Category: Accounting and Auditing
Corp Fin issues new CDIs regarding the clawback rules
In October last year, the SEC adopted a new clawback rule, Exchange Act Rule 10D-1, which directed the national securities exchanges to establish listing standards requiring listed issuers to adopt and comply with a clawback policy and to provide disclosure about the policy and its implementation. The clawback policy must provide that, in the event the listed issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement—including not only a “reissuance,” or “Big R,” restatement (which involves a material error and an 8-K), but also a “revision” or “little r” restatement—the issuer must recover the incentive-based compensation that was erroneously paid to its current or former executive officers based on the misstated financial reporting measure. (See this PubCo post.) Now, the Corp Fin staff has issued some new CDIs, summarized below, providing guidance about the timing of the new required disclosure, which officers of foreign private issuers are subject to the disclosure rule and plans subject to the clawback.
Will companies need to provide more detailed country-by-country tax disclosure?
The topic of taxes—corporate, presidential and otherwise—seems to be trending these days, with calls for greater transparency coming from investors, analysts and others, including speakers at the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee. They contend that some corporate tax practices may give rise to financial, legal and reputational risks that would be material for investors to understand. Currently, however, financial statements are required to include disclosure of the total taxes paid, but are not required to break out the amounts by country or state. Consequently, investors and analysts say that they do not have sufficient visibility to understand the impact on companies of changes in tax laws or the tax environment in different jurisdictions or to otherwise evaluate companies’ exposure to tax risks.
PCAOB gains “unprecedented access” to inspect audit firms in China
You might recall that, for well over a decade, the PCAOB has been unable to fulfill its SOX mandate to inspect audit firms in “Non-Cooperating Jurisdictions,” including China. Years of negotiation failed to resolve the deadlock over audit inspections and, in 2020, the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act amended SOX to prohibit trading on U.S. exchanges of public reporting companies audited by audit firms located in foreign jurisdictions that the PCAOB has been unable to inspect for three sequential years. (See this PubCo post.) According to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, as of March 31, 2022, Chinese companies listed on the three largest U.S. exchanges had a total market capitalization of $1.4 trillion. (See this PubCo post.) As a result, the trading prohibitions of the HFCAA were poised to have a substantial impact. After passage of the HFCAA, more negotiations ensued, and, in August, the PCAOB took an initial step by signing a Statement of Protocol with the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China governing inspections and investigations of audit firms based in China and Hong Kong. (See this PubCo post.) But that was viewed as just an opening; as SEC Chair Gary Gensler phrased it, the “proof will be in the pudding. While important, this framework is merely a step in the process. This agreement will be meaningful only if the PCAOB actually can inspect and investigate completely audit firms in China. If it cannot, roughly 200 China-based issuers will face prohibitions on trading of their securities in the U.S. if they continue to use those audit firms.” To the surprise of many, last week, the PCAOB announced that it had secured unprecedented access to conduct these inspections. According to PCAOB Chair Erica Williams, for “the first time in history, the PCAOB has secured complete access to inspect and investigate registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong. And this morning the Board voted to vacate the previous determinations to the contrary. This historic and unprecedented access was only possible because of the leverage Congress created by passing the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act. Congress sent a clear message with that legislation that access to U.S. capital markets is a privilege and not a right, and China received that message loud and clear. Investors are more protected today because of Congress’ leadership….” However, she added, she wanted “to be clear: this is the beginning of our work to inspect and investigate firms in China, not the end. The PCAOB is continuing to demand complete access in mainland China and Hong Kong moving forward. Our teams are already making plans to resume regular inspections in early 2023 and beyond, as well as continuing to pursue investigations.” What is the impact? To remove, at least for now, the immediate peril of delisting from U.S. exchanges that was threatening many U.S.-listed China-based companies.
Happy Holidays!
Corp Fin posts revised and new non-GAAP CDIs
The Corp Fin staff has issued a group of revised and new compliance & disclosure interpretations on the use of non-GAAP financial measures. The CDIs are more detailed and expansive in describing disclosure that the staff considers to be misleading as well as presentations that the staff believes reflect excessive non-GAAP prominence over the comparable GAAP number under Reg S-K Item 10(e). Summaries are below.
Happy Holidays!
Will climate disclosures translate into climate action?
In light of the billions that even the SEC’s economic analysis estimates would be spent complying with its proposed climate disclosure regulations (see this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post), will those disclosures catalyze real climate action? In this recent EY Global Climate Risk Barometer, accounting firm EY analyzed why, notwithstanding the vast amounts spent on climate disclosures, they “are still not translating into practical strategies to accelerate decarbonization.” In fact, EY pointed out, “global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion tonnes [a metric unit of mass equal to 2,240 lbs], their highest-ever level, according to the International Energy Agency.” Will companies be able to “close the major disconnect between the disclosures they are making” and “their own transformation journeys”? Is integrating climate risk into the financial statements the key? Is climate risk disclosure just a “box-ticking exercise” or, by enabling accountability, can climate disclosures help to accelerate “the decarbonization process”?
FASB issues proposed ASU on segment reporting
Last month, the FASB issued a proposed ASU on segment reporting. In its announcement, the FASB 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. According to FASB Chair Richard Jones, the “proposed ASU would represent the FASB’s most significant change to segment reporting since 1997….On the basis of our extensive stakeholder outreach, the proposed ASU would provide investors and other allocators of capital with valuable insights into significant segment expenses, expand segment disclosures reported in interim periods, and require disclosures for single-segment entities.”
SEC adopts final rules on compensation clawbacks in the event of financial restatements—“Big R” and “little r” [UPDATED]
[This post revises and updates my earlier post primarily to reflect in greater detail the contents of the adopting release. For a discussion of the comments and criticisms of the SEC Commissioners at the open meeting at which the rules were adopted, see my earlier post.]
At an open meeting last week, the SEC adopted, by a vote of—surprise—3 to 2, rules to implement Section 954 of Dodd-Frank, the clawback provision. Clawback rules were initially proposed by the SEC back in 2015, but were relegated to the long-term agenda, until they suddenly reemerged on the SEC’s short-term agenda in 2021 (see this PubCo post) with a target date for a re-proposal of April 2022. Instead of a re-proposal, however, a year ago, the SEC simply posted a notice announcing that it was re-opening the comment period and posing a number of questions for public comment. (See this PubCo post.) One possible change suggested by the SEC’s questions was a potential expansion of the concept of “restatement” to include not only “reissuance,” or “Big R,” restatements (which involve a material error and an 8-K), but also “revision” or “little r” restatements. Then, in June of this year, DERA issued a new staff memorandum addressing in part the restatement question, which led the SEC to once again re-open the comment period. Finally, the SEC concluded that, after more than seven years, the proposal had marinated long enough. Time to serve it up. The new rules direct the national securities exchanges to establish listing standards requiring listed issuers to adopt and comply with a clawback policy and to provide disclosure about the policy and its implementation. The clawback policy must provide that, in the event the listed issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement—including a “little r” restatement—the issuer must recover the incentive-based compensation that was erroneously paid to its current or former executive officers based on the misstated financial reporting measure. Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda dissented, contending that, among other problems, the rule was too broad and too prescriptive. According to SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the key word here is “erroneously,” that is, the rule requires recovery of compensation to which the officers were never entitled in the first place. In his statement at the meeting, Gensler indicated that he believes “that these rules will strengthen the transparency and quality of corporate financial statements, investor confidence in those statements, and the accountability of corporate executives to investors….Through today’s action and working with the exchanges, we have the opportunity to fulfill Dodd-Frank’s mandate and Congress’s intention to prevent executives from keeping compensation received based on misstated financials.”
SEC adopts final rules on compensation clawbacks in the event of financial restatements—“Big R” and “little r”
You might remember back to 2015 when the SEC initially proposed rules to implement Section 954 of Dodd-Frank, the clawback provision. The SEC did not then consider adoption of the proposal in the ordinary course, instead relegating it to the long-term agenda, where it was never heard from again. Until, that is, the topic found a spot on the SEC’s short-term agenda in 2021 (see this PubCo post) with a target date for a re-proposal of April 2022. Instead of a re-proposal, however, a year ago, the SEC simply posted a notice announcing that it was re-opening the comment period and posing a number of questions for public comment. (See this PubCo post.) One possible change suggested by the SEC’s questions was a potential expansion of the concept of “restatement” to include not only “reissuance,” or “Big R,” restatements (which involve a material error and an 8-K), but also “revision” or “little r” restatements. Then, in June of this year, DERA issued a new staff memorandum addressing in part the restatement question, which led the SEC to once again re-open the comment period. Finally, the SEC has concluded that, after more than seven years, the proposal has marinated long enough. Time to serve it up. Accordingly, at an open meeting yesterday, the SEC adopted, by a vote of—surprise!—three to two, new rules that direct the national securities exchanges to establish listing standards requiring listed issuers to adopt and comply with a clawback policy and to provide disclosure about the policy and its implementation. The clawback policy must provide that, in the event the listed issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement—including a “little r” restatement—the issuer must recover the incentive-based compensation that was erroneously paid to its current or former executive officers based on the misstated financial reporting measure. Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda dissented, contending that, among other problems, the rule was too broad and too prescriptive. According to SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the key word here is “erroneously,” that is, the rule requires recovery of compensation to which the officers were never entitled in the first place. In his statement at the meeting, Gensler indicated that he believes “that these rules will strengthen the transparency and quality of corporate financial statements, investor confidence in those statements, and the accountability of corporate executives to investors….Through today’s action and working with the exchanges, we have the opportunity to fulfill Dodd-Frank’s mandate and Congress’s intention to prevent executives from keeping compensation received based on misstated financials.”
Are auditors falling down on the job of detecting fraud?
Paul Munter, the SEC’s Acting Chief Accountant, seems to think so. In this Statement, Munter expresses his concern that, in conducting audits, auditors are not adequately making use of the “fraud lens”—a focus on the consideration of fraud in the audit—in fulfilling their gatekeeper role. That is, auditors may not be adequately responding to fraud risks and red flags or otherwise exercising “professional skepticism.” It is critical, he said, that auditors evaluate whether the audit has surfaced information that may be indicative of fraud and “how fraud could be perpetrated or concealed by management.” Are auditors exhibiting a type of bias, focusing risk assessments on risks of error and essentially overlooking or minimizing risks of fraud? In light of Munter’s statement, companies could well find that their auditors may be doubling down on their application of professional skepticism. What’s more, some of Munter’s recommendations may prove useful for companies in establishing their own ethics environments and conducting their own fraud risk assessments.
The FASB issues new ASU on supply chain financing arrangements
For several years, the SEC staff and advisory committees, credit rating agencies, investors, the Big Four accounting firms and other interested parties have been making noise about a popular financing technique called “supply chain financing.” It can be a perfectly useful financing tool in the right hands—companies with healthy balance sheets. But it can also disguise shaky credit situations and allow companies to go deeper into debt, often unbeknownst to investors and analysts, with sometimes disastrous ends. Moreover, there were no explicit GAAP disclosure requirements to provide transparency about a company’s use of supply chain financing. That may be why Bloomberg has referred to supply chain financing as “hidden debt.” But that’s about to change. Last week, the FASB announced that it has issued a new Accounting Standards Update that enhances the transparency surrounding the use of supplier finance programs. According to FASB Chair Richard Jones, the “FASB’s new ASU responds to requests from investors for greater transparency around a buyer’s use of supplier finance programs….It enhances transparency by requiring new disclosures intended to help them better consider the effect of these programs on a company’s working capital, liquidity, and cash flows over time.” The ASU will be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022, including interim periods within those fiscal years, except for the amendment on rollforward information, which has a one-year delay.
You must be logged in to post a comment.