Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports contain important information that can be used to analyze the financial health of the City of Oklahoma City (City).

Taken in and of itself, though, without context, the information in any CAFR can be misleading. Best results can be obtained by comparing current reports with those of previous years, and with current reports from other cities.

Here are some recommendations, based on suggestions from the Government Finance Officers Association , for the benefit of government officials and other interested parties who wish to use financial data from the CAFR to analyze a government’s financial health:

• The City's own past performance normally is the most relevant (but not exclusive) context for analyzing current-year financial data.
• The City’s own experience typically is best expressed in the form of trend data for key financial indicators (e.g., revenues, expenditures, fund balance).
• The usefulness of trend data often can be enhanced by examining the percentage relationship among data elements over time (e.g., local revenue as a percentage of total revenue; public safety expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures).
• At a minimum, five years of data typically are necessary for effective trend analysis.
• Conversely, trend information eventually loses relevance over time because of changes in circumstances. Accordingly, typically no more than ten years of data should be considered.
• Items that potentially distort trends (e.g., one-time items or changes in underlying assumptions or structures) should be carefully noted.
• Appropriate comparisons of the City's own data with the data of other similar governments also may be useful for purposes of financial analysis. However, care must be taken to ensure that such comparisons are valid. Considerations that affect the validity of data comparisons among governments include the following:

  Are the governments of the same level (i.e., state, county, municipality) and type (e.g., general-purpose, special-purpose)?

  Are there significant differences in the scope or quality of services provided?

  Are there significant differences in the number of those served?

  Do the governments define categories in the same way?

  Are the governments from regions where costs and similar environmental factors are comparable?

  If costs being compared include significant depreciation expense, were the capital assets being depreciated acquired at roughly the same time (i.e., to avoid the distortions inherent in historical-cost depreciation)?

• Comparisons with other governments may be further enhanced by using trend data for these governments rather than relying exclusively upon current-year data.

Download the 2006 CAFR. (12.7 MB)

Download the 2005 CAFR. (20.4 MB)

Download the 2004 CAFR. (53 MB)

Download the 2003 CAFR. (2.5MB)

Download the 2002 CAFR. (11.6 MB)

This document has not been updated for developments subsequent to the date of the auditor's report.

To get CAFRs for previous years, call Accounting Services at (405) 297-2701.