Tag Archives: Tax

Audit Fee Disclosures –A Few Common Problem Areas in This Independence Disclosure

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

Over the last few weeks we have been blogging about auditor independence issues, a very “hot topic” in the current SEC reporting and enforcement environments. One disclosure focused on independence, audit fees, has been around for over 15 years. You would think that after 15 years it would be routine and perhaps even “ho hum”. However, like so many detailed disclosures, it has complexities that create questions and problems. Here are three examples:

In the disclosure where should fees related to 33 Act services such as comfort letters be included? Are these Audit Fees or Audit-Related Fees?

The Audit Fee disclosure uses the terminology “fees billed”. What is the appropriate treatment if the auditor has not fully billed for the audit?

Where should benefit plan audit fees be presented? Audit Fees or Audit-Related Fees?

We’ll answer these questions below, but first, lets briefly review how this disclosure sheds light on auditor independence. Investors can use this information to compare the magnitude of audit fees with non-audit fees. The key underlying question is “Could the amount of non-audit fees compared to audit fees in any way call into question or compromise auditor objectivity and independence?”

(In this post we won’t go into all the history of this disclosure. If you want to delve into the controversy and issues behind it google search “Enron audit fees.”)

It was a 2003 update to this disclosure that built the requirement with the four categories and two year format we use today. The current requirement, which is in Item 14 of Form 10-K and Schedule 14A for the proxy is:

(1) Disclose, under the caption Audit Fees, the aggregate fees billed for each of the last two fiscal years for professional services rendered by the principal accountant for the audit of the registrant’s annual financial statements and review of financial statements included in the registrant’s Form 10-Q (17 CFR 249.308a) or services that are normally provided by the accountant in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements for those fiscal years.

(2) Disclose, under the caption Audit-Related Fees, the aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for assurance and related services by the principal accountant that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of the registrant’s financial statements and are not reported under Item 9(e)(1) of Schedule 14A. Registrants shall describe the nature of the services comprising the fees disclosed under this category.

(3) Disclose, under the caption Tax Fees, the aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for professional services rendered by the principal accountant for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning. Registrants shall describe the nature of the services comprising the fees disclosed under this category.

(4) Disclose, under the caption All Other Fees, the aggregate fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for products and services provided by the principal accountant, other than the services reported in Items 9(e)(1) through 9(e)(3) of Schedule 14A. Registrants shall describe the nature of the services comprising the fees disclosed under this category.

1933 Act Related Fees

These categories seem fairly self-explanatory, but at times can be confusing. For the question about where should fees related to 1933 Act services, including fees for services like comfort letters, be disclosed, you actually have to dig all the way back into commentary in the Final Rule Release. (While we don’t have to do this very often, it is always good to remember this step in the research process!)

While we might be tempted to think of them as “Audit Related”, these 33 Act fees are “Audit Fees”. The Final Rule states:

While the rules we are adopting continue to require issuers to disclose fees paid to the principal accountant for audit services, we are expanding the types of fees that should be included in this category to include fees for services that normally would be provided by the accountant in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements. In addition to including fees for services necessary to perform an audit or review in accordance with GAAS, this category also may include services that generally only the independent accountant reasonably can provide, such as comfort letters, statutory audits, attest services, consents and assistance with and review of documents filed with the Commission.

To research the Final Rule Release you can find it at:

www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8183.htm

 

The Terminology “Fees Billed”

In the category audit fees does the word “billed” mean that this should be on an as-billed basis or more accrual basis?

The Office of the Chief Accountant has provided guidance on these and similar questions in an FAQ document. However, that document is not with the Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations. It is at a separate location for information about independence issues. You can find all the independence documents at:

www.sec.gov/info/accountants/independref.shtml

In particular, the FAQ’s that deal with these issues are at:

www.sec.gov/info/accountants/ocafaqaudind080607.htm

These FAQ’s tell us that the amount should be the fee billed or expected to be billed for the audit. The principle of the disclosure is that we want the fees for the audit to compare with other fees, so regardless of when billed, show the cost of the audit:

Question 2 (issued January 16, 2001 revised 2004)

Q: In determining fees that are disclosed pursuant to Items 9(e) (1) – (e) (4) of Schedule 14A, should the disclosure be based on when the service was performed, the period to which the service applies, or when the bill for the service is received?

A: Fees to be disclosed in response to Item 9(e)(1) of Schedule 14A should be those billed or expected to be billed for the audit of the registrant’s financial statements for the two most recently completed fiscal years and the review of financial statements for any interim periods within those years. If the registrant has not received the bill for such audit services prior to filing with the Commission its definitive proxy statement, then the registrant should ask the auditor for the amount that will be billed for such services, and include that amount in the disclosure. Amounts disclosed pursuant to Items 9(e) (2) – (e) (4) should include amounts billed for services that were rendered during the most recent fiscal year, even if the auditor did not bill the registrant for those services until after year-end.

 

Benefit Plan Audits

And last, for benefit plan audits, the FAQ’s mentioned above state that these fees are “Audit Related”:

Question 7 (issued August 13, 2003)

Q: What fee disclosure category is appropriate for professional fees in connection with an audit of the financial statements of a carve-out entity in anticipation of a subsequent divestiture?

A: The release establishes a new category, “Audit-Related Fees,” which enables registrants to present the audit fee relationship with the principal accountant in a more transparent fashion. In general, “Audit-Related Fees” are assurance and related services (e.g., due diligence services) that traditionally are performed by the independent accountant. More specifically, these services would include, among others: employee benefit plan audits, due diligence related to mergers and acquisitions, accounting consultations and audits in connection with acquisitions, internal control reviews, attest services related to financial reporting that are not required by statute or regulation and consultation concerning financial accounting and reporting standards. Fees for the above services would be disclosed under “Audit-Related Fees.”

As usual, your comments and thoughts are welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Audit Committee Evolution – Part Two

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

In our post last week we began a series focusing on audit committees. We briefly reviewed the history of audit committee requirements over the past 20 years or so hoping that understanding the past will help us understand what the future might hold. The current discussion about audit committee roles and responsibilities flows from this history. This discussion also has roots in several auditor/client events that have happened over the last several years.

This post discusses some of those recent events, primarily SEC Enforcement cases and related matters as they relate to auditor independence. Hopefully this will help provide context and yield more insight into what the future may hold.

One of the major themes in the SEC’s “Possible Revisions to Audit Committee Disclosures” Concept Release is audit committee oversight of independent auditors. Independence is clearly an important aspect of this oversight. Historically independence has been the auditor’s responsibility. When the SEC and the PCAOB have promulgated independence rules they have been directed primarily to the auditor, not the company or the audit committee.

It may be that it is time for this attitude to evolve and change.

Recent SEC enforcement cases provide several examples where the dividing line between the auditor’s and the company’s responsibility for auditor independence has been very fuzzy. (To be clear, in these cases it would not appear that there were many overt bad-actors who set out to break the rules. So, as you read the examples, ponder who should be in place to know the rules and assure compliance?)

A First Example

Sometimes independence problems are very simple. One of these foundational issues is that the auditor may not assist management in the preparation of financial statements. In fact, Regulation S-X Rule 2.01 states:

(4) Non-audit services. An accountant is not independent if, at any point during the audit and professional engagement period, the accountant provides the following non-audit services to an audit client:

(i) Bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records or financial statements of the audit client. Any service, unless it is reasonable to conclude that the results of these services will not be subject to audit procedures during an audit of the audit client’s financial statements, including:

(A) Maintaining or preparing the audit client’s accounting records;

(B) Preparing the audit client’s financial statements that are filed with the Commission or that form the basis of financial statements filed with the Commission; or

(C) Preparing or originating source data underlying the audit client’s financial statements.

The idea here is that the auditor cannot really “audit” something they have prepared. This seems relatively straightforward, but when broker-dealers were first required to have their audits performed using the standards of the PCAOB and became subject to the SEC’s auditing requirements, this requirement was overlooked in a number of cases. Eight of these cases resulted in enforcement against auditors for helping their clients prepare financial statements.

You can read the details of the cases in this press release:

www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370543608588

Now, as we described above, independence has usually been the bailiwick of the auditor. But, when there is an independence problem the company bears a harsh cost also, possibly even a new audit of the same period(s) by an auditor who is in fact independent. In a time of change such as using the PCAOB’s standards for the first time, would it be unreasonable to expect that the audit committee would be knowledgeable about these standards and as part of their oversight of auditing matters ask if there were any issues concerning compliance with the new standards? Is it possible that a strong audit committee could help avoid these problems?

Really, the deeper issue here is that a strong audit committee needs to monitor the financial reporting and auditing environment for changes and assure that management deals with these changes. Easy examples in today’s world include cybersecurity and oil prices.

As a postscript to this first example, the very first enforcement case brought by the PCAOB was over this very issue. It was “way back” in May of 2005. You can read the details at:

pcaobus.org/Enforcement/Decisions/Documents/05-24_Goldstein_and_Morris.pdf

 Second Example

The independence relationship can be very complex to track. Even firms with only a few professionals may not always be aware of all the business activities of all its professionals. For larger firms this can be a huge quality control and compliance challenge. In a recent enforcement a large firm was fined when its consulting affiliate maintained a business relationship with an individual who was a trustee and a board and audit committee member of three funds the firm audited.

Certainly there was a breakdown on the part of the firm in this case, but should the audit committees of the funds have been monitoring for such relationships? This is a complex issue, and the question should be addressed. As you will note in the press release linked below, the adequacy of the fund’s audit committee charter was called into question.

You can read the details of this case at:

www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-137.html

A Third Example

In this case an audit firm’s affiliate in Washington, DC provided lobbying services to companies that were also audit clients. Such advocacy services are always prohibited by the independence rules. And, again, the firm likely may have a quality control system issue to address tracking the myriad of business relationships in a large professional practice. But again the questions surrounding the client’s responsibility and the role of audit committees need to be addressed. It is not just the auditor who has a consequence in this situation. In a complex commercial world where business can happen so quickly, this issue is even more important.

You can read the details of this case at:

www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370542298984

Concluding Thoughts

None of these cases are simple, and in each case the fact set behind the case makes it clear there were generally no overt bad-actors who were setting out to break rules. Which brings us back to the question, who is there to make sure that the rules are monitored and that companies comply? Is the audit committee part of that structure? We will see how the situation evolves!

As always, your thoughts and comments are appreciated!

 

 

 

Audit Committee Evolution

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

Over the last 15 years the role of the audit committee has been discussed, regulated and disclosed in ever increasing and expanding ways.

(Yes, this was true even longer than 15 years ago, but we will focus on the last 15 years for now! Maybe more history later?)

As you have likely heard, in the last several months the SEC and the PCAOB have both been active in developing the next steps of audit committee evolution. All public companies need to deal with these possible changes, and to do that well it helps to have a perspective on how these changes fit into the longer-term change process.

It was way back in pre-SOX years, actually December 1999, that the SEC enacted rules to require the S-K Item 407 Audit Committee Report and related disclosures. Even in this pre-SOX period the importance of the audit committee was clear. The final rule mentions the “Blue Ribbon Committee” that had been formed to deal with this issue:

“We are adopting new rules and amendments to current rules to improve disclosure relating to the functioning of corporate audit committees and to enhance the reliability and credibility of financial statements of public companies. As more fully described in the Proposing Release, the new rules and amendments are based in large measure on recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees (the “Blue Ribbon Committee”)”

The Sarbanes – Oxley Act continued the evolution of the audit committee’s role. SOX’s provisions went well beyond disclosure, actually impacting audit committee member qualifications, structure and function. It enacted provisions dealing with:

  • Independence of audit committee members
  • The audit committee’s responsibility to select and oversee the issuer’s independent accountant
  • Procedures for handling complaints regarding the issuer’s accounting practices (whistleblower provisions)
  • The authority of the audit committee to engage advisors
  • Funding for the independent auditor and any outside advisors engaged by the audit committee

Because SOX’s changes go well beyond disclosures, the SOX requirements were implemented by requiring the exchanges to put the provisions in their listing rules.

The PCAOB has also been involved in this process and Audit Standard 16, Communications with Audit Committees, formalized the content and timing of the auditor’s communications with the audit committee. This requirement became effective for years beginning after December 15, 2012.

That is all history, prelude to the future.

As audit committees strive to hold themselves to best practices looking to the future is crucial.

So, what might the future hold?

PCAOB “Dialogue”

In May of 2015 the PCAOB also issued a document titled “Audit Committee Dialogue” to formalize issues it considered important for audit committee members to be aware of and deal with in the evolving focus on audit quality. You can find the “Dialogue” at the PCAOB’s under the “Information for Audit Committee Members”tab.:

http://pcaobus.org/Information/Pages/AuditCommitteeMembers.aspx

SEC Concept Release

The SEC issued a broad and potentially far-reaching Concept Release in July. It seeks comment on areas including audit committee oversight of the audit process, how the audit committee selects the auditor and the role of the audit committee in selecting and evaluating key audit team personnel. You can find the concept release at:

www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2015/33-9862.pdf

Auditor Independence

A kind of wild-card issue that is evolving with enforcement cases is how the audit committee deals with auditor independence issues. The days when this was an issuer for only the auditor are clearly over!

These are issues that need some deeper discussion! So, our next few posts will focus on the “Dialogue”, the concept release, independence and other issues.

If you have any topics you would like to see included, as always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Hertz has some Hurts!

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

A major restatement by Hertz has been in the news in recent weeks, and thanks to two of our community, Bill Story and Eric Braschwitz, for their timely heads up notice about this restatement. Hertz was late with their 2014 10-K, filing it in early July. And it is a major restatement.

The magnitude of the issues, the nature of the organizational issues involved, the impact that leadership had on financial reporting, and all the other issues that seem to be at the root of this restatement are old stories, and somehow seem to harken back to days before SOX. Much has been written about these issues and we won’t rehash them here.

But there is one issue we do want to bring out.

As a preliminary note, if you want to dig into the filings involved, you will find Hertz Global Holdings, which is the publically owned company, and another filer, Hertz, which is the operating company, and is wholly owned by Hertz Global Holdings. You will find the restatement issue in the Form 10-K for each of these businesses.

If you look back at Hertz Global Holdings’ 2013 Form 10-K, you will find this ICFR Report:

ITEM 9A. Controls and Procedures
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

 (This section is omitted for this blog)

Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act, as amended. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, we conducted an assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013. The assessment was based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework 1992 issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2013. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on our internal control over financial reporting. Their report is included in this Annual Report under the caption “Item 8—Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

So, everything looks like “situation normal” at Hertz. Then, for 2014, here is what happened.

From Hertz’ 2014 10-K, Item 9A is really long, so we will put our concluding comments here.

What?

And, note the focus on tone at the top!

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

 

From Hertz’ 2014 Form 10-K

ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Restatement of Previously Issued Financial Statements

As described in additional detail in the Explanatory Note to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, in June 2014, we commenced an internal investigation of certain matters related to the accounting during prior periods. The investigation was undertaken by outside counsel, along with independent counsel for the Audit Committee. Counsel received assistance from outside consultants and new senior accounting and compliance personnel. The internal investigation is complete, although our outside counsel and the independent counsel to the Audit Committee continue to provide forensic and investigative support in connection with certain proceedings discussed in Item 3, “Legal Proceedings” and in Item 8, Note 14, “Contingencies and Off-Balance Sheet Commitments” to the consolidated financial statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K involving our restatements and related accounting for prior periods.

Based on the internal investigation, our review of our financial records, and other work completed by our management, the Audit Committee has concluded that there were material misstatements in the 2011, 2012 and 2013 consolidated financial statements. Accordingly, our Board and management concluded that our consolidated financial statements for these periods should no longer be relied upon and required restatement. The restated consolidated financial statements for 2012 and 2013 are provided in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The unaudited restated selected data for 2011 is included in Item 6, “Selected Financial Data” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our senior management has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined under Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that as of December 31, 2014, due to the identification of material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, as further described below, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective to provide reasonable assurance that the information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to management as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f).

A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Management, including our new Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014. In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”) in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013). Based on this assessment, management has concluded that we did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014 due to the fact that there are material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting as discussed below.

Control Environment

The control environment, which is the responsibility of senior management, helps set the tone of the organization (including a commitment towards openness, honesty, integrity, and ethical behavior), influences the control consciousness of its officers and employees, and is an important component affecting how the organization performs financial analysis, accounting, and financial reporting. A proper organizational tone can be promoted through a variety of means, such as policies and codes of ethics, a commitment to hiring competent employees, the manner and content of oral and written communications, and structures that promote and reward openness, strong internal controls, effective governance, and ethical behavior.

As of December 31, 2014, we did not maintain an effective control environment primarily attributable to the following identified material weaknesses:

  • Our investigation found that an inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate tone at the top was present under the then existing senior management that did not in certain instances result in adherence to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and Company accounting policies and procedures. In particular, our former Chief Executive Officer’s management style and temperament created a pressurized operating environment at the Company, where challenging targets were set and achieving those targets was a key performance expectation. There was in certain instances an inappropriate emphasis on meeting internal budgets, business plans, and current estimates. Our former Chief Executive Officer further encouraged employees to focus on potential business risks and opportunities, and on potential financial or operating performance gaps, as well as ways of ameliorating potential risks or gaps, including through accounting reviews. This resulted in an environment which in some instances may have led to inappropriate accounting decisions and the failure to disclose information critical to an effective review of transactions and accounting entries, such as certain changes in accounting methodologies, to the appropriate finance and accounting personnel or our Board, Audit Committee, or independent registered public accounting firm
  • We did not have a sufficient complement of personnel with an appropriate level of knowledge, experience, and training commensurate with our financial reporting requirements to ensure proper selection and application of GAAP in certain circumstances.
  • We did not establish clear reporting structures, reporting lines, and decisional authority responsibilities in the organization.We did not design effective controls over the non-fleet procurement process, which was exacerbated by the lack of training of field personnel as part of our Oracle ERP system implementation during 2013.

These material weaknesses in the control environment resulted in certain instances of inappropriate accounting decisions and inappropriate changes in accounting methodology and contributed to the following additional material weaknesses:

  • We did not design and maintain effective controls over certain accounting estimates. Specifically, we did not design and maintain controls over the effective review of the models, assumptions, and data used in developing estimates or changes made to assumptions and data, related to information technology expenditures; reserve estimates associated with allowances for uncollectible amounts receivable for renter obligations related to damaged vehicles; and accrued unbilled revenue.
  • We did not design and maintain effective controls over the review, approval, and documentation related to journal entries.
  • We did not design and maintain effective controls over changes to our policies and procedures over GAAP, as well as the review, approval, and documentation related to the application of GAAP.

Risk Assessment

We did not effectively design controls in response to the risks of material misstatement. This material weakness contributed to the following additional material weaknesses:

  • We did not design effective controls over certain business processes including our period-end financial reporting process. This includes the identification and execution of controls over the preparation, analysis, and review of significant account reconciliations and closing adjustments required to assess the appropriateness of certain account balances at period end.

Information and Communication

As of December 31, 2014, we did not maintain effective controls over information and communications. Specifically, we did not have an adequate process for internally communicating information between the accounting department and other operating departments necessary to support the proper functioning of internal controls. This material weakness led to misstatements in the capitalization and timing of depreciation of non-fleet capital.

Monitoring

We did not design and maintain effective monitoring controls related to the design and operational effectiveness of our internal controls. Specifically, we did not maintain personnel and systems within the internal audit function that were sufficient to ensure the adequate monitoring of control activities. This control deficiency resulted in some instances of the internal audit function’s failure to identify or sufficiently follow through on the analysis of certain inappropriate accounting decisions and changes in accounting methodology.

One or more of the foregoing control deficiencies contributed to the restatement of our financial statements for the years 2012 and 2013 and each of the quarters of 2013, including the misstatements of direct operating expenses, accounts payable, accrued liabilities, allowance for doubtful accounts, prepaid expenses and other assets, and non-fleet property and equipment and the related accumulated depreciation. Additionally, the foregoing control deficiencies could result in material misstatements of the consolidated financial statements that would not be prevented or detected. Accordingly, our management has determined that these control deficiencies constitute material weaknesses.

The effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Other Considerations Impacting our Historical Accounting

Our incorrect accounting was caused by the foregoing control deficiencies along with a complex mix of structural and environmental factors. One of those factors was the tone set and pressures imposed by our former Chief Executive Officer, which were inappropriate in certain instances, and may have been a factor influencing one or more employees to record an accounting entry now determined to be improper. Other factors affecting the overall historic accounting environment and employees included the distraction caused by the multiple, conflicting business initiatives; challenges related to managing complex, inefficient legacy systems; the lack of a sufficient complement of personnel with an appropriate level of knowledge, experience, and training with GAAP; unclear reporting structures, reporting lines, and decisional authority in the organization; and other matters. Taken together, these factors fostered a control environment and other control deficiencies that in some instances enabled inappropriate accounting.

Remediation Plan and Status

We have, and continue to, identify and implement actions to improve the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures, including plans to enhance our resources and training with respect to financial reporting and disclosure responsibilities and to review such actions with the Audit Committee. Leading this process is our Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, who was hired in December 2013 and is being assisted by our new Chief Accounting Officer, who was hired in May 2014.

During 2014 and 2015, we have hired personnel with the appropriate experience, certification, education, and training for all of the key positions in the financial reporting and accounting function and in some cases have created new positions. Consequently, the employees involved in the accounting and financial reporting functions in which misstatements were identified are no longer involved in the accounting or financial reporting functions. In addition, we have taken, or will take, appropriate remedial actions with respect to certain employees, including termination, reassignments, reprimands, increased supervision, training, and imposition of financial penalties in the form of compensation adjustments.

In addition, we have taken, and continue to take, the actions described below to remediate the identified material weaknesses. As we continue to evaluate and work to improve our internal controls over financial reporting, our senior management may determine to take additional measures to address control deficiencies or determine to modify the remediation efforts described in this section. Until the remediation efforts discussed in this section, including any additional remediation efforts that our senior management identifies as necessary, are completed, the material weaknesses described above will continue to exist.

Control Environment

Our Board has directed senior management to ensure that a proper, consistent tone is communicated throughout the organization, which emphasizes the expectation that previously existing deficiencies will be rectified through implementation of processes and controls to ensure strict compliance with GAAP and regulatory requirements. We also have taken steps to effect a proper tone through changes in our personnel and policies.

On September 7, 2014 our former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer resigned his position. On November 20, 2014, a new President and Chief Executive Officer was named from outside the Company following a national search led by a special committee of the Board, with the assistance of an executive search consultant.

Our new President and Chief Executive Officer is one of four new members of our Board. The three other new directors joined our Board pursuant to the nomination and standstill agreement dated September 15, 2014 between the Company and the Icahn Group, which is included as Exhibit 99.1 to our Form 8-K filed on September 16, 2014.

In addition, since December 2013, we have hired the following additional key employees into the following positions who reflect our standards for integrity and ethical values:

  • Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
  • Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel
  • Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Revenue Officer
  • Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resource Officer
  • Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer
  • Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
  • Senior Vice President and Chief Audit Executive
  • Senior Vice President, Procurement, Fleet and Project Management Office
  • Senior Vice President, Financial Planning and Analysis

In addition to the senior management changes detailed above, in order to ensure we have a sufficient complement of personnel with an appropriate level of knowledge, experience, and training commensurate with our financial reporting requirements, during 2014 and 2015 we have hired personnel for all key positions in the financial reporting and accounting function and in some cases have created new positions, including:

  • Senior Vice President and Controller (Corporate Finance)
  • Senior Vice President and Controller (U.S. Rental Car Operations
  • Vice President, SOX Compliance
  • Assistant Controller (Corporate Finance)
  • Vice President, Reporting, Research and PolicyVice President, Financial Systems
  • Vice President, Accounting and Assistant Controller Global Fleet
  • Vice President, Dublin Financial Shared Service Center
  • Senior Director, Oklahoma Financial Shared Service Center
  • Senior Director, Program Accounting
  • Senior Director, Financial Reporting
  • Director, U.S. Rental Operations Finance Consolidation and Analytics
  • Director, Financial Systems
  • Director, Technical Accounting
  • Director, Corporate Accounting
  • Director, Consolidations
  • Director, Policies and Procedures
  • Director, Global Procure to Pay
  • Director, SOX Compliance
  • Director, North America General Accounting

To assist in the restatement activities we augmented our personnel with qualified consulting resources and they will continue to be augmented by the consulting resources for the remainder of 2015.

Further, in 2014, we reinforced the importance of adherence to established internal controls and Company policies and procedures through formal communications, town hall meetings and employee trainings. To communicate a proper ethical tone and corporate culture, Hertz’s intranet website provides information on our philosophy and values. These philosophies and values, in addition to being addressed at personnel meetings, are periodically communicated to our employees via email notifications throughout the year.

In addition, we have established procedures for ensuring clear reporting structures, reporting lines, and decisional authority responsibilities in the organization and have enhanced communications with our operational departments, accounting, Board and Audit Committee.

To address the material weakness over the non-fleet procurement process, we have strengthened processes and controls for manual accruals and journal entries. In addition, we have enhanced an accrual methodology to ensure completeness over our non-fleet procurement liabilities.

To address the lack of training related to the implementation of our Oracle ERP system, in 2014 management engaged consulting resources to assist in the following:

Completed a library of training modules for the Oracle application;Completed a series of live trainings for Oracle users; andImplemented enhanced knowledge management tools and protocols.

Other activities completed in 2014 and 2015 related to the Oracle ERP system include:

  • Established a Financial Information Systems Steering Committee co-chaired by the Chief Accounting Officer and the Chief Information Officer to monitor activities and developments associated with our financial information systems;
  • Established a data governance team to monitor activities associated with the data integrity of our financial information systems;
  • Implemented changes within the Oracle application to enhance the quality of data and the timeliness of processing financial results; and
  • Implemented security rule changes to enhance the quality and timeliness of reported results.

To further enhance the financial close process and address the remediation of this material weakness, our management is currently completing activities associated with our chart of accounts and utilization of Oracle ERP features.

We have taken steps to improve our design and maintenance of effective controls for accounting estimates, including:

  • Where necessary, identified, implemented and documented controls over appropriate accounting methodologies for certain accounts;
  • Held trainings with accounting staff in the first quarter of 2015 to ensure there is a thorough understanding of the underlying methodologies implemented;
  • Established policies and procedures for the approval and implementation of new or modified accounting methodologies;
  • Hired accounting personnel with an appropriate level of knowledge and experience to execute the underlying accounting methodologies; and
  • Established policies and procedures for the review, approval and application of appropriate GAAP for transactions and accounting methodology changes.

In addition, to improve our controls over the processing of manual journal entries, we have reinforced procedures to ensure that manual journal entries recorded in our financial records are properly prepared, supported by adequate documentation, and independently reviewed and approved.

Risk Assessment

We are establishing mechanisms to identify, evaluate, and monitor risks to financial reporting throughout the organization to remediate our material weakness in the risk assessment process and monitoring, as described below.

We have designed and where appropriate enhanced controls over the preparation, analysis and review of transactions and, execution of balance sheet and significant account reconciliations. In addition, we have reinforced existing policies and procedures and enacted policy and procedures changes, where necessary, to better define requirements for effective and timely reconciliations of balance sheet and significant accounts, including independent review. We have also implemented a training program specific to the review and preparation of account reconciliations.

We are updating our global risk assessment. In addition, we have updated our internal audit plan to include internal audit monitoring activities responsive to the issues identified in our internal investigation and review of our financial records.

We have implemented new procedures and enhanced controls governing our internal management-led Disclosure Committee, sub-certification, and external reporting processes associated with the review and approval of the content of our SEC filings and other public disclosures.

Information and Communication

We have formalized procedures to ensure appropriate internal communication between the accounting department and other operating departments necessary to support the proper functioning of internal controls.

In addition, we are in the process of updating the corporate-wide accounting policies manual to ensure proper accounting for transactions in compliance with GAAP and consistently applied across all locations. Additional policies will also need to be developed and issued and corresponding training will need to be provided.

Monitoring

To address deficiencies in our internal audit function, we hired in 2015 a Senior Vice President and Chief Audit Executive, with global responsibilities. In addition, we have commenced recruiting for additional staff members and have recently hired a senior auditor. We are currently supplementing our personnel resources with a substantial number of internal audit consulting resources with financial accounting expertise.

We also have increased the number and quality of personnel assigned to management’s internal controls assessment process. In 2014, we hired a Vice President of SOX Compliance and a Director of SOX Compliance. During 2014 and 2015 we have supplemented our personnel resources with a substantial number of consulting resources experienced in controls and SOX compliance.

During 2014 and 2015, the internal audit and SOX compliance teams enhanced (i) our processes associated with the scoping and identification of processes and key controls, (ii) the documentation of these processes and (iii) our testing procedures to promote the consistency and accuracy of conclusions, deliverables and disclosures associated with SOX compliance. An automated tool is being implemented to monitor these activities.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our remediation efforts are ongoing. During the quarter ended December 31, 2014, we completed account reconciliation and internal controls trainings for our accounting personnel, created and completed Oracle trainings, enhanced data governance and implemented changes within the Oracle application to enhance the quality of data and the timeliness of processing financial results. There were no other material changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2014 that materially affected, or that are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Known Trends in the News

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

In this period of earnings releases we always watch for interesting disclosure examples. Microsoft has provided us with a great example of the “forward looking” disclosures about “known trends and uncertainties” that we discuss in our workshops.

As a reminder, this S-K Item 303 MD&A disclosure requirement says:

(3) Results of operations. (i) ………..

(ii) Describe any known trends or uncertainties that have had or that the registrant reasonably expects will have a material favorable or unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations. If the registrant knows of events that will cause a material change in the relationship between costs and revenues (such as known future increases in costs of labor or materials or price increases or inventory adjustments), the change in the relationship shall be disclosed.

In their most recent earnings release Microsoft reported a $7.5 billion goodwill impairment related to its acquisition of Nokia’s “Devices and Services” business, which they refer to as NDS. At issue here of course is that such an impairment rarely would ever come out of the blue in an unexpected way during the current quarter. In fact, the risk of impairment would almost always be known well before actually recording the impairment. And, if the company “reasonably expects” there will be an impairment in a future quarter, the company must disclosure this risk in MD&A.

On April 29, 2014 Microsoft completed the acquisition of substantially all of Nokia Corporation’s (“Nokia”) Devices and Services Business (“NDS”), which they reported in a new Phone Hardware segment.

Microsoft, which has a June 30 fiscal year end, said this in their Critical Accounting Estimates disclosure in their June 30, 2014 Form 10-K, which was of course shortly after the acquisition.

Goodwill

We allocate goodwill to reporting units based on the reporting unit expected to benefit from the business combination. We evaluate our reporting units on an annual basis and, if necessary, reassign goodwill using a relative fair value allocation approach. Goodwill is tested for impairment at the reporting unit level (operating segment or one level below an operating segment) on an annual basis (May 1 for us) and between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value. These events or circumstances could include a significant change in the business climate, legal factors, operating performance indicators, competition, or sale or disposition of a significant portion of a reporting unit.

(some text omitted)

The valuation of acquired assets and liabilities, including goodwill, resulting from the acquisition of NDS, is reflective of the enterprise value based on the long-term financial forecast for the business. In this highly competitive and volatile market, it is possible that we may not realize our forecasts. Given the value assigned to goodwill in the purchase price allocation, we will closely monitor the performance of the business versus the long-term forecast to determine if any impairments arise.

They also had a robust risk factor disclosure which you can find in the 10-K.

This disclosure was essentially repeated in their first quarter Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

For the second quarter ended December 31, 2015, the disclosure was adjusted a bit to focus on the Phone Hardware segment:

The valuation of acquired assets and liabilities, including goodwill, resulting from the acquisition of NDS, is reflective of the enterprise value based on the long-term financial forecast for the business. In this highly competitive and volatile market, it is possible that we may not realize our forecasts. Given the value assigned to goodwill in the purchase price allocation, we will closely monitor the performance of the business versus the long-term forecast to determine if any impairments arise in our Phone Hardware reporting unit. Except as clarified above, we determined that none of our reporting units were at risk of impairment as of our most recent annual goodwill impairment testing date.

And, in their Form 10-Q for the third quarter ended March 31, 2015, this “known trend or uncertainty” became a bigger risk and was addressed directly:

“Goodwill

(Some text omitted)

We determined that none of our reporting units were at risk of impairment as of our most recent annual goodwill impairment testing date. The valuation of acquired assets and liabilities, including goodwill, resulting from the acquisition of NDS, is reflective of the enterprise value based on the long-term financial forecast for the Phone Hardware business. In this highly competitive and volatile market, it is possible that we may not realize our forecast. Considering the magnitude of the goodwill and intangible assets in the Phone Hardware reporting unit (see Note 8 – Business Combinations of the Notes to Financial Statements), we closely monitor the performance of the business versus the long-term forecast to determine if any impairments exist in our Phone Hardware reporting unit. In the third quarter of fiscal year 2015, Phone Hardware did not meet its sales volume and revenue goals, and the mix of units sold had lower margins than planned. We are currently beginning our annual budgeting and planning process. We use the targets, resource allocations, and strategic decisions made in this process as the inputs for the associated cash flows and valuations in our annual impairment test. Given its recent performance, the Phone Hardware reporting unit is at an elevated risk of impairment. Declines in expected future cash flows, reduction in future unit volume growth rates, or an increase in the risk-adjusted discount rate used to estimate the fair value of the Phone Hardware reporting unit may result in a determination that an impairment adjustment is required, resulting in a potentially material charge to earnings.”

(Emphasis added)

Blunt words to forewarn investors of the risk of impairment!

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

 

The Mystery of Filed versus Furnished

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , ,

In our last post we explored the difference between the Annual Report to Shareholders (ARS) and the Form 10-K. The ARS, required by the proxy rules, is an example of a document that is “furnished” to shareholders and not actually “filed” with the SEC.

Just what does this mean?

Filed versus furnished is essentially a legal distinction. It does not impact how information appears on the EDGAR system (as they look the same) or other practical filing issues (as they are filed in EDGAR the same way). For example, an Item 2.02 Form 8-K is a “furnished” document, but an Item 2.01 Form 8-K is a “filed” document. To learn what is going on with this distinction, let’s explore:

  1. What is the legal difference?
  2. How to determine if a document is furnished or filed?

Filed

When a document is “filed” it is formally “filed” with the SEC to meet the disclosure requirements under the laws the SEC administers, principally the 1933 and 1934 Acts. This means a “filed” document is subject to the liability provisions of the Acts, and is the principal difference between filed versus furnished.

Furnished

When a document is furnished, generally to shareholders, it is not actually filed with the SEC under one of the Acts, (even though it may be “filed” in the EDGAR system) so it is not subject to the liability provisions of the Acts.

This liability difference can be a substantial issue. For example, it is far easier to establish scienter in a 34 Act fraud case then in a non-34 Act fraud case. Generally in a non-34 Act action, to establish scienter it must be shown that the accused deliberately set out to cause harm. In a 34 Act action, gross negligence or reckless disregard can establish scienter, a much lower level of proof.

Another difference – if something is furnished rather than filed, it cannot be incorporated by reference into later filings. In the shelf registration process this is very important as furnished documents are not incorporated by reference into the S-3 on the shelf, and hence do not expose the company to the strict liability standards of the 33 Act! And, if you do later incorporate a furnished document into a filed document, it loses its furnished status, usually not a good thing!

So, how do you tell if something is filed or furnished? When they appear on the EDGAR system they look exactly the same! As discussed earlier, it is really a legal distinction, so you go back to the legal sources, in particular, the instructions to the forms.

Here is an excerpt from the Form 8-K instructions:

  1. The information in a report furnished pursuant to Item 2.02 (Results of Operations and Financial Condition) or Item 7.01 (Regulation FD Disclosure) shall not be deemed to be “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, unless the registrant specifically states that the information is to be considered “filed” under the Exchange Act or incorporates it by reference into a filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.

So, this legal distinction is actually spelled out in the instructions.

As a concluding thought, the most commonly encountered furnished documents are:

The Annual Report to Shareholders
Form 8-K Item 2.02
Form 8-K Item 7.01

There are others, so when in doubt, consult the instructions!

As a preview for our next topic in this discussion, check out the furnished versus filed status of the performance graph required by Regulation S-K Item 201(e). You may find that a surprise awaits!

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial statements
MD&A
Selected financial data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment of the Week – Its all About the Future!

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

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

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

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

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

You can find the whole release at:

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

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

“Describe any known trends or uncertainties that have had or that the registrant reasonably expects will have a material favorable or unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations. (emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Audit Committee Challenges and Changes on the Horizon

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

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

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

www.sec.gov/News/Files/1371146714240

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

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

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

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

As always your comments, thoughts and ideas are welcome!