, developing and enhancing intangible resources (for example, new systems, processes, market knowledge or intellectual property) cannot be recognised as intangible assets unless an asset can be separately identified from these expenses and control of the asset is with the company. AASB 138 lists important exceptions to intangible assets that include internally generated brands, mastheads, publishing titles, customer lists and similar items (GWADTF, 2009). AASB 138 specifies that the amortisation of an intangible asset with a finite useful life involves systematically allocating a depreciable amount over an intangible assets useful life in a manner that best represents the expected consumption of the assets future economic benefits (p. 107 and p. 108). Those intangible assets with indefinite lives are, of course, not to be amortised, seeing as how there is no foreseeable limit to the period over which they are expected to generate net cash inflows. All intangible assets that are fully amortised or have no future economic benefits being derived from their use must be derecognised on disposal, and any gains or losses on this derecognition must be included in the income statement (p. 113). Intangible assets are commonly confused with goodwill. Goodwill is different from intangible assets in that it cannot be identified, measured, or separated, nor can it be determined if future economic benefits that are attributable to it will flow to the company. In order to be identifiable, an intangible asset must be separable, or come about from a contractual or legal right. Separable assets are capable of being separated from the entity, and have the ability to be acquired, transferred, rented, licensed or exchanged. Thus, Goodwill does not fit the requirements of identifiability and separability, as do intangible assets (GWADTF, 2009)

Accounting for Intangible Assets Pre- and Post- January 2005On January 1st, 2005, Australian entities made a change from AGAAP standards to AIRFRS compliancy for their 2005/2006 financial year reporting periods. This applied to the public sector, along with most reporting entities and their subsidiaries. The AIRFRS compliance included the accounting standard AASB 138 Intangible Assets. Prior to the inception AASB 138, there was no single specific standard in place for the accounting of intangible assets. AASB 138 replaced the existing requirements that applied to intangible assets, which were (GWADTF, 2009):4

11906467, 11159183

AAS 4/ AASB 1021 Depreciation AAS 10/AASB 1010 Recoverable Amount of Non-Current Assets AAS 13/AASB 1011 Accounting for Research and Development AAS 18/AASB 1013 Accounting for Goodwill AAS 21/AASB 1015 Acquisition of Assets AASB 1041 Revaluation of Non-Current Assets Several Urgent Issues Group abstracts to take into account International Financial Reporting Standards (Parker, 2004).

The AASB 138 standard applies to all intangible assets except for those intangible assets that are already covered by other AASB standards, financial assets, and mineral rights and expenditure on the exploration, development and extraction of mineral resources. The other AASB standards that cover these classifications of intangible assets outside of AASB 138 are shown below in Table 1: AASB Standard Introduced 01/01/2005 AASB102 Inventories and AASB 111 Construction Contracts : AASB 112 Income Taxes: AASB 117 Leases : AASB 3 Business Combinations AASB 5 Non-Current Assets Held for Sale AASB 136 Impairment of Assets Application to Intangible Assets Intangible assets held for sale in the ordinary course of business Deferred tax assets involving intangibles Leases involving intangibles When Goodwill is acquired in a business combination Intangible assets held for sale Intangibles are assessed for impairment at each reporting dateTable 1: AASB Standards Other than AASB 138 for Treating Intangible Assets after 1/1/05

Changes to Accounting Treatment Caused by AASB 138The key differences from the requirements of the previous standards for intangible assets listed above and the AASB 138 Intangible Assets standard include the following (GWADTF, 2009):

5

11906467, 11159183 An intangible asset must be separable (i.e. capable of being separated from the entity and have the ability to be exchanged, sold, licensed, transferred or rented) or come from contractual or other legal rights.

Research expenditure of all kinds must be expensed Development expenditure must meet specific criteria before it can be capitalised. Internally generated brands, mastheads, publishing titles, customer lists and items similar in substance must no longer be recognised. Intangible assets are only permitted for revaluation where there is an active market to determine fair value. An intangible asset is classified as having an either finite or indefinite life. Intangible assets with indefinite lives must not be amortised.Computer software is considered an intangible asset if it is not integral to the operation of related hardware.

Independent Reports on the Effects of AASB 138Australian Accounting Review Report 2008A study on the effects of the introduction of AASB 138 Intangible Assets by the Australian Accounting Review in 2008 revealed that the debt-to-equity ratio for 23 ASXlisted Australian companies that were assessed as having to derecognise internally generated intangible assets under AASB 138 changed significantly between the 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 financial years as a result (Cheung, Evans. and Wright, 2008). However, several other expected changes that were predicted by numerous professionals and touted in the media as causing write-offs totalling in the billions did not occur in the year following the introduction of the AASB 138 standard. The report compared predicted changes to actual changes both before and after the adoption of AASB 138, with interesting results. Key financial ratios used in the report on intangible assets by the Australian Accounting Review included Return on Equity (ROE), Return on Assets (ROA), and Debt-toEquity Ratio (DER). The most important finding from the report was that, despite the variance across circumstances, it was only the DER that showed significant differences in the selected companies after the introduction of AASB 138, but not ROE or ROA. The anticipated significant impact anticipated by analysts and investors from AASB 138 being6

11906467, 11159183 applied to intangible assets was in fact not so significant (Cheung, Evans. and Wright, 2008, p. 253).

Table 2: Results of the Absolute Changes of ROE, ROA and DER of the Selected Firms (Cheung, Evans. and Wright, 2008).

Table 2above presents two sets of non-parametric tests conducted by the Australian Accounting Review of the differences between measures of intangible assets and key financial ratios calculated or projected under different reporting requirements. As can be seen, the DER value has a very large standard deviation, meaning that the change in DER value after the inception of AASB 138 was very significant (Note: DER ADJAIFRS in Table 2 refers to the expected DER). The question of why the anticipated impacts of AASB 138 were not fully realised may be answered by the fact that many entities simply did not derecognise their intangible assets as projected. The report found that the distinction between internally generated intangible assets and those purchased at cost was not communicated to users very clearly in the preadoption period of AASB 138! As a result of this confusion, many entities 'revealed' in the 2005/06 reporting period that their intangible assets had been purchased at cost, and had not applied derecognition (Cheung, Evans. and Wright, 2008, p. 254).

PriceWaterhouseCoopers Report on Australian Intangible Assets 20077

11906467, 11159183 Research done on the effects of AASB 138 by PriceWaterhouseCoopers found that $45 billion of identifiable intangible assets and $84 billion of goodwill was recorded on the balance sheets of ASX 200 companies in the 2005/2006 period - increases in value of 26% and 47% respectively. The large increase in goodwill was attributed to companies reclassifying roughly $10 billion worth of assets to goodwill after the transition to AIFRS. The largest holders of intangible holders were, not surprisingly, the Media, Consumer Staples and Telecommunications industries (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2004). The report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers also found that growth expectations and bigger deals had lead to goodwill representing a larger proportion of total purchases in 2005/2006, while the proportion of identifiable intangible assets decreased. The average useful life of intangible assets decreased by an incredible 9 years, decreasing from 20 years in 2004/2005 to 11 years in 2005/2006. The amount of reported intangible assets that had indefinite lives also declined from 45% in 2004/2005 to 33% in 2005/2006. Profits were more volatile as a result of all these changes (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2004).

Student Investigation of Two Industry-Dissimilar ASX-listed EntitiesIn order to test how intangible assets appear on a companys balance sheet, along with their affect on a companys income statement, our group chose two ASX-listed companies from different sectors to compare: Technology One (ASX:TNE) and Dominos Pizza (ASX:DOM). Technology One develops, markets, sells, implements and supports its own software solutions to various organisations in Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the United Kingdom. Dominos Pizzas company sector, on the other hand, is in the consumer services sector of fast food the company is famous for making and selling pizza to customers in their market areas, including Australia, New Zealand, France, Belgium and the Netherlands (Aspect Huntley DatAnalysis, 2009).

How Intangible Assets Affect the Balance Sheet From Technology Ones balance sheets we have found that intangible assets and goodwill, which are listed together under one line item in Non-Current Assets, is $17,268,000 in 2008 and $9,592,000 in 2007. Due to the fact that we need to examine the amount of intangible assets alone and not goodwill, we have not used these numbers, but instead used8

11906467, 11159183 the note information to find the value of intangible assets. From the notes regarding intangible assets and goodwill in Technology Ones Annual Reports, we observed that the intellectual property - also called intangible assets - is $2,547,000 for 2008 and $128,000 for 2007. Therefore, increased intangible assets during 2008/2007 equals to $2,547,000$128,000/$128,000=1890%. From Dominos pizzas balance sheet, the cost of other intangible assets for 2008 was $1,726,000, but nearly half of this cost for 2007($968,000). Increased intangible assets during 2008/2007 equals to $1,726,000-$968,000/$968,000=78.3%. It can be concluded that Technology One Limited has many more intangible assets than Dominos Pizza, probably because improvements, updates and innovations in the software industry happen very quickly. If Technology One and other software companies want to keep their business alive and compete with other software companies, then they need to spend a large proportion of cash on research and development for new versions of software and other projects in the future.

Proportion of Intangible Assets to Total Assets Technology One Limited: For 2008: intangible assets%= intangible assets/total assets=$2,547,000/$73,422,000=3.47% For 2007: intangible assets%= intangible assets/total assets=$128,000/54,928,000=0.23% We can conclude that percentage of intangible assets increased 15.1 times from 0.23% in 2007 to 3.47% in 2008. There are two main reasons could explain why intangible assets increase so much in 2008. First of all in November 2007, the company purchased Enterprise Content Management, the costs of which were capitalised as intangible assets. Secondly, in August 2008, the Outcome Manager Technology had been acquired by Technology One Limited, which has been provisionally classified as an intangible asset or intellectual property. (Come from annual report p58, p28, p9). Due to the fact that the companys financial reporting date is 30 September in each year, these two acquisitions should therefore be included in the 2008 financial annual report. This explains why there are so many differences on the term of intangible assets between the financial years of 2008 and 2007.9

11906467, 11159183 Dominos Pizza: For 2008: intangible assets%= intangible assets/total assets=$1,726,000/$142,157,000=1.21% For 2007: Intangible assets%= intangible assets/total assets=$968,000/131,613,000=0.73% From the above calculation we know that intangible assets increased by 1.7 times in 2008 compared with the year before that. Dominos Pizzas intangible assets did not increase dramatically like those of Technology One Limited, highlighting the fact that these two companies operate in different sectors, and have contrasting proportions of assets that are in the form of intangibles. We can get an idea from the balance sheet that intangible assets are classified as noncurrent assets, which means total assets or total non-current assets go up when added with intangible assets. Some ratios will be changed, such as debt ratio, return on assets, return on net assets, and asset turnover because they are all related to total assets or total non-current assets.

10

11906467, 11159183 Debt RatioChart 1 Debt ratio=Toal Liabitliy / Total Assets 2008 Total liability$000 Total Assets$000 TA no IA DR with IA DR no IA TechnologyOne 22,908 73,422 70,875 31.20% 32.30% Domino's Pizza 62,903 142,157 140,431 44.20% 44.80% 2007 Total liability$000 Total Assets$000 TA no IA DR with IA DR no IA TechnologyOne 16,822 54,928 54,800 30.60% 30.70% Domino's Pizza 64,430 131,613 130,645 49% 49.30% Debit ratio growth%(with IA) TechnologyOne 1.96 Domino's Pizza -9.8 Note: TA=Total Assets, IA=Intangible Assets, DR=Debit raio

Table 3: Debt Ratio of Technology One Limited and Dominos Pizza, 2007 & 2008

Technology One Limiteds Debt Ratio was 31.20% in 2008 if intangible assets were included in total assets, as seen in Table 3above. However, without intangible asset, debt ratio increases to 32.30% in 2008. While 30.6% Debt ratio when include intangible as asset, 30.7% debt ratio when exclude intangible as asset in 2007. Debt ratio grows 1.96% during 2007 and 2008 when treat intangible as assets. Dominos Pizzas Debt Ratio was 44.20% in 2008 when we added intangibles into total assets. Nevertheless, when not considering intangibles as asset, the debt ratio for 2008 grew to 44.8%. For 2007, the debt ratio was 49% if treating intangibles as assets, or a 49.3% debt ratio if intangibles are not treated as assets. Debt ratio decreases 9.8% from 2007 to 2008. Our calculations of Debt Equity on Technology One and Dominos Pizza show that intangible assets for both companies had a positive effect on debt ratio between 2007 and 2008, since the smaller debt ratio means the companies performed better in relation to debt.

11

11906467, 11159183 Comparatively, Technology One had a smaller debt ratio that did Dominos Pizza, and its growth of debt ratio was much quicker than that of Dominos Pizza.

Return on Assets (ROA)Return on Asset= Net Income/ Total Assets 2008 TA($000) 17,229 11,834

NI ($000) TechnologyOne Domino's Pizza

73,422 142,157

TA no IA($000) ROA with IA ROA no IA 70,875 0.234657187 0.243089947 140,431 0.083245989 0.084269143

NI($000) TechnologyOne Domino's Pizza

2007 TA($000) 14,781 9,129

54,928 131,613

TA no IA($000) ROA with IA ROA no IA 54,800 0.269097728 0.269726277 130,654 0.069362449 0.069871569

TechnologyOne Domino's Pizza Note: NI= Net Income

ROA growth with IA -0.127985253 0.200159305 TA=Toal Asset IA= Intangible Asset

Table 4: ROA of Technology One Limited and Dominos Pizza, 2007 & 2008

From the Table 4, we can conclude that Technology One had a higher ROA than Dominos Pizza did in two years. However, Technology Ones ROA decreased 12.7% from 2007 to 2008, while the ROA of Dominos Pizza grew 20%. Intangible assets have a slightly negative impact on the ROA, because for both companies the ROA ratio decreased in two years when intangibles were added to total assets. Furthermore, the companies intangible assets will reduce their ROA and tell investors that the firms use of its assets and control of its expenses to generate an acceptable rate of return may be altered negatively as intangible assets are recognised.

12

11906467, 11159183

Asset TurnoverAsset Turnover= Net Sales/Total Assets 2008 SR ($000) SE ($000) NS($000) TA($000) TA no IA($000) AT with IAAT no IA TechnologyOne 108,491 11,880 96,611 73,422 70,875 1.315832 1.363118 Domino's Pizza 165,768 12,811 152,957 142,157 140,431 1.075972 1.089197 2007 SR ($000) SE ($000) NS($000) TA($000) TA no IA($000) AT with IAAT no IA TechnologyOne 76,823 9,058 67,765 54,928 54,800 1.233706 1.236588 Domino's Pizza 171,579 17,446 154,133 131,613 130,654 1.171108 1.179704 AT growth with IA 0.066568395 -0.081235377

TechnologyOne Domino's Pizza

Table 5: Asset Turnover of Technology One Limited and Dominos Pizza, 2007 & 2008

It can seem from Table 5 that Technology One has a higher asset turnover than Dominos Pizza, which grows by about 6.66% during 2008 and 2007. Asset turnover dropped slightly for both companies when including intangible assets as total assets during these two years, which means intangible assets have a negative impact on the asset turnover ratio, since the higher the asset turnover, the better the return that the company can produce.

Further Industry Comparison For the sake of comparison, our group chose two other competitors that had similar operations and profits to see if our results for Technology One and Dominos Pizza were similar. The competitor we chose for Technology One was InfoMedia Limited (ASX:IFM), whose main business involves building information management systems for automobile manufacturers and oil companies. The competitor chosen for Dominos Pizza was Retail Food Group Limited (ASX: RFG), who are the holders of famous franchises in Australiasuch as Brumbys, Donut King, BBs Caf and Michels Patisserie. The results for the Debt Ratio, ROA and Asset Turnover ratios for these competitors are included below in Table 6, along with the same ratios for Technology One and Dominos Pizza.

2007/2008 Financial Year Competitor Comparison

13

11906467, 11159183Debt Ratio No Intangibles 0.3230 0.2743 Return on Assets No Intangibles 0.2431 0.2798 Asset Turnover No Intangibles 1.3631 1.1465

w/ Company Technology One (ASX: TNE) InfoMedia (ASX: IFM) Domino's Pizza (ASX: DMP) Retail Food Group Limited (ASX: RFG)

w/

w/

Intangibles 0.3120 0.2710

Intangibles 0.2347 0.2929

Intangibles 1.3158 1.1596

0.4420

0.4480

0.0832

0.0842

1.0760

1.0892

0.5868

3.6782

0.0770

0.4826

0.4624

2.8982

Table 6: Financial Ratios of Technology One Limited, Dominos Pizza, and Selected Competitors 2007/2008

While InfoMedia Limited showed similarity to Technology One in each ratio, Retail Food Group Limited had drastic differences in Debt Ratio, ROA and Asset Turnover when compared to Dominos Pizza and the companys Intangible Assets were not included in the calculations. Upon further investigation, we found that Retail Food Groups franchise systems with their subsidiary companies are veryexpensive intangible assets all of which have indefinite life. This was a very interesting discovery, but unfortunately one we cannot investigate further in this report.

ConclusionFrom our own findings and research on contemporary accounting for intangible assets and the introduction of AASB 138 on January 1st2005, fewer side effects were found than we had actually anticipated. This may be due to the fact that, after the inception of AASB 138 during the Australian adoption of IFRS compliance, many ASX-listed companies may have performed some creative accounting manoeuvres to have their financial statements appear favourable to investors and other interests. Those in charge of financial reporting may have: 1. Reclassified intangible assets to goodwill, to avoid amortisations and use creative impairment instead. 2. Reduced the useful life of intangible assets in order to decrease the value of intangibles more rapidly in an attempt to avoid the ill effects intangible assets may

14

11906467, 11159183 have on key financial ratios which investors may rely on, such as Debt Ratio, ROA and Asset Turnover. 3. Aggressively interpret AASB 138 (e.g. twist the meaning of active market) or purposely misinterpret internally generated assets or tangible assets in general, in disclosures within company financial reports. 4. Misinterpreted the classifications (e.g. internally generated intangible assets).

In any case, it still appears to our group as though there needs to be further investigation done on AASB 138 and its effects on the financial reports of Australian entities by Australian accounting authorities in order to gain a better understanding of these effects and promote accurate financial reporting of intangible assets in future.

15

11906467, 11159183

ReferencesAspect Huntley DatAnalysis: Dominos Pizza Enterpreise Limited. (2009). Retrieved on April 22nd 2009 from the Aspect Huntley DatAnalysis website at: http://www.aspecthuntley.com.au/af/company/balancesheetdat?ASXCode=DMP&xtmlicensee=dat Aspect Huntley DatAnalysis: Technology One Limited. (2009). Retrieved on April 22nd 2009 from the Aspect Huntley DatAnalysis website at: http://www.aspecthuntley.com.au/af/company/balancesheetdat?ASXCode=TNE&xtmlicensee=dat Australian Securities Exchange: What is GICS?(2009). Retrieved April 20th 2009 from the Australian Securities Exchange website at: http://www.asx.com.au/research/indices/gics.htm Chartered Accountants: AASB 138 Intangible Assets.(2009). Retrieved April 21st2009 from the Chartered Accountants website at: http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/A121904976 Cheung E., Evans E. and Wright S. (2009). The Adoption of IFRS in Australia: The Case of AASB 138 (IAS 38) Intangible Assets. Australian Accounting Review, Melbourne: September 2008. Vol 18, Issue 3 p. 248. CPA Australia. (2009a). Accounting Handbook 2009. Pearson Education Australia, Melbourne, Victoria: Printed by Ligare Pty Ltd. CPA Australia (2009b). AASB 138 fact sheet. Retrieved on April 20th from the CPA Australia website at: http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/SID-3F57FECA3389FE0B/cpa/hs.xsl/872_12821_ENA_HTML.htm Government of Western Australia Department of Treasury and Finance. (2009). AASB 138 Intangible Assets Summary. Retrieved on April 23rd2009 from the Government of Western Australia Department of Treasury and Finance website at: http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/aasb138.DOC.16

11906467, 11159183

Henderson, Pierson & Herbohn. (2008). Issues in Financial Accounting (13th Edition).Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Education Australia.

International Accounting Standards Board: Intangible Assets. (2009). Retrieved April 21st 2009 from the International Accounting Standards Board website at:http://www.iasb.org/Current+Projects/IASB+Projects/Intangible+Assets/Intangible+Assets.htm

Parker, K. (2004). The Untouchables. Australasian Business Intelligence, Dec 10, 2004 pNA. PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2008). Intangible Assets Value In The Real World. Retrieved on April 29th, 2009, from the PriceWaterhouseCoopers website at: http://www.pwc.com/Extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/7CA088FEB7642C23CA257376007 A2BDC/$file/IntangibleAssets_ValueInTheNewWorld.pdf Schaeffer, B. and Robins, S. (2008). Valuation of Intangible Assets in Franchise Companies and Multinational Groups: A Current Issue. Franchise Law Journal, Winter 2008 v27 i3 p185(8).

17

11906467, 11159183

AppendicesAppendix A: Technology One Limited Balance Sheet 2007/2008

18

11906467, 11159183

Appendix B: Technology One Limited Income Statement 2007/2008

19

11906467, 11159183

Appendix C: Dominos Pizza Limited Balance Sheet 2007/2008

20

11906467, 11159183

Appendix D: Dominos Pizza Limited Income Statement 2007/200821

11906467, 11159183

22

11906467, 11159183

Appendix E: Peer Reviews

23