Financial Data
Enter the essential financial figures below. Expand the additional sections for a comprehensive analysis.
Financial Ratio Analysis Guide for European Auditors — free PDF
ISA 520 & ISA 570 practical workbook: all formulas with visual explanations, industry benchmark reference tables from BACH for 15 industries, ratio interpretation guide, and template narrative paragraphs for audit working papers.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ISA 520.5 — Design and perform analytical procedures near the end of the audit that assist in forming an overall conclusion.
ISA 520.A1 — Analytical procedures may include ratios such as gross margin percentages and ratio of sales to accounts receivable.
ISA 570.A3 — Negative working capital, adverse key financial ratios, operating losses, and other indicators may cast doubt on going concern.
Financial Ratio Analysis in Netherlands — Standaard 520 / Standaard 570
Financial ratio analysis in the Netherlands is governed by Standaard 520 for analytical procedures and Standaard 570 for going concern, both issued by the NBA (Nederlandse Beroepsorganisatie van Accountants) and substantively aligned with international ISA requirements. The Dutch audit profession operates under rigorous regulatory oversight from the Autoriteit Financiële Markten, which supervises auditors of public interest entities and has conducted extensive thematic reviews of analytical procedures. The Netherlands has a sophisticated financial reporting environment where listed companies report under EU-adopted IFRS while non-listed entities may use Dutch GAAP under the Richtlijnen voor de Jaarverslaggeving (RJ). Dutch auditors must navigate both frameworks when performing ratio analysis and must understand how differences between IFRS and Dutch GAAP affect ratio interpretation and benchmarking across the client portfolio.
Regulatory Context — NBA / AFM
The AFM has published detailed findings on analytical procedures in its audit quality inspection reports, consistently identifying this area as needing improvement across both large and smaller audit firms. Key AFM observations include insufficient precision in the expectations auditors set for ratio analysis, over-reliance on prior-year comparisons without incorporating external benchmark data, and inadequate investigation of ratio variances where auditors accepted management explanations without obtaining corroborative evidence. The NBA has responded with enhanced guidance through NBA-handreiking publications and continuing professional education requirements. Standaard 520 requires Dutch auditors to evaluate the reliability of data used in analytical procedures, including financial ratios, and to assess whether the precision of the expectation is sufficient to identify potential misstatements at the relevant materiality level.
Practical Guidance for Netherlands
Dutch auditors have access to robust benchmark data for ratio analysis. The Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) publishes detailed financial statistics by sector and company size. Graydon and Company.info provide company-level financial data from Kamer van Koophandel filings. The Dutch Bankers' Association (NVB) publishes lending conditions data relevant to assessing leverage ratios and borrowing capacity. For specific industries, sector organisations such as MKB-Nederland and VNO-NCW publish economic indicators. When computing ratios from Dutch GAAP financial statements, auditors should note that RJ allows certain choices not available under IFRS, including the capitalisation of development costs as a policy choice and different treatment of government grants, which can affect comparability. The standard Dutch commercial lease structure of five-plus-five years may also influence working capital ratios depending on the accounting treatment applied.
Audit Expectations
AFM inspections have identified several recurring themes in how Dutch audit firms perform ratio analysis. Auditors at firms of all sizes have been found to calculate ratios without establishing independent expectations beforehand, effectively treating the procedure as descriptive rather than investigative. The AFM expects that for substantive analytical procedures, the auditor develops a quantified expectation using reliable internal and external data, defines a threshold for investigation that is linked to materiality, compares the expectation to the actual result, investigates variances exceeding the threshold, and documents the entire process including conclusions. The AFM has specifically noted that for going concern assessments under Standaard 570, auditors should evaluate not just point-in-time ratios but ratio trends and their trajectory relative to known covenant thresholds and legal insolvency tests.
Netherlands-Specific Considerations
The Dutch insolvency framework is governed by the Faillissementswet, which provides for bankruptcy (faillissement), suspension of payments (surseance van betaling), and the debt restructuring scheme under the Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord (WHOA), introduced in 2021. The WHOA enables entities to restructure debts outside formal insolvency proceedings, similar to UK scheme of arrangement or US Chapter 11 proceedings. For going concern ratio analysis, auditors should evaluate liquidity ratios in the context of the suspension of payments test, which focuses on the entity's ability to continue paying debts as they fall due. The Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek, Book 2) imposes director liability for manifest mismanagement, which includes failure to maintain adequate financial monitoring systems. This creates a legal backdrop where deteriorating financial ratios should trigger management action and, where relevant, timely disclosure. The Netherlands' open economy and significant international trade exposure mean that auditors should also consider currency risk and export dependency ratios for Dutch entities with substantial cross-border operations.
Common Inspection Findings
Expectations for substantive analytical procedures were not quantified prior to comparison with actual results, with the expectation appearing to be developed after the fact.
Prior-year ratios were used as the sole benchmark without incorporating external industry data from CBS or other publicly available sources.
Investigation thresholds were not clearly linked to the materiality level, resulting in variances that exceeded materiality going uninvestigated.
Going concern ratio analysis under Standaard 570 focused only on current-period ratios without evaluating multi-period trends or trajectory towards covenant breach.
Corroborative evidence for management explanations of ratio variances was absent from the audit file, with only inquiry-based evidence documented.