Tag Archives: 10-K

Master SEC Reporting and Prepare to Tackle New Challenges – August & September Dates Announced

The complicated world of SEC reporting has now gotten even more complicated! Be sure you are prepared to comply with the recently enacted changes and have a plan in place to deal with the SEC staff “hot buttons”. Attend SECI’s live workshop SEC Reporting Skills Workshop 2017 being held August 17-18 in New York City, August 21-22 in Grapevine and September 25-26 in San Francisco with additional dates and locations listed on the SECI website.

 

http://www.pli.edu/Content/SEC_Reporting_Skills_Workshop_2017/_/N-1z10oe8Z4k?ID=290537

 

Sustainability Disclosures – It’s Time to Explore!

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

 

Sustainability disclosures are being mentioned more and more in the news, in company reporting and in regulatory discussions. While it may seem like it is “early days” for this information, it may not be as early as we all think. Here are summaries of a few of the things going on now.

 

Sustainability information has been touched on by the SEC in their disclosures effectiveness project. In the voluminous 2016 Regulation S-K Concept release the SEC included this language:

We are interested in receiving feedback on the importance of sustainability and public policy matters to informed investment and voting decisions. In particular, we seek feedback on which, if any, sustainability and public policy disclosures are important to an understanding of a registrant’s business and financial condition and whether there are other considerations that make these disclosures important to investment and voting decisions. We also seek feedback on the potential challenges and costs associated with compiling and disclosing this information.

Enough companies are already disclosing sustainability information that the AICPA has published a Guide for Attestation Engagements on Sustainability Information. The AICPA also has a very informative web page about sustainability disclosures in general.

 

Standard setters in other parts of the world have also begun discussion about sustainability information. Here is an excerpt from a speech Hans Hoogervorst, Chair of the IASB, delivered in April 2017 at the IIRC Council Meeting in New York:

In their latest review of structure and effectiveness, from 2015 to 2016, the Trustees of the IFRS Foundation confirmed the current approach of the International Accounting Standards Board (the Board) to wider corporate reporting. Broadly, this approach is to cooperate with organisations like the Corporate Reporting Dialogue (CRD) and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC).

The Board was also asked to study further what its future role should be in the wider corporate reporting landscape. The Board is examining this question now. During the Board meeting of March 2017, we devoted public discussion to this issue for the first time.

As we wind down from second-quarter reporting (or whenever your fiscal-year has a less busy period!), this might be an opportune moment to learn a bit about these disclosures. There are several sources of information you can begin with:

The Sustainability Standards Board (SASB) maintains industry specific sustainability accounting standards that help public corporations disclose material, decision-useful information to investors. The members of the SASB are appointed by the SASB Foundation, a structure similar to that of the FASB and the FAF. The SASB Foundation is chaired by Michael Bloomberg and both the Foundation Board and the SASB itself have members with deep capital markets, business and academic experience.

The International Integrated Reporting Council defines integrated reporting as “a process founded on integrated thinking that results in a periodic integrated report by an organization about value creation over time and related communications regarding aspects of value creation. An integrated report is a concise communication about how an organization’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects, in the context of its external environment, lead to the creation of value in the short, medium and long term.”

Both of these organizations are focused on providing information beyond our existing financial reporting and SEC reporting models. And, interestingly, many companies are already responding to demand for such information. In a report from the SASB titled “The State of Disclosure – An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Sustainability Disclosures in SEC Filing – 2016,” the SASB reviewed the reports of up to the top 10 companies in 79 industries. Among their findings were:

Overwhelmingly, companies have recognized the existence of, or the potential for, material impacts related to the sustainability topics included in SASB standards. Indeed, 69 percent of companies in the analysis reported on at least three-quarters of the sustainability topics included in their industry standard, and 38 percent provided disclosure on every SASB topic.

With this background, our next few posts will help you build an understanding of the state of these disclosures in current reporting, the nature of investor demand for these disclosures, and the standards that the SASB is developing to help investors get the information that they believe they need.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

A Revenue Recognition and LEASES Trailblazer

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

As we discussed in this post enumerating Rev Rec early adopters, Microsoft disclosed in their SAB 74 disclosures plans to early adopt both the new Rev Rec and Lease Accounting standards as of July 1, 2017, the beginning of their fiscal year 2018. As you will see in their Form 10-K for the year-ended June 30, 2017, they have executed their plan. (New Microsoft financial reporting motto: “Sleep is for the Weak”?)

 

As you review their disclosures you will see that Microsoft adopted the Rev Rec standard with a full retrospective approach, making this disclosure:

 

The standard will be effective for us beginning July 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted. We elected to early adopt the standard effective July 1, 2017. In preparation for adoption of the standard, we have implemented internal controls and key system functionality to enable the preparation of financial information and have reached conclusions on key accounting assessments related to the standard, including our assessment that the impact of accounting for costs incurred to obtain a contract is immaterial.

 

The most significant impact of the standard relates to our accounting for software license revenue. Specifically, for Windows 10, we will recognize revenue predominantly at the time of billing and delivery rather than ratably over the life of the related device. For certain multi-year commercial software subscriptions that include both distinct software licenses and Software Assurance, we will recognize license revenue at the time of contract execution rather than over the subscription period. Due to the complexity of certain of our commercial license subscription contracts, the actual revenue recognition treatment required under the standard will depend on contract-specific terms and in some instances may vary from recognition at the time of billing. Revenue recognition related to our hardware, cloud offerings such as Office 365, LinkedIn, and professional services will remain substantially unchanged.

Adoption of the standard will result in the recognition of additional revenue of $6.6 billion and $5.8 billion for fiscal year 2017 and 2016, respectively, and an increase in the provision for income taxes of $2.5 billion and $2.1 billion, respectively, primarily due to the net change in Windows 10 revenue recognition. In addition, adoption of the standard will result in an increase in accounts receivable and other current and long-term assets of $2.7 billion and $4.2 billion, as of June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, driven by unbilled receivables from upfront recognition of revenue for certain multi-year commercial software subscriptions that include both distinct software licenses and Software Assurance; a reduction of unearned revenue of $17.8 billion and $11.7 billion as of June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, driven by the upfront recognition of license revenue from Windows 10 and certain multi-year commercial software subscriptions; and an increase in deferred income taxes of $5.2 billion and $4.8 billion as of June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, driven by the upfront recognition of revenue.

 

One of the interesting aspects of this disclosure is the conclusion that contract acquisition costs are not material, making commissions accounting much simpler! And it is worth noting that the new revenue recognition guidance will require Microsoft to recognize some revenue earlier than the old guidance.

 

For the new lease standard Microsoft included this disclosure:

 

The standard will be effective for us beginning July 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted. We elected to early adopt the standard effective July 1, 2017 concurrent with our adoption of the new standard related to revenue recognition. We elected the available practical expedients on adoption. In preparation for adoption of the standard, we have implemented internal controls and key system functionality to enable the preparation of financial information.

The standard will have a material impact on our consolidated balance sheets, but will not have a material impact on our consolidated income statements. The most significant impact will be the recognition of ROU assets and lease liabilities for operating leases, while our accounting for capital leases remains substantially unchanged.

 

Adoption of the standard will result in the recognition of additional ROU assets and lease liabilities for operating leases of $6.6 billion and $5.2 billion as of June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

 

 

Microsoft’s discussion of new internal controls and system functionality are key issues in implementing the new lease accounting model.

 

Microsoft also included a tabular disclosure entitled “Expected Impacts to Reported Results” detailing the impact on selected statement of operations and balance sheet amounts from adopting both standards. You can find it on pages 61 and 62 of the          Form 10-K.

 

When Microsoft files their Form 10-Q for their first Quarter Ended September 30, 2017, the full impact along with all required disclosures will be interesting to see!

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Revenue Recognition – The Clock is ticking!

Are you ready to implement the FASB/IASB New Revenue Recognition Standard? With just a handful of months to go – The countdown is on! SECI is conducting training workshops throughout the U.S. to prepare filers for the changes and arm them with the tools for implementation. Workshop leaders use interactive lecture, examples and case studies to impart solid knowledge of the provisions of the FASB’s and IASB’s new revenue recognition standard and build an understanding of how the new standard changes revenue recognition accounting and also how it affects the related estimates and judgements. Upcoming workshops include August 24-25 in Grapevine, September 11-12 in Las Vegas and December 13-14 in New York City.

http://www.pli.edu/Content/Implementing_the_FASBIASB_New_Revenue_Recognition/_/N-1z10od3Z4k?ID=290619

Master SEC Reporting and Prepare to Tackle New Challenges

The complicated world of SEC reporting has now gotten even more complicated! Be sure you are prepared to comply with the recently enacted changes and have a plan in place to deal with the SEC staff “hot buttons”. Attend SECI’s live workshop SEC Reporting Skills Workshop 2017 being held July 20-21 in Las Vegas, August 17-18 in New York City and August 21-22 in Grapevine with additional dates and locations listed on the SECI website.

http://www.pli.edu/Content/SEC_Reporting_Skills_Workshop_2017/_/N-1z10oe8Z4k?ID=290534

Revenue Recognition – The Clock is ticking!

Are you ready to implement the FASB/IASB New Revenue Recognition Standard? With just a handful of months to go – The countdown is on! SECI is conducting training workshops throughout the U.S. to prepare filers for the changes and arm them with the tools for implementation. Workshop leaders use interactive lecture, examples and case studies to impart solid knowledge of the provisions of the FASB’s and IASB’s new revenue recognition standard and build an understanding of how the new standard changes revenue recognition accounting and also how it affects the related estimates and judgements. Upcoming workshops include August 24-25 in Grapevine, September 11-12 in Las Vegas and December 13-14 in New York City.

http://www.pli.edu/Content/Implementing_the_FASBIASB_New_Revenue_Recognition/_/N-1z10od3Z4k?ID=290619

An IPO Benefit for All – And Perhaps a Look at Policy Direction?

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

One of the most popular parts of the IPO on-ramp created by the JOBS Act allows Emerging Growth Companies (EGCs) to request confidential review of their initial 1933 Act registration statements. Confidential review allows EGCs to keep sensitive financial and other information out of the public spotlight until 15 days before they begin marketing their stock.

 

On June 29, the SEC announced that they will provide this kind of confidential review to all companies in the IPO process. The new benefit will begin July 10. Additionally, the SEC will also permit confidential review for most offerings made within one year of a company’s IPO. The Staff also posted FAQs related to the announcement.

 

 

New Chair Jay Clayton said this about the policy change:

 

“By expanding a popular JOBS Act benefit to all companies, we hope that the next American success story will look to our public markets when they need access to affordable capital. We are striving for efficiency in our processes to encourage more companies to consider going public, which can result in more choices for investors, job creation, and a stronger U.S. economy.”

 

Capital formation is an important part of the SEC’s mission, and this change clearly supports that process.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

SEC Reporting and FASB Updates Specific to Small and Mid-Sized Companies Take Center Stage

The Financial Reporting Regulatory landscape is chock full of recent updates and new regulations, chief among them is the new FASB Revenue Recognition Standard and revised Lease Accounting. Most surveys agree that filers are well behind schedule in implementing the changes needed to comply. Practitioners at small and mid-sized companies will receive the essential information and advice needed to get up to speed by attending SEC Reporting & FASB Forum live program September 14-15 in Las Vegas.

http://www.pli.edu/Content/13th_Annual_SEC_Reporting_FASB_Forum_for/_/N-1z10lptZ4k?ID=298604

Going Concern Reporting – The Gap in GAAP Versus GAAS- Part Two

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

 

In our last post, we looked at Sears Holdings’ disclosures about its going concern issues and saw that the company used the language “substantial doubt exists related to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern” in the footnotes to their financial statements. We also saw that Sears Holdings’ auditors did not mention this issue in their report.

 

While this might seem like a bit of a disconnect, it turns out that there is a gap between the disclosure requirements for companies and the reporting requirements for auditors. (Actually, there are multiple gaps!)

 

This post reviews the GAAP requirements of ASU 2015-15, which became effective for companies for years ending after December 15, 2016.

 

In the third and last post of this series we will explore the auditor’s reporting requirements and the “gaps” between company requirements and auditor’s requirements.

 

Company Requirements

 

Here is a brief summary with some excerpts from the requirements for companies in ASC 205-40-50:

In connection with preparing financial statements for each annual and interim reporting period, an entity’s management shall evaluate whether there are conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued (or within one year after the date that the financial statements are available to be issued when applicable).

 

……………………………..

 

Management shall evaluate whether relevant conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, indicate that it is probable that an entity will be unable to meet its obligations as they become due within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. The evaluation initially shall not take into consideration the potential mitigating effect of management’s plans that have not been fully implemented as of the date that the financial statements are issued (for example, plans to raise capital, borrow money, restructure debt, or dispose of an asset that have been approved but that have not been fully implemented as of the date that the financial statements are issued).

 

……………………………..

 

When relevant conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, initially indicate that it is probable that an entity will be unable to meet its obligations as they become due within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued (and therefore they raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern), management shall evaluate whether its plans that are intended to mitigate those conditions and events, when implemented, will alleviate substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.

 

……………………………..

 

With this as the general requirement for an evaluation, the disclosure requirement comes with a binary determination about the impact of management’s plans:

 

Disclosures When Substantial Doubt Is Raised but Is Alleviated by Management’s Plans (Substantial Doubt Does Not Exist)

 

ASC 240-40-50-12

 

If, after considering management’s plans, substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern is alleviated as a result of consideration of management’s plans, an entity shall disclose in the notes to financial statements information that enables users of the financial statements to understand all of the following (or refer to similar information disclosed elsewhere in the notes):

 

  1. Principal conditions or events that raised substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern (before consideration of management’s plans)
  2. Management’s evaluation of the significance of those conditions or events in relation to the entity’s ability to meet its obligations
  3. Management’s plans that alleviated substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.

 

 

 

Disclosures When Substantial Doubt Is Raised and Is Not Alleviated (Substantial Doubt Exists)

 

ASC 240-40-50-13

 

If, after considering management’s plans, substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern is not alleviated, the entity shall include a statement in the notes to financial statements indicating that there is substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. Additionally, the entity shall disclose information that enables users of the financial statements to understand all of the following:

 

  1. Principal conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern
  2. Management’s evaluation of the significance of those conditions or events in relation to the entity’s ability to meet its obligations
  3. Management’s plans that are intended to mitigate the conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.

 

An interesting difference between these two levels of disclosure is that there is no requirement to use the terminology “substantial doubt” when management’s plans alleviate the uncertainty.

 

The language Sears Holdings used was:

 

Our historical operating results indicate substantial doubt exists related to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. We believe that the actions discussed above are probable of occurring and mitigating the substantial doubt raised by our historical operating results and satisfying our estimated liquidity needs 12 months from the issuance of the financial statements.

 

 

The company used the term “substantial doubt” even though they believed their plans mitigated this “substantial doubt”. Their disclosure went beyond the requirements of the standard.

 

In our next post, we will explore how this interacts with GAAS for auditors.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Frequent Comment Update: Part Two – Cash Flows

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

 

In our blog post “Time Again for a Frequent Comment Update”, we listed the frequent comment areas that CorpFin Staff members have been discussing at our Midyear Forums. In that post, we also highlighted a number of recent comments about non-GAAP measures. In this post, we turn our attention to comments about the statement of cash flows.

 

In the last several years there have been a number of restatements related to the statement of cash flows, some undoubtedly related to comment letters. Additionally, the FASB and EITF have issued two ASU’s to address various issues in the statement of cash flows.

 

ASU 2016-15 in August 2016

Provides guidance on 8 specific cash flow issues

 

ASU 2016-18 in November 2016

Provides guidance on classification and presentation of restricted cash

 

 

There is much discussion about root causes for cash flow statement problems. Theories range from the idea that the statement is prepared late in the reporting process and perhaps tends to be a more mechanical, “do it the way we did it last year” process, to the fact that there are some areas that are ambiguous in the cash flow statement guidance. Whatever the causes, there is clearly a need for care and review in preparing the statement of cash flows.

 

This first comment is about being sure you are familiar with the statement of cash flow requirements and also addresses a frequent problem area of ASC 230, discontinued operations:

 

We note your presentation of the decrease in cash and cash equivalents from discontinued operations in one line item. Please note that ASC 230-10-45-10 requires that a statement of cash flows shall classify cash receipts and cash payments as resulting from investing, financing, or operating activities. Please revise your current presentation to classify the cash flows from discontinued operations within each of the operating, investing and financing categories.

 

Whether to show cash flows from financing activities on a gross or net basis is not a mechanical decision. It requires judgment about the substance of the financing as this comment demonstrates:

 

We note from your financing activities section in your statement of cash flows that you present net proceeds (repayments) of short-term borrowings rather than on a gross basis. Please explain to us your basis for this presentation. Refer to ASC 230-10-45-7 through 9.

 

Another interesting aspect of cash flow statement preparation is how to treat hybrid items that have an element of two different types of cash flows. This comment demonstrates this is not always a mechanical process:

 

We note your presentation of payments for the costs of solar energy systems, leased and to be leased. Given that approximately 61% of your revenues for the year ended December 31, 2015 and 64% of your revenues for the period ended June 30, 2016 represented solar energy systems and product sales, please tell us how you reflect the costs of solar energy systems sold on your statements of cash flows pursuant to ASC 230.

 

These last two comments are not strictly speaking financial statement comments. They are common MD&A comments, and definitely needs to be part of the statement of cash flows conversation. Frequently MD&A tries to explain operating cash flows with confusing or mechanical language relating to items in the indirect method reconciliation from net income to operating cash flows.

 

Note the mention of drivers in this comment:

 

We note that your discussion of cash flows from operating activities is essentially a recitation of the reconciling items identified on the face of the statement of cash flows. This does not appear to contribute substantively to an understanding of your cash flows. Rather, it repeats items that are readily determinable from the financial statements. When preparing the discussion and analysis of operating cash flows, you should address material changes in the underlying drivers that affect these cash flows. These disclosures should also include a discussion of the underlying reasons for changes in working capital items that affect operating cash flows. Please tell us how you considered the guidance in Section IV.B.1 of SEC Release 33-8350.

 

Lastly, note the focus on underlying reasons for change in this comment:

 

You say that in the statement of cash flows, you provide reconciliation from net loss to cash flows used in operating activities where you have provided quantitatively the sources of your operating cash flows. However, as you use the indirect method to prepare your cash flows from operating activities, merely reciting changes in line items reported in the statement of cash flows is not a sufficient basis for an investor to analyze the impact on cash. Therefore, please expand your disclosure of cash flows from operating activities to quantify factors to which material changes in cash flows are attributed and explain the underlying reasons for such changes. Refer to Section IV.B.1 of “Interpretation: Commission Guidance Regarding Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” available on our website at http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-8350.htm for guidance. Provide us a copy of your intended revised disclosure.

 

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!