Tag Archives: Corporate

Lots Happening at the PCAOB!

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

Since its inception with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act the PCAOB has faced many challenges in fulfilling its responsibilities to establish GAAS for public company audits, inspect audit firms and enforce when auditors do not fulfill their responsibilities. As the PCAOB has evolved one important lesson we have all learned is that their activities and agenda do not affect just auditors. All public company reporting participants have a stake in what they do. For example, the recent audit standard about related party issues was important not just for auditors, but companies needed to assure they would have the information the new standard required auditors to obtain. Some companies even modified their D and O questionnaires in this process.

To help us be aware of where the PCAOB’s activities could impact us all, here are a few items of note going on at the PCAOB right now.

  1. Auditor’s Involvement in non-GAAP Measures

If you use non-GAAP measures in an earnings release, MD&A or other communication vehicles you will want to follow the events of the May 18-19, 2016 meeting of the PCAOB’s Standing Advisory Group. A significant part of the first day’s agenda is a discussion of “Company Performance Measures and the Role of the Auditor”. The meeting will include breakout discussion sessions and a report of the breakout discussions on day two of the meeting. You can find the agenda and how to access a webcast at:

pcaobus.org/News/Releases/Pages/SAG-meeting-agenda-May-18-19.aspx\

  1. Anticipating and Avoiding Accounting and Auditing Problems

The PCAOB inspections staff has published a “Staff Inspections Brief” which provides a preview of their observations from 2015 inspections. Interestingly the number of audit deficiencies identified for annually inspected firms, those with over 100 public clients, has decreased. For firms with less than 100 public clients, who are inspected every three years, the inspection staff found “an overall high number of audit deficiencies”. Areas with frequent deficiencies were:

Auditing internal control over financial reporting

Assessing and responding to the risk of material misstatement

Auditing accounting estimates, including fair value

Audit areas affected by economic risks, including factors such as oil prices

 

The report also discussed several financial reporting issues including business combination accounting, the statement of cash flows, revenue recognition and income taxes.

 

Auditor independence continued to be a problem area, particularly for triennially inspected firms.

You can read the whole Staff Inspection Brief at:

pcaobus.org/News/Releases/Pages/staff-inspection-brief-2015-issuer-inspections.aspx

 

  1. A Board Member’s Perspective on Inspections, Enforcement and Standard Setting

This speech, delivered by Board Member Jeanette Franzel, is a wide ranging summary of “progress in audit oversite” and has some interesting perspectives on changes that could be in store for the inspection process. She comments that inspections of large firms are showing fewer audit deficiencies but that at smaller firms there are still some that “just don’t get it”. She also provides summaries of the enforcement program and standard setting at the PCAOB.

You can read the speech at:

pcaobus.org/News/Speech/Pages/Franzel-progress-in-audit-oversight-Baruch-5-5-16.aspx

 

  1. A “Darker” Staff Practice Alert

The PCAOB inspectors continue to see enough instances of auditors making changes after audit workpapers are supposed to be “locked down” that they have issued a Staff Practice Alert to remind, or perhaps warn, auditors not to make changes inappropriately in advance of an inspection. You can read the Alert at:

pcaobus.org/News/Releases/Pages/staff-audit-practice-alert-improper-alteration-of-documents-4-21-16.aspx

Interestingly, the last section of the new release has a link to the PCAOB’s tip line……

 

  1. Re-proposed Changes to the Auditor’s Report?

The Board met on May 11, 2016 to consider re-proposing changes to the standard auditor’s report. The current pass/fail model would be retained, but the original proposal and the potentially revised proposal hope to provide additional information to make the report more relevant and informative. Stay tuned for updates on the results of the meeting; in the meantime you can read about the meeting, the revised proposal and related original proposal at:

pcaobus.org/News/Releases/Pages/PCAOB-5-11-16-open-meeting-announcement.aspx

 

  1. Naming the Audit Partner is a Done Deal and the PCAOB’s Standard Setting Agenda

 

Last, as you may have heard, the SEC has approved the PCAOB’s new Auditing Standard requiring disclosure of the names of audit partners and information about other firms involved in an audit beyond the principal auditor. To learn about that change and to see what else is on the horizon, here is a link to the PCAOB’s current rulemaking agenda:

pcaobus.org/Standards/Pages/Current_Activities_Related_to_Standards.aspx

Clearly, the PCAOB is busy!

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Revenue Recognition Help From FinREC

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

As you know the new FASB and IASB revenue recognition standards supersede all our existing revenue recognition guidance. Here in the US the new standard was such a major change that it was placed in a brand new codification section (ASC 606). One of the major changes with the new model is how it treats “specialized industries”. Many industries, such as software and construction, had specialized industry revenue recognition guidance. All those standards are also superseded. These industries now face many questions and uncertainties about how to apply the new revenue recognition model to unique and different transactions.

The new model, designed to make revenue recognition principles consistent across all industries, is much more general and does not include the detailed kind of guidance that old GAAP frequently provided. This potentially increases the risk that there could be diversity within industries in the application of the new standard.

FinREC, the Financial Reporting Executive Committee of the AICPA, and the AICPA’s Revenue Recognition Task Force have been working to help deal with these issues. They have established 16 industry groups and are developing a new “Accounting Guide for Revenue Recognition”. These resources will be developed with participation and review of standard setters, but will not be authoritative. The groups describe them as eventually providing “helpful hints and illustrative examples for how to apply the new Revenue Recognition Standard.”

They have published a list of potential implementation issues identified to date which you can find at:

www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/FRC/AccountingFinancialReporting/RevenueRecognition/DownloadableDocuments/RRTF_Issue_Status.pdf

As always, your thoughts and comments are appreciated!

SEC Comment of the Week – A Favorite Topic

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

 

It is hard to believe we are already in mid-October, and the fourth quarter of the calendar year is well underway. Many companies will soon start planning for year-end reporting and being aware of “hot button issues” is a key part of this process. To help in this planning process we are going to highlight key planning issues through our blog posts. Here is the first of these issues we think all companies should be thinking about as year-end approaches.

As we have watched comments in recent weeks, one of the areas that continues to be emphasized is the quantification of analysis in MD&A. The roots of this issue are deep. Way back in 1989 one of the examples in FR 36 laid out the framework:

Revenue from sales of single-family homes for 1987 increased 6% from 1986. The increase resulted from a 14% increase in the average sales price per home, partially offset by a 6% decrease in the number of homes delivered. Revenues from sales of single-family homes for 1986 increased 2% from 1985. The average sales price per home in 1986 increased 6%, which was offset by a 4% decrease in the number of homes delivered.

The increase in the average sales prices in 1987 and 1986 is primarily the result of the Company’s increased emphasis on higher priced single-family homes. The decrease in homes delivered in 1987 and 1986 was attributable to a decline in sales in Texas. The significant decline in oil prices and its resulting effect on energy-related business has further impacted the already depressed Texas area housing market and is expected to do so for the foreseeable future. The Company curtailed housing operations during 1987 in certain areas in Texas in response to this change in the housing market. Although the number of homes sold is expected to continue to decline during the current year as a result of this action, this decline is expected to be offset by increases in average sales prices.

You can find the release at:

www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-6835.htm

 

In 2003 FR 72 emphasized the importance of understanding the causal factors underlying changes:

  1. Focus on Analysis

MD&A requires not only a “discussion” but also an “analysis” of known material trends, events, demands, commitments and uncertainties. MD&A should not be merely a restatement of financial statement information in a narrative form. When a description of known material trends, events, demands, commitments and uncertainties is set forth, companies should consider including, and may be required to include, an analysis explaining the underlying reasons or implications, interrelationships between constituent elements, or the relative significance of those matters.

You can find the release at:

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

 

And, here are a few very recent comments where the staff focuses on these requirements in MD&A. (We have added emphasis to highlight key issues.)

As previously requested, please disclose more detail about the underlying material factors contributing to the increases in comparable store sales in both your year-end and interim results discussions, such as any changes in selling prices, volumes or the introduction or discontinuance of popular products that had a significant impact on your revenue. Refer to Item 303(a)(3)(iii) of Regulation S-K. In this regard, your current disclosures such as stating that comparable store sales increase primarily due to “strong deals in electronics, pets and clothing” do not provide enough insight into the underlying factors that drove the increase in comparable store sales that investors can access the likelihood that past results are indicative of future results. To the extent that multiple offsetting factors influenced your comparable store sales, you should discuss the impact of each significant factor. For example, if “strong deals” indicates that you lowered average prices through increased promotional activity, this would appear to decrease revenue; however, these lower prices may have been more than offset by higher volumes of products being sold. In this case, both the decrease in pricing and the increase in volume should be described.

Throughout your discussion of the results of operations, you refer to various factors that have impacted your results without quantifying the impact of each factor. Where a material change is attributed to two or more factors, including any offsetting factors, the contribution of each identified factor should be described in quantified terms. For example, you attribute the decrease in net sales and unit sales for the (Product A) in 2014 as a result of growth in the Greater China and Japan segments offset by declines in all other segments with no quantification. As another example, you attribute the growth in the Americas segment in 2014 as a result of increased net sales of (Products B, C and D), Software and Services offset by a decline in net sales of (Product E and A) and weakness in foreign currencies but you do not quantify the effects of these individual factors. Please explain to us how you considered quantifying the sources of material changes and offsetting factors throughout your discussion. Refer to Item 303(a)(3)(iii) of Regulation S-K and Section III.D of SEC Release No. 33-6835.

(Bloggers note: The release mentioned here is FR 36 quoted above)

We note you attribute the changes in headcount to explain certain changes in your results of operations but the headcount does not appear to be quantified. Please tell us your consideration of quantifying the headcount at the end of each period as a factor to explain the changes for the line items that are impacted. We refer you to Item 303(a)(3)(iii) of Regulation S-K and Section III.D of SEC Release No. 33-6835.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

A Fall Return to Our Comment of the Week (or So) Blog Posts

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

Now that summer vacation is over, and we’ve gotten through a very busy September with lots of SECI programs, we are ready to resume our comment of the week blog posts.

One topic in the news, thanks to all the political campaigning underway, is taxes. As the candidates discuss their plans to reform the tax code, we thought it would make sense to explore in a bit more depth Corp Fin’s comments about tax issues. As you likely know this has been a “frequent comment” hot topic for a while.

Here is a first comment, and a frequent theme in comments, international taxes. As you’ll see, the staff frequently asks for more detail about reconciling items. All of this of course to help readers understand the likelihood of such rates being sustainable.

2. We note from your disclosure in Note 9 that there is a significant reconciling item in the effective income tax reconciliation due to differences between foreign and United States statutory rates, which are primarily attributable to your Luxembourg holding company structure and tax rulings received from Luxembourg tax authorities. Please tell us the nature of the items included in the reconciling line item titled “differences between foreign and U.S. statutory rates.” Also, please provide us with the pre-tax income, statutory rate, and effective tax rate in Luxembourg for all periods presented. Additionally, please tell us the nature of the factors that are driving the changes in this line item from year to year, including the nature of any significant tax rulings.

This second comment in the tax arena is about tax benefits, and even mixes international issues along with the recoverability issue. You can almost hear the next comment asking about “positive and negative” evidence.

  1. Please tell us the facts and circumstances associated with the extraterritorial income tax benefit recognized in each of 2014 and 2013, including the basis for the amount recognized and changes therein. Also, tell us the nature of the reserve applied against such benefits and the amount of the reserve for each year.

Notice how this comment combines domestic versus foreign tax issues along with the theme of disaggregation:

  1. Please revise to disclose the components of income before income taxes as either domestic or foreign. See guidance in Rule 4-08(h) of Regulation S-X. Also, we note that in your reconciliation between the federal statutory rate and the effective income tax rate disclosed in Note L, foreign and state income taxes are combined in one line item. Please note that if either of these items (foreign income taxes or state income taxes) affect the statutory tax rate by more than 5% (either positively or negatively) they should be separately presented on the reconciliation.

And, in this last comment, the significant question of the repatriating the earnings of foreign operations is murky and the staff asks for clarification in disclosure.

  1. You disclose in note 15 that the income tax provision in fiscal 2014 includes $33.7 million of U.S. income and applicable foreign withholding taxes on dividends of $473.7 million due to repatriating foreign subsidiaries earnings to the U.S. parent entity to fund the share repurchase program. You also disclose you have not provided for U.S. and foreign withholding taxes on $471 million of accumulated undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries at February 1, 2015 because you intend to reinvest these earnings for the foreseeable future. It is not clear from your present disclosures how management overcame the presumption that all undistributed earnings of subsidiaries will be transferred to the parent and therefore require the accrual of an income tax payable as outlined in ASC 740-30-25-3. Please tell us how you have determined that you have both the ability and intent to indefinitely prevent accumulated undistributed foreign earnings from being repatriated without tax consequences. See ASC 740-30-25-17 and 25-18. In doing so, tell us the following:
    • Explain the specific evidence (e.g. experience of the entity, definite future plans and past remittances, etc.) to substantiate the parent’s assertion of the indefinite postponement of remittances from foreign subsidiaries;
    • Identify the entities and periods where the parent claims permanent reinvestment;
    • Tell us why you have not disclosed that the remittance of undistributed earnings is postponed indefinitely as opposed to the foreseeable future, which is the point used in ASC 740-30-25-19 to describe when it is apparent that a temporary difference reverses and a deferred tax liability is required to be recognized; and
    • Tell us how your decision to repatriate the $473.7 million of funds during 2014 in order to fund your share repurchase program was considered as part of your determination that the $471 million of accumulated undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries referenced above continue to be permanently reinvested as of February 1, 2015.

 

Taxes! Well, for now, we will forgo any jokes about how inevitable they are. We do know that tax comments asking for more clarity in disclosure will continue!

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Cybersecurity – Help Managing the Risk

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , ,

Cybersecurity risk continues to be in the news. The nature and severity of cybersecurity breaches seem to grow in severity and complexity. Both preventive and remedial cybersecurity related costs are continually increasing in our business environment. Fortunately, the tools available to manage cybersecurity risk also continue to evolve. The magnitude of this risk is so large that some companies view cybersecurity breaches all but inevitable!

In this changing world we are presenting a cybersecurity focused conference in September. The conference is titled “Cybersecurity 2015: Managing the Risk”. You can learn more about the program, which will be webcast, and review the agenda at:

www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Cybersecurity_2015_Managing_the_Risk/_/N-4kZ1z128nw?fromsearch=false&ID=225691

As always, your thoughts and comments are appreciated!

10-K Tip of the Week – Annual Report to Shareholders vs Form 10-K

10-K/10-Q Tips, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In sort of a lighthearted way this week’s Tip is a “versus” tip. With big boxing matches coming up next week, or perhaps just remembering old movies with aliens and monsters, the issue of how the Form 10-K works versus how the Annual Report to Shareholders (ARS) works seems appropriate.

This question frequently comes up in our workshops, and many folks don’t know whether or not the ARS is actually required or where to find the ARS requirements. The ARS is actually a very distinct and separate document from the Form 10-K.

The Form 10-K is the Annual Report to the SEC. It is required by the rules of the SEC and is filed with the SEC. As such, it is not a document furnished directly to shareholders, although they clearly have an opportunity to use the information as it is publicly accessible.

The ARS is actually required by the proxy rules. Rule 14a-3, which deals with information that must be furnished to shareholders in the proxy solicitation process says:

“(b) If the solicitation is made on behalf of the registrant, other than an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, and relates to an annual (or special meeting in lieu of the annual) meeting of security holders, or written consent in lieu of such meeting, at which directors are to be elected, each proxy statement furnished pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be accompanied or preceded by an annual report to security holders …….”

When a company is having its annual meeting and will elect directors at this meeting, it must furnish each shareholder with the proxy statement containing information about the election and officers and directors, and also must furnish each shareholder the ARS.

The next logical question is what must be included in the ARS? Rule 14a-3 enumerates the requirements and they include, among lots of other information:

Financial statements
MD&A
Selected financial data

“a brief description of the business done by the registrant and its subsidiaries during the most recent fiscal year which will, in the opinion of management, indicate the general nature and scope of the business of the registrant and its subsidiaries”

For a complete list of all the required information in the ARS check out Rule 14a-3. It is on page 890 of our 2015 SEC Handbook and you can also find it here:

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=8e0ed509ccc65e983f9eca72ceb26753&node=17:4.0.1.1.1&rgn=div5#se17.4.240_114a_63

Way back many years ago most companies did a separate ARS which was mailed in paper form to all shareholders along with the proxy statement. To see an example of this kind of traditional ARS check out this one from American Woodmark, a cabinet manufacturer:

files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMWD/107569654x0x673718/998BA1D0-743B-4BEC-A32F-8B7197D3B622/LowRes-13-10246_AWC-2013.pdf

The above link is to the ARS American Woodmark prepared for 2013, and it has wonderful photography and nicely typeset financial statements and MD&A. It is almost elegant in its presentation of information about the company. It is also a very expensive document to produce!

Because this kind of ARS is so expensive, many companies use a more cost effective ARS called the “10-K wrap”. This version of the ARS is actually a cover and perhaps a few pages of financial and company background “wrapped” around the Form 10-K. This approach works well because all the information required by rule 14a-3 that must be furnished to shareholders is in the Form 10-K.

American Woodmark switched to the 10-K wrap approach in 2014. You can find their 2014 ARS at:

files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMWD/107569654x0x766550/DAD863ED-7D03-468B-BCCE-E5117F2C1E43/LowRes-14-10531-FSC_AWC-FinalPDF.pdf

It would be interesting to know how much money American Woodmark saved going from the “pretty picture” ARS to the “10-K wrap” ARS!

To summarize, the Form 10-K is the formal annual report filed with the SEC as part of complying with the 34 Act, while the ARS is not filed with the SEC, it is actually furnished to shareholders.

(The proxy rules do require that copies of the ARS be sent to the SEC, one of the few paper filings companies still have to make.)

Lastly, if you are focusing on the words filed versus furnished in the above sentence, yes, they are very important and mean very different things! We will discuss that difference in our next post!

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

The Whistleblower’s Saga

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

Whistleblowers are much in the news. With stories ranging from Jim Marchese of “Real Housewives of New Jersey” fame collecting his second whistleblower legal settlement, to the SEC announcing a $1 million dollar whistleblower payout to a compliance officer, the volume of whistleblower activity is clearly increasing.

(The SEC Release is at:

www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-73.html )

Whistleblowers clearly play a key role in the detection of fraud. The SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower says: “Assistance and information from a whistleblower who knows of possible securities law violations can be among the most powerful weapons in the law enforcement arsenal of the Securities and Exchange Commission”.

If you would like to get to the story of how blowing the whistle affected one person’s life and career, skip to the links at the end of this entry. But first, here is some background about how regulators have tried to create paths for whistleblowers.

Congress has built ways for whistleblowers to do what their label says, blow the whistle when they find something that is wrong, a major focus in the efforts to combat fraud.

The Sarbanes-Oxley act created a whistleblower’s hotline to the audit committee and required that whistleblowers be able to blow the whistle anonymously. The Dodd-Frank Act created a separate incentivized hotline directly to the SEC. A whistleblower using the Dodd-Frank hotline can also remain anonymous and may even be entitled to cash rewards if the matter about which they blow the whistle results in penalties against the company.

Importantly, companies are not allowed to try and restrict employees in blowing the whistle. This is an important enough issue that the SEC has enforced against companies and levied fines when companies try to limit how employees can contact the SEC. A very recent example is against KBR’s use of a confidentiality agreement containing overly restrictive language, summarized at:

www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-54.html#.VRw2AzbD_cs

You can learn more about the Dodd-Frank hotline and the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower at:

www.sec.gov/whistleblower

One would think with all this legislative and SEC support being a whistleblower is becoming an easier path to walk. However, it is still true that few events in a persons professional career are more stressful and disruptive than blowing the whistle.

Marketplace and Propublica have put together an interesting study of how one whistleblower’s path unfolded. It is a great example with lots of gray issues, a prolonged period of uncertainty, and many other complications. You can read and hear about it at:

www.marketplace.org/topics/business/whistleblowers-tale-how-accountant-took-halliburton

www.propublica.org/article/the-whistleblowers-tale-how-an-accountant-took-on-halliburton

 

Comment of the Week – Its all About the Future!

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

One of the most challenging disclosures we discuss in our workshops is the required forward-looking MD&A requirement to disclose “known trends”. (As a heads-up, this post contains some pretty long comments, but they raise some very important issues!)

This forward-looking information requirement is rooted in the overall objective of MD&A as articulated in FR 72. The relevant section of the release states that part of the objective of MD&A is:

“to provide information about the quality of, and potential variability of, a company’s earnings and cash flow, so that investors can ascertain the likelihood that past performance is indicative of future performance” (emphasis added)

And, of course, this is done “through the eyes of management”.

You can find the whole release at:

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

From this objective it is clear that if management knows about something that means past performance is not going to be predictive of future performance and the information is material, it should be disclosed in MD&A. This is made clear in S-K Item 303(a) (3) (ii):

“Describe any 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. (emphasis added)

The SEC is watchful for companies that surprise the markets with disclosure of bad news, potentially driving down their stock price, where the companies have not said anything about the bad news issue in previous filings.

In many cases the Staff’s presumption is that the bad news did not surprise management, and that in fact they knew about the problem well before they disclosed it to investors. In that situation, management likely failed to meet the disclosure requirements in MD&A and S-K Item 303(a) (3) (ii) specifically.

In our workshops we discuss some of the classic enforcement actions where this has happened, including the “groundbreaking” cases against Caterpillar and Sony. The staff continues to search for problems in this area, and frequently starts with the comment letter process.

Here are example comments that were written to a grocery store chain that had decided to exit one of its “banners”. In this industry a “banner” is a brand name for the supermarket chain. Notice the subtle interaction of these comments from the initial letter:

  1. We note that you announced the sale and/or closure of all of your (name omitted) stores in May 2014. We further note that in the related press release, filed as Exhibit 99.2 to your March 29, 2014 Form 10-Q, your Chief Executive Officer stated, “The economic downturn over the last few years, coupled with an increased competitive footprint in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Market, has made it difficult for (the company) to keep the (name omitted) banner competitive.” We further note that the disclosures regarding negative factors impacting your business within this Form 10-K appear to broadly apply to your business and do not specifically refer to the (name omitted) banner. Please tell us how you determined additional disclosures were not required in this Form 10-K as it relates to your (name omitted) banner. In your response, specifically explain how you considered whether these stores were disproportionately impacted by any of the negative factors described in your disclosures, either in the periods of historical financial statements included in this Form 10-K or in your analysis of trends and uncertainties that you reasonably expected would have a material impact on your future results. If the decision to sell this banner was influenced by worse than expected results for this banner during the first quarter of 2014, then also apply this comment to your MD&A disclosures within your March 29, 2014 Form 10-Q. (emphasis added)

The first comment above puts the trend disclosure on the table. This next comment goes a bit further, clearly articulating the “does the past predicts the future?” requirement:

  1. We note your disclosures under the heading “Goodwill Impairment Charge.” Please tell us, and disclose in future filings, why your fair value declined such that you recorded this impairment charge. We remind you that one of the principle objectives of MD&A is to provide your investors with enough insight into the underlying factors that drove your historical results [so] that they can assess the likelihood that past results are indicative of future results. We also remind you of your obligation to describe known trends and uncertainties that have had or you reasonably expect will have a material impact on your results. (emphasis added)

The following comment directly quotes S-K 303(a)(3)(ii), asking some very challenging questions:

  1. We note you recorded $280.0 million of pretax goodwill impairment charges in the quarter ended September 27, 2014. Please tell us what consideration you gave to updating your goodwill critical accounting estimate disclosures in your September 27, 2014 Form 10-Q. In this regard, you refer your investors to the critical accounting estimates on goodwill contained in your annual report. Given the charge you recorded in the most recent quarter it would appear the assumptions used to assess goodwill for impairment have significantly changed. Further, you now have two reporting units as opposed to one reporting unit at December 28, 2013. Please advise. Additionally, given the significance of the impairment charges and the material amount of goodwill remaining on your balance sheet, please show us what critical accounting estimate disclosures you anticipate making in your upcoming Form 10-K filing. Please ensure your disclosures provide investors with sufficient information to assess the material implications of uncertainties associated with the methods, assumptions and estimates underlying this critical accounting estimate. Refer to Item 303(a)(3)(ii) of Regulation S- K, which requires a description of a known uncertainty and Section V of SEC Release No. 33-8350. (emphasis added)

After the company’s responses to the above comments, the staff wrote this follow-on comment in the second round of comments. Note the depth of the analysis asked for in the comment and the depth of the SEC’s review into material that was not even included in a 10-K or 10-Q!

 We have read your November 2014 “Company’s Investor Presentation” and note the strong growth in the Chicago Market with the ChicagoBanner’s format. Further, you highlight several differences between your Wisconsin and Illinois markets. For example, on slide five you point out the Chicago market has “2x the productivity of your Wisconsin stores.” The information presented on slide six indicates that your ChicagoBanner’s banner is a “highly differentiated food shopping experience.” You further indicate on slide seven the ChicagoBanner’s banner has 1) two times the average Wisconsin retail sales volume, 2) lower EBITDA margin and higher gross profit dollars, and 3) strong store-level ROIC. We also note on slide sixteen that ChicagoBanner’s represents a significant growth opportunity for the Company. It also appears from the disclosures in your filings and your response to our comments that your Wisconsin and Illinois markets were behaving differently during 2013 and 2014, leading you to “[shift] focus to stabilizing [your] Wisconsin market” in contrast to “growing [your] ChicagoBanner’s banner.” We further note a general trend of highly differentiated grocery stores having higher profit margins than value-oriented grocery stores. Based on this information, we continue to believe that your Wisconsin and Illinois markets likely have different current or future trends in per-store revenue and per-store profitability, and that the mix of stores between these two markets will therefore impact your consolidated results. Please explain to us in significantly more detail why the apparent differences between these types of stores were not addressed in your most recent Form 10-Q, either as part of your analysis of results of operations or as part of your discussion of trends and uncertainties, and also tell us how these matters will be addressed in your upcoming Form 10-K. 


So, the moral of this story, if you know of something that is reasonably likely to have a material impact on future results, don’t keep it secret! Even if you hope it will not be a problem, these MD&A requirements need to be carefully reviewed to determine when to share the information with investors!

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Audit Committee Challenges and Changes on the Horizon

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

The role of the Audit Committee in corporate governance is continuously developing, expanding and becoming more complex. Even before the dramatic events at Enron and Worldcom (without going too much into history!) regulators and governance experts focused on clarifying and enhancing audit committee functions. After Enron, Worldcom and the rest of the wave of governance breakdowns in the early 2000’s the SEC began to require even more significant disclosures about audit committee function.

This process has continued. At the 2014 PLI SEC Speaks conference the Chief Accountant of the SEC delivered a speech entitled “Audit Committee – Back to Basics”. You can find the presentation materials at:

www.sec.gov/News/Files/1371146714240

Even matters as foundational as auditor independence have been issues for the SEC. Deputy Chief Accountant Brian Croteau focused on such areas in this December 2014 speech:

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

As Audit Committees deal with these challenges, PLI will have a great program on June 23, 2015 titled “Audit Committees and Financial Reporting 2015 – Recent Developments and Current issues”. Included will be the latest news on potential expanded audit committee reporting. You can learn more about the program at:

www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Audit_Committees_and_Financial_Reporting/_/N-4kZ1z129aq?fromsearch=false&ID=221246

As always your comments, thoughts and ideas are welcome!

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – Yikes?

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

FCPA enforcement has become more and more of a priority for the SEC and a bigger and bigger issue for public companies in recent years. The SEC actually has a special section of its webpage devoted to FCPA Enforcement Actions!

www.sec.gov/spotlight/fcpa/fcpa-cases.shtml

Any business with foreign operations, or thinking of establishing one, even if they are modest, needs to pay attention to the challenges of FCPA compliance. Lawyers, accountants and professionals working in almost any aspect of a company with foreign operations need to understand this complex law.

To manage FCPA risks it is crucial to understand issues such as:

What are the Act’s anti-bribery provisions?

What are the Act’s “accounting and recordkeeping” (internal control) provisions?

What are the traps and major issues in the “accounting and recordkeeping” provisions?

How payments that may be immaterial for financial reporting still matter for FCPA compliance.

How internal audits and FCPA compliance audits differ.

What is the difference between a bribe and a “facilitating payment”, and does it matter for FCPA compliance?

What are the civil and criminal consequences of violating the Act?

What are the major parts of a compliance program?

How does a company build an effective compliance program?

If you need a good place to start understanding what is required to deal with FCPA issues, PLI’s One-Hour Briefing, Basics of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) 2015, on April 17, 2015, is a great resource for understanding the issues and complying with the Act.