Posted on

Potentially costly accounting standards on the horizon

For a number of years we experienced a “lull” in significant accounting standards issued by the FASB.  However, just within the last two years, the FASB has issued two significant, complicated accounting standards that will have far-reaching implications for companies.

These two accounting standards affect how companies recognize revenues and recognize leases.  Based on my experience, I expect that just about every company whose financial reporting framework is U.S. GAAP will be affected by at least one, if not both, of these standards.  As such, today’s post will focus on what these two standards are and how they will affect companies.

Revenue recognition

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).  This standard is designed to achieve a number of goals.  First, the standard removes inconsistencies and weaknesses in revenue requirements and provides a more robust framework for addressing revenue issues.  Second, the standard improves comparability of revenue recognition practices across entities, industries, jurisdictions, and capital markets (particularly companies that have adopted IFRS).  Third, it provides more useful information to users of financial statements through improved disclosure requirements.  Finally, the standard simplifies the preparation of financial statements by reducing the number of requirements to which an entity must refer.

The core principle of the guidance in Topic 606 is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services.  With a move away from industry and more prescriptive guidance on recognizing revenue, this standard uses the following five-step model:

  1. Identify the contract(s) with a customer
  2. Identify the performance obligations in the contract
  3. Determine the transaction price
  4. Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract
  5. Recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation

The desired goals of this standard seem nice on paper and I believe they are a significant step toward improved financial reporting.  However, what this means for companies is that they will need to apply a significant amount of resources and thought to achieving the objectives set forth in the standard.

ASU No. 2014-09 has been subsequently amended as follows:

Accounting for leases

Earlier this year the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842).  The key change from the existing leasing accounting standard (Topic 840) is that, under the new standard, lessees will need to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities for leases classified as operating leases.  For leases with a term of 12 months or less, a lessee is permitted to make an accounting policy election by class of underlying asset not to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities.  If a lessee makes this election, it should recognize lease expense for such leases generally on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

This standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018 for publicly traded companies.  Although 2019 seems like a long way into the future, many companies will need to make significant endeavors to effectively implement this accounting standard.

Internal coordination a must

It goes without saying that departmental decisions within a company tend to have an effect on accounting and financial reporting.  With this in mind, in implementing these new accounting standards companies will need to coordinate internally to ensure that all of the relevant facts and circumstances are gathered for accounting and financial reporting consideration.

In the spirit of coordinating between the accounting function and other departments to ensure that business operations are not adversely affected by adoption of these new accounting standards, following are things to consider:

  • Legal – In implementing the new lease standard, leases with terms greater than 12 months will be included in the balance sheet.  Companies will need to revisit their contractual terms, particularly with lenders, to ensure that the accounting changes on the balance sheet do not adversely affect compliance with debt covenants.  Further, companies will need to consider implications of adopting these two standards on securing financing.  Finally, companies may wish to revisit the terms and conditions, including pricing structure, in customer contracts and consider how adoption of the new revenue recognition standard may affect the timing of revenue recognition.
  • Financial planning and analysis – Companies will need to consider the timing of revenue recognition for internal budgeting and forecasts.
  • Information technology – Companies will need to revisit their accounting and operational systems and processes.  Specifically, systems and processes will likely need to be reconfigured and/or reports may need to be modified or created to obtain relevant data for appropriate accounting and more extensive accounting disclosures.
  • Human resources – Often times variable compensation is based on key financial metrics, such as revenues, earnings, and EBITDA.  With the adoption of the new accounting standards, because the timing of revenue recognition may change, companies will need to revisit their variable compensation arrangements with employees to ensure that targets are reasonable and achievable.  Moreover, companies will need to ensure there is adequate staffing with the right level of experience and technical skills to implement these standards.
  • Tax – With expected changes in the recognition of revenue, for example, companies will need to consider the impact on income taxes.
  • Investor relations – Companies will need to consider changes to guidance provided to the street on revenues, EPS, and non-GAAP measures (such as EBITDA) as these metrics will be affected by adoption of these new accounting standards.  Furthermore, companies will need to consider the nature and extent of communications with users of their financial statements regarding expected changes to business practices from adopting these standards.

As I indicated in a previous post, just like individuals, companies can procrastinate decision-making until it becomes costly.  Of particular concern in light of these two significant accounting standards is that companies may lack sufficient resources to effectively adopt them, either in terms of quantity or quality of headcount.

Likewise, companies may not provide adequate budgeting for additional resources needed to effectively adopt these standards.  Many companies, whether by choice or out of necessity, may find themselves hiring consultants carrying price tags higher than internal resources to accomplish the following two objectives.  First, they will need to meet the adoption requirements in the accounting standards.  Second, they will need to satisfy their external auditor of compliance with these accounting standards.

Potentially costly audits

In my line of business, hiring outside assistance to pass financial statement audits can become costly in a relatively short period of time.  With this in mind, in connection with an audit of financial statements, public companies should be mindful of the implications that the adoption of these standards will have on internal controls over financial reporting.

In essence, there are multiple “types” of internal controls:  IT general, application, automated, manual, and IT-dependent manual controls.  As is typical of significant changes in accounting and disclosure, the adoption of these new standards will likely require more manual-type controls to verify that financial reporting is reliable.

In light of this, companies will need to consider the increased risk of material misstatement that manual controls introduce to an audit.

Next steps

For these reasons companies should begin now planning for these scenarios.  In reality, these new accounting standards are a significant undertaking and companies should approach implementation of these standards with a high degree of determination.

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