Tag Archives: Financial Reporting

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

 

MD&A: A New Known-Trend Enforcement Case

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

 

One of the “golden rules” of MD&A we discuss in our workshops is “no surprise stock drops”. (Thanks to Brink Dickerson of Troutman Sanders for the rules!) Actually, it is OK if management is surprised with a stock drop. However, it can be problematic if management previously knew of some issue that, when disclosed, causes a surprise stock drop for investors.

 

The classic start to a known trend enforcement case is a company announcement that results in a stock price drop. On February 26, 2014, UTi, a logistics company, filed an 8-K with news of a severe liquidity problem. UTi’s shares fell to $10.74, a decline of nearly 30% from the prior day’s close of $15.26.

 

The reason this is an SEC reporting issue is this paragraph from the MD&A guidance in Regulation S-K Item 303 paragraph (a)(3)(ii):

 

Describe any known trends or uncertainties that have had or that the registrant reasonably expects will have a material favorable or unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations. If the registrant knows of events that will cause a material change in the relationship between costs and revenues (such as known future increases in costs of labor or materials or price increases or inventory adjustments), the change in the relationship shall be disclosed. (emphasis added)

 

If management knows of some sort of uncertainty that could result in a material impact if it comes to fruition, they must evaluate whether they “reasonably expect” this to happen. If they do “reasonably expect” this to happen then it should be disclosed in MD&A.

 

When there is a surprise stock drop like the one experienced by UTi, the questions the SEC Enforcement Division will ask, to borrow from another context, are “what did management know about the problem” and “when did they know it?”

 

Enforcement Release, AAER 3877 revealed that the genesis of UTi’s liquidity problem was an issue in the implementation of a new IT system that created billing problems. And, it was clear from the facts, including an internal PowerPoint presentation, that management knew they had a problem well before they filed the 8-K.

 

However, in their 10-Q for their third quarter ended October 31, 2013, which was filed in December of 2013, UTi did not disclose the liquidity problem. In fact, they said:

 

Our primary sources of liquidity include cash generated from operating activities, which is subject to seasonal fluctuations, particularly in our Freight Forwarding segment, and available funds under our various credit facilities. We typically experience increased activity associated with our peak season, generally during the second and third fiscal quarters, requiring significant disbursements on behalf of clients. During the second quarter and the first half of the third quarter, this seasonal growth in client receivables tends to consume available cash. Historically, the latter portion of the third quarter and the fourth quarter tend to generate cash recovery as cash collections usually exceed client cash disbursements.

 

They also made no mention of the implementation problems with their new IT system. They actually said:

 

Freight Forward Operating System. On September 1, 2013, we deployed our global freight forwarding operating system in the United States. As of that date, based on a variety of factors, including but not limited to operational acceptance testing and other operational milestones having been achieved, we considered it ready for its intended use. Amortization expense with respect to the system began effective September 2013, and accordingly, we recorded amortization expense related to the new application of approximately $3.3 million during the third quarter ended October 31, 2013.

 

Hence the surprise when the 8-K disclosed the problems. Both the CEO and CFO are also named in the Enforcement Release and paid penalties.

 

As mentioned above, the probability standard for disclosure is “reasonably expects”. More about this complex probability assessment in our next post!

 

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!

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

 

Time Again for a Frequent Comment Update

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

Every six months, when we do our Midyear Forums in May and June and again when we do our Annual Forums in November and December, we discuss the SEC Division of Corporation Finance’s presentation of frequent comment areas. At our recent Midyear in Dallas the staff discussed the topics below, which are not in any particular order:

 

  • Non-GAAP Measures
  • Statement of Cash Flows
  • Segments
  • Income Taxes
  • Business Combinations
  • Fair Value
  • Goodwill
  • Revenue Recognition
  • Disclosure of Recently Issued Standards
  • Compensation
  • Internal Control over Financial Reporting

 

As usual the list contains many familiar topics and themes. In the next several weeks we will post about each of these topics.

 

For this first post, we’ve chosen non-GAAP measures which shouldn’t be a surprise. We are all likely familiar with the SEC’s focus on this area and the C&DI’s they issued in May 2016. For our review here we thought we would explore three of the more problematic C&DI’s and recent staff comments for each of them:

 

Question 100.01, which is about whether or not presentation of certain adjustments, although not explicitly prohibited, result in a non-GAAP measure that is misleading,

 

Question 100.04, which is about attempts to build tailored accounting principles that are not in accordance with GAAP, and

 

Question 102.10, which discusses “equal or great prominence”.

 

 

When is an Adjustment Misleading, Even if it is Not Specifically Prohibited?

 

The full text of this C&DI is:

 

Question 100.01

 

Question: Can certain adjustments, although not explicitly prohibited, result in a non-GAAP measure that is misleading?

 

Answer: Yes. Certain adjustments may violate Rule 100(b) of Regulation G because they cause the presentation of the non-GAAP measure to be misleading. For example, presenting a performance measure that excludes normal, recurring, cash operating expenses necessary to operate a registrant’s business could be misleading. [May 17, 2016]

 

 

The idea of “normal, recurring, cash operating expenses” can be subjective. Here is an example where that C&DI is translated into a comment:

 

We note that you exclude pre-opening expenses as part of your calculation of Adjusted EBITDA. Please explain to us why these are not normal, recurring, cash operating expenses necessary to operate your business. In this regard, we note pre-opening expenses for all periods presented, along with your discussion throughout the Form S-1 that your growth strategy is to expand the number of your stores from 71 to 400 within the next 15 years. Please refer to Question 100.01 of the updated Non-GAAP Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations issued on May 17, 2016.

 

Here is another similar example:

 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (Non-GAAP measure)

 

Please tell us how you concluded that the amounts in the acquisition-related adjustments reconciling item were appropriately excluded from your non-GAAP measures (e.g., adjusted EBITDA, adjusted gross margin and adjusted SG&A) presented here and in your Item 2.02 Forms 8-K filed October 25, 2016 and December 8, 2016. It appears that in each period presented you may be reversing a portion of your GAAP rental expense and removing recurring cash operating expenses, like sponsor fees and other costs. Refer to Non-GAAP Financial Measures Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation, Questions 100.01 and 100.04, which can be found at:

 

http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/nongaapinterp.htm.

 

What is a Tailored Accounting Principle?

 

The full text of the C&DI is:

 

Question 100.04

 

Question: A registrant presents a non-GAAP performance measure that is adjusted to accelerate revenue recognized ratably over time in accordance with GAAP as though it earned revenue when customers are billed. Can this measure be presented in documents filed or furnished with the Commission or provided elsewhere, such as on company websites?

 

Answer: No. Non-GAAP measures that substitute individually tailored revenue recognition and measurement methods for those of GAAP could violate Rule 100(b) of Regulation G. Other measures that use individually tailored recognition and measurement methods for financial statement line items other than revenue may also violate Rule 100(b) of Regulation G.   [May 17, 2016]

 

Here are two comments to illustrate that a company should not try to tinker with GAAP to create their own accounting principles. This first comment is an attempt to adjust revenue recognition so that a non-GAAP measure would include revenue that is deferred under GAAP:

 

  1. We note your response to prior comment 4. The adjustment “change in deferred amusement revenue and ticket liability” in arriving at your non-GAAP measure “adjusted EBITDA” appears to accelerate the recognition of revenue associated with the deferred amusement and ticket liability that otherwise would not be recognized in any of the periods for which adjusted EBITDA is presented. Accordingly, adjusted EBITDA substitutes a tailored revenue recognition method for that prescribed by GAAP and does not comply with Question 100.04 of the staff’s Compliance & Discussion Interpretations on Non-GAAP Financial Measures. Please remove this adjustment from your computation.

 

This second comment shows an attempt to undo business combination accounting:

 

Refer to the line items, ‘purchase accounting adjustments,’ and ‘purchase accounting amortization’ within the reconciliation of net income to adjusted income before income taxes. Please explain to us the basis behind these adjustments as they appear to portray tailored accounting principle under GAAP for business combination. Refer to the guidance under Questions 100.01 and 100.04 of C&DI on Non-GAAP Financial Measures.

 

What Does Equal or Greater Prominence Mean?

 

The text of this much-discussed C&DI is:

 

Question 102.10

 

Question: Item 10(e)(1)(i)(A) of Regulation S-K requires that when a registrant presents a non-GAAP measure it must present the most directly comparable GAAP measure with equal or greater prominence. This requirement applies to non-GAAP measures presented in documents filed with the Commission and also earnings releases furnished under Item 2.02 of Form 8-K.  Are there examples of disclosures that would cause a non-GAAP measure to be more prominent?

 

Answer: Yes. Although whether a non-GAAP measure is more prominent than the comparable GAAP measure generally depends on the facts and circumstances in which the disclosure is made, the staff would consider the following examples of disclosure of non-GAAP measures as more prominent:

 

Presenting a full income statement of non-GAAP measures or presenting a full non-GAAP income statement when reconciling non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures;

 

Omitting comparable GAAP measures from an earnings release headline or caption that includes non-GAAP measures;

 

Presenting a non-GAAP measure using a style of presentation (e.g., bold, larger font) that emphasizes the non-GAAP measure over the comparable GAAP measure;

 

A non-GAAP measure that precedes the most directly comparable GAAP measure (including in an earnings release headline or caption);

 

Describing a non-GAAP measure as, for example, “record performance” or “exceptional” without at least an equally prominent descriptive characterization of the comparable GAAP measure;

 

Providing tabular disclosure of non-GAAP financial measures without preceding it with an equally prominent tabular disclosure of the comparable GAAP measures or including the comparable GAAP measures in the same table;

 

Excluding a quantitative reconciliation with respect to a forward-looking non-GAAP measure in reliance on the “unreasonable efforts” exception in Item 10(e)(1)(i)(B) without disclosing that fact and identifying the information that is unavailable and its probable significance in a location of equal or greater prominence; and

 

Providing discussion and analysis of a non-GAAP measure without a similar discussion and analysis of the comparable GAAP measure in a location with equal or greater prominence. [May 17, 2016]

 

This C&DI created perhaps the most confusion, or maybe consternation, raising issues of what is bolded and which measure is presented first. This first example comment is about a recent earnings release:

 

Your headline references “Record Q1 Non-GAAP Revenues and EPS, Growing 29% and 44% Respectively Year-over-Year” but does not provide an equally prominent descriptive characterization of the comparable GAAP measure. We also note several instances where you present a non-GAAP measure without presenting the comparable GAAP measure. This is inconsistent with Question 102.10 of the updated Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations issued on May 17, 2016 (“the updated C&DI’s”). Please review this guidance when preparing your next earnings release.

 

This second example is from a recent MD&A:

 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis Non-GAAP Measures

 

Return on Invested Capital, page 47

 

Please present the comparable GAAP measure with equal or greater prominence and label the non-GAAP calculation as “adjusted” or similar. Refer to Item10(e)(1)(i)(A) and Question 102.10 of staff’s Compliance and Discussion Interpretation on Non-GAAP Financial Measures for guidance.

 

And this last comment is from a 2016 earnings release:

 

  1. We have the following observations regarding the non-GAAP disclosures in your fourth quarter 2016 earnings release:

 

  • Your statement of “net sales growth across all segments” in the earnings release headline is inconsistent with the segment results table on page 3 and appears to be based on pro forma adjusted results excluding foreign currency translation impact. In this regard, we note that both the Consumer and Other segments had a decrease in the reported net sales in 2016.

 

  •  It appears that you provide earnings results discussion and analysis of only non- GAAP measures in the body of the release without providing a similar discussion and analysis of the comparable GAAP measures.

 

  •  The measure you refer to as “free cash flow” is adjusted for items in addition to what is commonly referred to as free cash flow.

 

Please revise future filings to use titles or descriptions for non-GAAP financial measures that accurately reflect the amounts presented or calculated, and are not the same as, or confusingly similar to, GAAP measures. Also, to the extent you continue to discuss your results based on non-GAAP measures, you should also provide the comparative measures determined according to GAAP with equal or greater prominence. Refer to Question 102.10 of the updated Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations issued on May 17, 2016.

 

Stay tuned for our next topic, the statement of cash flows next week, and as always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

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!

ICFR Changes and the New Revenue Recognition, Leases, and Financial Instrument Impairment Transitions

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

 

In his recent, much publicized speech, Chief Accountant Wesley Bricker discussed the transition to the new revenue recognition standard. A bit later in the speech he addressed a not so frequently discussed issue, the requirement to disclose material changes in ICFR as it relates to implementation of the new revenue recognition, leases, credit losses and other standards. Here is an excerpt:

 

Over the next several years, updating and maintaining internal controls will be particularly important as companies work through the implementation of the significant new accounting standards. Companies’ implementation activities will require careful planning and execution, as well as sound judgment from management, as I have mentioned earlier in illustrating areas of judgment in the new GAAP standards.

 

In his remarks, well worth the read, he also comments on two crucial ICFR concerns in these new standards:

Having the requisite skills in the accounting and financial reporting area to make the many new, complex judgements required by these standards, and

Setting an appropriate tone at the top to assure these judgments are made in a reasonable, consistent and appropriate manner.

 

We did a post about reporting changes in ICFR in November 2016. To refresh your memory, or if you are not familiar with this area, here is a summary of the disclosures required for material changes in ICFR. This applies to material changes made to implement new accounting standards as well as any other material changes.

 

These requirements begin with Item 9A in Form 10-K and Part I Item 4 in Form 10-Q. They both refer to S-K Item 308(c):

 

(c) Changes in internal control over financial reporting. Disclose any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting identified in connection with the evaluation required by paragraph (d) of §240.13a-15 or 240.15d-15 of this chapter that occurred during the registrant’s last fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

With changes to ICFR for revenue recognition for information about contracts and estimates, like stand-alone selling price and when control transfers, and changes to ICFR for capitalization of all leases, these new standards could require material changes to ICFR. Are these the types of changes included in the S-K 308(c) disclosure requirement?

 

This is an excerpt from the ICFR C&DI’s, number 7, about SOX reporting which you can find here:

 

After the registrant’s first management report on internal control over financial reporting, pursuant to Item 308 of Regulations S-K or S-B, the registrant is required to identify and disclose any material changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting in each quarterly and annual report. This would encompass disclosing a change (including an improvement) to internal control over financial reporting that was not necessarily in response to an identified material weakness (i.e. the implementation of a new information system) if it materially affected the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. Materiality, as with all materiality judgments in this area, would be determined upon the basis of the impact on internal control over financial reporting and the materiality standard articulated in TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. 426 U.S. 438 (1976) and Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). This would also include disclosing a change to internal control over financial reporting related to a business combination for which the acquired entity that has been or will be excluded from an annual management report on internal control over financial reporting as contemplated in Question 3 above. As an alternative to ongoing disclosure for such changes in internal control over financial reporting, a registrant may choose to disclose all such changes to internal control over financial reporting in the annual report in which its assessment that encompasses the acquired business is included.

 

 

The SEC Regulations Committee of the CAQ has also discussed a particularly intricate issue in this transition. What if you change your ICFR this year, but the change is for future reporting when you begin to report under the new standard next year? This issue is still in play, as this excerpt from the minutes discusses:

 

Changes in ICFR in preparation for the adoption of a new accounting standard

Item 308(c) of Regulation S-K requires disclosure of changes in internal control over financial reporting (“ICFR”) during the most recent quarter that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s ICFR. The Committee and the staff discussed how this requirement applies to changes in ICFR that are made in preparation for the adoption of a new accounting standard when those changes are in periods that precede the date of adoption and do not impact the preparation of the financial statements until the new standard is adopted.

 

The staff indicated that they are evaluating whether additional guidance is necessary for applying the requirements of Item 308(c) in connection with the transition to the new revenue standard.

 

So, as you begin implementing systems and processes for these new standards, don’t forget this part of the reporting!

 

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