Tag Archives: SEC PROFESSIONALS

Non-GAAP Measures – The Saga Continues

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

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

The sometimes fuzzy distinction between non-GAAP liquidity measures and non-GAAP performance measures is a major concern of the SEC’s Non-GAAP Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI’s) and the comment letters the Staff issues focused on this topic. In the middle of this grey question are EBITDA and “adjusted EBITDA”. Whether these measures are liquidity measures or performance measures can be a very complex, subjective question. To take some of the grey away the SEC included this C&DI in their May 2016 changes:

Question 103.02

Question: If EBIT or EBITDA is presented as a performance measure, to which GAAP financial measure should it be reconciled?

Answer: If a company presents EBIT or EBITDA as a performance measure, such measures should be reconciled to net income as presented in the statement of operations under GAAP. Operating income would not be considered the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure because EBIT and EBITDA make adjustments for items that are not included in operating income. In addition, these measures must not be presented on a per share basis. See Question 102.05.  (emphasis added) [May 17, 2016]

 

The last sentence in this answer is all about the potential confusion between EBITDA and cash flow from operations. GAAP and the SEC guidance specifically prohibit presenting cash flow per share because of the potential confusion between earnings per share and cash flow per share. (This goes all the way back to ASR 142 and old SFAS 95!) EBITDA, even when intended by management as an operations measure, is so close to this line that it cannot be presented on a per share basis.

 

In an interesting sequence of comment letters and responses the SEC has pushed its concerns about these kinds of non-GAAP measures to a new level. After a number of back and forth letters with a registrant focusing on whether a “non-GAAP adjusted net income” was a performance or liquidity measure the staff included this language in a late round comment:

 

Finally, in light of our discussions about this matter, we will evaluate the industry practices you described to us and consider whether additional comprehensive non-GAAP staff guidance is appropriate.

 

It is extremely unusual, as was even reported in The Wall Street Journal on February 13, 2017, to see a statement like this in a comment letter.

 

Even more eyebrow-raising is this comment in the SEC’s closing letter:

 

Although we do not agree with your view, in light of the circumstances, we have completed our review of your filing. 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. (emphasis added)

 

If you are presenting an EBITDA or similar measure it would be smart to review these letters.

 

You can find the first of the comment letter series here. The company’s responses (CORRESP documents) and the follow-up comment letters (UPLOAD documents) appear in this EDGAR list.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

More Change – Final – Resource Extraction Payment Rule Repealed

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

By: George M Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

On February 14, 2017 President Trump signed the law eliminating the resource extraction payment disclosure provisions of the Dodd Frank Act.

From:

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/14/president-trump-cutting-red-tape-american-businesses

 

GETTING GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed legislation (House Joint Resolution 41) eliminating a costly regulation that threatened to put domestic extraction companies and their employees at an unfair disadvantage.

H.J. Res. 41 blocks a misguided regulation from burdening American extraction companies.

By halting this regulation, the President has removed a costly impediment to American extraction companies helping their workers succeed.

This legislation could save American businesses as much as $600 million annually in regulatory compliance costs and spare them 200,000 hours of paperwork.

The regulation created an unfair advantage for foreign-owned extraction companies.

 

 

As always your comments and thoughts are welcome.

 

Things Are Changing!

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

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

Two of the provisions of the Dodd Frank Act relating to disclosures by public companies are being considered for change in Washington, DC.

 
Conflict Minerals Disclosures
Acting Chairman Piwowar has directed the Staff to reconsider whether the 2014 guidance on the conflict minerals rule is still appropriate and whether any additional relief is appropriate. You can read his announcement including his formal statement and information he gathered on a trip to Africa here.

 
Resource Extraction Payment Rule
Congress has begun the process of revoking the Resource Extraction Payments provisions of the Act. The House passed this provision earlier and the Senate voted to revoke the provision Friday, February 3, 2017. You can read about the Senate vote here.

 

As always your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Why, Oh Why, Is It Always Segments?

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

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

If you have been involved with SEC reporting for more than say, five minutes, you have heard about or discussed with someone the SEC’s focus on operating segments. Segment related disclosures are included in several Form 10-K Items, including:

Item 1 – Description of the business,

Item 2 – Properties,

Item 7 – MD&A, and of course

Item 8 – Financial Statements.

Almost every SEC conference or workshop addresses the importance of segment disclosures.

The latest segment “message” from the SEC is in the November 7, 2016 Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release dealing with PowerSecure.

It is the same familiar message we heard in the Sony case in 1998 and the PACCAR case in 2013. When companies avoid making proper GAAP disclosures for operating segments to try and bury problems in one part of a business with profits from another part of their business, trouble will result.

In the “classic” Sony case the company used profits from its music business to mask problems in its movie business. This case also has a great known trend disclosure problem and becomes an almost scary “double trouble” example. To escalate this case to “triple trouble” the SEC also made it clear that Sony’s assignment of MD&A to the IR manager was not appropriate by naming that person in the case and forcing Sony to reassign this responsibility to the CFO. With all that was going on with Sony the SEC went so far as to require the company to engage its auditors to “examine” MD&A. Surprisingly, under the attest standards, auditors can issue a full opinion report on MD&A!

In the PACCAR case problems in new truck sales were hidden with profits from truck parts sales. This SEC Complaint includes a very detailed summary of the operating segment disclosure requirements, discussing in detail how PACCAR’s management viewed the business and how, in the SEC’s judgement, PACCAR was not following the GAAP requirements. It includes this language:

“However, in reporting its truck and parts results as a single segment, PACCAR did not provide investors with the same insight into the Company as PACCAR’s executives.”

This story line repeats in PowerSecure. For the periods in question PowerSecure reported one segment when that was not how management actually viewed the business:

“PowerSecure also misapplied ASC 280 by concluding that its CODM – who was determined to be the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) – did not regularly review operating results below the consolidated level to make decisions about resource allocations and to assess performance. This was inconsistent with the way in which the CEO regularly received, reviewed, and reported on the results of the business and how the company was structured. On a monthly basis, the CEO received financial results that reflected a measure of profitability on a more disaggregated level than the consolidated entity. Further, on a quarterly basis, the CEO met with each business unit some of the business unit leaders had business unit level budgets and forecasts and received incentive compensation based, at least in part, upon the results of their business unit.“

The message is clear, don’t use segments to try and hide problems! As a last reminder, don’t forget that these disclosure requirements may go to an even lower level than operating segments in MD&A. Regulation S-K Item 303 makes this clear:

“Where in the registrant’s judgment a discussion of segment information or of other subdivisions of the registrant’s business would be appropriate to an understanding of such business, the discussion shall focus on each relevant, reportable segment or other subdivision of the business and on the registrant as a whole.”

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

 

Third Annual Form 10-K Tune-Up

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

As you draft your annual Form 10-K it is always a challenge to be sure that you deal effectively with new and emerging issues and the ever-evolving focus areas of the SEC. Register for our January 23rd One Hour Briefing, Form 10-K Tune-Up. Review the key issues to address in this year’s Form 10-K, including the latest in SEC Staff comments about non-GAAP measures; new accounting standards, revenue recognition, leases and financial instruments.

http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Third_Annual_Form_10_K_Tune_Up_/_/N-4kZ1z10jog?Ns=sort_date%7c0&ID=301955

A Control Environment and History Follow-Up

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

By: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey

 

This famous quote has been in our thoughts over the last several months:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

George Santayana, the poet and essayist, wrote these famous words in his book The Life of Reason. Many other people including Winston Churchill have thoughtfully incorporated this fundamental principle of life in speeches and remarks.

Another favorite variation of the idea comes from Mark Twain:
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

The lesson here is that if we learn history we can hopefully avoid making the same or similar mistakes in the future. As we discussed a couple of posts back, recent public company news shows that many organizations have not been learning from the past.

 

One person who can help us learn about history we do not want to repeat is Cynthia Cooper. She was the WorldCom head of internal audit who built and lead the team that worked almost “under cover” to find the largest fraud ever discovered. This was a tone at the top fraud, involving the CEO, CFO and CAO. Her book is a sometimes-chilling story of how bad tone at the top results in fraud.

 

Sharron Watkins is another person who can help us learn how to not repeat history. She was the Enron Vice President, a direct report to Andy Fastow, who blew the whistle about Enron’s accounting irregularities. And we all know perhaps too much about that fraud which was even the subject of a book and related movie “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room”.

 

Corporate ethics will never be easy, but as history and current events show, it does matter. If leadership of an organization sends the message that making money is the most important thing an organization does, if it sends the message that if you don’t make money you will be fired, if it sends the message that other values can be sacrificed if you make money, the ultimate result is inevitable. In countless frauds over centuries, from Ivar Kreuger, the match king in the early 1900s, to Equity Funding in the 1970s, to Madoff, to Enron, to the companies we are talking about today, this lesson has been proven time and time again.

 

These stories can help us learn and avoid the mistakes others have made. They can be the focus of training and learning. They can be the foundation for building awareness and support for these issues in organizations large and small.

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

Three Years of Fun – Planning the “Big Three” New FASB Statement Transitions

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

by: George M. Wilson & Carol A. Stacey, SEC Institute

We have all heard about the major projects the FASB has completed in recent years. Together with their implementation dates for public companies and allowed transition methods they are:

Revenue recognition: January 1, 2018. (F/Y’s beginning after December 15, 2017)

Early adoption is allowed to the original effective date, F/Y’s beginning after 12/15/16). Either a retrospective or modified retrospective with a cumulative effect adjustment transition may be used.
Leases: January 1, 2019. (F/Y’s beginning after December 15, 2018)

Early adoption is allowed. A retrospective transition must be used. The retrospective approach includes several practical accommodations.

Financial Instrument Impairment: January 1, 2020 (F/Y’s beginning after December 15, 2019)

Early adoption to years beginning after December 15, 2018 is allowed. The transition method is essentially a “modified retrospective approach with a cumulative effect adjustment” with adjustments for certain types of financial instruments.
The revenue recognition and lease changes have been widely discussed, but the financial instruments impairment change has not been as “hot” a topic. It could be problematic for some companies as it will apply to all financial instruments, including accounts receivable. Many companies could face significant challenges gathering the information to move from the current incurred loss model to the new expected loss model.
While the impact of each new standard will vary from company to company, every company needs to think about how to manage these three transitions. Will it be best for your company to adopt all three at once, or will it be best to adopt them sequentially? Or perhaps mix and match a bit?
There are several considerations in these implementation date decisions. How they will affect investor relations is a major issue. The time and other resources required, systems issues and ICFR impact are among the other inputs to this decision. Each company has to evaluate these considerations based on their own circumstances.
Given the potential magnitude of these changes and their widespread discussion in the reporting environment, disclosures about these changes have become more and more important to users. With the recent SEC Staff Announcement at the September EITF meeting about SAB 74 (SAB Codification Topic 11-M) disclosures, disclosing where you are in this process has become almost required. The more or less simple “standard” disclosures about “we have not selected a transition method” and “we do not yet know the impact” may not be enough. Qualitative information about where you are in the process may be a required disclosure.

There are strong incentives to move diligently on these transitions and to tell investors where you are in the process. And, anyway, who really wants to look unprepared?
Three years of sequential fun or big change? Spread it out or rip off the Band-Aid? Slow burn or big bang? We all get to decide what will be best for our company and our investors, the key issue is to make this decision on a timely basis!

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

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!

Keeping Up With FINRA

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

FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and how this Self-Regulatory Organization affects us are less well known aspects of being a public company.   Perhaps you have seen a “FINRA list”, the list of people who have bought and sold your stock in the period surrounding a major change in your stock price. This is one of the tools that regulators use to search for insider trading. Or maybe you have read about how FINRA’s fines for broker/dealers are on a pace to set new records.

One way or another, we should all know about FINRA. You can find out a lot about them on their web page. Here is how FINRA describes their mission in the “About” section of their web page:

“FINRA is dedicated to investor protection and market integrity through effective and efficient regulation of the securities industry.

FINRA is not part of the government. We’re an independent, not-for-profit organization authorized by Congress to protect America’s investors by making sure the securities industry operates fairly and honestly.

We do this by:

writing and enforcing rules governing the activities of 3,895 securities firms with 641,761 brokers;

examining firms for compliance with those rules;

fostering market transparency; and

educating investors.”

Our independent regulation plays a critical role in America’s financial system—by enforcing high ethical standards, bringing the necessary resources and expertise to regulation and enhancing investor safeguards and market integrity—all at no cost to taxpayers.

FINRA’s role does go beyond broker/dealers. They also say:

FINRA uses technology powerful enough to look across markets and detect potential abuses. Using a variety of data gathering techniques, we work to detect insider trading and any strategies firms or individuals use to gain an unfair advantage.

In fact, FINRA processes, on average, 50 billion—and up to 75 billion—transactions every day to build a complete, holistic picture of market trading in the United States.

We also work behind the scenes to detect and fight fraud. In addition to our own enforcement actions, in 2015, we referred more than 800 fraud and insider trading cases to the SEC and other agencies. When we share information with other regulators, it leads to important actions that prevent further harm to investors.”

With this level of referrals, they are clearly a proactive watchdog of the markets! We all need to know who they are and what they do.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.