Tag Archives: AM Law

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!

Audit Committee Learning Opportunity

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

In a constantly changing world Audit Committee members know they need to be continuous learners to fulfill their responsibilities. To help them in this process PLI offers a variety of programs, and in June we will present:

Audit Committees and Financial Reporting 2016: Recent Developments and Current Issues.

The program is on June 21, 2016 and will be presented live in New York and via webcast.   You can find details here. The program features industry and SEC speakers, including Jim Schnurr the Chief Accountant.   The agenda includes:

SEC Developments You Need to Know About PCAOB Developments: What’s Happening in the Auditing Arena? Evolving Expectations for Audit Committees, including Audit Committee and Company Communications Financial Reporting Developments: What Audit Committees Need to Know Networking Break Risk Management & Compliance: What Audit Committees Need To Know Evolving Ethical and Liability Challenges for Audit Committee Advisors: 2016 Edition
As always, your thoughts and comments are appreciated!

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.

SEC Non-GAAP Concerns Ratchet Up

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

We discuss non-GAAP measures frequently in our blog. We also did a One-Hour Briefing “Non-GAAP Measures and Metrics: Getting it Right” on April 1 which you can find at:

www.pli.edu/Content/Non_GAAP_Measures_and_Metrics_Getting_it/_/N-1z10vnyZ4n?ID=282910

 

While we try to avoid being “preachy” we do see some real problems in how companies are using non-GAAP measures. Our most recent blog post about these non-GAAP measure problems is at:

seciblog.pli.edu/?p=615

 

To reinforce these issues from the SEC’s perspective Deputy Chief Accountant Wesley Bricker and OCA Chief Accountant Mark Kronforst both addressed the use of non-GAAP measures at a recent conference.

 

You can read Mr. Bricker’s speech at:

www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-bricker-05-05-16.html

 

In his speech he outlines four major areas where the SEC believes that companies may not be using non-GAAP measures appropriately. He even makes the comment that if a company uses a non-GAAP revenue measure they can expect a comment from the staff.

While Mr. Kronforst’s speech is not on the SEC web page, he reportedly used the words “crack down” when talking about how the SEC will be reviewing the use of non-GAAP measures.

The message is clear, be thoughtful and careful with non-GAAP measures!

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Get the Message: SEC Enforcement Case Deals With Evaluating ICFR Weaknesses!

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , ,

By sending a clear message through the enforcement process, the SEC has come full circle in their concerns about whether ICFR audits are finding material weaknesses. The staff has said on numerous occasions that they see too many situations where a company identifies a control deficiency but the company’s analysis fails when assessing whether the control deficiency is in fact a material weakness.

Over the last few years the SEC Staff have emphasized their concerns in numerous speeches and other public settings. As they sometimes do when they don’t see companies listening, they have also emphasized this issue through enforcement.

This enforcement is dramatic, involving:

The company

Two company officers

The audit partner

The ICFR consulting firm partner (a surprise here!)

 

This excerpt from a December 2015 speech by Deputy Chief Accountant Brian Croteau summarizes the SEC’s concerns:

Still, given the frequency with which certain ICFR issues are identified in our consultations with registrants, I’d be remiss not to remind management and auditors of the importance of properly identifying and describing the nature of a control deficiency and understanding the complete population of transactions that a control is intended to address in advance of assessing the severity of any identified deficiencies.  Then, once ready to assess the severity of a deficiency, it’s important to remember that there are two components to the definition of a material weakness – likelihood and magnitude.  The evaluation of whether it is reasonably possible that a material misstatement could occur and not be prevented or detected on a timely basis requires careful analysis that contemplates both known errors, if any, as well as potential misstatements for which it is reasonably possible that the misstatements would not be prevented or detected in light of the control deficiency.  This latter part of the evaluation, also referred to as analysis of the so called “could factor,” often requires management to evaluate information that is incremental to that which would be necessary, for example, for a materiality assessment of known errors pursuant to SAB 99. The final conclusions on severity of deficiencies frequently rest on this “could factor” portion of the deficiency evaluation; however, too often this part of the evaluation appears to be an afterthought in a company’s analysis.  Yet consideration of the “could factor” is very important. 

The issue is clear; too often companies are finding a control deficiency but not appropriately evaluating the severity of the issue to determine if it is a material weakness.

In a “classic” example this SEC enforcement involves a company that performed its annual ICFR evaluation and stated in its form 10-K that ICFR was effective at year-end. Then, shortly after that report in their Form 10-K, the company restated its financial statements and disclosed the existence of a material weakness. It is very unlikely that the material weakness arose between the year-end of the Form 10-K and the date of the restatement.

You can read about the enforcement in this press release, which also has links to the SEC Enforcement Orders for the company and the individuals involved:

www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-48.html

 

The fact that the company and auditor were named is not surprising. What is surprising is that the firm the company retained to provide SOX 404 services, which included assisting “management with the documentation, testing, and evaluation of the company’s ICFR” and no external report, was included in the enforcement.

This is a loud and clear message to all participants in the process! Be thorough and complete in your evaluation of control deficiencies!

If you would like to delve a bit deeper into this issue one of our follow-up posts to this year’s Form 10-K Tune-Up One Hour Briefing focused on ICFR issues, including the issue raised in this enforcement case.

You can read our post at:

seciblog.pli.edu/?p=530

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome and appreciated!

 

An Audit Committee Update

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

We (that is Carol and George, your blog authors), frequently post about audit committee issues.  For audit committees that want to perform at the highest level possible, PLI has a great program in June.

 

PLI’s Audit Committees and Financial Reporting 2016: Recent Developments and Current Issues program will be presented June 21, 2016 in NYC.  It will be groupcast in several cities and also available via webcast.  Topics discussed will include current SEC reporting issues, audit committee oversight of the implementation of new accounting standards such as revenue recognition and leases, and PCAOB developments for the audit committee.

 

You can learn more about the detailed agenda and how to register at:

 

www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Audit_Committees_and_Financial_Reporting/_/N-4kZ1z11i36?fromsearch=false&ID=259781

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!