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):
- 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)
- Management’s evaluation of the significance of those conditions or events in relation to the entity’s ability to meet its obligations
- 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:
- Principal conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern
- Management’s evaluation of the significance of those conditions or events in relation to the entity’s ability to meet its obligations
- 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!