Category: Accounting and Auditing
In discussions of inflation, SEC staff want the details
According to a review of SEC staff comments by Bloomberg, Corp Fin staff have been weighing in to remind companies about the need to discuss, in SEC filings, the material impact of inflation—and don’t forget the details. No doubt you remember that Item 303 of Reg S-K used to include an express requirement to discuss the impact of inflation and changing prices on net sales, revenues and income from continuing operations, but that provision was eliminated as part of the MD&A modernization project in 2020. (See this PubCo post.) Of course, at that point we hadn’t had any real inflation for years. Then the SEC removed the explicit requirement and what do we have? Inflation, of course—up to 9% in June 2022.
IAASB proposes new assurance standard for climate disclosures
A 2021 article in the WSJ about carbon emissions identified “[o]ne problem facing regulators and companies: Some of the most important and widely used data is hard to both measure and verify.” According to an academic cited in the article, the “measurement, target-setting, and management of Scope 3 is a mess.” As a result—and as the term “greenwashing” brings to mind—investors and other stakeholders are frequently apprehensive about the reliability of corporate disclosures regarding sustainability. One approach to address this concern is to obtain assurance to verify the data. However, the WSJ suggested that, based on data regarding verification of climate information provided on a voluntary basis, audits are a challenge. For one reason, verification of ESG data “is generally less rigorous than the external audits required for financial reporting.” Moreover, there is “no set standard for how climate data should be verified, or by whom.” That may be about to change—internationally, that is. Will the U.S. follow suit?
FASB wants more disclosure about expenses
FASB is moving ahead with new requirements for more information about public company expenses, approaching the issue from two perspectives: disaggregation of income statement expenses and segment reporting. More specifically, this week FASB published a proposed Accounting Standards Update intended to provide investors with more decision-useful information about expenses on the income statement. According to the press release announcing the proposed ASU, investors have said that more detailed information about a company’s expenses “is critically important to understanding a company’s performance, assessing its prospects for future cash flows, and comparing its performance over time and with that of other companies.” In addition, last week, FASB made a tentative decision to go forward with new requirements for enhanced disclosure about segment expenses and other segment items, and directed the staff to draft a final ASU for vote by written ballot. FASB had previously explained that investors find segment information to be critically important to understanding a company’s different business activities, as well as its overall performance and potential future cash flows. Although financial statements do provide information about segment revenue and a measure of profit or loss, not much information is disclosed about segment expenses.
SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee discusses audit committee overload and disclosure
In May, SEC Chief Accountant Paul Munter, quoted here, cautioned his conference audience about the potential for audit committee overload. “More demands are being put on audit committees, sometimes on topics outside their core responsibility,” he said. “Audit committees need to be continually vigilant that they have enough time to focus on their core mission—protecting investors—and don’t let other topics cloud that out.” While the AC’s primary responsibilities are generally thought to be oversight of financial reporting, including the audit of a company’s financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, these days, the AC often becomes the default committee of choice for oversight of other emerging risks, such as cybersecurity and even ESG. With ACs now perhaps the “kitchen sink of the board,” are its members stretched too thin to carry out fundamental responsibilities? Are members being asked to operate outside of their core skillsets? What is the impact? These concerns appear to have prompted the panel at last week’s meeting of the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee discussing AC workload and transparency.
SEC charges improper revenue recognition practices—still a hot topic for SEC Enforcement
Last month, Cornerstone Research told us that accounting and auditing enforcement activity by the SEC in FY 2022 increased by 55% over the prior fiscal year to 68 enforcement actions, 25 of which alleged improper revenue recognition. Among the actions involving accounting restatements, 63% involved allegations regarding revenue recognition and internal control over financial reporting. We also saw a steep increase in actions against individuals, reportedly reflecting the emphasis of SEC Chair Gary Gensler on imposing individual accountability. (See this PubCo post.) With this new SEC Order charging USA Technologies, Inc., now known as …er… Cantaloupe, Inc.—clearly someone’s favorite fruit—with improper revenue recognition practices and ICFR violations, the SEC continues that trend. For their roles participating in these improper activities, the SEC also brought actions against USAT’s former VP of Sales and Marketing and its former Chief Services Officer.
Steep increase in accounting enforcement activity reported —especially against individuals
In this report from Cornerstone Research, SEC Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Activity—Year in Review: FY 2022, Cornerstone tells us that accounting and auditing enforcement activity by the SEC increased sharply in FY 2022, although surprisingly, the aggregate amount of monetary settlements declined sharply. Perhaps most interesting is the steep increase in actions against individuals, reportedly reflecting the emphasis of SEC Chair Gary Gensler on imposing individual accountability and perhaps, by extension, spurring action by executives to prevent misconduct at their companies. The report found that over “half of all actions involved individual respondents only, a sharp increase from the FY 2017–FY 2021 average of 37%. Following Chair Gary Gensler’s swearing-in [in April 2021] through the end of FY 2022, approximately 49% of actions were initiated against individual respondents only.” According to one of the co-authors of the report, “[u]nder Chair Gensler’s leadership, the SEC has identified ‘holding individuals accountable’ as a ‘key priority area’ in its enforcement program”…. So, it is not a surprise that the percentage of actions initiated against individual respondents in FY 2022 was notably higher than those actions initiated during Jay Clayton’s administration.”
Audit committee oversight of non-GAAP financial measures
According to audit firm PwC, non-GAAP financial measures play an important role in financial reporting, “showing a view of the company’s financial or operational results to supplement what is captured in the financial statements,” and help to tell the company’s financial story, as the SEC has advocated in connection with MD&A, “through the eyes of management.” Yet, they also have the potential to open the proverbial can of worms, subjecting the company to serious SEC scrutiny and possible SEC enforcement if misused. Just a couple of weeks ago, the SEC announced settled charges against DXC Technology Company, a multi-national information technology company, for making misleading disclosures about its non-GAAP financial performance. According to the Order, DXC materially increased its reported non-GAAP net income “by negligently misclassifying tens of millions of dollars of expenses ” and improperly excluding them from its reported non-GAAP earnings. In addition to misclassification, DXC allegedly provided a misleading description of the scope of the expenses included in the company’s non-GAAP adjustment and failed to adopt a non-GAAP policy or to have adequate disclosure controls and procedures in place specific to its non-GAAP financial measures. Consequently, DXC “negligently failed to evaluate the company’s non-GAAP disclosures adequately.” DXC agreed to pay a civil penalty of $8 million. (See this PubCo post.) So what can a company’s audit committee do to help prevent the types of problems that have arisen at DXC and elsewhere? Audit committees may find helpful this recent article from PwC providing guidance for committees tasked with oversight of the use of non-GAAP financial measures.
COSO introduces “internal control over sustainability reporting”
Under the pressure of institutional investors, environmental groups, employees, consumers and other stakeholders, many companies have sought to demonstrate their bona fides when it comes to ESG through disclosure about their sustainability efforts, goals and achievements, whether in periodic reports or in separate sustainability reports. But, as reporting increases, so do concerns by some about potential greenwashing. How can companies assure the quality of their sustainability reporting and create more trust and confidence among stakeholders? One way might be through effective internal controls. So far, however, according to a new report from Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, known as COSO, ”[f]ew best practices have been established. While some larger institutions have progressed in building controls around environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting, many organizations have designed ad hoc controls around certain key sustainable business metrics. Many also perform internal verification and assurance procedures to ensure management comfort with this information. Yet few of them seem to have developed effective, integrated systems of internal control over their material or decision-useful sustainable business information.” Now, leveraging insights gleaned from development of the most widely used internal control framework—the COSO Internal Control-Integrated Framework—COSO has developed the concept of ”internal control over sustainability reporting” (ICSR). In its new report, which weighs in at 114 pages, COSO provides supplemental guidance that explains and interprets how each of the 17 principles in the 2013 version of the COSO ICIF applies to sustainable business activities and sustainable business information. According to the authors, “[i]nternal controls have value beyond compliance and external financial reporting. Effective internal controls can help an organization articulate its purpose, set its objectives and strategy, and grow on a sustained basis with confidence and integrity in all types of information.” As companies seek to “generate sustained value—ethically and responsibly—over the longer term,” with an emphasis on sustainability and ESG, both companies and their stakeholders need effective controls and oversight to provide the reliable and high-quality data needed for “decision making in this changing world.”
SEC Chief Accountant has advice for audit committees on lead auditors’ use of other auditors
In this new statement, SEC Chief Accountant Paul Munter—no longer “acting” Chief, he got the job—discusses some of the issues arising out of the increased use by lead auditors of other accounting firms and individual accountants (referred to as “other auditors”) on many issuer audit engagements. While, in this context, much of the responsibility falls on the lead auditors, audit committees also have an important oversight role, and Munter has some useful advice for audit committee members.
You must be logged in to post a comment.