As part of their Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently proposed interpretive guidance to eliminate some disclosures in Regulation S-K and to amend other requirements to better focus on material information in Item 303, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis.”

United States flag standing in front of a stone capitol building; image used for blog post about SEC proposal to change Regulation S-K

More specifically, the SEC’s proposal would eliminate duplicative disclosures and modernize “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations” (known as MD&A) to benefit investors and to simplify compliance for issuers. The proposed amendments are part of a comprehensive evaluation of the SEC’s disclosure requirements intended to improve the SEC’s overall disclosure regime. Specifically, the proposed amendments would eliminate Item 301 of Regulation S-K, “Selected Financial Data,” and Item 302 of Regulation S-K, “Supplementary Financial Information,” as the information is largely duplicative of other requirements.


Continue Reading

In response to the transparency issues around proxy advisory firms, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently proposed new rules for proxy advisory firms. A proxy advisory firm helps institutional investors vote their shares at shareholder meetings. Because institutional investors have a wide variety of holdings, the specific risks and issues they must assess vary. The services proxy advisory firms provide include agenda assessment, research and recommendations on how to vote on shareholder proposals at publicly traded companies, and other offerings.

closeup shot of three men sitting at a wooden table by a glass window; image used for a blog post about the Securities Exchange Commission proposed rules for proxy advisory firms and shareholder voting

While more information can be a good thing, critics believe the additional information proxy advisory firms provide isn’t always conveyed with the best interests of Main Street investors in mind. So, if finalized, the SEC’s new rules would require proxy advisory firms to disclose more about their process and potential conflicts of interest and give companies the opportunity to make revisions before making final recommendations to clients. Specifically, the SEC’s proposals would revise the existing proxy advisory rules in three significant ways:


Continue Reading

In response to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Private Companies Practice Section’s Technical Issues Committee (TIC) request letter from May 13, 2019, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has voted to delay effective dates for three major standards for private companies and certain other entities. These standards include accounting for leases, credit losses (known as CECL) and hedging activities.

through a window, several black rolling chairs sit around a wooden table, a meeting room, maybe for FASB voting on delaying major standards

Currently, an Accounting Standards Update (ASU) is being drafted, which will change the effective dates. This will be issued after a formal written ballot by the board, expected to occur in November. FASB members shared that one of the advantages of the delay is to “allow preparers with limited resources to learn from the implementation performed by large public companies that possess more staffing and resources.”


Continue Reading

According to a Sept. 26, 2019 press release, the Securities and Exchange Commission recently voted to adopt a new rule, which allows all issuers to engage in “test the waters” communications with potential investors. According to the SEC, the rule was adopted in order to encourage more issuers to enter public equity markets.

close up photo of a man in a blue suit, holding a pen to a paper, perhaps a document for a new rule from the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)

The communications made under the rule are allowable as long as they are not intended to evade the requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act, and issuers will still be required to ensure that their filings are compliant with the new rule.


Continue Reading

Based on the number of SEC comment letters publicly published, the overall volume has been steadily decreasing for the last nine years. We looked at the most common issues raised in an SEC comment letter; the table below shows 10 of the top issues discussed in these letters over the past three years. It is important to note that, in many cases, more than one issue is mentioned.

numeric table listing common issues with SEC comment letters and the numbers of reviews with a comment on respective topic

The major topics in 2018 were similar to what we have seen in 2016 and 2017, with MD&A, the use of non-GAAP measures and fair value comments at the top of the list. There are, however, some new emerging trends SEC filers should consider:


Continue Reading

Jen: This is the PKF Texas Entrepreneur’s Playbook. I’m Jen Lemanski, and I’m back once again with Miriam Rouziek, one of our Audit Managers and one of the faces of PKF Texas’s SEC team. Miriam, welcome back to The Playbook.

Miriam: Thanks for having me, Jen.

Jen: In previous episodes we’ve talked a little bit about the PCAOB, which stands for Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which I know was founded after the whole Enron thing. What changes do they have coming for 2019 – 2020?


Continue Reading

Jen: This is the PKF Texas Entrepreneur’s Playbook. I’m Jen Lemanski, and I’m back again with Miriam Rouziek, an Audit Manager and one of the faces of PKF Texas’s SEC team. Miriam, welcome back to the Playbook.

Miriam: Thank you for having me, Jen.

Jen: So, tell us what’s coming down the pipe with the SEC? Are they doing any updates this year in 2019?

Miriam: Yeah. The SEC is really going to start focusing on some different things here in 2019.


Continue Reading

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) recently issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2018-11 with targeted improvements to ASC Topic 842, Leases, to (1) add an optional transition method that would permit entities to apply the new requirements by recognizing a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings in the year of adoption, and (2) provide a practical expedient for lessors regarding the separation of the lease and non-lease components of a contract.

Prior to the amendments in ASU No. 2018-11, the upcoming requirements in ASC 842 had to be initially applied using a modified retrospective transition method under which lessees were required to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet for all leases and provide the new and enhanced disclosures for each comparative period presented. In response to constituents’ concerns about unanticipated costs and complexities, ASU No. 2018-11 now allows entities, upon initial adoption, to recognize a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings in the period of adoption. Under the new optional transition method, reporting for comparative periods presented must continue to follow the guidance under existing U.S. GAAP.


Continue Reading