Tag Archives: auditor independence

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!

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.

Procrastinating about Rev Rec?

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

Let’s face it, almost all of us procrastinate! And when there is a good reason to procrastinate, well, that is all the better! One of the big rationales for procrastinating dealing with the new revenue recognition standard was that the FASB was definitely going to make changes to the original ASU (ASU 2014-09). As the Transition Resource Group identified and discussed issues in the new standard it became clear that the FASB would clarify certain issues and improve the standard in other areas. In fact the FASB started four discrete projects to make changes.

Yesterday that rationale came to an end.   The FASB released the fourth of the four ASU’s. They are:

 

  1. ASU 2015-14 – Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date – Issued August 2015

 

  1. ASU 2016-8 – Revenue Recognition — Principal Versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross Versus Net) – Issued March 2016

 

  1. ASU 2016-10 – Revenue Recognition — Identifying Performance Obligations and Licenses – Final Standard Issued in April 2016

 

  1. ASU 2016-12 – Revenue Recognition — Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients – Issued May 2016

 

All the core issues are now in the standard as amended! And yes, the TRG and the AICPA’s Industry Task Forces will continue to work on specific issues. You can read about the TRG’s issues at:

www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Page/SectionPage&cid=1176164066683

 

And you can follow-up on the AICPA’s task forces at:

www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/FRC/AccountingFinancialReporting/RevenueRecognition/Pages/RevenueRecognition.aspx

 

And, even with the TRG and AICPA still at work, the core is there. It is time to get busy!

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Ever Been to an SEC Event? Mark out April 13 for a webcast!

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

In our workshops we sometimes joke (a bit) about how fun it is to listen to a webcast of an SEC meeting. And yes, we do say the same thing about FASB meetings. (Total Geek-Out For Sure!)

These meetings are interesting in that you can observe the process the SEC Commissioners and the FASB follow. The depth of the discussions and their careful consideration of the issues is always fascinating to observe.

These meetings generally do not tell you what might happen in the short-term, but do provide a longer-term glimpse into the directions of policy-making and standard setting.

Disclosure effectiveness is a major longer-term initiative at the SEC right now. On April 13, 2016 the SEC is going to discuss “whether to issue a concept release seeking comment on modernizing certain business and financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K.”

As you know, this kind of change is something the SEC staff has wanted to do for years. In addition, provisions of both the JOBS Act and the FAST Act focused on disclosure effectiveness. And here is the logical next step – this meeting will likely help illuminate the future direction of disclosure effectiveness.

 

In addition, this meeting may offer ideas that you can implement now to help make your disclosure more direct and useful to investors.

 

So, perhaps this is the time to listen to one of the meetings? You could play it on your computer, have the sound coming out of your speakers, and think how many of your colleagues would join you and listen! SEC Party time perhaps? If you can’t make the live webcast, you can find all of the archived meetings at http://www.sec.gov/news/openmeetings.shtml

 

You can learn more at:

sec.gov/news/openmeetings/2016/ssamtg033016.htm

 

where the original meeting was announced and at:

www.sec.gov/news/openmeetings/2016/ssamtg041316.htm

where the date was changed from March 30 to April 13, 2016.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Known Trends and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

SEC Hot Topic, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Forewarning disclosures, the “known trends or uncertainties that have had or that the registrant reasonably expects will have a material favorable or unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations” are one of the topics we discuss occasionally in our blog posts. This MD&A disclosure can be very problematic because the information disclosed may alarm investors or make management nervous about creating a “self-fulfilling prophecy”.

We are always watching how companies deal with these issues, and here are two examples from both ends of the potential disclosure spectrum.

The first example, dealing with goodwill impairment, is from a company that has been in the news a lot lately, Yahoo. Along with all the issues they have dealt with involving their investment in Alibaba, Yahoo continues to work on building their core business. As part of this process in June of 2013 they acquired Tumblr, the blog-hosting website. The purchase price was $990 million and in connection with the acquisition Yahoo recorded $749 million in goodwill. (See note 4 about acquisitions in the consolidated F/S in the 2015 10-K)

Fast forward the acquisition to December 31, 2015 and in note 5 to the consolidated F/S dealing with impairments Yahoo says:

As identified above, in step one, in 2015, the carrying value of the U.S. & Canada, Europe, Tumblr and Latin America reporting units exceeded the estimated fair value. The Company completed an assessment of the implied fair value of these reporting units, which resulted in an impairment of all goodwill for the U.S. & Canada, Europe, and Latin America reporting units and a partial impairment for the Tumblr reporting unit. The Company recorded goodwill impairment charges of $3,692 million, $531 million, $230 million and $8 million, associated with the U.S. & Canada, Europe, Tumblr, and Latin America reporting units, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2015. The impairments were a result of a combination of factors, including a sustained decrease in our market capitalization in fourth quarter of 2015 and lower estimated projected revenue and profitability in the near term.

 

So, from June 2013 to December 31, 2015 the $749 million in Tumblr related goodwill was reduced by $230 million. In the tech world, these things happen.

But what about the future? In an interesting spot, Critical Accounting Estimates in their 2015 10-K MD&A Yahoo included this statement:

Given the partial impairment recorded in our Tumblr reporting unit in 2015, it is reasonably possible that changes in judgments, assumptions and estimates we made in assessing the fair value of goodwill could cause us to consider some portion or all of the remaining goodwill of the Tumblr reporting unit to become impaired, which comprised $519 million of our remaining $808 million goodwill balance as of December 31, 2015. In addition, a future decline in market conditions and/or changes in our market share could negatively impact the estimated future cash flows and discount rates used in the income approach to determine the fair value of the reporting unit and could result in an impairment charge in the foreseeable future.

 

This is a direct warning, using the S-K words “reasonably possible”.

 

Here is the second example. These comments are from a letter to a retailing company, and you can see the SEC is asking whether the company effectively dealt with an uncertainty in their future:

  1. Please expand this section to discuss any known material trends, events or uncertainties that have had or are reasonably expected to have a material impact on your liquidity or revenues or income from continuing operations. In this regard, we note (i) persistent comparable store sales decreases in fiscal year 2014 and through the first three quarterly periods of 2015 and (ii) that the company has scaled back its previously planned strategic retail expansion for fiscal year 2016 and beyond.

We also note management’s concern, as expressed in recent earnings calls, regarding the cannibalization effect from new retail stores, coupled with softer than expected new store performances. Please discuss whether you expect comparable store sales to continue to decrease, due to continued cannibalization or otherwise, and the short and long-term actions that you are taking to address any perceived trends. In this regard, your discussion should address your past and future financial condition and results of operation, with particular emphasis on the prospects for the future. See Item 303(a) of Regulation S-K and SEC Release No. 33- 8350.

 

One really interesting part of this comment is how the staff went well beyond the company’s filings to information disclosed in earnings calls.

 

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are appreciated!

10-K Tip Number Four for 2016 – COSO and ICFR

10-K Tips, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is the fourth of our deeper dives in the topics we discussed in our Second Annual Form 10-K Tune-up One-hour Briefing on January 7. (This One-Hour Briefing will be available on-demand soon.)

The topics for this post are:

The COSO framework, and

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.
COSO

The easier of these two topics to discuss, although it presents some very gray issues, is the 2013 revision of the COSO framework. If you have not yet adopted the updated framework, what are the implications in your SEC reporting?

The SEC has not made any bright-line statements or mandates about this transition. And, in fact, many companies have not yet adopted the framework.

In December of 2013, Paul Beswick, The SEC’s Chief Accountant at that time, said in a speech:

“SEC staff plans to monitor the transition for issuers using the 1992 framework to evaluate whether and if any staff or Commission actions become necessary or appropriate at some point in the future. However, at this time, I’ll simply refer users of the COSO framework to the statements COSO has made about their new framework and their thoughts about transition.”

In addition to this cautionary language, the SEC Staff also discussed this issue at a meeting of the Center For Audit Quality’s SEC Regulations Committee. Here is that section of the minutes:

Ms. Shah stated that the staff is currently referring users of the COSO 1992 framework to the following statements made on the COSO web site:

“COSO believes that users should transition their applications and related documentation to the updated Framework as soon as is feasible under their particular circumstances. As previously announced, COSO will continue to make available its original Framework during the transition period extending to December 15, 2014, after which time COSO will consider it as superseded by the 2013 edition. During the transition period (May 14, 2013 to December 15, 2014) the COSO Board believes that organizations reporting externally should clearly disclose whether the original Framework or the updated Framework was utilized.”

Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(c) requires management’s evaluation of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting to be based on a framework that is “a suitable, recognized control framework that is established by a body or group that has followed due-process procedures…” In Release 33-8328, the SEC stated that ” [t]he COSO Framework satisfies our criteria and may be used as an evaluation framework for purposes of management’s annual internal control evaluation and disclosure requirements.”

The staff indicated that the longer issuers continue to use the 1992 framework, the more likely they are to receive questions from the staff about whether the issuer’s use of the 1992 framework satisfies the SEC’s requirement to use a suitable, recognized framework (particularly after December 15, 2014 when COSO will consider the 1992 framework to have been superseded by the 2013 framework).

Clearly there is no hard and fast rule about when to transition, but if a company were to use the old framework much longer, questions about the suitability of the old framework increase in importance. Issues such as what kinds of problems that the new framework might identify that the old framework could miss, (where are there gaps in other words) would need to be addressed.

As a last note, this blog post from the WSJ reports that 73% of 10-K filers for 2014 adopted the new framework:

blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2015/04/29/the-morning-risk-report-companies-adopting-updated-coso-framework-newsletter-draft/
ICFR

Since its inception the SOX 404 processes used to assess the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting by management and external auditors have been evolving. In the last few years there have been a number of developments and companies, auditors and regulators have all been raising questions about the process. Some observers have even called this period a “perfect storm” of ICFR evaluation issues.

So, what is behind the perfect storm? Here are a few of the underlying sources of this ongoing issue.
The SEC has asked some challenging questions, including “Where are all the material weaknesses?” In this speech, Deputy Chief Accountant Brian Croteau addresses for the second year in a row how most restatements are not preceded by a material weakness disclosure, raising the question about whether managements’ assessments and external audits are appropriately identifying material weaknesses:

www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370543616539

The PCAOB in their inspection reports have found what they believe to be a significant number of issues in ICFR audits. In the Overall Findings section of their first report on ICFR inspections the Board reported:

In 46 of the 309 integrated audit engagements (15 percent) that were inspected in 2010, Inspections staff found that the firm, at the time it issued its audit report, had failed to obtain sufficient audit evidence to support its audit opinion on the effectiveness of internal control due to one or more deficiencies identified by the Inspections staff. In 39 of those 46 engagements (85 percent) where the firm did not have sufficient evidence to support the internal control opinion, representing 13 percent of the 309 integrated audit engagements that were inspected, the firm also failed to obtain sufficient audit evidence to support the financial statement audit opinion.

Since this report the PCAOB has summarized issues they have found in ICFR audits in other documents, including Staff Audit Practice Alert No. 11: Considerations for Audits of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. You can find the alert at:
pcaobus.org/Standards/QandA/10-24-2013_SAPA_11.pdf
The issues addressed in the Alert are very similar to those addressed in the summary inspection report and include:

Risk assessment and the audit of internal control

Selecting controls to test

Testing management review controls

Information technology (“IT”) considerations, including system- generated data and reports

Roll-forward of controls tested at an interim date

Using the work of others

Evaluating identified control deficiencies
In particular, testing management review controls and relying on system-generated data have been common and particularly difficult challenges to deal with in the ICFR process. This combination of challenging areas to deal with and questions about identifying and reporting all material weaknesses in ICFR will likely continue to make this a difficult area in future years.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

 

The whole briefing is now available on-demand with CPE and CLE credit at:

www.pli.edu/Content/OnDemand/Second_Annual_Form_10_K_Tune_Up/_/N-4nZ1z116ku?fromsearch=false&ID=278540

 

10-K Tip Number Three for 2016

10-K Tips, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This post continues the series of deeper dives into the 10-K reporting issues we highlighted in our January 7, 2016 One-Hour Briefing, “PLI’s Second Annual Form 10-K Tune-Up”. (This One-Hour Briefing will be available on-demand soon.) This is the third topic in the briefing, audit committee disclosures.

In the Fall of 2015 we did a series of posts about audit committee issues, a topic that has been under discussion by the SEC and the reporting community. The SEC’s concept release about audit committee disclosures and a study by The Center for Audit Quality and Audit Analytics that shows that many companies are making audit committee disclosures well beyond those required by the SEC, the Exchanges and the NASDAQ brought this discussion to a new level of importance.

This is, of course, why we included this topic in our One-Hour Briefing. And, rather than repeat all the issues, here are the blog posts which you can peruse and dive into more deeply at your leisure:

 

 

Part One – Overview and Some History seciblog.pli.edu/?p=447

Part Two – Independence Oversight seciblog.pli.edu/?p=450

Part Three – Audit Fee Disclosures –A Few Common Problem Areas in This Independence Disclosure  seciblog.pli.edu/?p=456

Part Four – The SEC’s Concept Release seciblog.pli.edu/?p=462

Part Five – Voluntary Disclosures in the News   seciblog.pli.edu/?p=486

Part Six – Some Next Steps  seciblog.pli.edu/?p=496

 

 

 

As always, your thoughts and questions are welcome!

 

10-K Tip Number Two for 2016

10-K Tips, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

The second tip from our January 7th One-Hour Briefing “PLI’s Second Annual Form 10-K Tune-up” (which will also be available in an On-Demand version soon) is under the category of New and Emerging Issues – PCAOB Auditing Standard 18 Related Parties (Release No. Release 2014-002, http://pcaobus.org/Standards/Auditing/Pages/Auditing_Standard_18.aspx) and PCAOB Auditing Standard 17 Auditing Supplemental Information Accompanying Audited Financial Statements (Release No. 2013-008 http://pcaobus.org/Standards/Auditing/Pages/AS17.aspx)

A warning for those who see “PCAOB” and assume they can skip this one. AS 18 will require auditors to do more work, which could be significant depending on the facts and circumstances. This will likely trickle down to companies and their audit committees causing more work in the areas outlined below in the form of more inquiry, documentation, and testing, including ICFR. So read on…

AS 18

 

The PCAOB adopted AS 18 in Release 2014-002 mainly to strengthen auditor performance in the areas of:

Related party transactions,

Significant transactions that are outside the normal course of business, and

Financial relationships and transactions with executives

 

Collectively these areas are referred to as “critical areas”, essentially high-risk areas, and the new Audit Standards require specific audit procedures for each area. The adopting release cited increased risks of material misstatement and fraudulent financial reporting involving these areas as motivating factors in issuing AS 18.

 

AS 18 addresses:

 

  • Relationships and transactions with related parties: Related party transactions may involve difficult measurement and recognition issues as they are not considered to be arms-length transactions. Therefore these transactions could lead to fraud or misappropriation of assets, and in turn result in errors in the financial statements, and could increase the risk of a material misstatement.

 

  • Significant unusual transactions: Significant unusual transactions can create complex accounting and financial statement disclosure issues that could cause increased risks of material misstatement and fraud. Another risk cited is the potential for inadequate disclosure if the form of the transaction is disclosed over its substance.

 

  • Financial Relationships and Transactions with Executive Officers: Financial relationships and transactions with executive officers can create incentives and pressures for executive officers to meet financial targets, resulting in risks of material misstatement to the financial statements.

 

So, what hasn’t changed:

  • The definition of related party, which the PCAOB pegged to the definition in the applicable GAAP the company uses
  • The accounting for related party transactions
  • The financial statement or regulatory (SEC) disclosure requirements

 

So, what has changed?:

  • The procedures are more specific and risk-based
  • Additional required communications with the audit committee have been added, see paragraph 19 of Release 2014-002
  • Three matters were added to the auditor’s evaluation of significant unusual transactions (see paragraph AU 316.67 as amended by this AS, which is paragraph AS 2401.67 in the reorganized PCAOB Audit Standards)
  1. The transaction lacks commercial or economic substance, or is part of a larger series of connected, linked, or otherwise interdependent arrangements that lack commercial or economic substance individually or in the aggregate (e.g., the transaction is entered into shortly prior to period end and is unwound shortly after period end;
  2. The transaction occurs with a party that falls outside the definition of a related party(as defined by the accounting principles applicable to that company), with either party able to negotiate terms that may not be available for other, more clearly independent, parties on an arm’s-length basis
  3. The transaction enables the company to achieve certain financial targets.

 

What companies should do now:

  • Become familiar with AS 18
  • Document the company’s process and related controls over (see paragraph 4 of Release 2014-002) :
  • Identifying related parties and relationships and transactions with related parties,
  • Authorizing and approving transactions with related parties, and
  • Accounting for and disclosing relationships and transactions with related parties
  • Gather and document the information auditors are required to inquire about, (see PCAOB Release No. 2014 -002, page A1-3, starting at par. 5)

 

Audit committees should:

  • Become familiar with AS 18 and AS 17
  • Understand the company’s process and related controls over identifying related party transactions and
  • Be prepared for the auditor’s inquiry that is outlined in paragraph 7 on page A1-4 of Release 2014-002.

 

AS 17

 

The PCAOB adopted AS 17 to improve the quality of audit procedures performed and related reports on supplemental information that is required by a regulator when that information is reported on in relation to financial statements that are audited under PCAOB standards. The standard requires an audit for certain supplemental information, such as:

  • the schedules in Form 11-K (employee benefit plans) where the plan financial statements and schedules are prepared in accordance with the financial reporting requirements of ERISA, and
  • the supplemental schedules required by broker-dealers under SEC rule 17a-5

 

Paragraphs 3 & 4 of Appendix 1 specifies audit procedures that the auditor should perform, and paragraph 5 contains the management representations the auditor will be asking for. The auditor may provide either a standalone auditors report on supplemental information accompanying audited financial statements will or may include the auditor’s report on the supplemental information in the auditor’s report on the financial statements.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

 

 

 

Audit Committee Evolution – Some Next Steps

Role of the Audit Committee, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Over the last two months we have done a series of posts about the evolution of the role of the audit committee and related disclosures:

Part One – Overview and Some History seciblog.pli.edu/?p=447
Part Two – Independence Oversight seciblog.pli.edu/?p=450
Part Three – Audit Fee Disclosures –A Few Common Problem Areas in This Independence Disclosure  seciblog.pli.edu/?p=456
Part Four – The SEC’s Concept Release seciblog.pli.edu/?p=462
Part Five – Voluntary Disclosures in the News   seciblog.pli.edu/?p=486

 
In this last post in the series we discuss two resources for audit committees:

  1. The PCAOB’s outreach to audit committees, and
  2. Our PLI programs for audit committee members

 

PCAOB Outreach to Audit Committees

Recognizing the importance of audit committee oversight of the audit process, the PCAOB has included information for audit committees on their webpage to help audit committees in their oversight role. They have also begun a regular newsletter, “Audit Committee Dialogue”. The newsletter is on the same webpage, along with a number of other resources.
pcaobus.org/Information/Pages/AuditCommitteeMembers.aspx

 

PLI Programs for Audit Committee Members

And, lastly, here are some of our PLI programs that will help audit committee members and other directors build and maintain the knowledge and expertise to appropriately fulfill their responsibilities. Most of these programs are available via web archives, webcast and live attendance. You can learn more about all our programs at www.pli.edu.

Audit Committees and Financial Reporting 2016: Recent Developments and Current Issues
www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Audit_Committees_and_Financial_Reporting/_/N-4kZ1z11i36?fromsearch=false&ID=259781

Audit Committees and Financial Reporting 2015: Recent Developments and Current Issues www.pli.edu/Content/OnDemand/Audit_Committees_and_Financial_Reporting/_/N-4nZ1z129aq?ID=221250

Corporate Governance — A Master Class 2016

www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Corporate_Governance_A_Master_Class_2016/_/N-4kZ1z11ij4?fromsearch=false&ID=259397

 
Directors’ Institute on Corporate Governance (Thirteenth Annual)www.pli.edu/Content/OnDemand/Directors_Institute_on_Corporate_Governance/_/N-4nZ1z129if?fromsearch=false&ID=221435

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!