Tag Archives: ASU

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

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

 

Our first two posts in this series have presented an example of a company (Sears Holdings) and auditor reporting requirements for going concern issues as well as reviewed reporting requirements for companies. In this last post we review reporting requirements for auditors and explore the gaps in more detail.

 

Auditor Requirements

 

For auditors of public companies the PCAOB did not change existing GAAS when the FASB Issued ASU 2014-15. Auditors follow this guidance in section AS 2415 of the PCAOB’s auditing standards:

 

02        The auditor has a responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year beyond the date of the financial statements being audited (hereinafter referred to as a reasonable period of time). The auditor’s evaluation is based on his or her knowledge of relevant conditions and events that exist at or have occurred prior to the date of the auditor’s report. Information about such conditions or events is obtained from the application of auditing procedures planned and performed to achieve audit objectives that are related to management’s assertions embodied in the financial statements being audited, as described in AS 1105, Audit Evidence.

 

02        The auditor has a responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year beyond the date of the financial statements being audited (hereinafter referred to as a reasonable period of time). The auditor’s evaluation is based on his or her knowledge of relevant conditions and events that exist at or have occurred prior to the date of the auditor’s report. Information about such conditions or events is obtained from the application of auditing procedures planned and performed to achieve audit objectives that are related to management’s assertions embodied in the financial statements being audited, as described in AS 1105, Audit Evidence.

 

The Gaps

 

There are gaps between what companies disclose and how auditors report. Two of the gaps are:

 

  1. The time period for going concern considerations, and

 

  1. The probability level for the company compared to the auditor for these disclosures

 

Time Period Gap

 

The auditor’s GAAS reporting requirement clearly states that the period over which going concern issues are evaluated is a “reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year beyond the date of the financial statements being audited”. The requirement under GAAP for companies is “within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued”. In practice, many auditors have actually used the period of one year after the financial statements are issued as their going concern disclosure threshold, but they are not strictly required to do this.

 

Probability GAP

 

The disclosure requirement for management in GAAP is that if 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” then they must make disclosures. This threshold of “probable” has its roots in one of the earliest FASB standards (SFAS 5, now ASC 450) dealing with contingencies. This standard set out the definition of “probable” as:

 

“The future event or events are likely to occur”.

 

The auditor’s GAAS standard uses the probability threshold “substantial doubt”:

 

The auditor has a responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time

 

So, what is the difference between “probable that an entity will not be able to meet its obligations as they become due” and “substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time”? This is of course a matter of judgment. Many practitioners would believe that probable is a higher threshold than substantial doubt. What is clear is that this is a subjective evaluation.

 

The PCAOB addressed this difference in their guidance about the new disclosure requirements. This language is from Staff Audit Practice Alert No. 13:

In evaluating whether the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework, including whether they contain the required disclosures, auditors should assess management’s going concern evaluation. In making this assessment the auditor should look to the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework

In addition, auditors should continue to look to the existing requirements in AU sec. 341 when evaluating whether substantial doubt regarding the company’s ability to continue as a going concern exists for purposes of determining whether the auditor’s report should be modified to include an explanatory paragraph regarding going concern. The AU sec. 341 requirements for the auditor’s evaluation, and the auditor’s reporting when substantial doubt exists, have not changed and continue to be in effect. Under AU sec. 341, the auditor’s evaluation of whether substantial doubt exists is qualitative based 341.Accordingly, a determination that no disclosure is required under the ASC amendments or IAS 1, as applicable, is not conclusive as to whether an explanatory paragraph is required under AU sec. 341. Auditors should make a separate evaluation of the need for disclosure in the auditor’s report in accordance with the requirements of AU sec. 341.

 

This is of course another gap between GAAP and GAAS. Time will tell how the market reacts to this kind of presentation. And this explains why Sears Holdings disclosed their going concern uncertainty and their auditors did not modify their report.

 

There is one more interesting aspect to all this disclosure and auditor reporting discussion. What happens in a Form 10-Q where generally there is no auditor’s report?

 

The requirements in ASC 205-40-50 for interim periods are:

 

If conditions or events continue to raise substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern in subsequent annual or interim reporting periods, the entity shall continue to provide the required disclosures in paragraphs 205-40-50-12 through 50-13 in those subsequent periods. Disclosures should become more extensive as additional information becomes available about the relevant conditions or events and about management’s plans. An entity shall provide appropriate context and continuity in explaining how conditions or events have changed between reporting periods. For the period in which substantial doubt no longer exists (before or after consideration of management’s plans), an entity shall disclose how the relevant conditions or events that raised substantial doubt were resolved.

 

Sears Holdings’ Form 10-Q for the first quarter of F/y 18 includes this disclosure:

 

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 the first quarter of 2017, when excluding significant items noted in our Adjusted Earnings Per Share tables, and were required to fund cash used in operating activities with cash from investing and financing activities. We expect that the actions outlined above will further enhance our liquidity and financial flexibility. In addition, as previously discussed, we expect to generate additional liquidity through the monetization of our real estate, additional debt financing actions, and potential asset securitizations. 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 monetizing our real estate portfolio and exploring potential asset securitizations, in our transition from an asset intensive, historically “store-only” based retailer to a more asset light, integrated membership-focused company.

 

We believe that the actions discussed above are probable of occurring and mitigate the liquidity risk raised by our historical operating results and satisfy our estimated liquidity needs during the next 12 months from the issuance of the financial statements. 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 actions described above or through some combination of other actions, while not expected, then our liquidity needs may exceed availability 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 our outstanding second lien debt) falls below the principal amount of such second lien debt plus the principal amount of any other indebtedness for borrowed money that is secured by liens on the collateral for such debt on the last day of any two consecutive quarters, it could trigger an obligation to repurchase or repay second lien debt in an amount equal to such deficiency.

 

No more use of the term “substantial doubt”. It might be helpful if the change from year-end to quarter-end was explained in more detail.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

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!

Revenue Recognition –Some Example Implementation Judgements and an Update on the AICPA’s Industry Task Forces

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

Some of the New Revenue Recognition Judgments

If you have begun your implementation work for the new revenue recognition standard you know that this one-size-fits-all, principles based model will require many new judgments for most of us. Among the challenging questions are:

  1. When does an agreement with a customer become legally enforceable and include the five elements that bring it in scope for revenue recognition?
  2. How do we properly account on the balance sheet for transactions with customers before there is an in-scope, legally enforceable contract?
  3. When does a product or service we deliver to a customer meet the new criteria of “distinct” and become a performance obligation, the unit of account for revenue recognition?
  4. How do we make the now required estimate of variable consideration and apply the new constraint?
  5. What will be the best method to make the required estimate of stand-alone selling price when it is not directly observable?
  6. When does control transfer to a customer now that delivery, ownership and risk of loss are no longer the points in time when revenue is recognized?

 

This list is, of course, in no way complete. Individual companies may find their judgments more or less extensive and complex.

While the FASB has produced all of these new principles and the related judgments, it has also included a fair amount of implementation guidance in the new standard and clarified several issues in updates to the ASU. There are a few more soon to be final technical corrections in another ASU that you can read about here.

 

AICPA Help for Specialized Industries

 

Since this new standard is a “one-size-fits-all” approach to revenue recognition and it supersedes all industry specific guidance we have today, industries like oil and gas, airlines and others face unique challenges. In addition to the FASB’s efforts to assist us in this process you may have heard that the AICPA has also formed special task forces to deal with industry specific challenges in implementing the new standard.

You can learn about the AICPA’s efforts surrounding the new revenue recognition task force here.

The industry groups are:

 

There are over 100 specific position papers that have been put in process for the working groups and task forces which will ultimately be reviewed by FINREC. If you work in one of these industries, the links above will help you find the related working papers and their status.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

A Really Good Question – Form S-3 and the New Revenue Recognition Standard

In a recent post we discussed a potential complication in the registration process and Form S-3 in particular if you retrospectively implement the new revenue recognition standard. You can review the post here. The issue arises if you file an S-3 in 2018 after you adopt the new revenue recognition standard but before your 10-K for 2018 is filed. The 2018 Form 10-K will have annual financial statements for 2018, 2017 and 2016 retrospectively applying the new standard. However, if you file an S-3, or have an S-3 shelf registration in place, before you file the 2018 Form 10-K, your S-3 would be required to have three fiscal years, now 2017, 2016 and 2015 that apply the new standard.

Thus, you could be required to report an extra year, 2015, on the new revenue recognition standard if you want to access the capital markets with an S-3, or an S-3 shelf registration, during 2018.

Whether or not the SEC can or will have any relief from this issue is not finalized. So stay tuned!

In our post we set up the example with an S-3 filed after the first-quarter 2018 form 10-Q is filed.

This all lead to a really great question from a reader:

 

In the hypothetical, if an issuer were to file an S-3 in the first quarter of 2018 (before its 3Q financials go stale and before the 2018 10-Q is filed), does Item 11 of Form S-3 require the company to file an 8-K with its recast 2015 financials reflecting the full retrospective adoption of the new standard before the issuer may take-down securities?

The answer to this question? Well, there is not a detailed rule anywhere that deals with the issue.

We researched the question and the closest guidance we could find was in the CorpFin Financial Reporting Manual Topic 11:

“Companies may transition to ASU No. 2014-09 and IFRS 15 (collectively, the “new revenue standard”) using one of two methods:

Retrospectively to each prior period presented, subject to the election of certain practical expedients (“full retrospective method”). A calendar year-end company that adopts the new revenue standard using this method must begin recording revenue using the new standard on January 1, 2018. In its 2018 annual report, the company would revise its 2016 and 2017 financial statements and record the cumulative effect of the change recognized in opening retained earnings as of January 1, 2016.

Retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying the new revenue standard recognized at the date of adoption (“modified retrospective method”). A calendar year-end company that adopts the new revenue standard using this method must begin recording revenue using the new standard on January 1, 2018. At that time, the company must record the cumulative effect of the change recognized in opening retained earnings and financial statements for 2016 and 2017 would remain unchanged. The standard also sets forth additional disclosures required by companies that adopt the new standard using this method.

That language sure sounds like if you file after January 1, 2018, you need three years, 2015, 2016 and 2017 based on the new standard.

That said, stay tuned, we will all continue our research! And what is more fun than a really deep SEC research question?

As always, and especially with this one, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Leases and the Five-Year Selected Financial Data in Form 10-K

Within the required retrospective transition method for the new lease accounting standard is a very familiar question:

Will we be required to revise all five years of the selected financial data presented in Item 6 of Form 10-K?

As you may already know the SEC formally granted relief in the five-year summary for companies that use a full retrospective implementation for the new revenue recognition standard. For leases, they have done exactly the same.

 

At the March SEC Regulations Committee meeting of the CAQ this issue was addressed and if you read the minutes of the meeting you will see the SEC Staff’s announcement that:

“The selected financial data table should follow the transition provisions of the ASU (i.e., the new leasing standard should be applied as of the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements).”

Thank you letters may be appropriate!

As always, your thoughts and comments are appreciated!

Procrastinating about Rev Rec?

Let’s face it, almost all of us procrastinate! And when there is a good reason to procrastinate, well, that is all the better! One of the big rationales for procrastinating dealing with the new revenue recognition standard was that the FASB was definitely going to make changes to the original ASU (ASU 2014-09). As the Transition Resource Group identified and discussed issues in the new standard it became clear that the FASB would clarify certain issues and improve the standard in other areas. In fact the FASB started four discrete projects to make changes.

Yesterday that rationale came to an end.   The FASB released the fourth of the four ASU’s. They are:

 

  1. ASU 2015-14 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date – Issued August 2015

 

  1. ASU 2016-8 – Revenue Recognition — Principal Versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross Versus Net) – Issued March 2016

 

  1. ASU 2016-10 – Revenue Recognition — Identifying Performance Obligations and Licenses – Final Standard Issued in April 2016

 

  1. ASU 2016-12 – Revenue Recognition — Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients – Issued May 2016

 

All the core issues are now in the standard as amended! And yes, the TRG and the AICPA’s Industry Task Forces will continue to work on specific issues. You can read about the TRG’s issues at:

www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Page/SectionPage&cid=1176164066683

 

And you can follow-up on the AICPA’s task forces at:

www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/FRC/AccountingFinancialReporting/RevenueRecognition/Pages/RevenueRecognition.aspx

 

And, even with the TRG and AICPA still at work, the core is there. It is time to get busy!

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

A Bit of SEC Trivia – Form 10

During our Workshops we discuss a lot of detailed information, some of which does not come up often in practice. With this in mind, we thought we would start a series of blog posts about some of these “trivia” topics.

The first trivia question is “What is Form 10 all about?”

Turns out Form 10 is a behind the scenes issue in a current news story. On November 1, 2015, HP officially completed the process of splitting itself up into two separate companies:

HP, Inc. (ticker HPQ) which has the legacy HP PC and printer businesses. This company describes itself with these words:

“Our vision is to create technology that makes life better for everyone, everywhere — every person, every organization, and every community around the globe. This motivates us — inspires us — to do what we do. To make what we make. To invent, and to reinvent. To engineer experiences that amaze. We won’t stop pushing ahead, because you won’t stop pushing ahead. You’re reinventing how you work. How you play. How you live. With our technology, you’ll reinvent your world.” (From www.hp.com)

 Hewlett Packard Enterprise (ticker HPE) which has the HP services and corporate hardware businesses uses these words:

Hewlett Packard Enterprise is an industry leading technology company that enables customers to go further, faster. With the industry’s most comprehensive portfolio, spanning the cloud to the data center to workplace applications, Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s technology and services help customers around the world make IT more efficient, more productive and more secure. (From www.hpe.com)

Behind this split is a myriad of fascinating business reasons, which will doubtless become business school cases in the future. What is fun about the transaction for SEC geeks is how it was accomplished in the public company reporting world. HPE was separated out from HP, essentially a “spin-off” transaction. There were a lot of legal steps in the process, but in essence there was no public offering of HPE stock, it was distributed to the existing HP shareholders.

After the spin-off both companies wanted to trade on the NYSE. For HP Inc. this was easy; this is the corporate entity that was already listed, so no big deal. But what about the newly created HPE?

There is no transaction here to register under the 1933 Act, as stock is not being offered or sold to the public; it is being directly distributed to the existing HP shareholders. So there is no S-1 or S-3 or S-4 to file.

This is where the Form 10 comes in. It is a company’s first, and probably only, 1934 Act registration statement, and is the way a company “registers” under the 1934 Act when it trips over the size tests in the 1934 Act, which HPE did when it distributed stock to more than 2,000 persons. As a result, HPE will start the corresponding periodic and current reporting requirements. So the only SEC filing that HPE had to make in connection with the distribution of its stock to the existing HP shareholders was a Form 10.

To simplify a bit, 1934 Act registration is required if a company has a class of equity security held by 2,000 or more persons or 500 persons who are not accredited investors and over $10 million in assets or if the company wants to list on a national security exchange. Of course HPE met the requirements, and so HPE filed a Form 10. (There is of course more complexity to the registration issue, so if you have to deal with it careful research is required!)

Form 10 is a lot like a Form 10-K and you can see HPE’s Form 10 at:

www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645590/000119312515338732/0001193125-15-338732-index.htm

In this filing, the Form 10 itself is a shell, and you will find all the relevant information in Exhibit 99.1.

If you have any SEC trivia you would like us to explore, please let Carol or George know, and as always, your thoughts and comments are welcome and appreciated.

One last little trivia note – if you do a ticker search for HP, guess what company has this ticker? Helmerick and Payne, a contract oil and gas drilling company. Who would have guessed?

VIE Redux, and Perhaps a Bit Under the Radar…

The FASB is very close to finalizing new guidance that is expected to have a significant impact on VIE consolidation accounting. This new standard will require revisiting many, if not most, VIE determinations. It will change many existing VIE determinations.

The ASU is expected to be issued before the end of this year and to be effective in 2016 for public companies, with early adoption allowed.

This project has been in process for a long time, and the final stages are sneaking up on many of us. Because of the information that this redetermination will require, companies should:

  • Get out in front of determining what information they will need,
  • Proactively deal with the issues they may encounter in obtaining this information, and
  • Develop the new processes and controls these changes will necessitate.

During the development of the ASU most of the focus has been on investment management companies. The new VIE approach will have a significant impact in this industry. However, it will also impact most limited partnerships and will have a variety of other impacts.

The most significant areas that will be affected include:

  • Whether or not a limited partnership and similar entities are VIEs, and in particular the impact of kick-out rights,
  • When a general partner should consolidate a limited partnership, and again the impact of kick-out rights,
  • When and how variable interests held by the reporting entity’s related parties or de facto agents should affect consolidation conclusions,
  • How a fee paid to a decision maker or service provider by a VIE should affect the consolidation determination, and
  • When to require disclosures for a limited partnership that is a VIE but not consolidated by the reporting entity.

You can learn more about the project and its impact at:

http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/FASBContent_C/ProjectUpdatePage&cid=1176157176582

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!