Tag Archives: ACCOUNTING

Going Concern Reporting – The Gap in GAAP Versus GAAS – Part One

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

 

This is the first of three posts about an interesting conundrum in reporting that arose last year. The FASB, with ASU 2014-15, now requires disclosures by companies about going concern issues. However, there can be gaps between what companies are required to disclose and impact of going concern issues on the auditor’s report.

ASU 2014-15 added subtopic 205-40 “Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern” to the Accounting Standards Codification. This update became effective for periods ending after December 15, 2016. Previously there was no specific requirement for management to make these disclosures. (This is of course Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP).

Auditors have had guidance in this area for many years courtesy of the PCAOB’s standard in AU section 341, which is now section AS 2415 in the PCAOB’s reorganized auditing standards. (This is Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, or GAAS).

 

To explore the gap between GAAP for companies and GAAS for auditors when reporting going concern issues we are going to present a series of three posts:

 

This first post will present an example of a going concern disclosure by a company and whether or not the auditor’s report was modified. (Spoiler – there was no mention in the auditor’s report!)

 

The second post will explore company disclosure requirements.

 

The third and last post will review auditor’s reporting requirements and detail the gaps between company and auditor reporting.

 

Sears Holdings, the retailer that owns Kmart and Sears, provided an example of this gap in their Form 10-K for the year ended January 28, 2017. In their financial statements Sears Holdings included this language:

We acknowledge that we continue to face a challenging competitive environment and while we continue to focus on our overall profitability, including managing expenses, we reported a loss in 2016 and were required to fund cash used in operating activities with cash from investing and financing activities. We expect that the actions taken in 2016 and early 2017 will enhance our liquidity and financial flexibility. In addition, as previously discussed, we expect to generate additional liquidity through the monetization of our real estate and additional debt financing actions. We expect that these actions will be executed in alignment with the anticipated timing of our liquidity needs. We also continue to explore ways to unlock value across a range of assets, including exploring ways to maximize the value of our Home Services and Sears Auto Centers businesses, as well as our Kenmore and DieHard brands through partnerships or other means of externalization that could expand distribution of our brands and service offerings to realize significant growth. We expect to continue to right-size, redeploy and highlight the value of our assets, including our real estate portfolio, in our transition from an asset intensive, historically “store-only” based retailer to a more asset light, integrated membership-focused company.

 

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. However, we cannot predict, with certainty, the outcome of our actions to generate liquidity, including the availability of additional debt financing, or whether such actions would generate the expected liquidity as currently planned. In addition, the PPPFA contains certain limitations on our ability to sell assets, which could impact our ability to complete asset sale transactions or our ability to use proceeds from those transactions to fund our operations. Therefore, the planned actions take into account the applicable restrictions under the PPPFA.

 

If we continue to experience operating losses, and we are not able to generate additional liquidity through the mechanisms described above or through some combination of other actions, while not expected, we may not be able to access additional funds under our amended Domestic Credit Agreement and we might need to secure additional sources of funds, which may or may not be available to us. Additionally, a failure to generate additional liquidity could negatively impact our access to inventory or services that are important to the operation of our business. Moreover, if the borrowing base (as calculated pursuant to the indenture) falls below the principal amount of the notes plus the principal amount of any other indebtedness for borrowed money that is secured by liens on the collateral for the notes on the last day of any two consecutive quarters, it could trigger an obligation to repurchase notes in an amount equal to such deficiency.

 

Sears Holdings used the term “substantial doubt”, but indicated that they believed their plans mitigated this “substantial doubt”.

 

This was the report of Sear’s Auditors:

 

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Sears Holdings Corporation and subsidiaries as of January 28, 2017 and January 30, 2016, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three fiscal years in the period ended January 28, 2017, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein. Also, in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of January 28, 2017, based on the criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

 

No mention of a going concern issue at all in the auditor’s report! What is an investor to think? Historically, when the only concrete guidance was in GAAS, it was very rare to see this issue not discussed in both the financial statements and the auditor’s report.

 

This is, of course, part of the gap between GAAP and GAAS. In our next post we will begin to explore the space in this gap!

 

 

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!

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

 

Demystifying Alternative Financing Solutions for Emerging and Growing Companies

Auditors and Financial Officers of companies who raise capital with complex financial instruments often find themselves drowning in convoluted accounting issues and restatements. Avoid the confusion by attending the live workshop, Debt vs. Equity Accounting for Complex Financial Instruments being held June 23rd in San Francisco. Through a detailed review of the accounting literature and numerous examples and case studies this Workshop will help you build the knowledge and experience to appropriately recognize, initially record and subsequently account for these complex financing tools

http://www.pli.edu/Content/Debt_vs_Equity_Accounting_for_Complex_Financial/_/N-1z10odmZ4k?ID=290521&t=WLH7_PDAD

New FASB Lease Guidance – Any Early Adopters?

FASB lease guidance is effective in 2019 but early adoption is permitted. Are there any companies considering early adoption?

Here at SECI, the only early adopter that we know about so far is Microsoft.  They plan to early adopt on July 1, 2017 as their fiscal year ends June 30, 2017.

This is from their March 31, 2017 quarterly report on Form 10-Q:

Leases

In February 2016, the FASB issued a new standard related to leases to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by requiring the recognition of right-of-use (“ROU”) assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet. Most prominent among the changes in the standard is the recognition of ROU assets and lease liabilities by lessees for those leases classified as operating leases under current U.S. GAAP. Under the standard, disclosures are required to meet the objective of enabling users of financial statements to assess the amount, timing, and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. We will be required to recognize and measure leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented using a modified retrospective approach, with certain practical expedients available.

The standard will be effective for us beginning July 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted. We plan to adopt the standard effective July 1, 2017 concurrent with our adoption of the new standard related to revenue recognition. We intend to elect the available practical expedients on adoption. While our ability to early adopt depends on system readiness, including software procured from third-party providers, and completing our analysis of information necessary to restate prior period consolidated financial statements, we remain on schedule and have implemented key system functionality to enable the preparation of restated financial information.

We anticipate this standard will have a material impact on our consolidated balance sheets. However, we do not expect adoption will have a material impact on our consolidated income statements. While we are continuing to assess potential impacts of the standard, we currently expect the most significant impact will be the recognition of ROU assets and lease liabilities for operating leases. We expect our accounting for capital leases to remain substantially unchanged.

We are nearing completion of retrospectively adjusting financial information for fiscal year 2016 and are progressing as planned for fiscal year 2017. We expect adoption of the standard will result in the recognition of additional ROU assets and lease liabilities for operating leases of approximately $5 billion as of June 30, 2016. ROU assets and lease liabilities for operating leases are expected to increase in fiscal year 2017 primarily due to the acquisition of LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn”) and additional datacenter leases.

SECI is holding a live interactive workshop on Lease Accounting in New York and San Francisco.  Join us to hear more about how to implement the new standard!

Implementing the FASB’s New Lease Accounting Standard Workshop being held September 8th & November 3rd in New York City and October 16th in San Francisco. Attendees will learn the conceptual underpinnings, overall structure and details of this new standard as it applies to both lessees and lessors. Implementation considerations, system issues and related topics will be discussed in detail and concepts will be reinforced by use of examples and case studies.

http://www.pli.edu/Content/Implementing_the_FASB_s_New_Lease_Accounting/_/N-1z10dmcZ4k?ID=309314&t=WLH7_DPAD

Demystifying Alternative Financing Solutions for Emerging and Growing Companies

Auditors and Financial Officers of companies who raise capital with complex financial instruments often find themselves drowning in convoluted accounting issues and restatements. Avoid the confusion by attending the live workshop, Debt vs. Equity Accounting for Complex Financial Instruments being held May 25th in New York City and June 23rd in San Francisco. Through a detailed review of the accounting literature and numerous examples and case studies this Workshop will help you build the knowledge and experience to appropriately recognize, initially record and subsequently account for these complex financing tools

http://www.pli.edu/Content/Debt_vs_Equity_Accounting_for_Complex_Financial/_/N-1z10odmZ4k?ID=290521&t=WLH7_PDAD

Are There Consequences for Reporting ICFR Problems? – The Chief Accountant Speaks!

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

In a recent speech SEC Chief Accountant Wesley Bricker, towards the end of his remarks, made some interesting overall comments about the evaluation of ICFR. These comments are an interesting step in the ongoing conversation about whether the SOX 404 evaluation of ICFR makes any difference in investor behavior. There has been a lot of anecdotal evidence and much discussion about this question. Mr. Bricker’s comments are not based on supposition, inference or piecemeal observation. His comments have their roots in articles from various academic journals, including the Accounting Review and The Journal of Accounting Research. Research in these peer-reviewed journals is based on statistical analysis of quantitative data. (If you have never heard of these journals, they are very prestigious academic journals, so if you decide to read any of the articles grab a cup of coffee and a calculator!)

Here are some excerpts from his remarks. The footnote numbers are references to the academic papers which support his points. We left them in so you could follow-up if you would like to review the quantitative research underlying his comments.

 

Recent experience with disclosures 

Another point related to ICFR is consideration of disclosures.  Investors tend to incorporate disclosure of ICFR deficiencies in the price they are willing to pay for a stock.  For example, companies disclosing material weaknesses are more likely to experience increased cost of capital, and to face more frequent auditor resignations and restatements.[11]

 

Recent academic research suggests:

 

Companies disclosing internal control deficiencies have credit spreads on loans about 28 basis points higher than that for companies without internal control deficiencies; [12] and

 

After disclosing an internal control deficiency for the first time, companies experience a significant increase in cost of equity, averaging about 93 basis points. [13]

 

Remediation of ineffective ICFR tends to be followed by improved financial reporting quality, reduced cost of capital, and improved operating performance.[14]   For example,

 

Companies that have remediated their prior disclosed internal control deficiencies exhibit an average decrease in market-adjusted cost of equity of 151 basis points; [15]  and

 

Remediating companies also experience increases in investment efficiency and in operating performance, suggesting that accounting information generated by effective ICFR is more useful for managerial decision-making. [16]

 

A disclosure of material weaknesses, combined with demonstrating progress toward remediation, can provide investors with information about the company’s ability to function as a public company.  Some companies, for example, voluntarily disclose material weaknesses in their registration statements along with their plans for remediating those weaknesses. [17]

 

You can find citations in to the relevant articles in the text of the speech.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Significant New Changes in SEC Accounting & Auditing Demand Clarity

The world of financial reporting is complicated and ever-changing. 2017 brings a host of new issues. Implementation deadline of the FASB’s revenue recognition standard is fast approaching and the new lease accounting challenges filers. Attend SECI’s 32nd Midyear SEC Reporting & FASB Forum. This live program is being held May 18-19 in Dallas, June 8-9 in New York City along with a live webcast and June 19-20 in San Francisco. Get practical advice on how to successfully tackle these challenges and more.

http://www.pli.edu/Content/32nd_Midyear_SEC_Reporting_FASB_Forum/_/N-1z10oddZ4k?ID=290510&t=LLM7_9DPAD

Conflict Minerals Reporting Developments

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

 

As you may have heard, on April 3, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered final judgment in the on-going litigation over the Conflict Minerals Reporting Rule and remanded the case to the SEC.

 
This follows the action of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which in August of 2015 reaffirmed its prior holding that Section 13(p)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 13p-1 “violate the First Amendment to the extent the statute and rule require regulated entities to report to the Commission and to state on their website that any of their products have ‘not been found to be “DRC conflict free”’. (Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs., et al. v. SEC, No. 13-CF-000635 (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2017))

 
Now that the decision has been remanded to the Commission, how this part of the statute and the related rule will be dealt with is uncertain. Since the requirement is part of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission is in a complex position. Even more uncertain is how companies should approach this part of the reporting process as they prepare to File Form SD by May 31 of this year.
To help companies deal with this situation the SEC has issued two Public Statements.

 
The first, a Public Statement by the Division of Corporation Finance, discusses how the SEC will approach the issue until further rule-making or other developments take place. CorpFin’s position is summarized in the following quote:

 
The court’s remand has now presented significant issues for the Commission to address. At the direction of the Acting Chairman, we have considered those issues. In light of the uncertainty regarding how the Commission will resolve those issues and related issues raised by commenters, the Division of Corporation Finance has determined that it will not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if companies, including those that are subject to paragraph (c) of Item 1.01 of Form SD, only file disclosure under the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Item 1.01 of Form SD. This statement is subject to any further action that may be taken by the Commission, expresses the Division’s position on enforcement action only, and does not express any legal conclusion on the rule.

 
In the Instructions to Form SD it is instruction (c) which requires “due diligence” if the “reasonable country of origin inquiry” determines that a company’s conflict minerals did or could have originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or one of the adjoining countries.

 
The second, a Public Statement by Acting Chairman Piwowar, discusses plans for future Commission action and expresses various thoughts about the cost and related enforcement aspects of the rule. In the Public Statement he says:

 
The Court of Appeals left open the question of whether this description is required by statute or, rather, is solely a product of the Commission’s rulemaking. The Commission will now be called upon to determine how to address the Court of Appeals decision – including whether Congress’s intent in Section 13(p)(1) can be achieved through a descriptor that avoids the constitutional defect identified by the court – and how that determination affects overall implementation of the Conflict Minerals rule.

 

I have accordingly instructed our staff to begin work on a recommendation for future Commission action. In preparing its recommendation, the staff will consider, among other things, the public comments received in response to the January 31, 2017 request for comment.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

The Move to The New Revenue Recognition Standard – Is the Pressure On?

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

 

Now that year-end is over for most calendar-year companies the transition to the new revenue recognition standard is a major focus area. In recent weeks there have been two interesting sources of comment and information about this transition.

 

First, on March 21, 2017 Chief Accountant Wesley Bricker spoke before the Annual Life Sciences Accounting & Reporting Congress in Philadelphia. (If you are thinking “that sounds familiar”, it was at this same conference a year ago that former Chief Accountant Jim Schnurr made some serious comments about the use of non-GAAP measures that previewed the May C&DI’s!).

 

In his remarks, Mr. Bricker focused on the transition to the new revenue recognition standard, saying:

 

“Let me now turn to implementation of the new revenue standard.  This area deserves close attention, both to make sure that the standard is implemented appropriately and timely and to ask whether the appropriate transition disclosures are being made so that investors and other market participants have sufficient time to absorb the anticipated effects of the new standard.

 

…………………………..

 

In the worrisome column, however, some companies need to make significant progress this year in their implementations.  In a survey of public companies released in October 2016, eight percent of respondents at that time had not started an initial assessment of the new revenue recognition standard, while an overwhelming majority of the others were still assessing the impact.

Particularly for companies where implementation is lagging, preparers, their audit committees and auditors should discuss the reasons why and provide informative disclosures to investors about the status so that investors can assess the implications of the information. Successful implementation requires companies to allocate sufficient resources and develop or engage appropriate financial reporting competencies.”

 

The second recent development is the release by Deloitte in a “Heads Up” newsletter in April 2017 of their most recent updated survey “Adopting the New Revenue Standard — Where Do Companies Stand?”

 

In the survey, Deloitte found that many companies that had originally contemplated using a full retrospective have moved more towards the modified retrospective method. And, along with the worries of the Chief Accountant above, they also found:

 

“Slightly more than half of respondents had started to implement the new standard, but most were in the very early phases of adoption.”

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!