Tag Archives: ACCOUNTING

Cash Flows Topic One – Comment of the Week and EITF Fun!

Comment of the Week, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

High risk accounting and reporting areas, those most prone to problems and the risk of amendment or restatement, are discussed in all our conferences and workshops. We always encourage folks to be aware of these risks and to address them in their reporting processes.

 

Now that we are into August, is it fair to put some of these issues on the planning calendar for year-end? Yes, because many of them require significant amounts of time and work to address. (For example, have you ever tried to make improvements in your MD&A?) So, even though it is only August, we are going to start a series of posts with some considerations for year-end planning! We will also bring all of them together later in the fall.

 

Perhaps surprisingly, one of these frequent problem areas is preparation of the statement of cash flows. For a variety of reasons the statement of cash flows is the source of many SEC comments and even restatements. Perhaps this is because the statement of cash flows is usually prepared late in the reporting process, perhaps because it is sometimes viewed as a mechanical process, perhaps because it is sometimes prepared by less experienced professionals and/or perhaps controls are not effective in this area. There are likely many underlying causes for the statement of cash flows being a frequent problem area, but if we are forewarned there is no reason that we should have problems here.

 

As a starting point, here are some example SEC comments.

 

Statement of Cash Flows

We note your presentation on the statement of cash flows of sales and maturities of short- term investments as one combined line item. In light of the fact that short term investments represent a significant part of your balance sheet, please revise to present sales and maturities of these investments as separate line items within the investing section in accordance with ASC 320-10-45-11.

The comment above is a great example of where a seemingly logical combination of similar cash flows runs afoul of the codification guidance. The referenced paragraph is not even in the ASC section about the statement of cash flows! What it says is:

Cash flows from purchases, sales, and maturities of available-for-sale securities and held-to-maturity securities shall be classified as cash flows from investing activities and reported gross for each security classification in the statement of cash flows. Cash flows from purchases, sales, and maturities of trading securities shall be classified based on the nature and purpose for which the securities were acquired.

Here is another example:

Please tell us how you determined it was appropriate to classify restricted cash collateralizing your outstanding letter of credit and cash secured loans as investing activities in the statement of cash flows. Please reference the authoritative accounting literature management relied upon.

This is an area where there may be no clear guidance. The distinction between operating and investing seems like an easy question to ask here. And, as you will see below, this is a question that was taken to the EITF.

 

Here are a few more comments with similar issues. This first one is pretty darn long!

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, page F-8

Please tell us your basis for recording the deposit related to the acquisition of land use right as operating activities as opposed to investing activities. Refer to ASC 230.

We note your line item, advances to suppliers, in your balance sheets and other trade receivables included in Note 4 on page F-30 related to your lending provided to some of your suppliers. Please tell us the nature of your lending activities to your suppliers and the difference in amounts included in the two accounts. Additionally, please tell us your basis for recording amounts in operating activities as opposed to investing activities in your statements of cash flows. Refer to ASC 230.

Please reconcile for us the purchase of property and equipment for 2014 in the amount of $256,027,300 to the change of $301,716,262 derived from your disclosure in Note 7.

 

This one seems fairly straightforward:

We note cash flows from financing activities include non-cash transactions consisting of common shares issued for debt conversions and as compensation for services as well as losses on settlement of debt through equity issuances. Please refer to ASC 230 and revise to separately disclose non-cash financing transactions in supplemental disclosure of noncash investing and financing activities and to disclose losses on debt settlements in cash flows from operating activities. Please note that this comment also applies to Form 10-Q filed February 2, 2016.

 

The Need For Clarification – The EITF to the Rescue!

 

Because of the frequent nature of these issues and diversity in practice surrounding many of them the EITF has two projects that are at the Exposure Draft stage and should finish before year end:

 

EITF Issue 16-A: Restricted Cash would require the statement of cash flows to reconcile the total change in cash including restricted cash.

 

EITF Issue 15-F: Statement of Cash Flows: Classification of certain cash receipts and cash payments deals with a variety of issues in the cash flow statement, including:

 

Issue 1—Debt Prepayment or Debt Extinguishment Costs

Issue 2—Settlement of Zero-Coupon Bonds

Issue 3—Contingent Consideration Payments Made after a Business Combination

Issue 4—Proceeds from the Settlement of Insurance Claims

Issue 5—Proceeds from the Settlement of Corporate-Owned Life Insurance Policies, including

Bank-Owned Life Insurance Policies

Issue 6—Distributions Received from Equity Method Investees

Issue 7—Beneficial Interests in Securitization Transactions

Issue 8—Predominant Cash Receipts and Cash Payments

 

 

With all of this comment activity and related standard setting going on, it is advisable to “scrub” your process for preparing the statement of cash flows in your upcoming periodic filings.

 

As always your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Another Reason to do the Right Thing – Litigation is on the Rise!

Hot Topic, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Our last post was about the on-going messaging from the SEC’s Enforcement Division to all of us to “do the right thing” for investors. Of course, another reason to do the right thing is the risk of litigation. And this risk, according to a report from the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and Cornerstone Research, shows that securities class action litigation is up substantially. According to the report filings are “up 36.7% from the first half of last year and up 16.6% from the second half of last year.”

 

In a startling statistic the report shows that on an annualized basis 6.4% of the S and P 500 were subject to class action filings.

 

Interestingly, the report indicates a substantial part of the increase relates to filings concerning merger and acquisition activity.

 

You can find a press release and the report here.

 

The Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearing house is a pretty scary website. If you would like to review it you can find it here.

 

Lastly, a great way to supplement what you read here on our blog and keep up with developments like this is to subscribe to the PLI Smart Brief, a periodic e-newsletter with lots of great information.

 

You can sign-up to receive the Smart Brief here.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

A Really Good Question – Form S-3 and the New Revenue Recognition Standard

Hot Topic, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a recent post we discussed a potential complication in the registration process and Form S-3 in particular if you retrospectively implement the new revenue recognition standard. You can review the post here. The issue arises if you file an S-3 in 2018 after you adopt the new revenue recognition standard but before your 10-K for 2018 is filed. The 2018 Form 10-K will have annual financial statements for 2018, 2017 and 2016 retrospectively applying the new standard. However, if you file an S-3, or have an S-3 shelf registration in place, before you file the 2018 Form 10-K, your S-3 would be required to have three fiscal years, now 2017, 2016 and 2015 that apply the new standard.

Thus, you could be required to report an extra year, 2015, on the new revenue recognition standard if you want to access the capital markets with an S-3, or an S-3 shelf registration, during 2018.

Whether or not the SEC can or will have any relief from this issue is not finalized. So stay tuned!

In our post we set up the example with an S-3 filed after the first-quarter 2018 form 10-Q is filed.

This all lead to a really great question from a reader:

 

In the hypothetical, if an issuer were to file an S-3 in the first quarter of 2018 (before its 3Q financials go stale and before the 2018 10-Q is filed), does Item 11 of Form S-3 require the company to file an 8-K with its recast 2015 financials reflecting the full retrospective adoption of the new standard before the issuer may take-down securities?

The answer to this question? Well, there is not a detailed rule anywhere that deals with the issue.

We researched the question and the closest guidance we could find was in the CorpFin Financial Reporting Manual Topic 11:

“Companies may transition to ASU No. 2014-09 and IFRS 15 (collectively, the “new revenue standard”) using one of two methods:

Retrospectively to each prior period presented, subject to the election of certain practical expedients (“full retrospective method”). A calendar year-end company that adopts the new revenue standard using this method must begin recording revenue using the new standard on January 1, 2018. In its 2018 annual report, the company would revise its 2016 and 2017 financial statements and record the cumulative effect of the change recognized in opening retained earnings as of January 1, 2016.

Retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying the new revenue standard recognized at the date of adoption (“modified retrospective method”). A calendar year-end company that adopts the new revenue standard using this method must begin recording revenue using the new standard on January 1, 2018. At that time, the company must record the cumulative effect of the change recognized in opening retained earnings and financial statements for 2016 and 2017 would remain unchanged. The standard also sets forth additional disclosures required by companies that adopt the new standard using this method.

That language sure sounds like if you file after January 1, 2018, you need three years, 2015, 2016 and 2017 based on the new standard.

That said, stay tuned, we will all continue our research! And what is more fun than a really deep SEC research question?

As always, and especially with this one, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Leases and the Five-Year Selected Financial Data in Form 10-K

Hot Topic, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Within the required retrospective transition method for the new lease accounting standard is a very familiar question:

Will we be required to revise all five years of the selected financial data presented in Item 6 of Form 10-K?

As you may already know the SEC formally granted relief in the five-year summary for companies that use a full retrospective implementation for the new revenue recognition standard. For leases, they have done exactly the same.

 

At the March SEC Regulations Committee meeting of the CAQ this issue was addressed and if you read the minutes of the meeting you will see the SEC Staff’s announcement that:

“The selected financial data table should follow the transition provisions of the ASU (i.e., the new leasing standard should be applied as of the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements).”

Thank you letters may be appropriate!

As always, your thoughts and comments are appreciated!

Comment of the Week – Critical Accounting Estimates

Comment of the Week, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It has been a while since we posted about critical accounting estimates. While this is now a normal part of MD&A it is surprising how many folks in our workshops don’t know where the “official” guidance for this disclosure is found.

 

There is a bit of confusion in the history of this disclosure. It all started in the post-Enron period with concerns about the quality of accounting principle selection discussed in FR 60 (the FRs are Financial Reporting Releases, interpretations that are approved by the SEC Commissioners). This release addressed the aggressive use of accounting principles and required disclosure in plain English of “Critical Accounting Policies”. FR 60 did not describe in great detail exactly what a critical accounting policy was or what disclosures should be made. You can find this brief FR, for perhaps historical purposes, here.

 

FR 60 was issued as a “quick fix” and the SEC planned to follow it with a formal rule for this disclosure. The rule was proposed, but it was never actually finalized. Instead the SEC dealt with this disclosure in FR72. If you scroll to Section V towards the end of FR 72 you will find the requirements for disclosure of critical accounting estimates.

 

www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-8350.htm

 

(As you read this FR, note the evolution in terminology from Critical Accounting Policies to Critical Accounting Estimates.)

 

Don’t forget to look at the most recent Staff guidance in this area in FRM Section 9500, which gives guidance on disclosure of critical accounting estimates in the area of goodwill impairment.

 

Here are a few key issues about disclosure of Critical Accounting Estimates:

 

  1. Critical accounting estimates are not the same as significant accounting policies, and this part of MD&A should not simply duplicate this information from the financial statements. The focus should be on estimates and assumptions used in GAAP that have a material impact on financial condition and operating performance and on comparability over time.
  2. This disclosure should focus on why the estimate is “critical” and what is challenging about the estimate. Why is it difficult to make this estimate and what creates uncertainty about the precision of the estimate?
  3. Most companies won’t have that many of these “critical” estimates. Most companies start with a few and build from there. Often, lessons from past changes in estimates can help your identification process.
  4. The staff sometimes will ask about the quantified sensitivity analysis discussed in the last part of FR 72, so if information is available and will help investors understand the significance of the estimate and its uncertainty, consider disclosing it.

 

To help understand this disclosure, here is a recent comment from the SEC:

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

  1. In future filings please provide a more robust discussion of your critical accounting policies and estimates to focus on the assumptions and uncertainties that underlie your critical accounting estimates rather than duplicating the accounting policy disclosures in the financial statement footnotes. Please quantify, where material, and provide an analysis of the impact of critical accounting estimates on your financial position and results of operations for the periods presented. In addition, please include a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the sensitivity of reported results to changes in your assumptions, judgments, and estimates, including the likelihood of obtaining materially different results if different assumptions are applied. If reasonably likely changes in inputs to estimates would have a material effect on your financial condition or results of operations, the impact that could result given the range of reasonable outcomes should be disclosed and quantified. Please refer to SEC Release No. 33-8350. In your response, please show us what your disclosure would have looked like if these changes were made in your most recently filed Form 10-K.

 

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are appreciated!

Getting the New Revenue Recognition Standard into Perspective

Hot Topic, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As we all know, the new revenue recognition standard will be effective for public companies for periods beginning after December 15, 2017. This change will have challenges for everyone. Even if the new five-step, contract based model does not dramatically change the timing of your company’s revenue recognition, documenting how the new model applies in your case will require some time, and all of us will have to deal with the significant increase in disclosures, particularly the requirement to disaggregate revenues.

 

One place we see some confusion is about what these challenges will look like. This new standard is a complete departure from our old revenue recognition guidance and the detailed, rule based nature of the old standards. Some writers still talk about the “hundreds of pages” of guidance that must be dealt with. This makes it sound like the new standard is a large collection of detailed rules that simply replaces the large collection of detailed rules in the old revenue recognition GAAP.

 

This is not the case.

 

In the ASU the core of the new revenue model starts on page 14 and ends with the last of the disclosures on page 48.   Seems pretty short!

 

It is very principles base guidance! In our workshops, the broad, principles based nature of the new standard creates some of the biggest challenges for companies.

 

The whole standard is based on this principle, from paragraph 606-10-10-2:

 

“the core principle of the guidance in this Topic is that an entity shall recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services.”

 

Notice the lack of language about an earnings process being complete or revenue being “realized or realizable”.

 

Each of the five steps and the disclosure requirements also start with a broad principle. Here is an example from step three, determining the transaction price (606-10-32-2):

 

“An entity shall consider the terms of the contract and its customary business practices to determine the transaction price. The transaction price is the amount of consideration to which an entity expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring promised goods or services to a customer, excluding amounts collected on behalf of third parties (for example, some sales taxes). The consideration promised in a contract with a customer may include fixed amounts, variable amounts, or both.”

 

On interesting aspect of this principle is that if there is variable consideration in a contract, it must be estimated! That is a whole new principle and each company will have to assess how to apply it to their circumstances.

 

Because this new revenue recognition model establishes a whole new set of principles, the FASB knew we would all need some help in how to interpret these principles. So, the standard, after the disclosure requirements, includes a number of implementation guidance discussions to explain what the principles are intended to mean. Terms such as “satisfied over time” and “distinct within the context of the contract” are explored. But you won’t find any detailed rules.

 

After the implementation guidance are a number of examples, and here you can find some actual interpretations of the principles which are very helpful. There are not too many of them.

 

As a last source of support for your process of learning about these principles and how to interpret and apply them don’t forget about the TRG. While the TRG does not issue formal guidance, their discussions are rich with examples of how some very experienced professionals are interpreting the standard. And, as you may have heard, the SEC Chief Accountant has said if companies depart from TRG discussions, they should be prepared to support such positions to the SEC staff. (You can read more about that in this speech.)

 

 

So, our tip for today, as you move through your implementation be ready to build an understanding of the principles and how to apply them to your specific circumstances!

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Form S-3 and the New Revenue Recognition Standard

Hot Topic, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The new revenue recognition standard allows for two transition methods. One is a kind of hybrid “retrospective with a cumulative effect” approach, where in the year of adoption a company records the cumulative effect and goes forward (with some significant “old GAAP” disclosures). The other is full retrospective implementation.

The full retrospective implementation comes with a lot of baggage beyond the amount of work it might require.

One question is what about the five-year summary? In Form 10-K is it necessary to retrospectively adjust the two earliest years in the five year summary along with the three years in S-X audited financial statements? The SEC staff has addressed this question and said this is not necessary. The CorpFin Financial Reporting Manual now states:

11100 REGISTRANT FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

11100.1 Selected Financial Data

 

Question

A registrant elects to adopt the new revenue standard using the full retrospective approach. Must it apply the new revenue standard when reporting selected financial data (S-K Item 301)) for periods prior to those presented in its retroactively-adjusted financial statements?

 

Answer

No, but registrants must provide the information required by Instruction 2 to S-K Item 301 regarding comparability of the data presented.

This second question is a lot more intricate. What if a company does an S-3 after the first quarter of implementation? To set this issue up, here is a fact set:

Company year-end: December 31

Revenue Recognition Standard adoption date: January 1, 2018

Full retrospective method of adoption is used. In this method, for the 2018 Form 10-K the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 would be presented using the new revenue recognition standard.

Now assume that in 2018 (thus before the December 2018 Form 10-K is filed), the company reports for the first quarter of 2018 and files Form 10-Q on April 30, 2018. If the company then files an S-3 to raise capital on May 31, 2018, the previous Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, would be incorporated into the Form S-3. That Form 10-K would have financial statements for 2017, 2016 and 2015. The financial statements for 2015 are the key issue here, as they would not be required in the December 31, 2018 Form 10-K. But, since they are incorporated into the S-3 and the company has adopted the new revenue recognition standard, Item 11(b) in Form S-3 will apply (emphasis added):

 

Item 11. Material Changes.

 

(a) Describe any and all material changes in the registrant’s affairs which have occurred since the end of the latest fiscal year for which certified financial statements were included in the latest annual report to security holders and which have not been described in a report on Form 10-Q (§249.308a of this chapter) or Form 8-K (§249.308 of this chapter) filed under the Exchange Act.

 

(b) Include in the prospectus, if not incorporated by reference therein from the reports filed under the Exchange Act specified in Item 12(a), a proxy or information statement filed pursuant to Section 14 of the Exchange Act, a prospectus previously filed pursuant to Rule 424(b) or (c) under the Securities Act (§230.424(b) or (c) of this chapter) or, where no prospectus is required to be filed pursuant to Rule 424(b), the prospectus included in the registration statement at effectiveness, or a Form 8-K filed during either of the two preceding years:

 

(i) information required by Rule 3-05 and Article 11 of Regulation S-X (17 CFR Part 210);

 

(ii) restated financial statements prepared in accordance with Regulation S-X if there has been a change in accounting principles or a correction in an error where such change or correction requires a material retroactive restatement of financial statements;

 

(iii) restated financial statements prepared in accordance with Regulation S-X where one or more business combinations accounted for by the pooling of interest method of accounting have been consummated subsequent to the most recent fiscal year and the acquired businesses, considered in the aggregate, are significant pursuant to Rule 11-01(b), or

 

(iv) any financial information required because of a material disposition of assets outside the normal course of business.

 

This would seem to require that the new revenue recognition standard be applied to the year ended December 31, 2015.

Not a happy outcome!

This question has come up in earlier accounting standard transitions, and the SEC Staff is clearly aware of this issue. Wes Bricker, Deputy Chief Accountant, said this in a recent speech:

“I am also aware that registrants have expressed concern about the requirement to provide restated financial statements when a Form S-3 registration statement is filed after the registrant has filed its first Form 10-Q reflecting adoption of the revenue standard. This requirement to restate the financial statements means that companies that adopt the revenue standard under a full-retrospective transition approach would be required to restate an additional year in its Form S-3 to show the effect of the new revenue standard on that earlier period.

While this issue is not specific to the new revenue standard, the pervasive impact of the new revenue standard amplifies the issue.

To this, I would observe the transition provisions in the new revenue standard reference existing GAAP, which provides for an impracticability exception to retrospective application if, for example, a company is unable to apply the requirement after making every reasonable effort to do so. OCA is available for consultation if a registrant believes that, based on its facts and circumstances, a retrospective application of the new revenue recognition standard to all periods required to be presented in a Form S-3 is impracticable.”

The actual language he refers to in the excerpt above is from ASC 250:

250 – 10 – 45 – 5

An entity shall report a change in accounting principle through retrospective application of the new accounting principle to all prior periods, unless it is impracticable to do so.

And:

Impracticability

250 – 10 – 45 – 9

It shall be deemed impracticable to apply the effects of a change in accounting principle retrospectively only if any of the following conditions exist:

  1. After making every reasonable effort to do so, the entity is unable to apply the requirement.
  2. Retrospective application requires assumptions about management’s intent in a prior period that cannot be independently substantiated.
  3. Retrospective application requires significant estimates of amounts, and it is impossible to distinguish objectively information about those estimates that both:
  4. Provides evidence of circumstances that existed on the date(s) at which those amounts would be recognized, measured, or disclosed under retrospective application
  5. Would have been available when the financial statements for that prior period were issued.

That’s where this issue is for now, and this could well be a problematic issue for any company raising capital in the year of adoption of the new revenue recognition standard!

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

SEC News – The FAST Act Form 10-K Summary

Hot Topic, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The SEC, on June 1, 2016, adopted an Interim Final Rule and Request for Comment to implement the Form 10-K summary provisions of The FAST Act. Passed earlier this year, the FAST Act contains a number of SEC reporting requirements, many of which the SEC has already implemented.

 

The Interim Final rule provides that a company may, at its option, include a summary in its Form 10-K. Each item in the summary must include a cross-reference by hyperlink to the material contained in the company’s Form 10-K to which the item relates.

 

The summary is a new Item 16 in Form 10-K:

 

Item 16. Form 10-K Summary.

 

Registrants may, at their option, include a summary of information required by this form, but only if each item in the summary is presented fairly and accurately and includes a hyperlink to the material contained in this form to which such item relates, including to materials contained in any exhibits filed with the form.

 

Instruction: The summary shall refer only to Form 10-K disclosure that is included in the form at the time it is filed. A registrant need not update the summary to reflect information required by Part III of Form 10-K that the registrant incorporates by reference from a proxy or information statement filed after the Form 10-K, but must state in the summary that the summary does not include Part III information because that information will be incorporated by reference from a later filed proxy or information statement involving the election of directors.

 

 

While perhaps not particularly dramatic, this is a nice step towards making Form 10-K a better communication tool, which is of course a big part of the disclosure effectiveness activities of the SEC. We could even debate whether such a rule is necessary as some companies, GE in particular, already provides such a summary.

 

You can read the Interim Final Rule and request for comment here.

 

And, if you have not read it recently, Carol and George, your bloggers, suggest taking a look here at the GE Form 10-K. You will find it interesting and the summary is on page 217.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

 

Cybersecurity’s “Evilution”

Hot Topic, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In our tech involved world the risk of cyber attack is constantly transmogrifying into ever more complex and evil modes. From phishing to ransomware to who knows what next, this risk is constantly changing.

 

To help you keep up-to-date with regulatory issues concerning this risk and to help make appropriate disclosures PLI is presenting a new One-Hour Briefing: Cybersecurity in the Age Of Regulators Gone Wild

 

You can read all about the briefing at:

 

http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Cybersecurity_in_the_Age_of_Regulators_Gone/_/N-4kZ1z10qbc?Ns=sort_date%7c0&ID=286898

 

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

 

Jeepers, You Say There is More Non-GAAP News?

Hot Topic, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the latest step in the SEC’s continuing efforts to, in the words of Corp Fin Chief Accountant Mark Kronforst, “crack down” on the inappropriate use of non-GAAP measures, on May 17, 2016 the SEC updated their Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations about the use of non-GAAP measures.

(At this point we almost want to apologize for how many recent posts we have done about non-GAAP measures, but this new guidance is important.)

You will find them at:

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

If you use non-GAAP measures anywhere, earnings releases, MD&A, wherever, read them!

To help you get started, here are a couple of highlights.

This first question is a broad theme in current SEC public remarks, as we have discussed them in recent posts:

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]

This C&DI clarifies issues about per-share presentations:

 

Question 102.05

Question: While Item 10(e)(1)(ii) of Regulation S-K does not prohibit the use of per share non-GAAP financial measures, the adopting release for Item 10(e), Exchange Act Release No. 47226, states that “per share measures that are prohibited specifically under GAAP or Commission rules continue to be prohibited in materials filed with or furnished to the Commission.” In light of Commission guidance, specifically Accounting Series Release No. 142, Reporting Cash Flow and Other Related Data, and Accounting Standards Codification 230, are non-GAAP earnings per share numbers prohibited in documents filed or furnished with the Commission?

 

Answer: No. Item 10(e) recognizes that certain non-GAAP per share performance measures may be meaningful from an operating standpoint. Non-GAAP per share performance measures should be reconciled to GAAP earnings per share. On the other hand, non-GAAP liquidity measures that measure cash generated must not be presented on a per share basis in documents filed or furnished with the Commission, consistent with Accounting Series Release No. 142. Whether per share data is prohibited depends on whether the non-GAAP measure can be used as a liquidity measure, even if management presents it solely as a performance measure.  When analyzing these questions, the staff will focus on the substance of the non-GAAP measure and not management’s characterization of the measure. [May 17, 2016]

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.