Category: Accounting and Auditing
SEC proposes to amend financial disclosure rules related to guaranteed or collateralized debt securities
Yesterday, the SEC voted to propose new amendments to Rules 3-10 and 3-16 of Reg S-X intended to streamline the financial disclosure rules related to registered debt offerings that involve guaranteed or collateralized securities. The proposed amendments to Rules 3-10 and 3-16 are “intended to provide investors with material information given the specific facts and circumstances, make the disclosures easier to understand, and reduce the costs and burdens to registrants.” Chair Jay Clayton is quoted in the press release as having “seen firsthand instances in which an issuer did not pursue SEC registration of a debt offering that included a subsidiary guarantee or pledge of affiliate securities as collateral because of the costs and, in particular, time burdens of these rules….The proposed rules are intended to make the disclosures easier for investors to understand and to encourage these offerings to be conducted on a SEC-registered basis.”
JOBS Act 3.0?
Will there be a JOBS Act 3.0? The JOBS and Investor Confidence Act of 2018 just passed the House by a vote of 406 to 4, so, even though Senators may often be chary of jumping on the House bandwagon—remember the doomed Financial Choice Act of 2016 and then 2017— the overwhelming and bipartisan approval in the House still makes the odds look better than usual.
SEC adopts mandatory Inline XBRL
This morning, the SEC voted (by a vote of four to one) to adopt rules mandating the use of Inline XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) for the submission of financial statement information for operating companies. The rulemaking is part of the SEC’s disclosure modernization initiative. For the most part, the Commissioners showed a lot more enthusiasm for this proposal than for the changes to the definition of “smaller reporting company” also adopted earlier today. (See this PubCo post.)
Audit Analytics reviews financial restatements in 2017
Audit Analytics has published its annual review of financial restatements, which this year covered a 17-year period. The review showed a double-digit percentage decline in the total number of restatements for the last three years in a row, resulting in a new 17-year low of 553 total restatements. Compare that to 1,859 restatements in 2006! As discussed in this article in Compliance Week, the percentage decline was 19% in 2017, 10% in 2016 and almost 12% in 2015. Stepping back, what the data shows is that, following SOX, the number of restatements skyrocketed, as the new act imposed “new discipline to the financial reporting process through its requirement to report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting.” But by 2007, companies seemed to have gained a better handle on the demands of SOX, as the numbers of restatements began to decline.
Should the prospect of CAM disclosures cause audit committees to rethink company disclosures?
What are auditors and audit committees doing to get ready for the impending disclosure of CAMs in audit reports ? You remember that, under AS 3101, the new auditing standard for the auditor’s report, auditors will be required (in 2019 for large accelerated filers and phased in for others) to include a discussion of “critical audit matters,” that is, “matters communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements; and (2) involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment.” (See this PubCo post.) Essentially, the concept is intended to capture the matters that kept the auditor up at night, so long as they meet the standard’s criteria. The selection of and disclosure regarding CAMs will certainly present a challenge for both audit committees and auditors. This article from Compliance Week reports that, beyond that challenge, the prospect of CAM disclosure should precipitate a reassessment by audit committees and companies of related corporate disclosure to ensure that companies stay ahead of the curve.
Studies examine external factors that may affect accounting integrity
Are there external factors that might lead companies to fail to protect the integrity of their financial statements, to put it euphemistically? Some recent articles in CFO.com discuss studies that posit various theories.
Clayton says Dodd-Frank rules not going anywhere
For those of you who have been waiting for those big changes to Dodd-Frank to materialize, don’t hold your breath; at least as far as the SEC is concerned, the vast majority of those rules are expected to remain in place. In case you missed it, SEC Chair Jay Clayton, speaking at the annual meeting of the WSJ’s CFO Network, said that “regulators are evaluating how postcrisis rules have performed in practice, and that he had concerns about some of the unintended side effects from some regulations. But any changes will be around the edges, keeping the core of postcrisis overhauls in place, he added. ‘I don’t think Dodd-Frank is changing a great deal, just to put a pin in it,’ he said.” And that tinkering may well be focused primarily on bank-related rules. Of course, there’s always the possibility that Congress may act, but so far it’s been all hat and no cattle. Case in point: the much ballyhooed Financial Choice Act of 2017, which passed the House, but went nowhere in the Senate. (See this PubCo post.)
Organizations make recommendations to revitalize the IPO market
In this report, Expanding the On-Ramp: Recommendations to Help More Companies Go and Stay Public, eight organizations—the American Securities Association, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, Equity Dealers of America, Nasdaq, National Venture Capital Association, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, TechNet and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—joined forces to make recommendations about how to revitalize the IPO market and make public company status more appealing. Many of these recommendations have in the past been the subject of legislation or proposed rulemaking or have otherwise been floated in the ether but, nevertheless, have not advanced. Will the weight of these groups propel any of these recommendations forward?
Will the call for mandatory audit firm rotation be renewed?
Starting in 2018, new rules required disclosure of auditor tenure in audit reports. (See this PubCo post.) And, for some companies, those tenures can stretch over a century. For example, KPMG reported that it has audited GE since 1909. (See this PubCo post.) According to this press release from the American Accounting Association, for “the first 21 companies of the Dow 30 to release their reports this year, the average auditor tenure is 66 years.” But long auditor tenure has its critics and its fans. Some argue that long tenure can adversely affect auditor independence and objectivity, while others contend that long tenure avoids the time loss and distraction of having to “onboard” new auditors, provides deep institutional knowledge—leading to higher audit quality—and offers cost savings resulting from that familiarity. However, a couple of recent academic studies call those suggested benefits into question. The press release cited above and this article in CFO.com report on new academic research that concludes that, among the Big 4 at least, the longer the tenure, the greater the fee, notwithstanding the reduction in effort required of the auditor over time. And this press release from the American Accounting Association reports on another academic study that, contrary to popular assumptions, found a positive correlation between relatively short audit tenure and the speed of discovery of financial misreporting. Will these studies renew calls for mandatory auditor rotation?
SEC proposes amendments to auditor independence rule related to debtor-creditor relationships
The SEC has posted a new rule proposal that would modify the analysis of auditor independence in the context of lending relationships between the auditor and certain shareholders of an audit client during the audit or professional engagement period. Under the current loan provision of Rule 2-01(c) of Reg S-X, some debtor-creditor relationships between an auditor and its audit client are viewed to taint auditor independence. However, the SEC now believes that some of the provisions of this Rule are not as effective as they could be and may present unnecessary practical challenges. The release indicates that the proposed amendments are designed to better focus the loan provision “on those relationships that, whether in fact or in appearance, could threaten an auditor’s ability to exercise objective and impartial judgment.” As Wes Bricker, SEC Chief Accountant, told Bloomberg, “[w]e’re trying to right-size” the Rule.The SEC is also soliciting comment on other potential changes to the loan provision or other provisions of Rule 2-01. Comments are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
You must be logged in to post a comment.