Posted on

AUP Engagements: A Middle Ground Between Audits and Consulting Services

Your CPA offers a wide menu of services. An audit is a familiar type of attestation service that provides a formal opinion about whether the company’s financial statements conform to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Consulting services, in contrast, provide advice or technical assistance that’s only for internal purposes. That is, lenders and other third parties can’t rely on the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented during a consulting project.

If you need a report that falls somewhere between these alternatives, consider an agreed upon procedures (AUP) engagement.

Scope

An AUP engagement uses procedures similar to an audit, but on a limited scale. It can be used to identify specific problems that require immediate action. When performing an AUP engagement, your CPA makes no formal opinion; he or she simply acts as a fact finder. The report lists:

  • The procedures performed, and
  • The CPA’s findings.

It’s the user’s responsibility to draw conclusions based on those findings. AUP engagements may target specific financial data (such as accounts payable, accounts receivable or related party transactions), nonfinancial information (such as a review of internal controls or compliance with royalty agreements), a specific financial statement (such as the income statement or balance sheet) or even a complete set of financial statements.

Advantages

AUP engagements boast several advantages. They can be performed at any time during the year, and they can be relied on by third parties. Plus, you have the flexibility to choose only those procedures you feel are necessary, so AUP engagements can be cost-effective.

Specifically, AUP engagements can be useful:

  • In M&A due diligence,
  • When a business owner suspects an employee of misrepresenting financial results, and
  • To determine compliance with specific regulatory requirements, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).

In addition, lenders or franchisors may request an AUP engagement if they have doubts or questions about a company’s financials or the effectiveness of its internal controls — or if they want to check on the progress of a distressed company’s turnaround plan.

Contact us

AUP engagements can be performed to supplement audits and consulting engagements — or as a standalone service. We can help you customize an AUP engagement that fits the needs of your business and its stakeholders.

© 2019

Posted on

Measuring “Fair Value” for Financial Reporting Purposes

The standard for valuing certain assets and liabilities under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) is “fair value.” This differs from other valuation standards that may apply when valuing a security or business interest in a litigation or mergers and acquisitions (M&A) setting.

FASB guidance

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures , in 2006. It defines fair value as “the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.”

The statement unified approximately 60 existing accounting pronouncements that used this term. Among the items currently reported at fair value (rather than historic cost) are asset retirement obligations, derivatives and intangible assets acquired in a business combination.

Valuation hierarchy

The statement also establishes a “fair value hierarchy” that emphasizes market-based valuation methods. In order of decreasing relevance, the following factors should be considered when measuring fair value:

  1. Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities,
  2. Quoted prices in active markets for similar assets or liabilities, or other “observable” inputs, and
  3. Unobservable inputs, such as the reporting entity’s own data.

When the recession hit in 2008, the FASB advised companies to use internal assumptions, such as expected cash flows and appropriately risk-adjusted discount rates, to value securities when relevant market data is unavailable. FASB guidance said that, in times of “market dislocation,” market prices may not always be determinative of fair value. Rather, valuations “may require the use of significant judgment about whether individual transactions are forced liquidations or distressed sales.”

Different purposes, different standards

Though it may be tempting to “recycle” valuations prepared for litigation or M&A purposes for use in financial reporting (or vice versa), the values may not be equivalent. That’s because different standards sometimes apply, depending on the purpose of the valuation.

For example, “fair value” in an oppressed shareholder or divorce case may be statutorily defined and based on relevant case law. Likewise, “strategic value,” which is commonly used in M&As, may include buyer-specific synergies and, therefore, warrant a premium above the price others in the marketplace would pay.

In addition, the FASB specifically avoided using the term “fair market value” in ASC 820. This term applies to valuations prepared for federal tax purposes. The rationale was that the FASB wanted to separate its guidance from the extensive body of IRS guidance and Tax Court precedent. The term “fair value” has less baggage tied to it and allowed the FASB to start with a clean slate.

Use valuation experts

Estimating fair value, like any valuation assignment, generally requires the use of specialists who are independent of your audit team. Contact us for more information about fair value measurements.

© 2019

Posted on

Predicting Future Performance

CPAs typically report historical financial performance. But sometimes they’re hired to predict how a company will perform in the future.

Prospective reporting options

There are three types of reports to choose from when predicting future performance:

  1. Forecasts. These prospective statements present an entity’s expected financial position, results of operations and cash flows. They’re based on assumptions about expected conditions and courses of action.
  2. Projections. These statements are based on assumptions about conditions expected to exist and the course of action expected to be taken, given one or more hypothetical assumptions. Financial projections may test investment proposals or demonstrate a best-case scenario.
  3. Budgets. Operating budgets are prepared in-house for internal purposes. They allocate money — usually revenues and expenses — for particular purposes over specified periods.

Though these terms are sometimes used interchangeably, there are important distinctions under the attestation standards set forth by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).

Factors to consider

Historical financial statements are often used to generate forecasts, projections and budgets. But accurate predictions usually require more work than simply multiplying last year’s operating results by a projected growth rate — especially over the long term.

For example, a high-growth business may be growing 20% annually, but that rate is likely unsustainable over time. Plus, the business’s facilities and fixed assets may lack sufficient capacity to handle growth expectations. If so, management may need to add assets or fixed expenses to take the company to the next level.

Similarly, it may not make sense to assume that annual depreciation expense will reasonably approximate the need for future capital expenditures. Consider a tax-basis entity that aggressively took advantage of the expanded Section 179 and bonus depreciation deductions in 2018, which permitted immediate expensing in the year qualifying fixed assets were purchased. Because depreciation is so boosted by these tax incentives, this assumption may overstate depreciation and capital expenditures going forward.

Various external factors, such as changes in competition, product obsolescence and economic conditions, can affect future operations. So can events within a company. For example, new or divested product lines, recent asset purchases, in-process research and development, and outstanding litigation could all materially affect future financial results.

Objective expertise

Some companies create prospective financial reports as part of their annual planning process. Others use these reports to apply for loans or to value the business for corporate litigation, buying out a retiring owner or a merger or acquisition. Whatever the reason for creating prospective financial statements, it’s important that the underlying assumptions be realistic and well thought out. Contact us for objective insights that are based on industry and market trends, rather than simplistic formulas and gut instinct.

© 2019

Posted on

Close-Up on Financial Statements

There are three types of financial statements under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Each one reveals different, but equally important, information about your company’s financial performance. And, together, they can be analyzed to help owners, management, lenders and investors make informed business decisions.

Profit or loss

The income statement shows revenue and expenses over the accounting period. A commonly used term when discussing income statements is “net income,“ which is the income remaining after all expenses (including taxes) have been paid.

It’s also important to check out the company’s “gross profit.“ This is the income earned after subtracting the cost of goods sold from revenue. Cost of goods sold includes the cost of direct labor and materials, as well as any manufacturing overhead costs required to make a product.

The income statement also lists sales, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses. They reflect functions, such as marketing and payroll, that support a company’s production of products or services. Often, SG&A costs are relatively fixed, no matter how well your business is doing. Compute the ratio of SG&A costs to revenue. If the percentage increases over time, business may be slowing down.

Financial position

The balance sheet tallies your company’s assets, liabilities and net worth to create a snapshot of its financial health on the financial statement date. Assets are customarily listed in order of liquidity. Current assets (such as accounts receivable) are expected to be converted into cash within a year, while long-term assets (such as plant and equipment) will be used to generate revenue beyond the next 12 months.

Similarly, liabilities are listed in order of maturity. Current liabilities (such as accounts payable) come due within a year, while long-term liabilities are payment obligations that extend beyond the current year.

Because the balance sheet must balance, assets must equal liabilities plus net worth. So, net worth is the extent to which assets exceed liabilities. It may signal financial distress if your net worth is negative. Other red flags include:

  • Current assets that grow faster than sales, and
  • A deteriorating ratio of current assets to current liabilities.

These trends could indicate that management is managing working capital less efficiently than in prior periods.

Cash inflows and outflows

The statement of cash flows shows all the cash flowing in and out of your company during the accounting period. For example, your company may have cash inflows from selling products, borrowing, and selling stock. Outflows may result from paying expenses, investing in capital equipment and repaying debt.

The statement of cash flows is organized into three sections: cash flows from operating, financing and investing activities. Ideally, a company will generate enough cash from operations to cover its expenses. If not, it may need to borrow money or sell stock to survive.

Ratios and trends

The most successful businesses continually monitor ratios and trends revealed in their financial statements. Contact us if you need help interpreting your financial results.

© 2019

Posted on

Comparing Internal and External Audits

Businesses use two types of audits to gauge financial results: internal and external. Here’s a closer look at how they measure up.

Focus

Internal auditors go beyond traditional financial reporting. They focus on a company’s internal controls, accounting processes and ability to mitigate risk. Internal auditors also evaluate whether the company’s activities comply with its strategy, and they may consult on a variety of financial issues as they arise within the company.

In contrast, external auditors focus solely on the financial statements. Specifically, external auditors evaluate the statements’ accuracy and completeness, whether they comply with applicable accounting standards and practices, and whether they present a true and accurate presentation of the company’s financial performance. Accounting rules prohibit external audit firms from providing their audit clients with ancillary services that extend beyond the scope of the audit.

The audit “client”

Internal auditors are employees of the company they audit. They report to the chief audit executive and issue reports for management to use internally.

External auditors work for an independent accounting firm. The company’s shareholders or board of directors hires a third-party auditing firm to serve as its external auditor. The external audit team delivers reports directly to the company’s shareholders or audit committee, not to management

Qualifications

Internal auditors don’t need to be certified public accountants (CPAs), although many have earned this qualification. Often, internal auditors earn a certified internal auditor (CIA) qualification, which requires them to follow standards issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA).

Conversely, the partner directing an external audit must be a CPA. Most midlevel and senior auditors earn their CPA license at some point in their career. External auditors must follow U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS), which are issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).

Reporting format

Internal auditors issue reports throughout the year. The format may vary depending on the preferences of management or the internal audit team.

External auditors issue financial statements quarterly for most public companies and at least annually for private ones. In general, external audit reports must conform to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or another basis of accounting (such as tax or cash basis reporting). If needed, external auditing procedures may be performed more frequently. For example, a lender may require a private company that fails to meet its loan covenants at year end to undergo a midyear audit by an external audit firm.

Common ground

Sometimes the work of internal and external auditors overlaps. Though internal auditors have a broader focus, both teams have the same goal: to help the company report financial data that people can count on. So, it makes sense for internal and external auditors to meet frequently to understand the other team’s focus and avoid duplication of effort. Contact us to map out an auditing strategy that fits the needs of your company.

© 2019

Posted on

Put a QOE Report to Work for You

An independent quality of earnings (QOE) report can be a valuable tool in mergers and acquisitions. It’s important for both buyers and sellers to look beyond the quantitative information provided by the selling company’s financial statements.

Quality matters

There’s a lack of guidance from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) regarding scope and format of a QOE report. As a result, these engagements may be customized to meet the needs of the party requesting the report.

Typically, QOE reports analyze the individual components of earnings (that is, revenue and expenses) on a month-to-month basis. The goals are twofold: 1) to determine whether earnings are sustainable, and 2) to identify potential risks and opportunities, both internal and external, that could affect the company’s ability to operate as a going concern.

Examples of issues that a QOE report might uncover include:

  • Deficient accounting policies and procedures,
  • Excessive concentration of revenue with one customer,
  • Transactions with undisclosed related parties,
  • Inaccurate period-end adjustments,
  • Unusual revenue or expense items,
  • Insufficient loss reserves, and
  • Overly optimistic prospective financial statements.

QOE analyses can be performed on financial statements that have been prepared in-house, as well as those that have been compiled, reviewed or audited by a CPA firm. Rather than focus on historical results and compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), QOE reports focus on how much cash flow the company is likely to generate for investors in the future.

Beyond EBITDA

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) for the trailing 12 months is often the starting point for assessing earnings quality. To reflect a more accurate picture of a company’s operations, EBITDA may need to be adjusted for such items as:

  • Nonrecurring items, such as a loss from a natural disaster or a gain from an asset sale,
  • Above- or below-market owners’ compensation,
  • Discretionary expenses, and
  • Differences in accounting methods used by the company compared to industry peers.

In addition, QOE reports usually entail detailed ratio and trend analysis to identify unusual activity. Additional procedures can help determine whether changes are positive or negative.

For example, an increase in accounts receivable could result from revenue growth (a positive indicator) or a buildup of uncollectible accounts (a negative indicator). If it’s the former, the gross margin on incremental revenue should be analyzed to determine if the new business is profitable — or if the revenue growth results from aggressive price cuts.   

We can help

Using an objective accounting professional to provide a QOE report can help the parties stay focused on financial matters during M&A discussions and add credibility to management’s historical and prospective financial statements. Contact us if you’re in the market to buy or sell a business.

© 2019

Posted on

Auditing Accounting Estimates and the Use of Specialists

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) recently voted to finalize two related standards aimed at improving audits of accounting estimates and the work of specialists. Though the new, more consistent guidance would apply specifically to public companies, the effects would likely filter down to audits of private entities that use accounting estimates or rely on the work of specialists.

Estimates

Financial statements often report assets at fair value or use other types of accounting estimates, such as allowances for doubtful accounts, credit losses and impairments of long-lived assets. These estimates may involve some level of measurement uncertainty. So, they may be susceptible to misstatement and require more auditor focus.

PCAOB Release No. 2018-005, Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Measurements , aims to improve audits of estimates. The new risk-based standard would promote greater consistency in application. It would emphasize the importance of professional skepticism when auditors evaluate management’s estimates and the need to devote greater attention to potential management bias. Under the updated standard, auditors would consider both corroborating and contradictory evidence that’s obtained during the audit.

Use of specialists

Some accounting estimates may be easily determinable. But many are inherently subjective or complex, requiring the use of specialists. Examples include:

  • Actuaries to determine employee benefit obligations,
  • Engineers to determine obligations regarding environmental remediation, and
  • Appraisers to determine the value of intangible assets or real estate.

The audit guidance on using the work of specialists hasn’t changed much since it was originally published in the 1970s. It deals with auditors’ oversight of third-party specialists, as well as the auditor’s use of the work of a professional hired by management. Existing guidance requires auditors to evaluate the relationship of a specialist to the client, including situations that might impair the specialist’s objectivity. But it doesn’t provide specific requirements.

PCAOB Release No. 2018-006, Amendments to Auditing Standards for Auditor’s Use of the Work of Specialists , would provide more direction for carrying out that evaluation. The updated standard would extend the auditor’s responsibility for evaluating specialists beyond simply obtaining an understanding of their work. It would require auditors to perform additional procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the company’s data, as well as significant assumptions and methods used. However, auditors wouldn’t be required to reperform the work of the company’s specialist.

Stay tuned

The PCAOB issued these related standards simultaneously at the end of 2018, and wants both to become effective for audits of financial statements for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2020. However, the updated guidance is pending approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Contact us to discuss how these updated standards are likely to affect your company’s audit procedures in the coming years.

© 2019

Posted on

Simplifying the Accounting Rules for Convertible Debt and Equity

Distinguishing between liabilities and equity on a company’s balance sheet may seem straightforward. But difficulties arise when it comes to the terms of complex securities and financial contracts like redeemable equity instruments, equity-linked or indexed instruments, and convertible instruments.

The good news is that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is currently working on a project to improve how to determine the difference between liabilities and equity.

Need for change

Work on this project dates as far back as 1986, when distinguishing liabilities from equity was added to the FASB’s technical agenda. Since then, the board has issued various pieces of guidance to help resolve issues that have been raised. But the outcry for revisions to the liabilities vs. equity topic hasn’t waned.

In 2017, accounting professionals told the FASB that current guidance is “overly complex, internally inconsistent, path dependent, form based and is a cause for frequent financial statement restatements.”

Once again, the project is a top priority for the FASB. In 2019, deliberations will initially focus on two areas:

  1. Accounting for convertible instruments with embedded conversion features, and
  2. Determining whether instruments are indexed to an entity’s own stock.

A convertible instrument, typically a bond or a preferred stock, is an instrument that can be converted into a different security — often shares of the company’s common stock. For example, emerging and growing companies often use convertible debt as an alternative financing solution. It’s basically a loan obtained by a company from venture capital or angel investors whereby both parties agree to convert the debt into equity at a specific date.

Tentative plans

Convertible instruments create complex accounting issues and have become a major source of confusion and restatements. In February 2019, the FASB tentatively voted to:

  • Revise certain disclosures for convertible instruments, including adding disclosure objectives for convertible debt and for convertible preferred shares,
  • Centralize the guidance on convertible preferred shares in Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 505, Equity, and convertible debt in ASC Subtopic 470-20, Debt — Debt with Conversion and other Options, and
  • Improve the diluted earnings-per-share calculation and derivative scope exception.

Under the existing rules, there are currently five models to account for convertible debt, which the board plans to narrow down to one or two models. As a result, convertible debt would be recognized in the balance sheet as a single liability, measured at amortized cost. There would no longer be bifurcation, or separation, of the conversion feature and the debt host. Similarly, convertible preferred shares would be recognized in the balance sheet as a single equity element.

Stay tuned

Many start-ups and midsize businesses use convertible instruments to raise cash. But it’s easy for management to miss an aspect of an arrangement and then follow the wrong accounting model under today’s complex, inconsistent principles. And the complex accounting rules even may cause some businesses to avoid tapping into these financing alternatives.

Fortunately, the FASB is taking steps to simplify the financial reporting requirements — and we’re atop the latest developments. Contact us for more information.   

© 2019

Posted on

Transparency is Key with Related Party Transactions

In recent years, external auditors have focused more attention on related party transactions. Although related party transactions aren’t necessarily bad, they do raise some concerns about the risk of misstatement or omission in financial reporting.

3 focal points

Issues with related parties played a prominent role in the scandals that surfaced nearly two decades ago at Enron, Tyco International and Refco. Public outrage about these scandals led Congress to pass the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and establish the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Similar problems have arisen in more recent financial reporting fraud cases, prompting the PCAOB to enact tougher standards on related-party transactions and financial relationships.

PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2410 (AS 2410), Related Parties, requires auditors of public companies to beef up their efforts in financial statement matters that pose increased risk of fraud. Specifically, auditors must focus on three critical areas:

1. Related-party transactions, such as those involving directors, executives and their family members,
2. Significant unusual transactions (SUTs) that are outside the company’s normal course of business or that otherwise appear to be unusual due to their timing, size or nature, and
3. Other financial relationships with the company’s executive officers and directors.

Subjecting these transactions and financial relationships to enhanced auditor scrutiny may help avert corporate failures. The PCAOB also hopes that enhanced auditor scrutiny will lead to improvements in accounting transparency and disclosures, which will help investors to more clearly gauge financial performance and fraud risks.

From start to finish

AS 2410 requires auditors to obtain a more in-depth understanding of every related-party financial relationship and transaction, including their nature, terms and business purpose (or lack thereof). Tougher related-party audit procedures must be performed in conjunction with the auditor’s risk assessment procedures, which occur in the planning phase of an audit.

In addition, auditors are expected to communicate with the audit committee throughout the audit process regarding the auditor’s evaluation of the company’s identification of, accounting for and disclosure of its related-party relationships and transactions. They can’t wait until the end of the engagement to communicate on these matters.

During fieldwork, expect auditors to be on the hunt for undisclosed related parties and unusual transactions. Examples of information that may be gathered during the audit that could reveal undisclosed related parties include information contained on the company’s website, tax filings, corporate life insurance policies, contracts and organizational charts.

Certain types of questionable transactions — such as contracts for below-market goods or services, bill-and-hold arrangements, uncollateralized loans and subsequent repurchase of goods sold — also might signal that a company is engaged in unusual or undisclosed related-party transactions.

To facilitate the audit process, management should be up-front with auditors about all related party transactions, even if they’re not required to be disclosed or consolidated on the company’s financial statements.

Let’s be honest

Private companies also engage in numerous related party transactions, and they may experience spillover effects of the tougher PCAOB auditing standard, which applies only to audits of public companies. Regardless of whether you’re publicly traded or privately held, it’s important to identify, evaluate and disclose all related parties. We can help you present related party relationships and transactions, openly and completely.

© 2019

Posted on

ESG Issues: To Report or Not to Report?

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Jay Clayton recently said that public companies shouldn’t be required to disclose information concerning environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters in their financial statements using a standardized format. Right now, these disclosures are voluntary and unstandardized.

ESG issues

The SEC is a long-standing member of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). But, in January, the SEC refused to sign a statement issued by IOSCO that urged companies to disclose nonfinancial ESG matters that may affect a company’s financial condition and performance. Examples include:

• The size of the company’s carbon footprint,
• Efforts to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources,
• Workplace, health and safety issues, and
• Consumer product safety risks.

Media attention on these external threats has increased public awareness and prompted concerns about how ESG issues could impact value or increase a company’s risk of litigation. Some investor groups and regulators are calling for formal rules that would mandate the use of a standardized framework.

SEC position

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce and Chairman Clayton recognize that voluntary ESG disclosures provide insight into company operations when used in conjunction with traditional financial metrics. But they oppose a one-size-fits-all reporting format. They contend that some ESG information isn’t relevant to a reasonable investor and thus takes time away from focusing on more pressing matters.

They also point out that companies that follow U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) already must disclose material ESG matters in the following sections of their financial statements:

Description of business. This disclosure describes the business and that of its subsidiaries, including information about its form of organization, principal products and services, major customers, competitive conditions and costs of complying with environmental laws.

Legal proceedings. This disclosure briefly explains any material pending legal proceedings in which the company, any of its subsidiaries and any of its property are involved.

Risk factors. These disclosures highlight the most significant factors that make an investment in the company speculative or risky.

Management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A). Public companies must identify known trends, events, demands, commitments and uncertainties that are reasonably likely to have a material effect on financial condition or operating performance.

In addition, some companies voluntarily issue separate standalone “sustainability” reports that cover a broad range of nonfinancial issues. However, these nonfinancial figures aren’t audited, and, unfortunately, some companies use ESG data to present a stronger financial picture than the ones that appear in their audited financial statements.

A custom approach

Voluntary ESG reporting can provide valuable insight to investors and lenders. We can help your company create customized financial statement disclosures and standalone sustainability reports that reflect its most pressing ESG concerns. Contact us for more information.

© 2019