Tag Archives: Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Committee

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!

 

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!

Due Care and Good Faith with Accounting Judgments – More Enforcement News!

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

On April 19th the SEC Enforcement Division announced two financial fraud enforcement cases in which companies, officers and in one of the cases the company’s auditors were named and barred or paid fines. Financial fraud enforcement cases are on the rise, but the interesting issue in these cases is that both centered on the challenging, grey area judgements that we make in the accounting process.

In the release Enforcement Division Director Andrew Ceresney said:

“We are intensely focused on whether companies and their officers evaluate judgmental accounting issues in good faith and based on GAAP.”

The most unsettling implication of these two cases is that while we make these judgements with uncertain and sometimes incomplete information, the people who pass judgment on them after the fact always operate with 20-20 hindsight.

The areas involved in these two cases are classic accounting estimate areas. One of the named companies/executives used a warranty accrual, failure to appropriately amortize intangibles and failure to appropriately write down inventory to lower of cost or market to be able to meet earnings targets.

In the other case, company executives failed to appropriately value accounts receivable from and impair investments in an electric car manufacturer that was a major customer. In addition, the audit engagement partner was suspended from appearing before the SEC.

You can read the release at:

www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-74.html

This message is more than unsettling, it’s downright scary. It almost starts to feel that someone is watching over our shoulder as we make difficult judgment calls. And we know that when we make these kinds of accounting judgments and estimates there is usually no “right answer”. In fact, different professionals may arrive at different conclusions when making these kinds of judgements, but there is usually a range of reasonable estimates.

 

That said, the message is clear, be sure to exercise due care and follow GAAP when making subjective accounting judgments, because if things go wrong, enforcement may be asking questions! And, as we said above, when they ask questions, they will have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

 

How do we assure that when someone with hindsight evaluates our decisions we have as strong a position as possible? Here are a few reminders about your process for making and documenting these judgments:

  1. Always create your documentation contemporaneously. If you wait to document a decision until you are asked about it by someone like the SEC, you will never remember all the issues and considerations in your decision. And, it will be easy to see that you created the documentation after the fact.

 

  1. In your documentation be sure to thoroughly evaluate all the different alternatives in the decision process. Lay out in clear language each alternative and the pros and cons of each alternative. Include all relevant factors on all sides of the decision. If someone wants to second guess your decisions and you have not addressed all the issues, it will be more likely that you will be second guessed.

 

  1. Support your discussion with appropriate references to the Accounting Standards Codification. Explain what GAAP you think is relevant and how the guidance applies in your situation. Most importantly, document and be faithful to the principles underneath the GAAP you are using.

 

  1. As part of ICFR, have a documented review process. All appropriate levels of involvement in the decision should be documented, and if your company has a policy about reviewing accounting decisions it should be documented that that policy was followed. If you know there is a material intentional error, such as occurred in these cases, use the appropriate channels within your company to rectify it.

 

If you would like some background about writing these kinds of white papers you could check our One-Hour Briefing about drafting accounting white papers at:

www.pli.edu/Content/How_to_Write_an_Accounting_White_Paper/_/N-1z11dsbZ4n?ID=264615

And lastly, if you are thinking about how the issues in this enforcement relate to issues that could be critical accounting estimates, you could also review the requirements for these disclosures in FR 72. You can find them at the end of the FR at:

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

 

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!

A Few Disclosure Control Reminders

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

In our Workshops, participants almost always have a reasonable understanding of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (or ICFR).   And this makes sense; the concept of internal control in the financial reporting process has existed for decades. When SOX required all companies to evaluate their ICFR, the way banks had been evaluating ICFR since the FDICIA Act of 1991, it was not a brand new idea.

 

But what about controls over the preparation of information which is outside of the financial statements? Prior to SOX there was no “control” process for non-financial information. Recognizing that the non-financial information in a filing can be as important if not more important than the financial statements, SOX created a new category of controls, disclosure controls and procedures (DCP for short).

 

This post reviews some background about DCP and then we dive more deeply into four common DCP problem areas and include some example SEC comments. (If you are comfortable with the concept of DCP, you can skip to the comments at the end.)

 

The technical definition of DCP is in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15:

 

(e) For purposes of this section, the term disclosure controls and procedures means controls and other procedures of an issuer that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the issuer in the reports that it files or submits under the Act (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by an issuer in the reports that it files or submits under the Act is accumulated and communicated to the issuer’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

 

From this definition it is clear that DCP applies to the entire report. So, for example, in a Form 10-K, while ICFR applies to the financial statements in Item 8, DCP applies to the whole report, Items 1 through 15, including MD&A, includes a substantive portion of ICFR in the financial statements.

 

When SOX created a requirement to evaluate ICFR, it also created a requirement to evaluate DCP. Again, from Rule 13a-15:

 

(b) Each such issuer’s management must evaluate, with the participation of the issuer’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of each fiscal quarter, except that management must perform this evaluation:

(1) In the case of a foreign private issuer (as defined in §240.3b-4) as of the end of each fiscal year….

 

Both Form 10-K in Item 9A and Form 10-Q in Part I Item 4 refer to S-K Item 307:

 

 

  • 229.307   (Item 307) Disclosure controls and procedures.

Disclose the conclusions of the registrant’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, regarding the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in §240.13a-15(e) or §240.15d-15(e) of this chapter) as of the end of the period covered by the report, based on the evaluation of these controls and procedures required by paragraph (b) of §240.13a-15 or §240.15d-15 of this chapter.

[68 FR 36663, June 18, 2003]

 

One important difference between ICFR and DCP is that a newly public company does not have to report on the effectiveness of its ICFR in its first 10-K and in fact an Emerging Growth Company does not have to report on the effectiveness of its ICFR while it is an emerging growth company. But DCP must be evaluated immediately in the company’s first 10-Q or 10-K. And this evaluation must be performed each quarter.

 

DCP Problem Areas

 

Here are four common issues with some example comments about the DCP reporting process:

 

Have you documented your evaluation of DCP?

Have you said DCP are or are not effective?

Have you considered the impact of ICFR issues on DCP?

When you remediate, remember to disclose what you did.

 

Have you documented your evaluation of DCP?

 

One challenging issue in the evaluation of DCP is how much documentation is required? As a brand new concept with SOX, DCP does not have the history that ICFR has. Companies may have a Disclosure Committee, use sub-certifications, or have CEO and CFO meetings with operations managers, all of which would be part of DCP. But there is no formal “framework” for DCP and much more judgment is required. The same is true of the evaluation process. That said, it is clear it is required:

Controls and Procedures, page 105

  1. We note the disclosures under subsections (a) and (b) under this heading refer to management’s evaluations and conclusions of the effectiveness of disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting as of and for the year December 31, 2013. In your response please confirm, if true, that company’s management performed the annual assessments as of the end of the period covered by this report, December 31, 2014. Please also provide us with the revised disclosures, with the applicable period, that includes the following:
  • the evaluations and conclusions of the principal executive and principal financial officers, regarding the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by the report, as prescribed by Item 307 of Regulation S-K; and
  • a report from management on the company’s internal control over financial reporting with the elements prescribed in Item 308(a) of Regulation S-K.

 

Have you said DCP are or are not effective?

Just as with ICFR a conclusion that DCP are or are not effective is required when they are evaluated. Note that in both the following comments the SEC is requiring the company to amend their filing:

Item 4. Controls and Procedures, page 35

  1. Based on the evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2014, your chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that your disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of June 30, 2014, except for the impact of material weaknesses in your internal control over financial reporting. We believe that Item 307 of Regulation S-K requires your officers to conclude if your disclosure controls and procedures are “effective.” We do not believe it is appropriate for your officers to conclude that your disclosure controls and procedures are effective “except for” certain identified problems. Your officers must definitively conclude whether your disclosure controls and procedures are effective or ineffective. Your officers should consider the identified problems in determining if your disclosure controls and procedures are effective. If your officers conclude your disclosure controls and procedures are effective, please disclose the basis for their conclusion in light of these material weaknesses. If you determine that your disclosure controls and procedures were ineffective as of June 30, 2014 when considering these identified problems, please amend your Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2014 to include your revised assessment of your disclosure controls and procedures.

 

  1. In the first paragraph of this section, you disclose that your disclosure controls and procedures were adequate. Meanwhile, in the second paragraph of this section, you disclose that your disclosure controls and procedures were not effective. In an amendment to your Form 10-K, please revise to disclose your conclusion that your disclosure controls and procedures are effective or ineffective, whichever the case may be. Refer to Item 307 of Regulation S-K.

 

Have you considered the impact of ICFR issues on DCP?

 

As described above DCP includes ICFR as a subset of DCP.   This means that if a company has a material weakness in ICFR it likely also impacts on DCP.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures, page 21

  1. As reported in your Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2015, management identified material weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting, and you disclose that your remediation of the material weaknesses in your internal control over financial reporting is ongoing. Given this, please tell us the factors that management considered in concluding that disclosure controls and procedures were effective for the period.

When you remediate, remember to disclose what you did.

Lastly, just as with ICFR, when you remediate a problem area, be sure to appropriately disclose what you did to fix a control problem

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures, page 7

  1. We note that you conclude that your disclosure controls and procedures were not effective on June 30, 2015. Please expand your disclosures to clearly discuss the material weakness identified, when it was discovered and your plans to remediate it.
  2. We note your conclusion indicating that your disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of your June 30, 2015 fiscal year end due. Further, we note your management concluded that disclosure controls and procedures in your Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2015 were effective and there were no changes in your internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended September 30, 2015. Please revise to expand your disclosures to explain how management determined that its disclosure controls and procedures were effective at September 30, 2015 given that the company concluded that they were ineffective at year end. In this regard, tell us and disclose how you remediated the material weakness that caused you to conclude that your disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at June 30, 2015. Also, please revise your disclosures to comply with Item 308(c) of Regulation S-K to include details of any changes that may have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect the company ́s internal control over financial reporting.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Message From Enforcement: Metrics Matter!

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

Metrics, measures of performance drivers outside the financial statements, have become a larger part of how companies communicate with investors in recent years. As with all communication tools, a carefully planned, balanced presentation is important. Well-designed metrics can provide greater insight into the fundamentals of a company’s operations.

As with other elements of financial reporting, metrics can be misused. A metric could be poorly designed and not really correlate with financial performance. A metric could also be misstated or manipulated.

Poorly Designed Metrics

Many tech companies have complex and hard to understand revenue models. Measures such as “daily active users” and “monthly active users” can help users understand a company’s performance. That said, the link between the metric and performance needs to be clear. The CorpFin Staff has written many comments about this issue. Here are a couple of examples:

  1. In your various quarterly earnings calls, we note your discussion of the performance of your business in terms of the “add/quit metric” and “uniform wearer losses” (based upon changes in the number of uniform wearers within particular sectors of your customer base). We further note this is your fourth consecutive quarter of negative uniform wearer losses. Please expand your MD&A to include this information as well as a discussion of any trends or uncertainties. Additionally, the add/stop metric appears to have a meaningful impact on operating margins and growth rate. Please expand your disclosure to provide a complete picture of the relationship between the add/quit metric, operating margins, and growth rate for each material sector of your customer base. Please refer to Item 303(a)(3) of Regulation S-K and Section III.B.1. of SEC Release 33-8350.

 

  1. We note your statement that your results are highly dependent on comparable store sales. We further note that your comparable store sales have declined over the last three years and within each year have generally declined each quarter. We also note your statements that your comparable store sales are difficult to predict in the current competitive landscape and may get marginally worse before they get better. Given the importance of this metric to your results and its significant decline over the last three fiscal years, please tell us and disclose in more detail the factors that contributed to this decline, such as any significant declines in prices, including significant increases in your promotional activity, any significant declines in the volume of items sold, any change in the mix of products being sold or any other material factors that had a significant impact on the decline in your comparable store sales. While this decline in comparable store sales may ultimately be driven by your competitive environment, we believe a more detailed discussion of changes in intermediate factors such as price and volume will provide more transparency to your investors as to how you are affected by this competition, any steps management has taken to mitigate the impact of this competition and the success of management’s strategies. Refer to Item 303(a)(3)(iii) of Regulation S-K and SEC Release No. 33-8350.

 

Misstated Metrics and Enforcement

When companies present metrics, they should be very careful to use a balanced approach to the information and use the metric consistently to avoid presenting potentially misleading information. We discussed many of these issues in our One-Hour Briefing about Non-GAAP Measures and Metrics. You can find the briefing at:

 

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

 

One really “old school” example metric would be the financial ratio gross margin. It is not a non-GAAP measure so long as it is computed using the revenues, cost of sales and gross margin lines on a company’s income statement. For retailers, it is a crucial measure of performance. Gross margin trend over time can have a significant impact on how investors view a retailer.

In a recent enforcement case the SEC fined a large outdoor products retailer and its CFO for manipulating their gross margin and then misstating why gross margin changed. The source of the issue was a fee the company charged to its wholly owned banking subsidiary. In the retailer’s financial statements the fee was used to reduce cost of sales and thus increase gross margin. Such a fee would normally be eliminated in consolidation. Here though, the company failed to eliminate this intercompany transaction. As a result, in the consolidated financial statements the net income of the financing part of the business was understated and the gross margin of the retailing part of the business was overstated. Additionally, the company did not disclose that this intercompany fee had increased their gross margin and actually attributed the increase to other causes.

 

Here is a quote from the enforcement order:

This in turn increased ——– merchandise gross margin percentage, a key company-specific financial metric that signaled the profitability of the company and was referenced by the company in earnings releases and analysts calls.

 

The end result: Enforcement!

And, a clear message, manipulating metrics can get a company into just as much trouble as manipulating the financial statements!

You can read the enforcement release at:

www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/34-77717.pdf

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

A non-GAAP Measure Subtle Trap

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

One of the more complex traps when presenting non-GAAP measures is this question:

Which source of SEC non-GAAP measure guidance applies to your earnings release:

Reg G, or

S-K Item 10(e)?

In case you are not familiar with Reg G and S-K Item 10(e) and when each of them applies:

Reg G applies when you use a non-GAAP measure in a non-filed source, and

S-K Item 10(e) applies when you use a non-GAAP measure in a filed document.

You can learn more about these two non-GAAP rules in some of the earlier posts on our blog. Here is a post with the basics:

 

seciblog.pli.edu/?p=401

 

You can also check out our one-hour briefing about non-GAAP measures from March 2016 at:

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

 

The trap here is this: You might believe that since an earnings release is not a filed document Reg G is the applicable guidance, and all you have to do is present the most directly comparable GAAP measure and provide a reconciliation.

That is NOT the case. The reason that S-K Item 10(e) applies to your earnings release is actually very subtle. It is in the instructions to Form 8-K. Tucked away in the earnings release 8-K, Item 2.02, is this instruction:

 

  1. The requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(i) of Item 10 of Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.10(e)(1)(i)) shall apply to disclosures under this Item 2.02.

 

Thus, the first part of S-K Item 10(e) DOES apply to your earnings release, even though it is not “filed” and even though the Item 2.02 8-K is not a filed document!

 

So, to be very detailed, this part of S-K Item 10(e) applies to year earnings release (there are other requirements in S-K Item 10(e) that do not apply, we won’t list them here):

 

(e) Use of non-GAAP financial measures in Commission filings. (1) Whenever one or more non-GAAP financial measures are included in a filing with the Commission:

 

(i) The registrant must include the following in the filing:

(A) A presentation, with equal or greater prominence, of the most directly comparable financial measure or measures calculated and presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP);

 

(B) A reconciliation (by schedule or other clearly understandable method), which shall be quantitative for historical non-GAAP measures presented, and quantitative, to the extent available without unreasonable efforts, for forward-looking information, of the differences between the non-GAAP financial measure disclosed or released with the most directly comparable financial measure or measures calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP identified in paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of this section;

 

(C) A statement disclosing the reasons why the registrant’s management believes that presentation of the non-GAAP financial measure provides useful information to investors regarding the registrant’s financial condition and results of operations; and

 

(D) To the extent material, a statement disclosing the additional purposes, if any, for which the registrant’s management uses the non-GAAP financial measure that are not disclosed pursuant to paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section; and

 

One area the staff will comment on is the “equal or greater prominence” requirement in paragraph (A) above. Here is an example comment:

 

  1. We note that in the Financial Highlights section of your press release furnished on Form 8-K, you disclose Total Segment EBITDA, a non-GAAP financial measure, without the disclosure of the most comparable GAAP measure. Please note that under Item 10(e)(1)(i)(A) when a non-GAAP financial measure is presented, the most directly comparable financial measure calculated in accordance with GAAP must be disclosed with equal or greater prominence. Please revise accordingly. See also Instruction 2 to Item 2.02 of Form 8-K.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

 

 

Disclosure Effectiveness – Looking for A Deeper Dive?

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

Last week we lightheartedly posted about the fun of listening to a live webcast of an SEC meeting and being “cool” and “in the know”. The meeting we mentioned is on April 13th and includes this agenda item:

 

The Commission will consider whether to issue a concept release seeking comment on modernizing certain business and financial disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K.

 

Concept releases explore issues and very frequently provide insight into the direction that future policy making will take. As an example you could check out the SEC’s recent concept release about audit committee disclosures in this post:

 

seciblog.pli.edu/?p=462

 

Also, in some words that may be familiar to folks who have attended our SEC Workshops, here is a quote about MD&A from FR 36:

 

The MD&A requirements are intended to provide, in one section of a filing, material historical and prospective textual disclosure enabling investors and other users to assess the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant, with particular emphasis on the registrant’s prospects for the future. As the Concept Release states:

 

The Commission has long recognized the need for a narrative explanation of the financial statements, because a numerical presentation and brief accompanying footnotes alone may be insufficient for an investor to judge the quality of earnings and the likelihood that past performance is indicative of future performance. MD&A is intended to give the investor an opportunity to look at the company through the eyes of management by providing both a short and long-term analysis of the business of the company. The Item asks management to discuss the dynamics of the business and to analyze the financials.

 

Most importantly, the SEC listens and very often thoughtfully takes into account the issues discussed in comment letters in their subsequent rulemaking.   All this leads us to the conclusion, especially since the Disclosure Effectiveness process has been underway for quite a while, that this could be an important meeting!

 

If you would like to learn a bit more after the meeting, PLI will be presenting a One-Hour Briefing titled “SEC’s New Concept Release on Modernizing Regulation S-K” on April 25, 2016. Four speakers, including former CorpFin staffers, will present the briefing to help build a deeper understanding of the process. You can learn more at:

 

www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/SEC_s_New_Concept_Release_on_Modernizing/_/N-4kZ1z10szo?Ns=sort_date%7c0&ID=283018

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!