Tag Archives: ICFR

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!

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!

 

 

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

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

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

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

This enforcement is dramatic, involving:

The company

Two company officers

The audit partner

The ICFR consulting firm partner (a surprise here!)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

You can read our post at:

seciblog.pli.edu/?p=530

 

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

 

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!

 

 

Some XBRL News and A Few Tidbits

XBRL News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

XBRL has not really been in the news much lately, but on March 29, 2016 the SEC released a second DERA study about tagging processes. The study, titled “Staff Observations of Custom Axis Tags” is at:

www.sec.gov/structureddata/reportspubs/osd_assessment_custom-axis-tags.html

Here is an excerpt from the introduction of the report:

As part of our ongoing process to monitor registrant compliance with the requirements to report their financial information in their eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) exhibits, staff in the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis recently assessed certain aspects of the XBRL exhibits that affect the data quality of the disclosures provided. Specifically, the staff examined the use of custom axis tags in XBRL exhibits that reporting companies submitted with their annual reports on Form 10-K. An axis tag in XBRL allows a filer to divide reported elements into different dimensions (e.g., revenue by geographical area, fair value measurement levels, components of total equity (e.g., common, preferred)) while also showing the relationships between separately reported elements.

……………

The staff’s analysis resulted in a few key observations. First, unlike our previous staff observations that revealed a lower average rate of custom line item tags among large filers, staff observed a higher average use of custom axis tags as filer size increased, with the rate of custom axis tags highest for large accelerated filers. Second, for a random sample of filings that staff reviewed, staff observed instances of filers creating custom axis tags unnecessarily when an appropriate standard axis tag existed in the U.S. GAAP taxonomy.

 

This is an interesting development, and clearly demonstrates the SEC’s work to help make XBRL information more reliable and useful.

The earlier information the SEC has issued about XBRL include:

A “Dear CFO” letter about calculation structures that is at:

www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/xbrl-calculation-0714.htm

This earlier DERA study of extension use at:

www.sec.gov/dera/reportspubs/assessment-custom-tag-rates-xbrl.html

 

Getting XBRL Right

Next, here is a good reminder to make sure that your XBRL submissions are prepared properly and tagging is done appropriately. While XBRL is not subject to ICFR and there is no requirement for any sort of auditor review, XBRL submissions are subject to your disclosure controls and procedures. As a result you should have appropriate controls to assure that your XBRL submission:

“is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Commission’s rules and forms.”

The above quote is from the definition of Disclosure Controls and Procedures in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15 which is at:

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=8e0ed509ccc65e983f9eca72ceb26753&node=17:4.0.1.1.1&rgn=div5#se17.4.240_113a_615

This requirement is highlighted in a recent Form 10-K/A filed by Goldman Sachs to make some corrections in their XBRL submission. Goldman filed their original 10-K on February 19, 2016 and on March 1, 2016 filed a Form 10-K/A. As is required by the Exchange Act Rules for amendments, Goldman included this explanatory note:

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Due to an error by our external financial printer, our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (Original Form 10-K) was filed with an incorrect version of Exhibit 101, which provides items from our Original Form 10-K formatted in eXtensible Business Reporting Language.

This Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A (Amendment) to our Original Form 10-K, filed on February 19, 2016, is being filed in accordance with Rule 12b-15 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the sole purpose of including the correct version of Exhibit 101.

This Amendment does not amend or otherwise update any other information in the Original Form 10-K and does not reflect events occurring after the date of the Original Form 10-K.

Goldman was perhaps doing something that is appropriate, which we discuss in our workshops. After the filing someone likely double checked the XBRL submission and found the problem, and they fixed it as soon as possible. This is an example of disclosure controls in action on a detective basis, and again, while the SEC has not really indicated that they will do a lot of review of XBRL submissions, we need to make sure they are done appropriately. And, who knows, it is possible the SEC pointed this out to Goldman.

 

Taxonomy Update

On March 7, 2016 the SEC updated the EDGAR system to accept the 2016 XBRL taxonomies previously released by the FASB. The announcement is at:

www.sec.gov/structureddata/announcement/osd-announcement-030716—xbrl-taxonomy-update.html

 

Using XBRL Information

While we still don’t hear a lot about users taking advantage of all the information in the XBRL database, user tools are continuing to evolve. One tool that provides a nice way to access and use XBRL data comes from a company called Calcbench. If you do peer group analysis or are searching for comparable disclosures, this is a very useful tool. You can learn more at:

www.calcbench.com

 

As usual your thoughts and comments, including any insights you have about people using XBRL or XBRL user tools, is 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!

Comment of the Week – Market Risk Reminder

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

 

We have been discussing the topic of Market Risk Disclosures a lot in this environment of volatile exchange rates, bumpy commodity prices and uncertain interest rates. This disclosure is one of the most confusing parts of Regulation S-K. Without going into a whole lot of details about S-K Item 305 (which we covered in an earlier blog at seciblog.pli.edu/?p=489), as we move towards the end of the first quarter it will continue to be important to focus on getting this disclosure right.

 

So, with this post as a reminder, here is a quick example in a recent comment:

Item7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk, page 63

  1. Please provide an analysis on whether your “cash flow hedges,” discussed in the second- to-last paragraph of page 63, are material, such that you would need to provide the disclosure in Item 305(a) of Regulation S-K. Please see General Instruction 5.B to Item 305(a) and (b).

 

As usual, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Another SEC Accounting Enforcement

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

 

The most recent fruit of the SEC Enforcement Division’s on-going efforts to find and bring financial reporting cases is against Monsanto Company and several individuals. It was announced on February 9, 2016. You can read the release here:

www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-25.html

 

The case involves some of the classic financial reporting problem areas including revenue recognition, manipulation of expenses and ICFR.

 

The settlement includes fines for both the company and individuals as well as two officers being barred from SEC practice. Interestingly, the settlement also requires the company to hire a compliance consultant to deal with the enforcement related issues.

 

The CEO and CFO, while not named in the case, voluntarily repaid bonuses and share based payment awards that would not have been paid if financial results had not been manipulated. This was essentially a voluntary clawback. As a result, the SEC did not have to bring a case based on the clawback provisions of SOX.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!