Tag Archives: Revenue Recognition

A Year End Planning Detail – No More Mailing the ARS to the SEC!

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

One frequently asked question in our Workshops concerns the “10-K Wrap” or the annual report that companies prepare: Is this a required report or is it an optional investor relations “marketing” document?

Turns out it actually is required for the proxy process. When a company solicits proxies for its annual meeting, and the annual meeting includes, the election of directors, the proxy statement must be accompanied or preceded by an Annual Report to Shareholders or “ARS”.   You can find all the details about this requirement in Rule 14a-3. The Form 10-K and the ARS, however, are significantly different. The Form 10-K is a filed document while the ARS is furnished to shareholders pursuant to the proxy rules.

In this earlier post we reviewed the details of the proxy requirement for the ARS.

If you would like a refresher on the filed vs. furnished issues, check out this post.

One of the seeming anachronisms in this process is that the SEC has, even in these days of EDGAR, still required that paper copies of the ARS be sent to the SEC. This requirement is in the proxy rules. (Check out rules 14a-3(c) and Rule 14c-3(b)). Every time we talk about this requirement in our Workshops there are visions of the last scene from “Raiders of the Lost Ark” with a huge warehouse full of boxes no one will ever open again!

 

On November 2 the SEC modernized this requirement with the following Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation:

Proxy Rules and Schedule 14A (Regarding Submission of Annual Reports to SEC under Rules 14a-3(c) and 14c-3(b))

 

Question: Exchange Act Rule 14a-3(c) and Rule 14c-3(b) require registrants to mail seven copies of the annual report sent to security holders to the Commission “solely for its information.” A similar provision in Form 10-K requires certain Section 15(d) registrants to furnish to the Commission “for its information” four copies of any annual report to security holders. Can a registrant satisfy these requirements by means other than physical delivery or electronic delivery pursuant to Rule 101(b)(1) of Regulation S-T?

Answer: Yes. The Division will not object if a company posts an electronic version of its annual report to its corporate web site by the dates specified in Rule 14a-3(c), Rule 14c-3(b) and Form 10-K respectively, in lieu of mailing paper copies or submitting it on EDGAR. If the report remains accessible for at least one year after posting, the staff will consider it available for its information. [November 2, 2016]

So, as we approach this year end we can change this process and even save some postage!

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

 

George M.  Wilson, Director, The SEC Institute & Carol A. Stacey, Director, The SEC Institute

Revenue Recognition – How Much Time Will You Really Need?

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

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey, SECI Institute

Much has been written and said about the resources and time that will be required to implement the new revenue recognition standard. All public companies must implement the new standard for fiscal periods beginning after December 15, 2017, roughly 15 months from now. For calendar year-end companies, the first report on Form 10-Q using the new model will be filed in about 18 months. Time is, well, short.

Even the SEC has expressed their concerns about this transition. If you have not seen their comments, check out their expansion of SAB 74 disclosures announced at the September EITF meeting in this post.

Now, we are not writing this post to nag people. Our goal is to help you assess your particular situation with a deeper understanding of the areas you will need to address and the time and resources you will need. Armed with appropriate information you can build a plan and obtain the requisite resources.

Amidst all the commentary there isn’t much detail about the specific challenges in transitioning to the new revenue recognition model. Obviously a single blog post can’t do that either! But what we can do is help you with some starting points that your situation analysis will have to address to determine the resources your company will need. So, here are highlights of three of the more involved areas.

 

  1. As you likely know the new standard is contract based. Step one in the five step revenue recognition model is to identify contracts with customers. This means you need processes and controls to assure all contracts with customers are identified and tracked. And, perhaps more complex, modifications to contracts will need to be tracked and recorded. How much work and time will be required to build the systems to capture and control this information flow?

 

  1. The new standard requires many judgments, including, what are your performance obligations, how you will estimate variable consideration and how you will estimate stand-alone selling price to allocate consideration. How much time will you need to build these processes and the controls surrounding these processes?

 

  1. Even if the timing of your revenue recognition will not change, you will need to make substantially more disclosures including what are your performance obligations, how and when they are satisfied, how you estimate variable consideration and how you estimate stand-alone selling price. Perhaps the most subjective of all the new disclosures is the requirement to disaggregate revenue based on how different revenue streams are affected by “economic factors”. How much time will you need to assess “economic factors” and make these kinds of judgments about disclosures?

 

This process will be different for every company. For a retailer the process will likely need less time than for a custom manufacturer. But all companies will need some time. The time to analyze the new standard, build the policies for how the new standard will apply to your business, do the proper documentation, build processes and establish controls is what this is all about. And while it may not change how or when some companies recognize revenue, it will affect how and when you make disclosures.

This discussion does not even begin to address a raft of other issues companies face such as the decision about which transition method to use or how you will assess when customers “obtain control” of a product or service to determine the time revenue is recognized under the new standard.

So, again, not to nag, we do urge you to begin your planning process and if you have not yet done so, begin to learn how the new standard works and assess how it will apply to your business.

If you would like to let us know where are you in the process, we will share aggregate status reports in future posts.

Here are some example status updates.

Aware of the new standard.

Studying the new standards to learn how it works.

Reviewing how the new standard will apply to your business.

Drafting the policy white paper for the new standard.

Modifying accounting systems and processes for the new standard.

Updating IT systems or acquiring IT systems for the new standard.

Implementing new IT systems.

Currently running parallel between the old and new standard.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Hot Topic Update – FASB’s Dramatic New Lease Accounting Standard

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

 

The FASB’s new lease accounting standard presents complex accounting, internal control, system and implementation challenges. Learn the conceptual underpinnings, overall structure and details of the standard as it applies to both lessees and lessors. Register now for our live half-day seminar November 30th in San Francisco or December 15th in New York City, Implementing the FASB’s New Lease Accounting Standard Workshop 2016. Discussion includes implementation steps and system and ICFR issues.

http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Implementing_the_FASB_s_New_Lease_Accounting/_/N-4kZ1z10l1v?fromsearch=false&ID=300755

More Whistleblower News and a Warning from the SEC

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

In a recent post we discussed the “transformative effect” the SEC’s Whistleblower Program has had on SEC enforcement and reviewed the news that the SEC has now paid out more than $100 million to whistleblowers. We also, in an earlier post, walked-through both the Dodd-Frank and the SOX whistleblower programs and discussed some of their differences and similarities.

The most important thread running through all of this is the importance of whistleblowers in the detection and prevention of financial reporting fraud. The SEC’s Whistleblower Program affords “gatekeepers” a robust process for speaking out when they see something that isn’t right. The program is important in the detection of financial reporting fraud and is becoming an ever more important aspect of the SEC’s Enforcement program.

An important part of this program is sending messages to companies that they cannot act to harm whistleblowers. On two occasions thus far the SEC has acted strongly to punish companies who have sought to impede or retaliate against whistleblowers. The most recent case, in the words of the SEC, involved “firing an employee with several years of positive performance reviews because he reported to senior management and the SEC that the company’s financial statements might be distorted.”

The company paid a fine of half a million dollars.

Whistleblower situations are never simple. The issues involved are always grey. Whistleblowers can sometimes challenge areas where management has tried to make good decisions in complex situations. Loyalty is always an issue when someone blows the whistle. But even with these challenges the message from the SEC is clear; don’t retaliate when someone blows the whistle. Instead take steps to appropriately investigate and resolve the issues!

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

Year-End Topic 6 – Should You Consider Any Issues for OCA Consultation?

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

As we approach year-end another issue to plan well in advance is whether or not you should ask OCA to pre-clear any extremely complex or subjective accounting decisions. This is a well-established process and when you are faced with a complex transaction, extremely subjective accounting determinations or an area where GAAP is not clearly established it makes sense to pre-clear the issue and avoid the possibility of restatement, amendment, or getting hung up in the CorpFin comment process. This is especially true when we know we will all be reviewed at least once every three years.

 

OCA’s process for consultation is outlined here. The process does need a significant amount of preparation and usually requires a few weeks to complete, sometimes more, so advance planning is important.   The document link above has a very detailed list of what needs to be included in your correspondence with OCA and what to expect from the process.

 

Since this is a consultation with the Office of the Chief Accountant, the answer you get will be definitive and cannot be over-ridden in the review process.

 

There is also a telephone consultation service you can use to consult with the CorpFin Chief Accountants office, a different process of course, but sometimes a good starting point. You can find out about this less formal process here.

 

Lastly, here is a recent list of frequent OCA consultation areas you can use to access whether your issues would benefit from this process:

 

Revenue Recognition, gross vs net etc.

Business combinations, who is the acquirer, business vs assets, contingent consideration

Financial assets, impairments valuation

Segments and aggregation

Consolidation VIE

Long lived assets, e.g. goodwill impairment

Taxes,

Leases

Pension

Debt vs equity

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

SEC Review News – No More “Tandy” Language

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

Have you ever wondered why the SEC puts this language at the end of every comment letter?

We urge all persons who are responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of the disclosure in the filing to be certain that the filing includes the information the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and all applicable Exchange Act rules require. Since the company and its management are in possession of all facts relating to a company’s disclosure, they are responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of the disclosures they have made.

In responding to our comments, please provide a written statement from the company acknowledging that:

  • the company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the filing;
  • staff comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing; and
  • the company may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States.

The history of this language goes all the way back to the 70’s. Tandy was the first company to receive this language in a comment letter. The comment process had been asserted as a possible defense and the staff wanted to make it clear that this was not appropriate. It was in 2004, after a flood of FOIA requests to obtain comment letters, that the staff decided to make all comment letters and responses public. With that decision they decided to require “Tandy” language in all comment letter responses. You can read more in this 2004 release.

The Staff has now changed their position. Since this language has been around for so long they will no longer require it in each response. Instead, the staff will simply put this language in comment letters:

We remind you that the company and its management are responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of their disclosures, notwithstanding any review, comments, action or absence of action by the staff.

You can read the details here.

The change is effective immediately, so all comment letter responses after October 5, 2016 do not need the “Tandy” language.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

 

News From the CAQ – Still no Simple Answer for the RevRec/S-3 Issue!

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

Back in June of 2015 we posted about the Center for Audit Quality, or CAQ. This organization, which has its roots with the AICPA, advocates for issues surrounding public company auditing with the goal of building and maintaining the public’s trust in the auditing process. You can learn more about the CAQ at their web page.

One important part of the CAQ is the SEC Regulations Committee. This group meets regularly with the SEC Staff to discuss emerging issues in practice. The summaries of their meetings are generally very useful resources and reviewing them on a periodic basis can help deal with complex and emerging issues.

In their June meeting the Committee and the SEC Staff discussed one of the issues we have blogged about earlier in the summer, the impact of retrospective adoption of a new accounting standard (revenue recognition and leases of course!) on a registration statement filed after you file a 10-Q in the year of adoption but before the end of the year. It is conceivable that the S-3 could require applying the new accounting standard to an additional earlier year. (Check out this post if you need to refresh your memory.)

Here is the summary of discussion about this issue from the SEC Regulations Committee June meeting:

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 full retrospective adoption of the new revenue standard

As a follow-up to a topic discussed at the March 2016 Joint Meeting, the Committee and the staff discussed Deputy Chief Accountant Wes Bricker’s remarks at the 2016 Baruch College Financial Reporting Conference on transition activities for the new revenue recognition standard. Specifically, the Committee and the staff discussed the provision in ASC 250-10-45-5 which indicates that “[a]n 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.” ASC 250-10-45-9 provides guidance on the term “impracticable.”

The staff indicated that they are available for consultation with registrants that have concluded it would be impracticable to revise one or more comparative prior periods, but they also noted that consultation is not required.

So, it is all still a bit grey!

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Year-End Planning – Number Four – Recently Issued Accounting Standards and a Few Example Comments

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

In recent weeks we have been posting about areas to deal with in advance of year-end. So far we have addressed:

Issues in the Statement of Cash Flows

Evaluating and Auditing ICFR

The New Item 16 Form 10-K Summary

 

The spirit and rationale behind these posts is that it is always a good idea to proactively anticipate problems that may arise and act to keep issues from becoming problems.

As we continue this series our next post is about SAB 74 (Topic 11-M in the SAB Codification), the requirement for disclosures about recently issued accounting standards.

 

With the major changes coming from the new revenue recognition standard, the new lease standard, and for financial companies the new financial instrument impairment standard, these disclosures become increasingly important. Users need to be forewarned about the expected impact of these new standards. This is essentially a known trend disclosure in your MD&A.

 

Here is an excerpt from Topic 11-M. You can read the entire SAB here.

 

Interpretive Response: The staff believes that the registrant should evaluate each new accounting standard to determine the appropriate disclosure and recognizes that the level of information available to the registrant will differ with respect to various standards and from one registrant to another. The objectives of the disclosure should be to (1) notify the reader of the disclosure documents that a standard has been issued which the registrant will be required to adopt in the future and (2) assist the reader in assessing the significance of the impact that the standard will have on the financial statements of the registrant when adopted. The staff understands that the registrant will only be able to disclose information that is known.

 

The following disclosures should generally be considered by the registrant:

 

A brief description of the new standard, the date that adoption is required and the date that the registrant plans to adopt, if earlier.

 

A discussion of the methods of adoption allowed by the standard and the method expected to be utilized by the registrant, if determined.

 

A discussion of the impact that adoption of the standard is expected to have on the financial statements of the registrant, unless not known or reasonably estimable. In that case, a statement to that effect may be made.

 

Disclosure of the potential impact of other significant matters that the registrant believes might result from the adoption of the standard (such as technical violations of debt covenant agreements, planned or intended changes in business practices, etc.) is encouraged.

 

 

As a company gets closer to the adoption date for a new standard these disclosures should evolve. And although “[t]he staff understands that the registrant will only be able to disclose information that is known”, the other side of this disclosure is that when you know something, you should disclose it!

 

One last heads up – when you file your 10-K for the year before adoption, in other words you will adopt the day after that year-end, the staff will likely expect robust disclosure, including quantification of the impact of adoption.

 

When a company has decided which method it will use to adopt, it should disclose that information!

 

As a company researches and builds an understanding of how much a new standard will affect the financial statements, this impact should be disclosed.

 

Frequently we are concerned that there is uncertainty in this process, and that is never comfortable to discuss in an SEC report. Here are two excerpts that are examples of this disclosure from a June 30, 2016 Form 10-K. They deal with this uncertainty (emphasis added):

 

Leases

 

In February 2016, the FASB issued a new standard related to leases to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by requiring the recognition of lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet. Most prominent among the amendments is the recognition of assets and liabilities by lessees for those leases classified as operating leases under previous U.S. GAAP. Under the new standard, disclosures are required to meet the objective of enabling users of financial statements to assess the amount, timing, and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. We will be required to recognize and measure leases at the beginning of the earliest period presented using a modified retrospective approach.

 

The new standard will be effective for us beginning July 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted. We currently anticipate early adoption of the new standard effective July 1, 2017 in conjunction with our adoption of the new revenue standard. Our ability to early adopt is dependent on system readiness, including software procured from third-party providers, and the completion of our analysis of information necessary to restate prior period financial statements.

 

We anticipate this standard will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. While we are continuing to assess all potential impacts of the standard, we currently believe the most significant impact relates to our accounting for office, retail, and datacenter operating leases.

 

Revenue from Contracts with Customers

 

In May 2014, the FASB issued a new standard related to revenue recognition. Under the new standard, revenue is recognized when a customer obtains control of promised goods or services and is recognized in an amount that reflects the consideration which the entity expects to receive in exchange for those goods or services. In addition, the standard requires disclosure of the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. The FASB has recently issued several amendments to the standard, including clarification on accounting for licenses of intellectual property and identifying performance obligations.

 

The guidance permits two methods of adoption: retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented (full retrospective method), or retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying the guidance recognized at the date of initial application (the cumulative catch-up transition method). We currently anticipate adopting the standard using the full retrospective method to restate each prior reporting period presented.

 

The new standard will be effective for us beginning July 1, 2018, and adoption as of the original effective date of July 1, 2017 is permitted. We currently anticipate early adoption of the new standard effective July 1, 2017. Our ability to early adopt using the full retrospective method is dependent on system readiness, including software procured from third-party providers, and the completion of our analysis of information necessary to restate prior period financial statements.

 

We anticipate this standard will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. While we are continuing to assess all potential impacts of the standard, we currently believe the most significant impact relates to our accounting for software license revenue. We expect revenue related to hardware, cloud offerings, and professional services to remain substantially unchanged. Specifically, under the new standard we expect to recognize (Product A) revenue predominantly at the time of billing rather than ratably over the life of the related device. We also expect to recognize license revenue at the time of billing rather than over the subscription period from certain multi-year commercial software subscriptions that include both software licenses and Software Assurance. Due to the complexity of certain of our commercial license subscription contracts, the actual revenue recognition treatment required under the standard will be dependent on contract-specific terms, and may vary in some instances from recognition at the time of billing.

 

We currently believe that the net change in (Product A) revenue from period to period is indicative of the net change in revenue we expect from the adoption of the new standard.

 

Lastly, as we always like to do, here are two example comments to reinforce the issues in this disclosure:

 

Please revise your disclosures to fully comply with Question 2 of SAB Topic 11:M for each standard listed. Specifically, if early adoption is permitted, you should state the date that you plan to adopt the standard. You should also discuss the impact that adoption of each standard is expected to have on your financial statements or, if applicable, make a statement to the effect that you are still assessing the impact that adoption of each standard will have on your financial statements and the impact is not known or reasonably estimable at this time.

 

Please revise to include a discussion of the potential effects that recently issued accounting standards will have on your financial statements when adopted in a future period. Refer to SAB Topic 11.M. For example, please revise to disclose the potential effect of ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers.

How Prepared are you for SEC Annual Reporting Season or your next 10-Q?

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

It has been a very active time at the SEC, FASB and PCAOB. Have you stayed on top of recent developments, activities and proposals? For example, the Leases Standard is final and the FASB is awash in simplification and other projects. Register now for our upcoming live seminar and webcast, 32nd Annual SEC Reporting & FASB Forum being held November 14-15 in Dallas, December 12-13 in New York City and December 19-20 in San Francisco. Prepare for year-end and reporting season by attending this highly anticipated and popular annual seminar and hear a roundtable discussion of current events, including simplification overload, disclosure effectiveness, juggling Rev. Rec., Leases, CECL adoptions and more. Our expert faculty will also discuss the new CDIs on non-GAAP measures, the Regulation S-K Concept Release, frequent accounting and disclosure comments, Revenue Recognition and guidance on lease accounting, MD&A disclosure and much more.

http://www.pli.edu/Content/32nd_Annual_SEC_Reporting_FASB_Forum/_/N-1z11c8sZ4k?ID=262904

More About S-3 and the Transition to the New Revenue Recognition Standard

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

In a recent post we explored a very complex securities registration issue within retrospective application of the new revenue recognition standard. (The issue arises with any retrospective application, so it will also arise in the new leasing standard.) In a nutshell the registration issue comes up when you:

 

(1) Adopt the new revenue recognition standard as of January 1, 2018 (assume a December 31 year-end), then

(2) File your March 31, 2018 10-Q and then

(3) File an S-3 to register to sell securities.

 

The S-3 incorporates your 2017 Form 10-K by reference which includes 2015 financial statements. The 2015 financial statements would not normally be retrospectively adjusted for the new revenue recognition standard. In this case though that could be necessary. You can read all the technical details here.

 

This first post led to a really interesting question from a reader. What happens if you file the S-3 before you file your March 31, 2018 10-Q? We explored the issue in this post.

 

This then led to a really great comment from another reader. In our workshops we always emphasize building research skills and using all the relevant SEC resources, especially the CorpFin Financial Reporting Manual (FRM). This really astute reader found this section in Topic 13 of the FRM:

 

13110.2  In the case of a registration statement on Form S-3, Item 11(b)(ii) of that form would specifically require retrospective revision of the pre-event audited financial statements that were incorporated by reference to reflect a subsequent change in accounting principle (or consistent with staff practice, discontinued operations and changes in segment presentation) if the Form S-3 also incorporates by reference post-event interim financial statements. If post-event financial statements have not been filed, the registrant would not revise the pre- event financial statements in connection with the Form S-3, however, pro forma financial statements in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation S-X may, in certain circumstances, be required. In contrast, a prospectus supplement used to update a delayed or continuous offering registered on Form S-3 (e.g., a shelf takedown) is not subject to the Item 11(b)(ii) updating requirements. Rather, registrants must update the prospectus in accordance with S-K 512(a) with respect to any fundamental change. It is the responsibility of management to determine what constitutes a fundamental change.

 

 

Here there is at least some relief for the S-3 filed after year-end but before the Form 10-Q is filed! As a reminder S-X Article 11 contains this requirement:

 

  • 210.11-01   Presentation requirements.

(a) Pro forma financial information shall be furnished when any of the following conditions exist:

………………….

(Note: (1) to (7) omitted)

(8) Consummation of other events or transactions has occurred or is probable for which disclosure of pro forma financial information would be material to investors.

 

Some judgment will be required to make that decision! If the effect of the new revenue recognition standard is large enough, it could well be material to investors.

 

Similarly, for the S-3 shelf takedown S-K 512(a) includes this requirement (in bullet ii):

 

(ii) To reflect in the prospectus any facts or events arising after the effective date of the registration statement (or the most recent post-effective amendment thereof) which, individually or in the aggregate, represent a fundamental change in the information set forth in the registration statement.

 

Again, some judgment will be required to make that decision!

 

Thanks to both the readers who contributed to this discussion, and as always your thoughts and comments are welcome!