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!

Insider Trading Law 2017

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

Would you expect to find this language in an auditor’s report?

“We performed a full scope audit on seven components representing 99% of the Group’s revenue, 90% of the Group’s profit before tax and 90% of the Group’s net assets.

During our first year as auditor of the Group, we visited all significant locations. For our second year, we have implemented a rotational approach to these visits.”

Or how about a discussion of materiality such as this?

“We determined materiality for the Group to be £30 million.

We reported all audit differences in excess of £1 million.

We define materiality as the magnitude of misstatement in the financial statements that makes it probable that the economic decisions of a reasonably knowledgeable person would be changed or influenced.”

This language may sound like it is from the auditor’s internal conclusion memoranda, but in fact it is from the Deloitte report on the 2016 financial statements of an English company, Marks and Spencer.

Their annual report contains the expanded auditor’s report now required by UK Auditing Standards. The report is on pages 78 to 85 (Yes, it is that long!). It also enumerates several “Key Audit Matters”, describing how each such issue was dealt with in the audit.

While this might seem like an extreme example, there has been movement in international audit standard setting towards more tailored, descriptive audit reports. Here in the US the PCAOB began consideration of changes to the auditor’s report over 7 years ago.

In a May 24, 2017 news release the PCAOB announced that on June 1, 2017 they will consider adopting a new Standard on the auditor’s report. The proposal would eliminate the existing standardized form auditor’s report and replace it with a more tailored report which would include discussion of audit specific issues such as “Critical Audit Matters”. Also to be considered at the meeting are new standards about auditing estimates and using the work of specialists.

You can read about the auditor’s report project and review the most recent proposed version of the standard here.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

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 25^th in New York City and June 23^rd 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

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

As you have undoubtedly heard from a variety of sources (including this post we made last December), the new revenue recognition, financial instruments impairment and lease standards all involve many new and sometimes complex accounting judgments and estimates.

Issues ranging from how to estimate current expected credit losses to what is stand-alone selling price confront us with new, difficult, and subjective judgment calls.

Even the Chief Accountant has discussed this issue in a recent speech, which we discussed in our blog. In his remarks, the Chief Accountant focused on ICFR, specifically mentioning:

“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.”

To help us all deal with these challenges the Anti-Fraud Collaboration, a group made up of the Center For Audit Quality, FEI, NACD and IIA, has issued a report titled “Addressing Challenges for Highly Subjective and Complex Accounting Areas”.

This report is built on a foundation of detailed analysis of several SEC and PCAOB enforcement cases, a webcast and two workshops. The report has a robust discussion of several of the issues underlying these enforcement cases. One important conclusion drawn from this work is that a lack of controls surrounding subjective and complex accounting judgments is frequently a root cause underlying reporting problems. Based on this conclusion, the report includes a discussion of ways to help establish appropriate controls for such estimates and judgments. In fact, one of the enumerated objectives of the report is to:

“Facilitate a robust discussion about accounting policy, centering on highly subjective and complex accounting areas, and the design and operating effectiveness of ICFR”

In the report, there are several insights into ICFR issues surrounding complex judgments. For example:

Difficult Accounting Issues

Three accounting issues were problematic for companies under investigation: revenue recognition, loan impairment, and valuation. Both highly subjective and complex, these three areas were under stress during the financial crisis and therefore more prone to manipulation or error. The analysis of the AAERs also highlighted issues with the accounting policies pertaining to these areas. In the enforcement actions studied, the SEC cited that the companies either did not have an adequate accounting policy or procedure for the issue being investigated; the company was non-compliant with their existing policy or procedure; or that management acted to override the company’s accounting policy.

The report goes on to state:

For all members of the financial reporting supply chain, the importance of tone at the top cannot be overstated. In most cases of alleged financial fraud, the SEC names the CEO and/or the CFO in the complaint. Commission staff noted that the driver of earnings management—the catalyst for most fraud cases—is often top management, such that the focus on the CEO and CFO is not surprising. In cases the PCAOB has brought against individual auditors, it is usually the lead audit engagement partner or other senior members of an audit engagement team who are disciplined.

Hopefully, as you think about the design of ICFR over the new estimates and judgments required to implement the revenue recognition, lease and financial instrument impairment standards, you will find some helpful ideas in this report.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

The pace of change challenged many broker-dealers and their auditors when the PCAOB became the standard setter for audits of broker-dealers. This is illustrated by the topics addressed in this PCAOB “Annual Report on the Interim Inspection Program”. Problems were found in areas including independence rules, auditing revenue recognition and auditing the Net Capital Rule.

To help broker-dealers and their auditors and attorneys keep up to date with this complex regulatory landscape we are offering our Fundamentals of Broker-Dealer Regulation program on July 17, 2017. The program will be presented in New York at our PLI Center. It will be webcast and groupcasts are available in several locations.

This program will help you build a solid foundation in the regulatory regime applying to broker-dealers, including what to expect next regarding broker-dealer regulation.  You will learn how the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, FINRA rules and state securities laws interact in governing the brokerage industry.

Significant focus will also be placed on recent exam and regulatory enforcement activity by the SEC, FINRA, and the states and about how broker-dealers are responding to these developments and the challenges ahead for the industry.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

New SEC Chairman Jay Clayton officially started in his new role with his swearing-in on Tuesday May 4, 2017. You can see his comments and get details of his background in this press release.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!