by Rachel Annis
  Equity Analyst, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

A common misconception is that accounting figures are always black and white, i.e., well known and precise. But in practice, there are many ways that the estimates and subjective judgement of management can color financial statements. Recent amendments to accounting standards address specific examples when companies have applied prior accounting guidelines differently from their peers. When this occurs, analysts are unable to compare accounting figures across companies without additional analysis. Further, differing accounting methodologies coupled with opaque disclosures may prevent analysts from ascertaining an accurate apples-to-apples comparison.

Here at Gradient Analytics, we specialize in forensic accounting research and consulting, and our analysts stay current on changes in the regulatory landscape, including crucial updates to disclosure requirements. Normally, we focus research on areas in which companies might be tempted to “manage” or overstate earnings, either by pulling forward future revenues or pushing out current expenses. Layer on more complexity from changing reporting requirements and it becomes clearer how a vital piece to the puzzle might slip through the cracks.

In this article, I provide details on updates to four accounting standards – and how they may shape financial statements with the potential to mislead investors. First, several Interbank Offered Rates (IBORs) ceased to exist at the end of 2021, and countries are transitioning to alternative reference rates. Second, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) revised guidance such that companies no longer may deduct certain items from the cost of property, plant, and equipment (PPE). Third, the IASB now requires that a proportion of production overhead must be included when reporting so-called “onerous contracts.” And fourth, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued a proposal to eliminate accounting for loans in modification through troubled debt restructurings.  Read on....

  by Byron Macleod
  Associate Director of Research, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

In any given quarter for almost every company, there is often a swirling vortex of different signals as to the long-term health and future opportunities for each particular firm. Within this conflux of signals, there are two that often cause investor stress and confusion when they contradict each other: the firm’s GAAP versus non-GAAP earnings.

The simple rubric that often comes to mind is that GAAP earnings are the more conservative figure for the firm [as these accounting standards are closely monitored and controlled by a governing board, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)], while its non-GAAP earnings are the more optimistic view (after being heavily tweaked and adjusted by management). However, this assumption does not always hold true. Often, a firm’s non-GAAP results will be the more accurate representation of its historical earnings power.

Although Gradient Analytics specializes in forensic accounting research and consulting to identify weak earnings quality for short idea generation, our expertise is also valuable for identifying solid earnings quality for the vetting of long candidates, as we discussed in a previous article. And with the impacts of the coronavirus still working their way through both the US and global economies, it is a certainty that the next twelve months of corporate financial reports will be littered with a variety of non-GAAP adjustments that will need to be deciphered.

With this flood of adjusted earnings about to hit the market, we felt it would be a good time for some examples to illustrate that not all non-GAAP adjustments are created equal, and although investors need to carefully consider when and how they use non-GAAP results, often they may be better served by focusing on non-GAAP earnings.  Read on....

  by Rachel Bradley
  Equity Analyst, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

“Every man hears only what he understands.” – Goethe

Often, details in the financial statements hold the key to understanding a company. Here at Gradient Analytics, we specialize in forensic accounting research and consulting, and our analysts stay up-to-date on changes in the regulatory landscape, including crucial updates to disclosure requirements. Normally, we focus research on areas that might tempt companies to “manage” or overstate earnings, either by pulling forward future revenues or pushing out current expenses. Layer on more complexity from changing reporting requirements and it becomes clearer how a vital piece to the puzzle might slip through the cracks.

Below, I cover three broad topics. First, effective January 1, 2020, the governing accounting boards updated the very definition of a business. This new definition has multiple implications for reporting, but my focus in this article is the impact on M&A transactions. Moreover, this year both the Financial Accounting Standards board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) changed required disclosures for U.S. and international companies. Among other things, there is a new method for determining appropriate loan loss reserves, and there will soon be a requirement for companies to stop using Inter-Bank Offered Rates (IBOR) as reference rates, instead switching to Alternative Reference Rates (ARR). I describe these updates with four real-life examples of how they shape financial statements, with the potential to mislead investors. Read on….