Posted on

The FASB’s comment letter process and why we need to understand it

Today I’m writing about the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) comment letter process.  Prior to issuing authoritative accounting and disclosure standards, the FASB interacts with its constituents in a variety of ways to gather information that it may not have already considered.  Having a strong understanding of this process can provide practitioners with meaningful context to assist companies in their application of the FASB’s standards.

To begin, the FASB is a private organization overseen by the SEC.  The FASB sets standards, which become a part of U.S. GAAP accounting standards serving the broad public interest.  To note is that since September 15, 2009 the U.S. GAAP accounting standards have been codified in what is known as the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC).  In connection with setting these standards, the FASB has adopted an open decision-making process that provides for interaction between the FASB and its constituents.  This interaction takes many forms, including comment letters.  The FASB explains:

Comment letters are received from constituents in response to Discussion Papers, Exposure Drafts, and other discussion documents that are released to the public for comment.  Comment letters, which become an important part of a project’s public record, are an important source of information regarding constituents’ views on and experiences related to issues raised in a discussion document.

Comment Letter Process

The following summarizes the FASB’s standard-setting process, which is governed by the FASB’s Rules of Procedures:

The part I want to focus on in the above graphic is step number five.  When the FASB seeks to issue new authoritative accounting guidance, it commences by issuing exposure documents to solicit input.  These exposure documents may include Exposure Drafts (ED), Discussion Papers, Preliminary Views, and Invitations to Comment.  Often times the FASB issues an ED, but in some cases it may issue a Discussion Paper to obtain input in the early stages of a project.

The FASB typically issues EDs with a designated timeframe for respondents to reply, often in the form of comment letters, but also via public roundtable discussion and other due process activities.  Depending on the nature and extent of the feedback it receives, the FASB may redeliberate the proposed provisions to accounting and disclosure standards.  This, according to the FASB, is done at one or more public meetings.

Once all key concerns and issues have been considered and addressed, the FASB nears completion of its standard-setting process by issuing a final standard, in the form of an Accounting Standards Update (ASU).  The ASU describes the amendments to the ASC.

Resources

When litigation cases or accounting consulting engagements involve the interpretation or application of accounting and disclosure standards, it is critical to understand the thought process surrounding the decisions that become part of a standard.  Having a strong understanding of the FASB’s standard-setting process and knowing where to locate relevant information is key to building a strong position.

Practitioners have at their fingertips access to a host of FASB resources that can assist them in preparing arguments, opinions, or positions on a variety of accounting and disclosure topics.  Some helpful resources include:

  • Exposure documents previously issued by the FASB for comment, but are now closed for comment, unless otherwise stated.  This link includes FASB documents issued after 2002.
  • Responses received by the FASB in connection with its online comment letter process.  One can read specific comment letters the FASB receives from constituents, including public accounting firms, SEC filers, and other organizations taking a keen interest in the FASB’s exposure documents.
  • Unsolicited online comment letters from constituents.  This link includes related documents dating from 2002.
  • Exposure documents currently open for comment.  I suggest these types of documents are less valuable to preparing arguments, opinions, or positions.  However, understanding current deliberations may be applicable in certain engagements.
  • ASU documents.  Perusing certain aspects of these ASC amendments is a good way to obtain color and context to them.  I have found the following ASU sections to be particularly helpful in obtaining the understanding I may be seeking:
    • Why Is the FASB Issuing This Accounting Standards Update?
    • Who Is Affected by the Amendments in This Update?
    • How Do the Main Provisions Differ from Current U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Why Are They an Improvement?
    • Background Information and Basis for Conclusions

Application

I once worked on an engagement with a Fortune 1000 company that had become the center of a wave of negative media attention.  In a move that was anticipated, the external auditor raised challenging questions about the company’s application of a particular ASU in light of the negative media attention the company had received.  As an engagement team, in order to effectively address the external auditor’s concerns, we decided it was important to understand the details behind the ASU, including reviewing the comment letters the FASB received prior to issuing the ASU.  This exercise shed meaningful light on the implementation issues that multiple constituents predicted would, and indeed had occurred with the company.  Because of our ability to quickly look to relevant sources for reliable information, my firm was able to assist our client in navigating this challenge effectively and provide credible, supportable arguments to the company’s external auditor.

Photo credit

Posted on

Navigating the grey: Accounting judgments and estimates

Often times companies deal with business transactions that are subjective and require the use of judgment and accounting estimates.  For example, what is a reasonable useful life of a fixed asset for depreciation purposes?  What amount of warranty reserve should be booked for a new product?  Or, what accrued liability balance should be recorded at year-end related to repurchase obligations or guarantees?  The list goes on and on (see par 16 for some examples of accounting estimates).

FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 6 (CON 6) at ¶ 46 addresses the necessity of accounting estimates in financial statements:

A highly significant practical consequence of the features described in the preceding two paragraphs [regarding the effects of uncertainty in financial statements] is that the existence or amount (or both) of most assets and many liabilities can be probable but not certain. The definitions in this Statement are not intended to require that the existence and amounts of items be certain for them to qualify as assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses, and so forth, and estimates and approximations will often be required unless financial statements are to be restricted to reporting only cash transactions. (emphasis added)

Because an integral part of these accounting estimates are management’s judgments and estimates, which are susceptible to bias, error, and potentially fraud, it is imperative to understand how accounting estimates are established and what management considers in recording the estimates.

This may sound relatively straightforward; however, as an example public company auditors (who routinely review and audit accounting estimates as a profession) continue to struggle when it comes to adequately auditing and documenting their assessments of the reasonableness management’s accounting estimates and assumptions.  In fact, the PCAOB, the public company auditor’s regulatory body, summarized the results if its 2015 inspections, identifying certain recurring audit deficiencies, including (1) auditing internal control over financial reporting, (2) assessing and responding to risks of material misstatement, and (3) auditing accounting estimates, including fair value measurements.

Further, because accounting estimates are inherently susceptible to bias, error, and potentially fraud, they can often contribute to legal disputes.

Guidelines for assessing accounting estimates

From my experience as a former Big 4 auditor and as a forensic accountant on sometimes large, complex legal disputes, I have developed some questions that are helpful when assessing the reasonableness of significant assumptions or judgments used in accounting for estimates:

  1. What is the method used in making the accounting estimate, including model(s) used?
  2. What are the relevant key controls?
  3. Has management used an expert?  If so, what are the qualifications of the expert?
  4. What are the assumptions underlying the accounting estimates?  Are they based on reliable, relevant and accurate data?
  5. Did management consider alternative assumptions or outcomes?
  6. What was their reason for rejecting the other assumptions or outcomes?
  7. Has there been or ought there to be a change from prior period in the method(s) used for making the accounting estimates? If so, why?
  8. Has management performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the reasonableness of its assumptions?
  9. Did management assess the effect of estimation uncertainty? How so?
  10. Given the degree of uncertainty in their estimate, how did management get comfortable with their final conclusion?

While I don’t believe all of these questions need to be considered in all situations, they can be used as a guideline for assessing the reasonableness of accounting estimates.

Application

Once I assisted an expert in writing a report in a complex legal dispute.  The opposing expert opined that an error in accounting estimate in the defendant’s financial statements was material because of alleged reliance on inaccurate data in establishing the accounting estimate.  My team adapted some of the above guideline questions in the context of the dispute to rebut the opposing expert’s opinions.  By having a strong understanding of the assumptions employed by the opposing expert, we were able to decide (1) if they were based on reliable, relevant and accurate data or (2) if they were based on data that was not appropriate given the facts and circumstances of the dispute.

Ultimately my team constructed a strong position and our expert opined that number of the opposing expert’s assumptions were unreliable, irrelevant, and/or inaccurate.  In fact, to provide some insight into how drastically an accounting estimate could change depending on the assumptions and judgments applied, the opposing expert opined that the range of potential error caused by the alleged misstatement was from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.  Our position was that the accounting estimate in the tens of millions of dollars was appropriate given the facts and circumstances.  Such a large range seems to be commonplace in legal disputes because of the grey area in applying assumptions and judgments.

In summary, reviewing accounting estimates requires professional judgment and experience.  Having a qualified professional who understands the accounting requirements and application of the standards can greatly assist a party to a legal dispute in protecting itself from potentially significant financial and reputational exposure.

Photo credit

Posted on

How to effectively identify a peer group

When writing expert reports I am often faced with the task of carefully benchmarking an entity against its peers. Disputes often deal with alleged accounting failures of an entity to recognize, disclose, or perform some other activity appropriately. Alternatively, financial statement preparers, users of financial statements, and/or auditors may wish to assess the reasonableness of management’s accounting recognition and disclosures against other entities.  For these reasons it is imperative that a careful benchmarking exercise be performed to assess the reasonableness of an entity’s accounting decisions in light of the decisions of peer entities. In this post I define peer entities as those entities that are most closely related to or aligned with the subject entity.

On the surface it may seem relatively straightforward to identify a peer group. However, when one peels back the onion the nuances begin to surface and, if not careful, practitioners may find themselves in a tough situation trying to defend their thought process in a rebuttal report, deposition or trial or trying to explain variances that prove to be irrelevant.  Today’s post will discuss some helpful tips to consider when selecting an appropriate peer group for benchmarking purposes.

To begin, a practitioner should have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the entity’s business and the industry in which it operates. Following are some items to consider to test ones knowledge and understanding of an entity’s business environment, not in any particular order:

  • What types of products or services does the entity offer?
  • Are any of these products or services different from other entities within its industry?
  • Does the entity operate in a regulated industry?
  • Is the entity publicly traded, or are the entity’s financial statements publicly available?
  • If so, what potential peer entities has the entity disclosed within its annual report (i.e., SEC Form 10-K) (more on this below)?
  • Can one easily identify the Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) code of the entity (more on this below)? Or, can one identify at least one potential peer entity that is similar to the entity, whose SIC code is readily available?
  • Do industry publications exist from a reputable source that may identify potential peer entities?

Screening considerations

Upon responding to the questions above, one focuses on a list of potential peer entities; however, it may still be necessary to screen the list further. I generally screen entities based on key financial metrics, which may include: assets, revenues, equity, net asset value, PP&E, headcount, or some other specific account or disclosure in the financial statements (depending on the nature of the research or litigation one is addressing).

Alternatively, one may look to segment disclosures in the financial statements, which often include disaggregated financial metrics based on geography, product line, or some other meaningful attribute. Furthermore, market capitalization may be meaningful; however, one should take caution with relying on this metric as it may be more volatile relative to other financial metrics.

In some cases, an entity may operate in a highly specialized industry. When this occurs and financial information of a direct competitor is not publicly available, one may consider selecting potential peer entities associated with the direct competitor that are upstream or downstream. In my view this is reasonable because upstream or downstream entities tend to have similar operations or business risks within the highly specialized industry.

Once a screening process is selected, one may also consider screening the same criteria for multiple periods to confirm that the selected screening criteria yield consistent results and, therefore, are reliable for benchmarking.

Annual Report Disclosures

SEC Regulation S-K Item 201(e) requires an SEC registrant to disclose a performance graph in its annual report (i.e., SEC Form 10-K filing).  This performance graph is relevant in the context of benchmarking because, depending on its business, an SEC registrant is required to construct a “peer group index,” which may identify potential peer entities of interest. The SEC guidance stipulates, “If the registrant uses a peer issuer(s) comparison or comparison with issuer(s) with similar market capitalizations, the identity of those issuers must be disclosed and the returns of each component issuer of the group must be weighted according to the respective issuer’s stock market capitalization at the beginning of each period for which a return is indicated.”

Care should be taken when relying on the SEC registrant’s selected peer group as the SEC guidance states, “If the registrant does not select its peer issuer(s) on an industry or line-of-business basis, the registrant shall disclose the basis for its selection.”  In the end, the judgments or assumptions applied by a practitioner in connection with a benchmarking exercise must be adequately considered and documented.

SIC Codes

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics developed SIC codes to indicate an entity’s type of business.  SIC codes are categorized by major industry and sub-industry.  Public entities that file statements with the SEC include their SIC codes within their filings, which can be used for comparative analysis.

Application

The manner of execution of the benchmarking exercise can strengthen one’s position in a dispute.  Conversely, if left to inexperienced practitioners or lack of careful consideration, this exercise can create more problems than it was designed to solve. I’ve worked on a number of disputes wherein a robust benchmarking exercise was applied. In my experience well thought out benchmarking exercises have consistently played a critical role in persuasion of the arguments and opinions presented in the dispute.

In one such case a key allegation brought by an opposing expert dealt with inadequate accounting and disclosure of a particular FASB interpretation (“FIN”). My team carefully selected a peer group for comparison and we successfully demonstrated that diversity in practice existed with respect to peer entities complying with the disclosure requirements, which findings supported my client’s position.

In closing, I wish to reiterate that judgments or assumptions applied by a practitioner in connection with a benchmarking exercise must be adequately considered and documented for a successful outcome to occur.

Photo credit – Craig Jewell Photography

Posted on

The power of walk throughs in investigations

As a former auditor, I performed walk throughs of certain key account processes or cycles to gain a complete understanding of a transaction from start to finish.  Sometimes it became quite cumbersome because certain processes were complex or lengthy.  However, after walking through a process I was able to gain a solid understanding of the areas of risk exposure and, most importantly, I could answer the question, “what could go wrong in this area.”  This informed me further in planning my audits and responding to risks.

As a basis for framing my post today, the PCAOB AU No. 5 at ¶ 37, describes a walkthrough as follows:

In performing a walkthrough, the auditor follows a transaction from origination through the company’s processes, including information systems, until it is reflected in the company’s financial records, using the same documents and information technology that company personnel use. Walkthrough procedures usually include a combination of inquiry, observation, inspection of relevant documentation, and re-performance of controls.

Although this guidance is intended to apply to audits of internal controls over financial reporting, implemented by an entity in preparing its financial statements, the principles gathered from walk throughs can be applied to a variety of circumstances.

As basic as they may seem, walk throughs I believe are the bedrock to understanding the flow of transactions in accounts, particularly complex ones.  Following are some powerful things that can be gathered from a walk through:

  • Build rapport with the interviewee through conversation that can be transitioned from “formal” (early on in the walk through) to “informal” or more “relaxed” (once enough questions have been discussed and the anxiety of meeting someone for the first time can be overcome)
  • Identify “types” of documentation not previously known
  • Assess the competency of an account owner/interviewee
  • Assess the body language of the interviewee and gather relevant information therefrom
  • Identify improper segregation of duties (custody, record keeping, and authorization/verification)
  • Identify exposures to fraud and/or error

To do effective walk throughs, it’s critical that the person conducting the meeting have sufficient experience to understand what types of questions to ask and, maybe more importantly, if answers are satisfactory or if probing is necessary.  Depending on the risks/allegations, a walk through may encompass a portion of or an entire process, including: initiation, authorization, recording, processing, and reporting.

I’ve found the following types of questions to be helpful in a walk through (of course, adapting the questions to the relevant facts/allegations and circumstances is critical to an effective discussion):

  • Please describe your role in this process.
  • Who else is involved in this process (preparers, reviewers, approvers, etc.)?
  • What happens when a transaction is not approved?
  • What systems (internal or external) do you use or rely upon to perform your duties?  This type of questioning can assist in identifying the areas of manual intervention, which often times are the areas of highest exposure to fraud and/or error.
  • Where do you understand the areas of judgment or estimate to be?
  • Have you or anyone you know been asked to override any controls?
  • If there were a questionable transaction or request, who would you go to for guidance or advice?

Depending on the situation, I recommend two interviewers in attendance.  For example, in an investigative scenario, it may be appropriate to have two persons in attendance, one to ask the questions and interact with the interviewee and another to take notes, but also to stand as a “witness” should allegations come back against the interviewer.

Sometimes a walk through may not be possible because access to the person(s) may be restricted.  In these scenarios, the best available information should be considered and, using an experienced professional’s understanding of the flow of similar business transactions, one should formulate an “expectation” for how transactions are processed and then refine that “expectation” as new information becomes available.

As a reiterative point, having an experienced professional involved in the process greatly increases the odds of a successful outcome (“successful” of course being a relative term) and is critical in sorting through what is relevant, what is not, and what may be an intentional diversion.

Photo credit