Posted on

Sustainability Reports Looks Beyond the Numbers

In recent years, environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues have become a hot topic. Many companies voluntarily include so-called “sustainability disclosures” about these issues in their financial statements. But should the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) make these disclosures mandatory and more consistent?

Identifying ESG issues

The term “sustainability” refers to anything that helps your company sustain itself — its people, its profits — into the future. A variety of nonfinancial issues fall under the ESG umbrella, including:

  • Pollution and carbon emissions,
  • Union relations,
  • Political spending,
  • Tax strategies,
  • Employee training and education programs,
  • Diversity practices,
  • Health and safety matters, and
  • Human rights policies.

There’s often a link between ESG issues and financial performance. For example, regulatory violations can lead to fines, remedial costs and reputational damage. And the sale of toxic or unsafe products can result in product liability lawsuits, recalls and boycotts.

On the flipside, identifying and successfully navigating ESG issues can add value by building trust with stakeholders, providing improved access to capital and lower borrowing costs, and enhancing loyalty with customers and employees. Tracking sustainability also helps companies identify ways to reduce their energy consumption, streamline their supply chains, eliminate waste and operate more efficiently.

Studying the costs of mandatory disclosures

Currently, most sustainability disclosures are made voluntarily. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) does require companies to describe the effects of climate change under Release No. 33-9106, Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change. Unfortunately, these disclosures have been criticized by investors for being too general and not useful.

Recently, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) — an independent, nonpartisan U.S. government watchdog agency — to study the costs of requiring public companies to make ESG disclosures. His letter to the GAO references a 2015 survey, which found that 73% of institutional investors take ESG issues into consideration when they’re evaluating investment or voting decisions and managing investment risks.

Specifically, Warner asked the GAO to:

  • Analyze the effect of revising U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to account for ESG issues,
  • Evaluate the extent to which 1) companies address ESG issues in their disclosures, and 2) investors seek ESG disclosures and why,
  • Identify possible regulatory and nonregulatory actions that could improve and standardize ESG disclosures, and
  • Compare U.S. and foreign ESG disclosure regimes.

A major downside to today’s disclosures is inconsistency. Warner would like the GAO to explore ways to help investors “understand the likelihood of ESG risks and cut through boilerplate disclosure.”

Not everyone wants the GAO to proceed with the study, however. Some business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable, believe the SEC should focus on providing material information to investors and not cater to what they call “special interest groups.”

Sustainability audits

It’s uncertain whether ESG disclosures will become mandatory, but many companies already share information about green business practices, diversity programs, fraud prevention policies and other ESG issues. These disclosures can help add long-term value and improve relationships with stakeholders. Contact us for help preparing or auditing an independent, integrated sustainability report for 2018.

© 2018

Posted on

Identifying and Reporting Critical Audit Matters

For over 40 years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has required only a simple pass-fail statement in public companies’ audit reports. But the deadline for mandatory reporting of critical audit matters (CAMs) in audit reports is fast approaching. The revised model will provide insight to help investors and other stakeholders better understand a public company’s financial reporting practices — and help management reduce potential risks.

Deadlines

Under existing SEC standards, auditor communication of CAMs is permissible on a voluntary basis. However, disclosure of CAMs in audit reports will be required for audits of fiscal years ending on or after June 30, 2019, for large accelerated filers; and for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2020, for all other companies to which the requirement applies.

The new rule doesn’t apply to audits of emerging growth companies (EGCs), which are companies that have less than $1 billion in revenue and meet certain other requirements. This class of companies gets a host of regulatory breaks for five years after becoming public, under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act.

Criteria

In 2017, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) published Release No. 2017-001, The Auditor’s Report on an Audit of Financial Statements When the Auditor Expresses an Unqualified Opinion and Related Amendments to PCAOB Standards. The main provision of the rule requires auditors to describe CAMs in their audit reports. These are issues that:

  • Have been communicated to the audit committee,
  • Are related to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements, and
  • Involve especially challenging, subjective or complex judgments from the auditor.

By highlighting a CAM, an auditor is essentially saying that the matter requires closer attention. Examples might include complex valuations of indefinite-lived intangible assets, uncertain tax positions, goodwill impairment, and manual accounting processes that rely on spreadsheets, rather than automated accounting software.

New guidance

In July 2018, the Center for Audit Quality issued a 12-page guide on implementing the revised model of the auditor’s report. The guide instructs auditors to select CAMs based on:

  • The risks of material misstatement,
  • The degree of auditor judgment for areas such as management estimates,
  • Significant unusual transactions,
  • The degree of subjectivity for a certain matter, and
  • The evidence the auditor gathered during the review of the financial statements.

The guide doesn’t say how many CAMs are required in an audit report or provide a checklist of potential issues. Instead, CAMs will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Coming soon

PCAOB Chairman James Doty has promised that CAMs will “breathe life into the audit report and give investors the information they’ve been asking for from auditors.” By identifying CAMs on the face of the audit report, auditors highlight challenging, subjective or complex matters that also may warrant closer attention from management. For more information about CAMs, contact us.

© 2018

Posted on

Hidden Liabilities: What’s Excluded From the Balance Sheet?

Financial statements help investors and lenders monitor a company’s performance. However, financial statements may not provide a full picture of financial health. What’s undisclosed could be just as significant as the disclosures. Here’s how a CPA can help stakeholders identify unrecorded items either through external auditing procedures or by conducting agreed upon procedures (AUPs) that target specific accounts.

Start with assets

Revealing undisclosed liabilities and risks begins with assets. For each asset, it’s important to evaluate what could cause the account to diminish. For example, accounts receivable may include bad debts, or inventory may include damaged goods. In addition, some fixed assets may be broken or in desperate need of repairs and maintenance. These items may signal financial distress and affect financial ratios just as much as unreported liabilities do.

Some of these problems may be uncovered by touring the company’s facilities or reviewing asset schedules for slow-moving items. Benchmarking can also help. For example, if receivables are growing much faster than sales, it could be a sign of aging, uncollectible accounts.

Evaluate liabilities

Next, external accountants can assess liabilities to determine whether the amount reported for each item seems accurate and complete. For example, a company may forget to accrue liabilities for salary or vacation time.

Alternatively, management might underreport payables by holding checks for weeks (or months) to make the company appear healthier than it really is. This ploy preserves the checking account while giving the impression that supplier invoices are being paid. It also mismatches revenues and expenses, understates liabilities and artificially enhances profits. Delayed payments can hurt the company’s reputation and cause suppliers to restrict their credit terms.

Identify unrecorded items

Finally, CPAs can investigate what isn’t showing on the balance sheet. Examples include warranties, pending lawsuits, IRS investigations and an underfunded pension. Such risks appear on the balance sheet only when they’re “reasonably estimable” and “more than likely” to be incurred.

These are subjective standards. In-house accounting personnel may claim that liabilities are too unpredictable or remote to warrant disclosure. Footnotes, when available, may shed additional light on the nature and extent of these contingent liabilities.

Need help?

An external audit is your best line of defense against hidden risks and potential liabilities. Or, if funds are limited, an AUP engagement can target specific high-risk accounts or transactions. Contact our experienced CPAs to gain a clearer picture of your company’s financial well-being.

© 2018

Posted on

Is It Time to Adopt the New Hedge Accounting Principles?

Implementing changes in accounting rules can be a real drag. But the new hedge accounting standard may be an exception to this generality. Many companies welcome this update and may even want to adopt it early, because the new rules are more flexible and attempt to make hedging strategies easier to report on financial statements.

Hedging strategies today

Hedging strategies protect earnings from unexpected price jumps in raw materials, changes in interest rates or fluctuations in foreign currencies. How? A business purchases futures, options or swaps and then designates these derivative instruments to a hedged item. Gains and losses from both items are then recognized in the same period, which, in turn, stabilizes earnings.

The existing rules require hedging transactions to be documented at inception and to be “highly effective.” After purchasing hedging instruments, businesses must periodically assess the transactions for their effectiveness.

The existing guidance on hedging is one of the most complex areas of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). So, companies have historically shied away from applying these rules to avoid errors and restatements.

In turn, investors complain that, when a business opts not to use the hedge accounting rules, it prevents stakeholders from truly understanding how the business operates. The new standard tries to address these potential shortcomings.

Future of hedge accounting

Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2017-12, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities, expands the strategies that are eligible for hedge accounting to include 1) hedges of the benchmark rate component of the contractual coupon cash flows of fixed-rate assets or liabilities, 2) hedges of the portion of a closed portfolio of prepayable assets not expected to prepay, and 3) partial-term hedges of fixed-rate assets or liabilities.

In addition, the updated standard:

  • Allows for hedging of nonfinancial components, such as corrugated material in a cardboard box or rubber in a tire,
  • Eliminates an onerous penalty in the “shortcut” method of hedge accounting for interest rate swaps that meet specific criteria,
  • Eliminates the concept of recording hedge “ineffectiveness,”
  • Adds the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) Municipal Swap Rate to a list of acceptable benchmark interest rates for hedges of fixed-interest-rate items, and
  • Revises the presentation and disclosure requirements for hedging to be more user-friendly.

ASU 2017-12 also provides practical expedients to make it easier for private businesses to apply the hedge accounting guidance.

Early adoption

The update will be effective for public companies for reporting periods starting after December 15, 2018. Private companies and other organizations will have an extra year to comply with the changes. But many companies are expected to adopt the amended standard for hedge accounting ahead of the effective date.

If you use hedging strategies, contact us to discuss how to report these complex transactions — and whether it makes sense to adopt the updated rules sooner rather than later. While many companies expect to adopt the amendments early, the transition process calls for more work than just picking up a calculator and applying the new guidance.

© 2018

Posted on

Which Intangibles Should Private Firms Report Following a Merger?

2018 is expected to be a hot year for mergers and acquisitions. But accounting for these transactions under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) can be complicated, especially if the deal involves intangible assets. Fortunately, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) offers a reporting alternative for private companies that simplifies accounting for new business combinations, avoiding a lot of red tape.

Private performance metrics

Companies that merge with or acquire another business must identify and recognize — separately from goodwill — the fair value of intangible assets that are separable or arise from contractual or other legal rights. Valuing intangibles can be costly, subjective and complex, often requiring the use of third-party appraisers and increasing audit costs.

When it comes to private business combinations, however, investors, lenders and other stakeholders question whether the benefits of reporting the values of all of these intangibles outweigh the costs. Private company stakeholders are primarily interested in tangible assets, cash flows, and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). Such metrics are unrelated to how companies report intangible assets in M&As.

Moreover, buyers in private business combinations generally evaluate a for-sale business based on its expected earnings and cash flows. They don’t customarily assign specific values to all of the seller’s intangible assets, especially not those that can’t be sold or licensed independently.

Exception to the rules

Since 2015, the FASB has allowed private companies to elect an accounting alternative that exempts noncompetes and certain customer-related intangibles from being identified and reported separately on the balance sheet after a business combination. This guidance requires no new disclosures for companies that elect this alternative accounting treatment.

Private companies that elect this alternative report fewer intangible assets in business combinations, thereby simplifying accounting for intangibles on the acquisition date and amortization in future periods. But the alternative doesn’t eliminate the requirement under GAAP to recognize and separately value other intangible assets acquired in business combinations, such as trade names and patents.

In addition, private companies with noncompetes and other customer-related intangibles that were acquired before the adoption of the alternative must continue to amortize those intangibles over the expected life that was set when the business combination occurred.
Although the reporting alternative simplifies matters, private companies will in most cases continue to need third-party appraisals for other separable and contract-based intangibles. Outside appraisals can be costly, but auditors typically won’t rely on fair value estimates made by management for these items.

Get it right

Accounting for business combinations can be complicated. And mistakes can lead to restatements and write-offs in future periods that may alarm stakeholders. We can help take the guesswork out of postacquisition accounting, including deciding whether to elect private company reporting alternatives and allocating the purchase price among acquired assets and liabilities. Contact us for more information.

© 2018

Posted on

A Fresh Look at Percentage of Completion Accounting

How do you report revenue and expenses from long-term contracts? Some companies that were required to use the percentage of completion method (PCM) under prior tax law may qualify for an exception that was expanded by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). This could, in turn, have spillover effects on some companies’ financial statements.

Applying the PCM

Certain businesses — such as homebuilders, real estate developers, engineering firms and creative agencies — routinely enter into contracts that last for more than one calendar year. In general, under accrual-basis accounting, long-term contracts can be reported using either 1) the completed contract method, which records revenues and expenses upon completion of the contract terms, or 2) the PCM, which ties revenue recognition to the incurrence of job costs.

The latter method is generally prescribed by U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), as long as you can make estimates that are “sufficiently dependable.” Under the PCM, the actual costs incurred are compared to expected total costs to estimate percentage complete. Alternatively, the percentage complete may be estimated using an annual completion factor. The application of the PCM is further complicated by job cost allocation policies, change orders and changes in estimates.

In addition to reporting income earlier under the PCM than under the completed contract method, the PCM can affect your balance sheet. If you underbill customers based on the percentage of costs incurred, you’ll report an asset for costs in excess of billings. Conversely, if you overbill based on the costs incurred, you’ll report a liability for billings in excess of costs.

Syncing financial statements and tax records

Starting in 2018, the TCJA modifies Section 451 of the Internal Revenue Code so that a business recognizes revenue for tax purposes no later than when it’s recognized for financial reporting purposes. Under Sec. 451(b), taxpayers that use the accrual method of accounting will meet the “all events test” no later than the taxable year in which the item is taken into account as revenue in a taxpayer’s “applicable financial statement.”

So, if your business uses the PCM for financial reporting purposes, you’ll generally need to follow suit for tax purposes (and vice versa).

In general, for federal income tax purposes, taxable income from long-term contracts is determined under the PCM. However, there’s an exception for smaller companies that enter into contracts to construct or improve real property.

Under the TCJA, for tax years beginning in 2017 and beyond, construction firms with average annual gross receipts of $25 million or less won’t be required to use the PCM for contracts expected to be completed within two years. Before the TCJA, the gross receipts test limit for the small construction contract exception was $10 million.

Got contracts?

Compared to the completed contract method, the PCM is significantly more complicated. But it can provide more current insight into financial performance on long-term contracts, if your estimates are reliable. We can help determine the appropriate method for reporting revenue and expenses, based on the nature of your operations and your company’s size.

© 2018

Posted on

Assessing the Effectiveness of Internal Controls

Strong internal controls can help prevent and detect fraud. That’s why Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) requires a public company’s management to annually assess the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting. And Sec. 404(b) requires the company’s independent auditors to provide an attestation report on management’s assessment of internal controls. Some smaller entities may be exempt from the latter requirement — but not the former one.

Burdensome for smaller entities

When the SEC published the regulations, smaller public companies told the SEC that the costs of complying with Sec. 404(b) would outweigh the benefits for investors. While the SEC explored ways to ease the compliance burden, the compliance deadline for Sec. 404(b) was repeatedly delayed for nonaccelerated filers — companies with a public float of less than $75 million on the last business day of their most recent second fiscal quarter.

In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act instructed the SEC to permanently exempt nonaccelerated filers from SOX Sec. 404(b). Absent this exemption, nonaccelerated filers would have been required to comply with Sec. 404(b) beginning with fiscal years ending on or after June 15, 2010.

New definition provides no new Sec. 404(b) relief

Earlier this year, the SEC expanded its definition of “smaller reporting companies” from companies with a public float of less than $75 million to those with a public float of less than $250 million. This change will allow nearly 1,000 more companies to qualify for a lighter set of disclosure rules available to smaller reporting companies. However, the SEC did not raise the public float thresholds for when a company qualifies as an accelerated filer. This means the $75 million threshold still applies in relation to the Sec. 404(b) exemption.

SEC Commissioners Michael Piwowar and Hester Peirce favored raising the accelerated filer threshold to $250 million to expand the number of companies that would be exempt from Sec. 404(b). But, based on feedback from auditors and investor advocate groups, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton decided to keep the current threshold at $75 million — at least for now.

It’s also important to note that not all companies with a public float of less than $75 million are considered nonaccelerated filers. If a company’s public float drops below $75 million, it continues to be an accelerated filer until it drops below $50 million, and thereby “exits” accelerated status.

Still on the hook

Even if your company is exempt from Sec.404(b), you’re still responsible for assessing the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Sec. 404(a). Contact us for any questions about complying with the SOX rules or for information regarding best practices in internal controls.

© 2018

Posted on

Auditing Royalty Agreements

Companies often grant licenses to others allowing them to use intellectual property — such as a patent or proprietary computer code — in exchange for royalties. Licensors can hire an external audit firm to ensure the licensee pays the correct royalty rate and amount. Here’s how the audit process works.

The agreement

The parties’ attorneys usually create a royalty agreement that governs the use of the intellectual property. This legal contract between the licensor and licensee details the terms of the arrangement. It spells out how the licensee may use the asset, the duration of the license and how much the licensee agrees to pay the licensor in royalties for the right to use the asset.

Unfortunately, royalty payments sometimes fall short of the agreed-upon amount. This may be due to a clerical error, confusion regarding the agreement’s terms — or even fraud. To detect and deter shortfalls, most contracts include a “right-to-audit” clause, meaning that the licensor retains the legal right to hire an outside firm to audit the licensee’s payments to confirm compliance with the terms detailed in the agreement.

The auditor’s role

When auditing royalty agreements, CPAs typically perform the following six steps:

1. Review the agreement to understand its scope, including the asset under license, the duration of the contract, prohibited uses and the royalty rate.

2. Analyze sales data used to derive royalty payments to date. Depending on the type of asset under license, the audit team may request production and inventory records.

3. Perform a detailed walk-through of the process the licensee follows to identify, track and report sales subject to a royalty payment.

4. Conduct random sampling of sales data to ensure the licensee applies the correct rate to generate the royalty payment.

5. Review sales and royalty payment trends to confirm that the licensee’s sales align with the royalty payments.

6. Gather individual invoices from key customers to locate and confirm that sales transactions subject to royalties actually generated a royalty payment.

Usually, the licensor assumes the cost of the royalty audit. However, some agreements include a clause that requires the licensee to assume responsibility for the cost of the audit if the audit uncovers underpayment of royalties by a certain margin.

Keep licensees on their toes

Most licensing arrangements function without a hitch. But a minor error or oversight could result in a significant shortfall in royalty payments. Periodic royalty audits can prevent small, but honest, mistakes from spiraling out of control — and help reduce the temptation for dishonest licensees to commit fraud. Contact us to discuss the benefits of auditing your royalty agreements.

© 2018

Posted on

How to Trim the Fat From Your Inventory

Inventory is expensive. So, it needs to be as lean as possible. Here are some smart ways to cut back inventory without compromising revenue and customer service.

Objective inventory counts

Effective inventory management starts with a physical inventory count. Accuracy is essential to knowing your cost of goods sold — and to identifying and remedying discrepancies between your physical count and perpetual inventory records. A CPA can introduce an element of objectivity to the counting process and help minimize errors.

Inventory ratios

The next step is to compare your inventory costs to those of other companies in your industry. Trade associations often publish benchmarks for:

  • Gross margin [(revenue – cost of sales) / revenue],
  • Net profit margin (net income / revenue), and
  • Days in inventory (annual revenue / average inventory × 365 days).

Your company should strive to meet — or beat — industry standards. For a retailer or wholesaler, inventory is simply purchased from the manufacturer. But the inventory account is more complicated for manufacturers and construction firms; it’s a function of raw materials, labor and overhead costs.

The composition of your company’s cost of goods will guide you on where to cut. In a tight labor market, it’s hard to reduce labor costs. But it may be possible to renegotiate prices with suppliers.

And don’t forget the carrying costs of inventory, such as storage, insurance, obsolescence and pilferage. You can also improve margins by negotiating a net lease for your warehouse, installing antitheft devices or opting for less expensive insurance coverage.

Product mix

To cut your days-in-inventory ratio, compute product-by-product margins. Stock more products with high margins and high demand — and less of everything else. Whenever possible, return excessive supplies of slow moving materials or products to your suppliers.

Product mix can be a delicate balance, however. It should be sufficiently broad and in tune with consumer needs. Before cutting back on inventory, you might need to negotiate speedier delivery from suppliers or give suppliers access to your perpetual inventory system. These precautionary measures can help prevent lost sales due to lean inventory.

Reorder point

Another important metric that’s not available from benchmarking studies is reorder point. That’s the quantity level that triggers a new order. Reorder point is a function of your volume and the purchase order lead time. If your suppliers have access to your inventory system, they can automatically ship additional stock once inventory levels reach the reorder point.

Take inventory of your inventory

Often management is so focused on sales, HR issues and product innovation that they lose control over inventory. Contact us for a reality check. We can provide industry benchmarks and calculate ratios to help minimize the guesswork in managing your inventory.

© 2018

Posted on

Use Pay-Ratio Disclosures with Caution

Starting in 2018, certain public companies must disclose the ratio of their CEO’s annual compensation to that of its “median employee.” The rule allows for significant flexibility in calculating these ratios, leading to widely divergent ratios within the same industry. Therefore, public companies and their investors should tread carefully before they rely on these metrics.

Complying with the rule

The pay-ratio disclosure rule applies to all U.S. public companies required to provide Summary Compensation Table disclosures. With limited exceptions, covered companies must disclose pay ratios in annual reports, on Form 10-K, in proxy and information statements, and in registration statements — if these filings require executive compensation disclosures.

The rule doesn’t apply to the following companies:

Smaller reporting companies (SRCs). The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted unanimously in June 2018 to increase the public float threshold for SRCs to $250 million.

Emerging growth companies (EGCs). This term generally refers to new public companies with gross revenues under $1 billion in the most recent fiscal year. (The SEC allows a transition period for newly public companies.)

The rule also exempts registered investment companies, foreign private issuers and Canadian companies filing in the United States pursuant to the Multijurisdictional Disclosure System.

Calculating pay ratios

The SEC allows significant leeway in calculating pay ratios to ease the burden of complying with the rule. Companies may choose a process that fits their structure and compensation programs. But they must disclose the methodology used to determine the median employee pay and the estimates used in calculating the pay ratio.

For example, a company could use a statistically representative sample of its workforce rather than the entire population. Or they could compare only base salary or W-2 wages, excluding from their computations bonuses, overtime, stock options and other forms of compensation.

Companies also aren’t required to calculate the exact compensation when identifying the median. Rather, the SEC lets them use “reasonable estimates.” In addition, the rule allows companies to exclude up to 5% of their non-U.S. workers and to adjust foreign pay to account for differences in the cost of living between regions.

As a result, the initial round of pay-ratio disclosures published in early 2018 vary widely. For example, a recent study found that ratios disclosed by companies in the financial services industry ranged from 1:1 to 1:429.

Comparing apples to oranges

Before relying on pay-ratio disclosures to evaluate compensation practices or cost efficiency, it’s important to compare a company’s process for calculating pay ratios to others used in the same industry. Contact us for more information about pay-ratio disclosures and how a company’s compensation practices measure up.

© 2018