Tag Archives: Non-GAAP

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

 

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!

Non-GAAP Measures – The Saga Continues

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

The sometimes fuzzy distinction between non-GAAP liquidity measures and non-GAAP performance measures is a major concern of the SEC’s Non-GAAP Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI’s) and the comment letters the Staff issues focused on this topic. In the middle of this grey question are EBITDA and “adjusted EBITDA”. Whether these measures are liquidity measures or performance measures can be a very complex, subjective question. To take some of the grey away the SEC included this C&DI in their May 2016 changes:

Question 103.02

Question: If EBIT or EBITDA is presented as a performance measure, to which GAAP financial measure should it be reconciled?

Answer: If a company presents EBIT or EBITDA as a performance measure, such measures should be reconciled to net income as presented in the statement of operations under GAAP. Operating income would not be considered the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure because EBIT and EBITDA make adjustments for items that are not included in operating income. In addition, these measures must not be presented on a per share basis. See Question 102.05.  (emphasis added) [May 17, 2016]

 

The last sentence in this answer is all about the potential confusion between EBITDA and cash flow from operations. GAAP and the SEC guidance specifically prohibit presenting cash flow per share because of the potential confusion between earnings per share and cash flow per share. (This goes all the way back to ASR 142 and old SFAS 95!) EBITDA, even when intended by management as an operations measure, is so close to this line that it cannot be presented on a per share basis.

 

In an interesting sequence of comment letters and responses the SEC has pushed its concerns about these kinds of non-GAAP measures to a new level. After a number of back and forth letters with a registrant focusing on whether a “non-GAAP adjusted net income” was a performance or liquidity measure the staff included this language in a late round comment:

 

Finally, in light of our discussions about this matter, we will evaluate the industry practices you described to us and consider whether additional comprehensive non-GAAP staff guidance is appropriate.

 

It is extremely unusual, as was even reported in The Wall Street Journal on February 13, 2017, to see a statement like this in a comment letter.

 

Even more eyebrow-raising is this comment in the SEC’s closing letter:

 

Although we do not agree with your view, in light of the circumstances, we have completed our review of your filing. We remind you that the company and its management are responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of their disclosures, notwithstanding any review, comments, action or absence of action by the staff. (emphasis added)

 

If you are presenting an EBITDA or similar measure it would be smart to review these letters.

 

You can find the first of the comment letter series here. The company’s responses (CORRESP documents) and the follow-up comment letters (UPLOAD documents) appear in this EDGAR list.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

Whistleblower Reminders

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

 

On December 19 and 20, 2016, as a year-end reminder, the SEC’s Enforcement Division announced two more cases to emphasize that companies MUST NOT do anything to impede employees from blowing the whistle.

You can find a lot more background about this issue in this post.

In the first case NeuStar Inc. paid a fine of $180,000 for putting restrictive language in severance agreements.

The SEC found that NeuStar was “routinely entering into severance agreements that contained a broad non-disparagement clause forbidding former employees from engaging with the SEC and other regulators ‘in any communication that disparages, denigrates, maligns or impugns’ the company.” The agreements were structured harshly. Departed employees would lose all but $100 of their severance pay if they violated the agreement. This language impeded at least one former employee from contacting the SEC.

In the second case Oklahoma City-based SandRidge Energy Inc. agreed to pay a fine of $1.4 million. Even though the company reviewed their severance arrangements several times after new Dodd/Frank rules were put in place, they continued to include language “restricting” former employees from blowing the whistle to regulators.

The SEC found that “SandRidge fired an internal whistleblower who kept raising concerns about the process used by SandRidge to calculate its publicly reported oil-and-gas reserves.”

The message is clear – Don’t try to limit a former employee’s ability to blow the whistle! Instead, take steps to investigate the matter!

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Non-GAAP Measures – Rise of the Enforcement Message!

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

On January 18, 2017, the SEC ended the speculation about whether or when we would see enforcement actions focused on non-GAAP measures.   MDC Partners, a New York marketing company, paid a fine and consented to an SEC cease-and-desist order without admitting or denying the findings. The case dealt with two issues, non-GAAP measures and failure to disclose certain perks properly. The non-GAAP measure issue related to amounts disclosed for “organic revenue growth” which the company did not calculate consistently from period to period. In addition the company did not present the comparable GAAP measure with equal or greater prominence, as Regulation S-K Item 10(e) requires in an earnings release.

 

Both issues are frequently discussed areas in the SEC’s May 2016 C&DI’s about non-GAAP measures.

 

You can read the related release here.

 

 

Third Annual Form 10-K Tune-Up

As you draft your annual Form 10-K it is always a challenge to be sure that you deal effectively with new and emerging issues and the ever-evolving focus areas of the SEC. Register for our January 23rd One Hour Briefing, Form 10-K Tune-Up. Review the key issues to address in this year’s Form 10-K, including the latest in SEC Staff comments about non-GAAP measures; new accounting standards, revenue recognition, leases and financial instruments.

http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Third_Annual_Form_10_K_Tune_Up_/_/N-4kZ1z10jog?Ns=sort_date%7c0&ID=301955

Year-End Planning – More or Less Concluded – Keeping Up with SEC Focus Areas

By George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

In recent weeks we have been posting about areas to deal with in advance of year-end. So far we have addressed:

Issues in the Statement of Cash Flows

Evaluating and Auditing ICFR

The New Item 16 Form 10-K Summary

Recently Issued Accounting Standards and a Few Example Comments

SAB 74/Topic 11-M – News from the SEC at the September EITF Meeting

Disclosure Effectiveness

Should You Consider Any Issues for OCA Consultation?

A Year End Planning Detail – No More Mailing the ARS to the SEC!

Three Years of Fun – Planning the “Big Three” New FASB Statement Transitions

 

As we are getting ever closer to year-end this is also a good time to proactively review areas where financial reporting problems frequently occur and take steps to assure we have all the “i’s” dotted and “t’s” crossed in these areas.

Unusually complex accounting issues, difficult estimates and sensitive disclosures all become the focus of SEC comments. This is not because the Staff thinks they are important in and of themselves, but rather because these are areas where the Staff frequently uncovers problems in the comment process. Clearly if we do not deal with them appropriately, they involve risk of restatement and amendment.

There are a variety of ways you can keep up with the CorpFin Staff’s frequent comment areas. Every year at our Annual Reporting Forums in November and December, our Conference for Mid-Size and Smaller Companies in September and our Mid-Year Programs in May and June current and former Staffers discuss the areas where they have concerns.

Here is the list from our most recent programs:

  • Segments
  • Statement of Cash Flows
  • Income Taxes
  • Consolidation
  • Business Combinations
  • Fair Value
  • Goodwill
  • Revenue Recognition
  • Non-GAAP Measures & Metrics
  • Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Beyond hearing from the Staff and those in the know, many organizations research comment letters and summarize the areas and frequency of comments within these areas.   You can find these summaries on the web pages for most of the national CPA firms. Here are links to some of them:

EY SEC Comments and Trends

Deloitte’s SEC Comment Letter Series

PWC’s SEC Comment Letter Trends

Other companies build databases of comments which can be researched by comment area, CorpFin Office and even by reviewer. Two companies who sell these kinds of tools are Audit Analytics and Intelligize. However, remember the Staff’s caution that their comments are fact-specific to each registrant and you should never cut and paste from another letter.

If you have any other good sources of information about these issues, please leave them in a comment to this post, and, as usual, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

 

 

 

SECI Annual Forum Returns to Dallas, New York City & San Francisco!

Annual reporting season is here and the Division of Corporate Finance has been busy! Revisions to non-GAAP guidance is being finalized as well as the pay ratio rule and thousands of 10-Ks are being reviewed.

Revenue Recognition and Leasing Standards have been finalized and companies are faced with implementing compliance.

Register today for our 32nd Annual SEC Reporting & FASB Forum being offered November 14-15 in Dallas, December 12-13 in New York City and December 19-20 in San Francisco.

  • Get the latest updates on What’s Happening NOW in World of SEC Reporting
  • Earn CPE credit
  • Network with other Practitioners

Our Reporting Roundtable will lead a lively discussion of current events including simplification overload, disclosure effectiveness, juggling Rev. Rec., Leases, CECL adoptions and more.

Follow this link to Register today and reserve your spot!

http://www.pli.edu/Content/32nd_Annual_SEC_Reporting_FASB_Forum/_/N-1z11c8sZ4k?ID=262904

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revenue Recognition – How Much Time Will You Really Need?

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey, SECI Institute

Much has been written and said about the resources and time that will be required to implement the new revenue recognition standard. All public companies must implement the new standard for fiscal periods beginning after December 15, 2017, roughly 15 months from now. For calendar year-end companies, the first report on Form 10-Q using the new model will be filed in about 18 months. Time is, well, short.

Even the SEC has expressed their concerns about this transition. If you have not seen their comments, check out their expansion of SAB 74 disclosures announced at the September EITF meeting in this post.

Now, we are not writing this post to nag people. Our goal is to help you assess your particular situation with a deeper understanding of the areas you will need to address and the time and resources you will need. Armed with appropriate information you can build a plan and obtain the requisite resources.

Amidst all the commentary there isn’t much detail about the specific challenges in transitioning to the new revenue recognition model. Obviously a single blog post can’t do that either! But what we can do is help you with some starting points that your situation analysis will have to address to determine the resources your company will need. So, here are highlights of three of the more involved areas.

 

  1. As you likely know the new standard is contract based. Step one in the five step revenue recognition model is to identify contracts with customers. This means you need processes and controls to assure all contracts with customers are identified and tracked. And, perhaps more complex, modifications to contracts will need to be tracked and recorded. How much work and time will be required to build the systems to capture and control this information flow?

 

  1. The new standard requires many judgments, including, what are your performance obligations, how you will estimate variable consideration and how you will estimate stand-alone selling price to allocate consideration. How much time will you need to build these processes and the controls surrounding these processes?

 

  1. Even if the timing of your revenue recognition will not change, you will need to make substantially more disclosures including what are your performance obligations, how and when they are satisfied, how you estimate variable consideration and how you estimate stand-alone selling price. Perhaps the most subjective of all the new disclosures is the requirement to disaggregate revenue based on how different revenue streams are affected by “economic factors”. How much time will you need to assess “economic factors” and make these kinds of judgments about disclosures?

 

This process will be different for every company. For a retailer the process will likely need less time than for a custom manufacturer. But all companies will need some time. The time to analyze the new standard, build the policies for how the new standard will apply to your business, do the proper documentation, build processes and establish controls is what this is all about. And while it may not change how or when some companies recognize revenue, it will affect how and when you make disclosures.

This discussion does not even begin to address a raft of other issues companies face such as the decision about which transition method to use or how you will assess when customers “obtain control” of a product or service to determine the time revenue is recognized under the new standard.

So, again, not to nag, we do urge you to begin your planning process and if you have not yet done so, begin to learn how the new standard works and assess how it will apply to your business.

If you would like to let us know where are you in the process, we will share aggregate status reports in future posts.

Here are some example status updates.

Aware of the new standard.

Studying the new standards to learn how it works.

Reviewing how the new standard will apply to your business.

Drafting the policy white paper for the new standard.

Modifying accounting systems and processes for the new standard.

Updating IT systems or acquiring IT systems for the new standard.

Implementing new IT systems.

Currently running parallel between the old and new standard.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Year-End Topic 6 – Should You Consider Any Issues for OCA Consultation?

As we approach year-end another issue to plan well in advance is whether or not you should ask OCA to pre-clear any extremely complex or subjective accounting decisions. This is a well-established process and when you are faced with a complex transaction, extremely subjective accounting determinations or an area where GAAP is not clearly established it makes sense to pre-clear the issue and avoid the possibility of restatement, amendment, or getting hung up in the CorpFin comment process. This is especially true when we know we will all be reviewed at least once every three years.

 

OCA’s process for consultation is outlined here. The process does need a significant amount of preparation and usually requires a few weeks to complete, sometimes more, so advance planning is important.   The document link above has a very detailed list of what needs to be included in your correspondence with OCA and what to expect from the process.

 

Since this is a consultation with the Office of the Chief Accountant, the answer you get will be definitive and cannot be over-ridden in the review process.

 

There is also a telephone consultation service you can use to consult with the CorpFin Chief Accountants office, a different process of course, but sometimes a good starting point. You can find out about this less formal process here.

 

Lastly, here is a recent list of frequent OCA consultation areas you can use to access whether your issues would benefit from this process:

 

Revenue Recognition, gross vs net etc.

Business combinations, who is the acquirer, business vs assets, contingent consideration

Financial assets, impairments valuation

Segments and aggregation

Consolidation VIE

Long lived assets, e.g. goodwill impairment

Taxes,

Leases

Pension

Debt vs equity

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!