FASB proposes to delay accounting standards implementation – why? – my views, because the changes are significant, and sometimes difficult and disruptive, including on legal issues

The FASB has proposed delaying the implementation of some of the new accounting standards. Here is a link to the news release, and at the bottom of this post I have pasted the news release:

https://www.fasb.org/cs/ContentServer?c=FASBContent_C&cid=1176173179331&d=&pagename=FASB%2FFASBContent_C%2FNewsPage

New revenue recognition rules in 2018. New leasing rules in 2019. The change in standards back to a more principle-based approach (such as when I became a CPA) v. the rule-based approach that developed over time. Plus, all of the new standards, some of which have been enacted in part, and some of which are still to come (see below). There is a sea change of accounting standards occurring, not to mention changes to auditing standards, communications with management, boards and audit committees, changing and increasing topics and issues for disclosure, and the increasing expectations upon management, boards, audit committees, internal auditors, outside auditors, and in-house compliance professionals and legal counsel, etc. These and other changes are impacting not only public companies, but also private business entities, and nonprofits. The FASB and other sources acknowledge that significant difficulties and disruptions are occurring.

On the one hand, changes are what they are – my job or task is to deal with them. But these changes to accounting standards are very significant, as are the ramifications.

From a risk management perspective, I suggest that the FASB should continue to evaluate changes that have been implemented, enacted and proposed, and make its views public on an ongoing basis, even just as a reminder, why changes are being proposed and enacted, the pros, cons and costs, and the positive and negative impacts that are being caused upon businesses and job protection and creation, investors, lenders, borrowers, and other stakeholders, and whether the changes are truly necessary and worthwhile compared to the pains or negatives that are being caused.

Consider, for example, to what extent are the rules that were in place for decades deficient? If the then existing rules were deficient, why were those deficiencies allowed to exist? Due to the rule changes, some industries and businesses will see disruption or deterioration to their on-paper financial statements, whereas others will see improvements, all the while they are still the same industries or businesses that they already were. As a result of on-paper rule changes, some industries and businesses will now have an increased risk or difficultly of raising capital or of obtaining loans, and might also be less attractive, or more attractive, as M&A targets, whereas in fact there have been no operational changes in the impacted industries or businesses.

Consider, for example, if the rule changes cause an increase in restatements, such as due to difficulties understanding or implementing the rule changes, or as a result of vagueness in the rule (principle-based approach v. rule-based approach), or, perhaps, the rule fails or omits to include sufficient and necessary detail or scope, will those conditions impact possible liability exposure, standards of care, and the evaluation of possible wrongdoing including level of culpability or wrongful intent, resulting internal investigations, or the applicability of possible clawback provisions, job performance reviews, and other impacted matters?

As said above, my job or task is to deal with those ongoing activities and changes. This post merely discusses some issues for possible consideration resulting from the FASB’s ongoing activities.

Here is a copy of the FASB news release:

FASB SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL TO DELAY EFFECTIVE DATES FOR PRIVATE AND CERTAIN PUBLIC COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS

Extends Implementation Deadline for Credit Losses, Leases, and Hedging Standards

Norwalk, CT, August 15, 2019—The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) today issued a proposed Accounting Standards Update (ASU) that would grant private companies, not-for-profit organizations, and certain small public companies additional time to implement FASB standards on current expected credit losses (CECL), leases, and hedging. Stakeholders are encouraged to review and provide comment on the proposed ASU by September 16, 2019.

The proposed ASU describes a new FASB philosophy that extends and simplifies how effective dates for major standards are staggered between larger public companies and all other entities. Those other entities include private companies, smaller public companies, not-for-profit organizations, and employee benefit plans. Under this philosophy, a major standard would first be effective for larger public companies.  For all other entities, the Board would consider requiring an effective date staggered at least two years later.  Generally, it is expected that early application would continue to be permitted for all entities.

“Based on what we’ve learned from our stakeholders, including the Private Company Council and the Small Business Advisory Committee, private companies, not-for-profit organizations, and some small public companies would benefit from additional time to apply major standards,” stated FASB Chairman Russell G. Golden.  “This represents an important shift in the FASB’s philosophy around effective dates, one we believe will support better overall implementation of these standards.”

Based on that philosophy, the Board proposes to amend the effective dates for CECL, leases, and hedging as follows (chart assumes calendar-year end):

The proposed ASU and a FASB In Focus overview document are available at www.fasb.org.

About the Financial Accounting Standards Board

Established in 1973, the FASB is the independent, private-sector, not-for-profit organization based in Norwalk, Connecticut, that establishes financial accounting and reporting standards for public and private companies and not-for-profit organizations that follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The FASB is recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission as the designated accounting standard setter for public companies. FASB standards are recognized as authoritative by many other organizations, including state Boards of Accountancy and the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA). The FASB develops and issues financial accounting standards through a transparent and inclusive process intended to promote financial reporting that provides useful information to investors and others who use financial reports. The Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) supports and oversees the FASB. For more information, visit www.fasb.org.

—————————————————————

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Thank you for reading this website. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly.

Best to you, David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing in California only.

I am also the Chair of the Business Law Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Blogs: Trust, estate/probate, power of attorney, conservatorship, elder and dependent adult abuse, nursing home and care, disability, discrimination, personal injury, responsibilities and rights, and other related litigation, and contentious administrations http://californiaestatetrust.com; Business, D&O, board, director, audit committee, shareholder, founder, owner, and investor litigation, governance, responsibilities and rights, compliance, investigations, and risk management  http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

The following are copies of the tables of contents of three of the more formal materials that I have written over the years about accounting/auditing, audit committees, and related legal topics – Accounting and Its Legal Implications was my first formal effort, which resulted in a published book that had more of an accounting and auditing focus; Chapter 5A, Audit Committee Functions and Responsibilities, for the California Continuing Education of the Bar has a more legal focus; and the most recent Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (February 2017) also has a more legal focus:

Accounting and Its Legal Implications

Chapter 5A, Audit Committee Functions and Responsibilities, CEB Advising and Defending Corporate Directors and Officers

Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide

The following are other summary materials that you might find useful:

OVERVIEW OF A RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS THAT YOU CAN USE 03162018

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Success, Diligence, and Defense - David Tate, Esq, 05052018

COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework ERM Components and Principles

From a prior blog post which you can find at https://wp.me/p75iWX-dk if the below scan is too difficult to read:

* * * * *

PCAOB Adopts New Audit Report-Should Be Interesting-Still Has To Be Adopted By The SEC

The following is a link to the PCAOB website page discussing the PCAOB’s June 2017 adoption of a new audit report which in part requires the disclosure of critical audit matters (CAM) for certain audits conducted under PCAOB standards. Here’s the link to the PCAOB page CLICK HERE

The new report standard still must be adopted by the SEC. If adopted, some of the new report standards will first apply to annual audits for years ending on or after December 15, 2017; however, the critical audit matter reporting would not apply until 2019 at the earliest for certain entities.

As the PCAOB notes, there is a need to make the audit report more relevant. In fact, there is a need to make both external and internal audit and auditors more relevant.

More will follow on this; however, I usually don’t spend signification time on new laws, statutes, regulations, rules and standards until (1) they are in fact enacted or adopted, and (2) it is near the time of actual use or requirement.

I do note, however, that this new report and the CAM provision is an interesting development, which perhaps should have occurred years ago. If you click on the above link, and then on the actual standard itself, you will also see that the standard contains worthwhile discussions about critical audit matters, materiality and other topics that are relevant to the standard.

Best, David Tate, Esq. (and CPA, California inactive). Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park Office, California.

Royse Law Firm – Practice Area Overview – San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin

  • Corporate and Securities, Financing and Formation
  • Corporate Governance, D&O, Boards and Committees, Audit Committees, Etc.
  • Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  • International
  • Immigration
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Labor and Employment
  • Litigation (I broke out the litigation because this is my primary area of practice)
  •             Business
  •             Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  •             Trade Secrets, NDA, Financial & Accounting Issues, Fraud, Lost Income, Royalties, Etc.
  •             Privacy, Internet, Hacking, Speech, Etc.
  •             Labor and Employment
  •             Mergers & Acquisitions
  •             Real Estate
  •             Owner, Founder, Investor, Board & Committee, Shareholder, D&O, Lender/Debtor, Etc.
  •             Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith
  •             Investigations
  •             Trust, Estate, Conservatorship, Elder Abuse, Etc., and Contentious Administrations
  • Real Estate
  • Tax (US and International) and Tax Litigation
  • Technology Companies and Transactions Including AgTech, HealthTech, etc.
  • Wealth and Estate Planning, Trust and Estate Administration, and Disputes and Litigation

 

When should you take your internal accounting error/mistake or irregularity/fraud investigation outside?

Most every audit committee member, in-house counsel, other board member, CEO, CFO, risk officer, and chief internal auditor will at some time consider whether an accounting related investigation that is being done internally should be taken outside. The decision to stay inside or to go outside isn’t necessarily clear, and there certainly could be differing opinions depending on the facts and circumstances of the situation. The following isn’t a formal or legal discussion, but below are at least some of the factors that I would consider and that you might consider. Every situation is different at least to some extent.

  1. Is there really the expertise in-house to do the investigation? This is an important consideration that I will have more to say about in other posts – however, consider whether it is important for the primary investigator to not only have a legal background in the subject matter, but also accounting or auditing backgrounds. Whereas an accounting or auditing firm might also be retained to assist with the investigation, you might well also find that it would be helpful for the primary investigator to be able to understand the accounting, internal control and auditing or auditor issues, and that the primary investigator might need those backgrounds to better lead the investigation and make decisions or evaluations.
  2. Is there really the time availability to handle the investigation in-house?
  3. Is the dollar amount involved sufficiently large to warrant going outside for the investigation?
  4. Are the qualitative natures of the issues sufficiently important to warrant going outside, such as because of possible public relations, ethics, fraud, or other considerations?
  5. Does it warrant going outside because of the possible people who might be interviewed, questioned or involved including their office or stature in the organization, and their relationships with the people who are investigating, the board, the audit committee, the executive officers and other people?
  6. For whatever reasons, is it warranted or required that the investigation be independent, or more independent in nature.
  7. If the initial investigation began in-house (which is entirely possible), has it for whatever reason now become more prudent to go outside?

That’s it for now. Just some thoughts. I’m sure that you can come up with additional thoughts – the above discussion isn’t all encompassing.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco and California)

DTatePicture_Square

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016

tates-excellent-audit-committee-guide-10202016-final-with-appendix-a

sec-whistleblower-awards

Updated Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide – Attached – Use It – Pass It Along – Free

Below is a link to my updated Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (updated October 20, 2016). Please use it, and pass it to other people who would be interested, such as audit committee members, directors, officers, accountants, internal and external auditors, in-house counsel, compliance professionals, and other people.

I do note that as I was updating these materials, and going through the entire Guide, it definitely hit me that all of the specifically enacted statutes, regulations, rules and pronouncements definitely could cause an audit committee member to not be able to see the forest for the tress. So let’s also not forget to look at the situation as a whole.

Although the Guide is 186 pages, I do expect some significant updates soon, and perhaps prior to the end of 2016. Many of the updates will be posted to this blog first, and then to the Guide. I am looking forward to the COSO enterprise risk management (ERM) updated framework.

Best to you. Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and California.

Here is a link to the updated Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide (updated October 20, 2016), tates-excellent-audit-committee-guide-10202016-final-with-appendix-a

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 07182016

The business judgment rule – an animated video:

 

DTatePicture_Square

‘Internal audit is crucial to assessing impact of corporate culture’

Internal audit’s mandate is much broader than external audit’s, says Richard Chambers of Institute of Internal Auditors

Click on the following link for the article: www.thehindubusinessline.com

Dave Tate, Esq. comment.

 

I’m going to disagree with Mr. Chambers on this one. I believe it is better for external audit to be auditing this issue – which is an issue that external audit already should be taking into consideration when designing the audit and the extent to which management and the accounting and internal control functions can be relied upon.

 

Although internal audit could be assigned a task or project relating to culture, on this topic I would keep the task or project very specific. Internal audit does also work and interact with management and executive management – assessing culture might detrimentally impact those relationships. I would however recommend that internal audit be more involved in risk management, which could involve culture but in a different context.

 

Audit committee, D&O, risk management, etc. blog: http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Website: http://tateattorney.com

Trust, estate, conservatorship and elder abuse litigation blog: http://californiaestatetrust.com

 

 

Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide – updated 1/3/2016 – 183 pages – read, use it, and pass it along

Hello all. Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide is updated – click on the following link for the pdf of the January 3, 2016, updated Tate’s Excellent Audit Committee Guide. Please read and use it, and pass it along to other people who would be interested, https://auditcommitteeupdatecom.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/tates-excellent-audit-committee-guide-01032016-with-appendix-a-final.pdf

Going forward, I have also made this blog, http://auditcommitteeupdate.com, my blog for audit committee, D&O, civil litigation, risk, compliance, business, etc. posts. My prior blog, http://directorofficernews.com, still exists, so you can still access that blog or the numerous past posts.

Dave Tate, Esq., and CPA in California (inactive), San Francisco and throughout California. My other blog for trust, estate, conservatorship and elder abuse litigation is http://californiaestatetrust.com

DTatePicture_Square