Item 1B in Form 10-K is a very uncomfortable and very unusual disclosure:

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

If the registrant is an accelerated filer or a large accelerated filer, as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (§240.12b-2 of this chapter), or is a well-known seasoned issuer as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act (§230.405 of this chapter) and has received written comments from the Commission staff regarding its periodic or current reports under the Act not less than 180 days before the end of its fiscal year to which the annual report relates, and such comments remain unresolved, disclose the substance of any such unresolved comments that the registrant believes are material. Such disclosure may provide other information including the position of the registrant with respect to any such comment.

If a company receives material comments 180 days before year-end and they are still unresolved when the company files its annual report, the situation is bound to be complex and uncomfortable.

Our workshop leader group watches for examples of this disclosure to discuss in our workshops, but rarely do we see one.  Courtesy of one of our participants earlier this summer, here is a real-life example.

From BorgWarner’s Form 10-K for December 31, 2017:

The Company has received comment letters from the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance on May 11, June 23, August 23 and November 29, 2017 as part of its review of the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. The Company responded to all of the letters – most recently on January 25, 2018. As of the date of this Form 10-K, the Staff has not confirmed to the Company that its review process is complete. The Company intends to continue working with the Staff in the event the Staff has any further comments.

The Staff’s comments related to the Company’s accounting for the $703.6 million asbestos related charge recorded in the December 31, 2016 Consolidated Financial Statements, as well as asbestos related insurance assets. These two matters are disclosed in Note 14, Contingencies in the 2017 and 2016 Notes to Financial Statements. The Staff’s comments are focused on whether all or a portion of the amounts recognized in the 2016 consolidated statement of operations should have been recognized in earlier periods.

The Company believes that its accounting for asbestos related matters is appropriate and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and it has addressed the Staff’s comments in full; however, it is possible that the Staff will have additional comments. If all or a portion of the asbestos related charge were to be reflected in periods prior to 2016, the impact would be a reduction in net earnings in periods prior to the year ended December 31, 2016 and a corresponding increase in earnings for the year ending December 31, 2016. There would be no impact to the December 31, 2016 Consolidated Balance Sheet or net cash provided by operating activities in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three years ending December 31, 2016.

Few areas are more challenging then contingency disclosures, and as we discuss frequently, this is an area that the staff frequently comments on.

You can follow-up on the outcome of the situation in this 8-K.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

We have been posting in recent weeks about issues to be thoughtful about as we approach our next quarter or year-end.  MD&A is always an area for care and clear focus at period end.  In all our SEC reporting workshops we make the point that the SEC frequently comments on MD&A.  The themes of MD&A comments are generally deeper analysis of causal factors and quantification of the impact of factors on operations and liquidity and capital resources.

To really understand the comments, and to write MD&A effectively, it is always smart to review the objectives of MD&A disclosure.  Here is the articulation of these objectives from the 2003 Release FR 72:

.“The purpose of MD&A is not complicated. It is to provide readers information “necessary to an understanding of [a company’s] financial condition, changes in financial condition and results of operations.”² The MD&A requirements are intended to satisfy three principal objectives:

• to provide a narrative explanation of a company’s financial statements that enables investors to see the company through the eyes of management;
• to enhance the overall financial disclosure and provide the context within which financial information should be analyzed; and
• to provide information about the quality of, and potential variability of, a company’s earnings and cash flow, so that investors can ascertain the likelihood that past performance is indicative of future performance”

Here are a few example comments you can use in your thoughts about MD&A disclosures.  The first one is about taxes and relates to causal factors.

2. We note your income tax rate reconciliation table showing the effective tax rate of (27%) in fiscal 2017, 567% in fiscal 2016 and 58% in fiscal 2015. However, you provide no discussion or insight in the footnotes or management’s discussion and analysis into the specific factors or circumstances that caused the significant changes in your effective tax rate. Please provide the following:

• a discussion of the specific facts or circumstances that resulted in this significant change per ASC 740-10-50-14;
• explain in detail the line item “changes in valuation allowance” which include state NOL and deferred tax true ups; and
• discuss whether you separately disclosed each line item meeting the materiality thresholds in Rule 4-08(h) of Regulation S-X.

This second comment is about clearly explaining and quantifying what issues are behind change in revenues so that readers can understand why revenues changes and assess whether such changes are likely to continue to occur in the future.

Revenues, page 30

1. We note that your revenue decreased by approximately $8.3 million from 2015 to
   2016. While we note from your disclosure that revenue decreased by approximately $14 million due to near completion of projects in your e-ID division, and it appears that those revenue losses were partially offset by revenue gains from other divisions, it is not clear how you have accounted for all material changes in your revenues for the periods presented. Please tell us what the numbers in the last sentence of this paragraph represent in terms of dollar amounts and show us how those revenue gains, combined with your revenue losses, account for all material changes in your revenue for the periods presented. In addition, revise future filings to clearly disclose and quantify the reasons underlying each material change in your revenues for the periods presented.

We hope these reminders help as you work towards quarter or year-end, and as always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Now that we are past the July 4^thholiday (hope you had fun!)  and far enough past quarter-end close to be getting ready for reporting, here are a few things to be thinking about as we work on 10-Q’s or 10-K’s.

It was, in the SEC reporting world, a long time ago (but not in a galaxy far, far away), that the SEC issued its “revised” guidance about the use of non-GAAP measures.  (The updated May 2016 C&DI’s are here.) Even with the passage of time, there are still some pretty basic and some more complex problem areas that the SEC discovers in the comment process.  Here are a few example comments to use as reminders to make sure you are following the guidance in Reg Gand S-K Item 10(e), the two primary sources of SEC guidance in this area.

For this first comment, here is a part of S-K Item 10(e):

 (ii) A registrant must not:

……………

 (B) Adjust a non-GAAP performance measure to eliminate or smooth items identified as non-recurring, infrequent or unusual, when the nature of the charge or gain is such that it is reasonably likely to recur within two years or there was a similar charge or gain within the prior two years;

 Now, this requirement from S-K Item 10(e) applies to non-GAAP measures in filed documents, but it is augmented and expanded by this C&DI:

 Question 102.03

 Question: Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K prohibits adjusting a non-GAAP financial performance measure to eliminate or smooth items identified as non-recurring, infrequent or unusual when the nature of the charge or gain is such that it is reasonably likely to recur within two years or there was a similar charge or gain within the prior two years. Is this prohibition based on the description of the charge or gain, or is it based on the nature of the charge or gain?

Answer: The prohibition is based on the description of the charge or gain that is being adjusted. It would not be appropriate to state that a charge or gain is non-recurring, infrequent or unusual unless it meets the specified criteria. The fact that a registrant cannot describe a charge or gain as non-recurring, infrequent or unusual, however, does not mean that the registrant cannot adjust for that charge or gain. Registrants can make adjustments they believe are appropriate, subject to Regulation G and the other requirements of Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K. See Question 100.01. [May 17, 2016]

The C&DI mentioned at the end of 103.03 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]

These pieces of guidance build a framework that in any non-GAAP measure, if you say it is unusual or infrequent, it has to meet a logical definition of those terms.

These requirements are behind the following comment:

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

4. We note your disclosure under this section, describing certain adjustments to your non- GAAP measures, stating “these non-recurring items are excluded because, by their nature, they are not indicative of our business or economic trends.” However, it appears that several of these items have occurred in sequential years. Please refrain from referring to charges as non-recurring when such charges have occurred within the prior two years or are reasonably likely to recur within two years. You may refer to our Non- GAAP Financial Measures Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation (C&DI) 102.03 if you require further clarification or guidance.

This second example is based on the following C&DI:

 Question 102.11

 Question: How should income tax effects related to adjustments to arrive at a non-GAAP measure be calculated and presented?

 Answer: A registrant should provide income tax effects on its non-GAAP measures depending on the nature of the measures. If a measure is a liquidity measure that includes income taxes, it might be acceptable to adjust GAAP taxes to show taxes paid in cash. If a measure is a performance measure, the registrant should include current and deferred income tax expense commensurate with the non-GAAP measure of profitability. In addition, adjustments to arrive at a non-GAAP measure should not be presented “net of tax.” Rather, income taxes should be shown as a separate adjustment and clearly explained. [May 17, 2016]

Attention to this kind of detail is important.  This is a comment from a March 2018 comment letter:

5. Within the reconciliations of GAAP net income to non-GAAP adjusted net income attributable to XXXXXX and of related GAAP diluted earnings per share (EPS) to non- GAAP adjusted diluted EPS, you present a number of reconciling items net of income taxes. Please present such adjustments before tax and show the related income tax as a separate adjustment to comply with Non-GAAP Financial Measures C&DI 102.11.

last, here is an interesting comment about the intersection between the use of non-GAAP measures and operating segment disclosures.  The non-GAAP disclosure requirement involved is from S-K Item 10(e):

(i) The registrant must include the following in the filing:

………………

(C) A statement disclosing the reasons why the registrant’s management believes that presentation of the non-GAAP financial measure provides useful information to investors regarding the registrant’s financial condition and results of operations; and

That said, if a non-GAAP measure is used in evaluating segment performance then its disclosure is essentially required by GAAP and reconciliation is not required.  This company went one step beyond the segment disclosure requirements:

1. We note your presentation of Total Segment Adjusted EBITDA included as part of your tables which outline your sales and Segment Adjusted EBITDA for each of your reporting segments. You state on page 29 that Segment Adjusted EBITDA is a meaningful measure as it is used to assess business and operating performance of the segments, and for operational planning and decision-making purposes. However, it is unclear from your disclosures why management believes the presentation of Segment Adjusted EBITDA on a consolidated basisis useful to investors regarding your financial condition and results of operations. Please revise to disclose and to the extent material, include the additional purposes, if any, for which you use the non-GAAP measure in accordance with Item 10(e)(1)(i)(C)-(D) of Regulation S-K. Refer to the guidance outlined Question 104.04 of the C&DIs on the use of non-GAAP financial measures which can be found on the SEC’s website.

We hope these reminders help as you work towards quarter or year-end, and as always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

As we blogged about, the Center for Audit Quality’s SEC Regulations Committee’s quarterly meetings are a great resource for keeping up with emerging issues in SEC reporting. The minutes of these meetings provide insight into the SEC staff’s positions as these issues arise and evolve.

The Committee’s latest meeting was on March 13, 2018 and the meeting highlights discuss the following issues:

Financial reporting implications of tax reform legislation

Waivers of financial statements required by Rule 3-09 of Regulation S-X

New Accounting Standards

Use of most recent year-end financial statements in assessing Regulation
S-X, Rule 1-02(w) significance in an IPO

Audit requirements for pre-transaction periods following a reverse merger
involving two operating companies

Two of the discussion areas dealt with non-GAAP measure issues that we blogged about in March.  For tax reform discussions the staff provided this advice:

Some registrants may adjust for the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Tax Act) in their non-GAAP financial measures. Depending on the registrant’s specific facts and circumstances, certain adjustments for tax reform may be appropriate. The staff indicated that such adjustments, however, should be balanced (i.e., both revenue and expense impacts should be disclosed). For example, adjusting for only one impact, such as the adjustment of deferred taxes upon the change in corporate tax rates, but not other impacts, such as the deemed repatriation transition tax, would not be appropriate.

Some registrants may also include adjustments that attempt to depict a “normalized” tax rate (i.e., adjustments that apply the new tax rate to periods prior to enactment). The staff indicated that such adjustments to non-GAAP measures may not be appropriate as they may not reflect performance during the historical periods when the tax laws were different (for example, different tax strategies and changes in certain judgements or tax assertions).

And, when implementing the new revenue recognition standard, the staff provided the following:

The Committee and staff discussed the presentation of comparable prior periods under ASC 606 to facilitate MD&A, even if a company uses the modified retrospective transition method. If a registrant chooses to include supplemental MD&A disclosures for the comparable period(s) using ASC 606, the discussion should not be more prominent than the historical MD&A discussion and registrants should limit the discussion to only those items for which they are able to determine the impacts. For example, a registrant should not present a supplemental measure of gross profit or operating income adjusted for ASC 606 unless it is able to appropriately make adjustments to the impacted costs as well as the revenues. A full income statement, should not be presented. However, net income under ASC 606 for the prior periods may be discussed if a registrant is able to determine the impacts on all affected income statement line items.

In addition, a company adopting ASC 606 using the modified retrospective transition method is also permitted to present the 2018 results as determined pursuant to ASC 605 on a supplemental basis in MD&A. These disclosures should be comparable to those required to be included in the financial statement footnotes under ASC 250 and should only be included in the period of adoption (e.g. 2018 only). In addition, if a registrant chooses to include these disclosures in MD&A, prominence should be given to the ASC 606 results. Amounts determined using ASC 605 should only be discussed in a way that allows investors to understand changes for comparability purposes.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!