Watchdog Transparency Blog

In our Blog we take a critical look at public company disclosures and focus on issues surrounding transparency, reliability and accuracy. It you are looking for cheerleading, you have come to the wrong place. We rely on information from the best sources available to gain insight into companies and make predictions about what will happen in the future. Nothing in business is certain, so sometimes we will be wrong, but we will always be an independent voice telling you the truth as we see it. We offer Retail Investors our Research Reports for Free.

Sign up to get all of our blogs delivered directly to your inbox.

Non-GAAP Reporting One Year After New SEC Guidance

  (edited by Joseph Burke)

The SEC recently provided an update to the Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DIs”) regarding Business Combination Transactions (Section 101), which explained the conditions that must be observed to ensure that financial measures included in forecasts given to financial advisors during a business combination transaction would not constitute a non-GAAP measure.

464 companies (95%) of the S&P 500 disclosed a non-GAAP measurement, a decrease of 11 companies from the year before. A large portion of the remaining Russell 1000 companies also presented non-GAAP measures.

A more in-depth analysis shows that companies reacted to the SEC guidance by no longer disclosing certain types of non-GAAP metrics and/or changing the way they disclosed non-GAAP financial measures.

The non-Non-GAAP Presentation

Some companies provided information that does not constitute a non-GAAP financial measure, but is of interest because the practice does present information beyond that given by a typical GAAP presentation. Some companies present a reconciling table that gives the difference a non-GAAP metric would manifest without presenting a non-GAAP measure itself. Regulation G defines a non-GAAP metric as a numerical measure that excludes amounts that are included in the most comparable GAAP measure. Therefore, the method adopted by these companies would not fall under the purview of Regulation G. Nevertheless, the use of this unique practice has increased and is noteworthy. In 2016, five S&P 500 companies chose to disclose information in a reconciling table in this manner. The use of this approach more than doubled in 2017. In addition, six companies in the Bottom 500 Russell 1000 population present differences to a GAAP metric without showing the resulting non-GAAP metric.

In some cases, the new presentation came after SEC comment letters that disallowed certain non-GAAP adjustments. For example, Activision Blizzard, Inc. agreed to modify its net effect from deferral of net revenues and related cost of sales metric to comply with Regulation G and replaced the metric with the alternative presentation.

While we believe excluding the change in deferred revenues and related cost of sales with respect to certain of the company’s online-enabled games in our supplemental non-GAAP disclosure was appropriate and in compliance with Regulation G as well as useful to our investors, we acknowledge the Staff’s comment. We will review and reflect the guidance included in the updated C&DI’s when preparing our next earnings release and periodic report.

There is nothing wrong with presenting information that would be potentially useful to investors in a form that adds to the GAAP presentation, however, this type of presentation deserves discussion because the approach appears to be gaining ground.

Although it is clear that registrants have modified and/or improved their disclosures in response to the C&DIs, it remains a focus of the SEC. Division Chief Accountant, Mark Kronforst, indicated at the conference that the volume of recent comments on non-GAAP measures has dropped to pre-2016 levels, but the SEC staff will continue to closely monitor their use and issue comments.

Watchdog Transparency Blog

In our Blog we take a critical look at public company disclosures and focus on issues surrounding transparency, reliability and accuracy. It you are looking for cheerleading, you have come to the wrong place. We rely on information from the best sources available to gain insight into companies and make predictions about what will happen in the future. Nothing in business is certain, so sometimes we will be wrong, but we will always be an independent voice telling you the truth as we see it. We offer Retail Investors our Research Reports for Free.

Sign up to get all of our blogs delivered directly to your inbox.

Non-GAAP Reporting One Year After New SEC Guidance

  (edited by Joseph Burke)

The SEC recently provided an update to the Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (“C&DIs”) regarding Business Combination Transactions (Section 101), which explained the conditions that must be observed to ensure that financial measures included in forecasts given to financial advisors during a business combination transaction would not constitute a non-GAAP measure.

464 companies (95%) of the S&P 500 disclosed a non-GAAP measurement, a decrease of 11 companies from the year before. A large portion of the remaining Russell 1000 companies also presented non-GAAP measures.

A more in-depth analysis shows that companies reacted to the SEC guidance by no longer disclosing certain types of non-GAAP metrics and/or changing the way they disclosed non-GAAP financial measures.

The non-Non-GAAP Presentation

Some companies provided information that does not constitute a non-GAAP financial measure, but is of interest because the practice does present information beyond that given by a typical GAAP presentation. Some companies present a reconciling table that gives the difference a non-GAAP metric would manifest without presenting a non-GAAP measure itself. Regulation G defines a non-GAAP metric as a numerical measure that excludes amounts that are included in the most comparable GAAP measure. Therefore, the method adopted by these companies would not fall under the purview of Regulation G. Nevertheless, the use of this unique practice has increased and is noteworthy. In 2016, five S&P 500 companies chose to disclose information in a reconciling table in this manner. The use of this approach more than doubled in 2017. In addition, six companies in the Bottom 500 Russell 1000 population present differences to a GAAP metric without showing the resulting non-GAAP metric.

In some cases, the new presentation came after SEC comment letters that disallowed certain non-GAAP adjustments. For example, Activision Blizzard, Inc. agreed to modify its net effect from deferral of net revenues and related cost of sales metric to comply with Regulation G and replaced the metric with the alternative presentation.

While we believe excluding the change in deferred revenues and related cost of sales with respect to certain of the company’s online-enabled games in our supplemental non-GAAP disclosure was appropriate and in compliance with Regulation G as well as useful to our investors, we acknowledge the Staff’s comment. We will review and reflect the guidance included in the updated C&DI’s when preparing our next earnings release and periodic report.

There is nothing wrong with presenting information that would be potentially useful to investors in a form that adds to the GAAP presentation, however, this type of presentation deserves discussion because the approach appears to be gaining ground.

Although it is clear that registrants have modified and/or improved their disclosures in response to the C&DIs, it remains a focus of the SEC. Division Chief Accountant, Mark Kronforst, indicated at the conference that the volume of recent comments on non-GAAP measures has dropped to pre-2016 levels, but the SEC staff will continue to closely monitor their use and issue comments.

© 2020 Watchdog Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
Watchdog Transparency is a publication based on reports created by Watchdog Research, Inc.
Watchdog Research, Inc. is a financial research company providing due diligence information on public companies.

@WatchdogRsrch    |     rss