1 update on recent fasb projects of interest to the construction industry, sureties, and auditors...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Update on Recent FASB Projects of Interest to the Construction Industry, Sureties,
and Auditors
Presented by:- Kevin Catalano, Kenny Bement, and Bill Hildebrand (FASB)
- John McNerney (Mechanical Contractors Association of America)
- David Lomax (Liberty Mutual Surety)
22
PRESENTER BIOGRAPHYIntroductions by Patrick Pribyl, Chairman of the NASBP Industry Relations Committee
FASB:
- Practice Fellow Kevin Catalano
- Project Manager Kenny Bement
- Practice Fellow Bill Hildebrand
Mr. John McNerney
Mr. David Lomax
Agenda
• FASB Revenue Recognition Project• FASB Multiemployer Pension Plan
Disclosure Project– CIFC Perspectives on Multiemployer Pension
Plan Disclosure Project
• FASB Private Company Standard-Setting Framework and Organizational Updates
3
The views expressed in this presentation are our own and not the positions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).
Positions of the FASB are arrived at only after extensive due process and deliberations.
FASB Staff Disclaimer
4
FASB Revenue Recognition Project
5
Timeline of the revenue project
Jun 2010Exposure
Draft issued
Oct 2010End of
comment period (nearly 1,000
responses)
Nov 2010 Public
roundtables
Dec 2010 – June 2011
Board re-deliberation of proposals
Outreach
3Q 2011Re-exposure
6
6
Steps to apply the revenue model
Core principle: depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration the entity expects to receive in exchange for those goods or services.
Five steps to apply the core principle:
7
1-Identify the contract(s) with the customer
2-Identify separate performance obligation(s)
3-Determine the transaction price
4-Allocate the transaction price
5-Recognize revenue
7
Step 1: Identify the contract(s)• May need to combine contracts if specified
criteria are met (e.g. if negotiated together)• Contract modifications (i.e. change orders)
– Account for when approved– Evaluate whether a new separate contract added– If not, re-evaluate the obligations and re-
allocate
8
8
Step 2: Identify the separate performance obligation(s)• Goods and services accounted for as a
single performance obligation if risks are inseparable– The goods or services are highly interrelated
and the entity provides a significant ‘integration’ service
– The entity significantly modifies the goods or services as negotiated specifically with the customer
• Otherwise, separate only if distinct
9
9
Step 3: Determine the transaction price• Transaction price: the amount of
consideration to which an entity expects to be entitled– Variable consideration—probability weighted or
most likely amount– Time value of money—only if significant to the
contract– Collectibility—bad debt presented as contra
revenue
10
10
Step 4: Allocate the transaction price• Objective: if more than one performance
obligation, allocate to each in the amount to which the entity expects to be entitled
• Allocate on standalone selling price basis• Estimate selling prices if necessary
11
11
Step 5: Recognize revenue• Recognize revenue when a performance
obligation is satisfied• Satisfied over time if the asset has no
alternative use to the entity and at least one of following is met:– the customer controls the asset being built– another entity would not need to re-perform
work completed to date, or– entity has right to payment for work completed
to date
12
12
Step 5: Recognize revenue• If over time, measure progress toward
completion:– Objective: depict the value of performance to
date– Output methods or input methods permitted– If input method used, must exclude inputs that
do not depict performance (owner provided materials, waste)
– Zero margin may be appropriate in some circumstances (e.g. early stage of contract, uninstalled materials)
13
13
Proposed cost guidance• Acquisition costs
– Capitalize if they are incremental (e.g. selling commissions) and are expected to be recovered
• Fulfillment costs (e.g. precontract or setup)– relate directly to a specific anticipated contract– relate to future performance– are expected to be recovered
• Onerous performance obligations– Recognize a loss if the least cost of exiting the
obligation exceeds the amount of consideration
14
14
Other revenue topics
• Transition and effective date• Disclosures
– No significant changes from the Exposure Draft– Exemptions for nonpublic entities:
• Disaggregation of revenue• Reconciliations of contract positions and onerous
liability• Maturity analysis• Significant inputs and assumptions
15
15
FASB Multiemployer Pension Plan Disclosure Project
16
17
Why enhance disclosure about multiemployer plans?
• Some users of financial information requested more information about:– Commitments
– Risks involved
• Assets pooled, not earmarked, risks shared• If cease contributing, in some cases, withdrawal
liability (unique construction rules limit these circumstances)
• Previous disclosures generally limited to contributions for period
18
What is the current status?
• Board deliberations are complete• Final standard expected to be published in early
September• Effective Date
– For public entities, annual periods ending after December 15, 2011
– Nonpublic entities, one year deferral
– Early adoption permitted
19
What are the key new disclosures?
• For individually material plans:– Plan legal name and Employer Identification
Number– Most recent certified funded status, expressed as a
“zone status,” as required by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (or any subsequent amendments)
20
What are the key new disclosures?
• For individually material plans (continued):– Expiration date(s) of collective bargaining
agreement(s) and any minimum funding arrangements
– Indication of whether the employer’s contributions represent more than 5 percent of total contributions to the plan
– Indication of what plans, if any, are subject to a funding improvement plan
21
What are the key new disclosures?
• Contributions made to each individually material plan and the total contributions made to all other plans in the aggregate
• A description of the nature and effect of any changes affecting comparability from period to period for each period in which a statement of income is presented.
22
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FASB COALITIONON MULTIEMPLOYER PLAN TRANSPARENCY ANDDISCLOSURE
THE MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS OFTHE CAMPAIGN FOR QUALITY CONSTRUCTION
AND
Prepared in conjunction with
Construction Industry FASB Coalition's Outreach and Successful Constructive Collaboration with FASB on Exposure Draft 715-80, Disclosure About an Employer's Participation in a Multiemployer Plan
• The CIFC is comprised of virtually every union-signatory construction employer association in the country - MCAA, SMACNA, TAUC, ICE-BAC, FCA, AGC, NECA, NACA, NACBE, IMPACT.
• In addition, the CIFC garnered the strong support and participation of NASBP, and the Surety and Fidelity Association of America - and very importantly, the personal participation of David Lomax of Liberty Mutual, who also serves on FASB's Private Company Financial Reporting Committee.
• David was instrumental in presenting financial statement user support for the CIFC position, along with Mary Ann Lawrence of Key Bank, also a member of the FASB PCFRC. 23
• The CIFC adopted a type of mutual gains, interest-based bargaining approach with FASB, which accepted the aims of FASB's project, greater disclosure and transparency on participation in multiemployer pension plans, while at the same time working with FASB to recognize collateral issues relating to the project to avoid unnecessary detrimental effects on CIFC members.
• Both sides succeeded.
• And, the CIFC built an industry-wide problem-solving mechanism that may serve it well on other FASB issues and others going forward.
24
FASB principles worked constructively with the CIFC advisory panel - a group of top industry experts on multiemployer plans, whose names should be mentioned here:
• Multiemployer plan professional advisors:– Larry Beebe, CPA, a Principal of Bond Beebe CPA in Bethesda, Maryland– Cary Franklin, FSA, Actuary and Managing Consultant at Horizon Actuarial Services in North Hollywood, California– Richard J. Sawhill, plan trustee and executive vice president with ARCA/MCA (an MCAA local affiliate) in Ontario,
CA– James K. Estabrook, Attorney, fund counsel and professional trustee, Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, PC,
Westfield, NJ
• User representatives:– David Lomax, Assistant Vice President, Liberty Mutual Surety, Plymouth Meeting, PA– Mary Ann Lawrence, Senior Vice President, Commercial Credit Risk Review, Key Bank, Cleveland– (Both members of FASB's Private Company Financial reporting Committee)
• Contributing employers and plan trustees:– Bob Lake, President EMCOR Services Mesa Energy Systems, Inc.– Bob Pruger, CFO, Rudolph Libbe Companies, Walbridge, Ohio– Eric Wallace, CPA, Partner, Carbis Walker, LLP Pittsburgh, PA
• CIFC Association staff representatives:– Dana Thompson, SMACNA– John McNerney, MCAA
25
Positive outcome achieved with FASB:
• Routine annual disclosure of withdrawal liability in under funded plans was removed as a proxy for a contributing employer's potential liability. Other proposed substitutes for that potential liability also were analyzed and removed by FASB.
• Estimated liability for retiree health care coverage also was dropped from the project by FASB.
• FASB and CIFC settled on use of Pension Protection Act plan disclosures already in place and Labor Department plan reports - 5500 Forms - as the most cost-effective way to provide improved and non-misleading disclosures to increase transparency and disclosure in footnotes to audited financial statements.
26
Private Company Standard-Setting Framework and Organizational Updates
27
28
Blue-Ribbon Panel
• Jointly sponsored by FAF, AICPA, and NASBA • Mission is to address how accounting standards
can best meet the needs of users of U.S. private company financial statements
• Key recommendations:– One set of GAAP for all entities, but with
modifications and exceptions for private companies– Create separate Board to set private co. standards
• Short-term and other recommendations
29
Differential Framework
• Decision-making tool to consider appropriate exceptions and modifications
– Based on robust staff assessment leading to key differential factors affecting cost-benefit equation
– Aim is to better meet unique private company user needs in cost-effective manner
– Crucial to ensuring lasting change and consistent decision-making, regardless of whether separate board or some other structural change is made by the FAF Trustees
30
Differential Framework• Differential framework will address whether and when
there should be differences in:
– Recognition and measurement
– Presentation and disclosures
– Effective date and transition
• New 10-member Private Company Resource Group formed to vet staff assessment and advise FASB in developing differential framework
• Not a conceptual framework resulting in fundamental changes between private and public companies
31
Sources of Input• Private company roundtables held in fall 2010
• Project-specific roundtables and outreach held in 2010-2011
• Comment letter responses in last few years
• PCFRC, SBAC, and ITAC advisory groups
• Members of AICPA TIC and Blue-Ribbon panel
• Private Company Resource Group
• Academic research and other publications
• Institutional knowledge
• Other discussions and outreach with users, preparers, and auditors of private company financial statements
32
Significant Differential Factors(1) Types and volume of users
(2) Access to management
(3) Investment strategies
(4) Ownership structures
(5) Accounting resources
(6) Education
• Further information is available in a FASB in Focus publication and podcast recording at www.fasb.org
33
Recent Board Decisions for Nonpublic Entities
• Fair Value Measurements – Exemption from most new disclosure requirements,
and a reversal of a previous requirement (significant transfers between Levels 1 & 2)
• Financial Instruments– Practicability exception to fair value for
nonmarketable (level 3) equity securities
• Revenue Recognition– Exemption from most new disclosure requirements,
especially quantitative ones
34
Recent Board Decisions for Nonpublic Entities
• Statement of Comprehensive Income, Multiemployer Plan Disclosures, and Various Other Projects– Delayed effective dates, for one-year and with initial
application for annual, rather than interim periods
• Other deliberations underway relating to testing goodwill for impairment, and some disclosure and measurement aspects of the leasing project
35
Next Steps• Welcome feedback on our FASB In Focus• Continue to work with Resource Group to
create Differential Framework for Board’s consideration
• Ultimately expose the draft Framework for public comment and normal due process
• Private Company Financial Reporting Committee
• Small Business Advisory Committee
• Addition of private co. experience to the Board
• Asst. Director and team of 7 nonpublic entity experts
• Centralized review of private co. comment letters
• Private co. expert liaisons assigned to each project team
• Specific references included in basis for conclusions
• PCFRC Observer added to EITF
• Involvement of smaller CPA firms in fatal flaw reviews
Private Co. Standard-Setting Efforts
36
• General private company issues round tables
• Project-specific round tables and outreach
• Staff paper on differential user/preparer considerations
• Private company decision-making framework
• Formation of Private Company Resource Group
• Plain-English publications/webinars, new webpage
• Nonpublic entity webcast offering CPE
• New electronic constituent feedback form
Private Co. Standard Setting Efforts
37
3838
Update on Recent FASB Projects of Interest to the Construction Industry, Sureties, and Auditors
YOUR QUESTIONS?
If you do not have the opportunity to have your question addressed during the Seminar, you may contact the presenter directly:
Name: Kevin CatalanoContact info – [email protected], or 203-956-5359
Name: John McNerneyContact info – [email protected]
Name: David LomaxContact info – [email protected]