The CFO's LinkedIn post
Our CFO posts adjusted figures on LinkedIn every results day. Under IFRS 18, does that make them management-defined performance measures, and where does the social media exclusion stop?
Results day now has a familiar rhythm. The announcement goes out at seven, the analyst call starts at nine, and by mid-morning the CFO has posted on LinkedIn: a few lines of thanks to the team, an adjusted EBITDA figure, and often a tidy graphic of the highlights. From 2027, whether a subtotal is a management-defined performance measure (MPM) decides whether it needs a note, a reconciliation, tax and non-controlling interest effects and an audit. So finance teams are asking which of these channels count.
IFRS 18 answers part of the question directly. It says social media posts are not public communications for this purpose. The harder part is what that exclusion actually covers: the words of the post, or everything that travels with it. That is the gap this post works through, alongside the Interpretations Committee's June 2026 tentative decision on confidential investor presentations.
Why the question arises
A subtotal of income and expenses is an MPM only if the entity uses it in public communications outside the financial statements, it communicates management's view of an aspect of the financial performance of the entity as a whole, and it is not one of the subtotals listed in paragraph 118 or otherwise required by IFRS Accounting Standards (IFRS 18.117).
The first limb does a lot of work, and IFRS 18 does not define "public communications". In the Basis for Conclusions the IASB acknowledged the concern that the term could be read broadly. Its answer was that an entity actively decides how it communicates publicly and usually has systems and processes to control those communications (IFRS 18.BC335). Instead of a definition, paragraph B119 gives a list in each direction:
Public communications include management commentary, press releases and investor presentations.
For the purpose of defining MPMs, they exclude oral communications, written transcripts of oral communications and social media posts.
What is clear
Several points are settled by the text.
A subtotal that appears only in the words of a social media post is not an MPM, whether the post is on the company's page or the CFO's own account (IFRS 18.B119).
The same goes for a subtotal used only on the analyst call, or in the transcript of it.
A measure used internally but never communicated publicly is not an MPM (IFRS 18.B127).
Once a subtotal is used in a public communication, it is presumed to communicate management's view. The presumption can be rebutted only with reasonable and supportable information (IFRS 18.119–120, B124–B131).
A measure is an MPM if it is used in any one public communication and meets the rest of the definition. Appearing on LinkedIn as well does not take it out. In practice, most figures in a results-day post are copied from the press release, so they are MPMs anyway.
There is also a tentative answer for private entities. In June 2026 the Committee considered presentations shared by a private entity, under confidentiality agreements, with a small number of identifiable shareholders or potential investors, and not otherwise made available. It tentatively concluded that they are not public communications, and observed that the reference to investor presentations in B119 does not make every presentation to investors public. The comment period closed on 9 September 2026 and, at the time of writing, the decision has not been finalised.
Two readings of the exclusion
The open question is what a "social media post" is when the post carries more than words. A results-day post often attaches a PDF, a carousel of slides or an infographic, or links to the announcement.
Reading A: the channel decides. Anything published through social media is excluded. B119 does not qualify the exclusion, and the exclusion was presumably meant to spare entities from monitoring a high-volume, informal channel. On this reading a "results at a glance" one-pager attached to a LinkedIn post is outside the definition, whatever it contains.
Reading B: the document decides. The exclusion covers the post itself, the short, informal message. A document that would be a public communication anywhere else, such as a written results summary, an investor presentation or a slide deck, does not stop being one because it is distributed through LinkedIn rather than the investor relations page.
Why reading A fails
Reading A reads more into the exclusion than its purpose supports. B119's exclusions are framed by format (oral, transcript, social media), and that is the best point for reading A. But the items B119 includes are defined by what they are, and the test in IFRS 18.117(a) is whether the entity uses the subtotal in public communications. A press release, an investor presentation and management commentary do not change character with the way they are delivered. If they did, an entity could publish its investor deck as a LinkedIn carousel (see the closer cases below) and take every measure in it out of the MPM regime. That would defeat the purpose the IASB gave for applying the requirements to all entities: to bring transparency and discipline to measures communicated to users outside the financial statements (IFRS 18.BC342).
The oral exclusion shows the same logic. What the CFO says on the analyst call is excluded, and so is the transcript. But the slides on screen during the webcast are an investor presentation. Nobody would argue they are oral communications because someone spoke over them. An attachment to a post is in the same position as those slides.
BC335 also sits uneasily with reading A. The IASB was comfortable leaving the term undefined because entities actively decide how they communicate and usually control those communications. A reading that lets that control decide whether a measure falls inside the definition is hard to square with that reasoning.
Supporters of reading A will say the IASB chose a format-based exclusion knowing that posts carry attachments, and the text does not say otherwise. They also have the practical burden on their side. Monitoring every graphic posted by every executive cannot have been the aim. Reading B keeps that burden contained. The test is applied document by document. A post's own words, an emoji-laden thank-you and a photo of the team remain outside. A results summary or deck that the entity prepares and releases does not. Those are already controlled documents, usually approved by the same people who approve the press release.
Two cases sit closest to the line. A single graphic posted inline, such as a highlights tile, is probably part of the post. LinkedIn's native document and carousel formats make an attachment part of the post itself, which helps reading A. Our test is substance: if the item would be recognisable as an investor presentation or results summary on the company's website, it is one on LinkedIn too.
At the time of writing we have not found published large-firm guidance on attachments to social media posts. The view above is ours.
A worked example: Tolka Foods
Tolka Foods plc, a fictional Dublin-listed food group, has no non-controlling interests and a 31 December year end. Its first IFRS 18 statement of profit or loss, for 2027, shows revenue of €412.0m and operating profit of €24.6m. Within operating expenses are depreciation of €15.2m, amortisation of €2.2m, an IAS 36 impairment of a brand of €2.5m, restructuring costs of €4.1m and brand marketing of €6.4m.
On results day Tolka publishes:
a press release and investor deck showing adjusted EBITDA of €48.6m;
a company LinkedIn post with a "2027 at a glance" one-pager attached as a PDF, showing adjusted operating profit of €31.2m. That subtotal appears nowhere else;
a post by the CFO on her own account, repeating adjusted EBITDA and adding "EBITDA before brand investment" of €55.0m, a figure she also used on the analyst call.
Separately, it sends its banks a confidential compliance pack showing covenant EBITDA of €50.3m.
The arithmetic is:
adjusted operating profit: €24.6m + €4.1m restructuring + €2.5m brand impairment = €31.2m;
adjusted EBITDA: €31.2m + €15.2m depreciation + €2.2m amortisation = €48.6m;
EBITDA before brand investment: €48.6m + €6.4m = €55.0m;
covenant EBITDA: €48.6m + €1.7m of pre-acquisition EBITDA of a bakery bought in October = €50.3m.
Measure | €m | Reading A | Reading B |
|---|---|---|---|
Adjusted EBITDA | 48.6 | MPM | MPM |
Adj. operating profit | 31.2 | No | MPM |
EBITDA pre brand spend | 55.0 | No | No |
Covenant EBITDA | 50.3 | No | No |
MPMs in the note | – | 1 | 2 |
Adjusted EBITDA is an MPM under either reading, because it is in the press release and the deck. EBITDA before brand investment is not an MPM under either reading. Its only outings are a social media post and an oral communication, both excluded by B119. Covenant EBITDA goes to identified lenders under confidentiality. The June tentative decision concerned a private entity's presentations to shareholders and potential investors, so Tolka's facts differ on both counts: it is listed, and the audience is its banks. The reasoning still turns on confidentiality and a defined audience, and Tolka can apply it if it documents why the facts fit. There is also a more direct reason: the measure includes the bakery's pre-acquisition results, so it is arguably not a subtotal of Tolka's own income and expenses at all.
The difference between the readings is the one-pager. Under reading B it is a written results summary, released by the company to anyone who follows its page. Adjusted operating profit is therefore an MPM, and Tolka's note grows by one measure:
€m | Amount | Tax effect |
|---|---|---|
Operating profit | 24.6 | – |
Restructuring costs | 4.1 | (0.5) |
Brand impairment | 2.5 | – |
Adjusted operating profit | 31.2 | (0.5) |
Tolka calculates tax effects at the statutory rate of 12.5% on deductible items (IFRS 18.B141(a)): €4.1m × 12.5% = €0.5m. The brand impairment is not deductible, so its tax effect is nil. With no non-controlling interests, every NCI effect is nil, and the note says so (IFRS 18.123(d)).
Adjusted EBITDA needs its own reconciliation in any case. Its most directly comparable subtotal is likely to be operating profit before depreciation, amortisation and IAS 36 impairments (IFRS 18.118(b)): €24.6m + €15.2m + €2.2m + €2.5m = €44.5m. Adding back restructuring of €4.1m gives €48.6m, with the same €0.5m tax effect. Because that €44.5m subtotal is not presented in the statement of profit or loss, Tolka also bridges it to operating profit, without tax effects for that bridge (IFRS 18.B140).
What to do
Inventory every written channel, not just the annual report: results release, deck, investor relations web pages, fact sheets and one-pagers, documents attached to or embedded in social media posts, and investor and lender packs.
Apply the document test. Ask what each item is, not where it was posted. A deck is a deck on LinkedIn too.
Set a simple rule for results day: no subtotal goes into a post, attachment or graphic unless it is already in the press release or deck. That keeps the MPM population equal to what the disclosure committee has approved.
For confidential packs, keep the evidence the June tentative decision relies on: the confidentiality terms, the list of recipients and the absence of onward distribution.
Document the judgement, including any rebuttal of the presumption, against B124–B131.
Smaller related questions
What if the post simply links to the press release? Nothing changes. The measure is used in the press release, which is a public communication, so it is an MPM whatever the post says.
Is a published script of prepared remarks a transcript? B119 excludes written transcripts of oral communications. A record of what was said fits that description. A script published as a document in its own right, before or alongside the call, reads more like written commentary. If it contains subtotals that are not in the release, treat it as a public communication unless you can support the transcript label.
What about an article written by the CFO? A bylined piece in a newspaper or trade journal is neither oral nor a social media post. If the CFO writes it in that capacity, it is likely to be a written communication by the entity. A journalist's report of an interview, by contrast, is not the entity's communication at all, and what it records was said orally.
Does a private group escape the regime? No. The requirements apply to private entities in the same way (IFRS 18.BC342). The tentative decision helps only where the facts match it: confidential terms, identifiable recipients and no wider audience. A widely syndicated lender group, an open data room or a letter to hundreds of small shareholders is a harder case.
Does the period matter? Yes. Only communications related to the reporting period count, unless results communications are routinely issued after the financial statements, in which case the previous period's communications are used (IFRS 18.B121–B122). A subtotal relating only to the half-year can be an MPM only in the interim financial statements (IFRS 18.B120).
Why it matters for December 2026
IFRS 18 applies to annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2027 and is applied retrospectively (IFRS 18.C1–C2). For a calendar-year company, the 2027 note will need comparative MPM information for 2026. The measures you publish, and attach, for the 2026 results are the measures you will be reconciling next year.
The MPM requirements also apply to condensed interim financial statements (IFRS 18.5), so the June 2027 half-year report is the first real test. A "half-year at a glance" graphic posted on results day will raise exactly this question. The Committee is due to discuss comments on its tentative decision at a future meeting, so watch for the final wording before year-end.
What the auditor will look at
Completeness of the communications inventory, including posts, attachments and web pages around the results date.
The controls over what is published: who approves graphics and one-pagers, and whether they are checked against the release (IFRS 18.BC335 notes that entities usually have such systems and processes).
Consistency between figures in social media material and the MPM note.
For confidential packs, evidence of confidentiality and a limited audience.
Any rebuttal of the presumption in IFRS 18.119, and whether the evidence meets B124–B131.
Work it through with our tools
Our IFRS 18 Transition Tool moves a real set of accounts from IAS 1 to IFRS 18: it classifies income and expenses into the new categories, builds the required subtotals, and helps you identify, reconcile and document your MPMs. It is free with a member account.
For the year-end work in Excel, our IFRS 18 Transition Pack builds the MPM note with the tax and non-controlling interest effect of every reconciling item, restates both years and drafts the transition note with the IFRS 18.C3 reconciliation and a disclosure checklist.
IFRS 18 in the Learning Hub: the categories, the new subtotals and MPMs, with practice questions on MPM reconciliations.
Year-End 2026 Reporting Update: our CPD course. Webinar 2 treats 2026 as the dress rehearsal for IFRS 18.
The Tipping Point: weigh and write up judgements like this one, where the standard leaves the answer open.
Disclosure Review: check that the MPM note is complete before the auditor does.
The LinkedIn exclusion is real, but it is narrower than it looks. On our reading, IFRS 18 leaves out the CFO's words, not the documents she attaches. If a number is worth putting on a slide for the market, it is worth a line in the note.
