Blog
IFRS and GAAP Convergence - A Case for Technical IsolationismThe freight train running down the tracks at breakneck speed called "IFRS/GAAP Convergence", is headed for a tragic and regrettable collision with reality and common sense. Creditors, investors and stockholders are all giving a hearty thumbs-up to convergence under the mistaken premise that the grass is actually greener on the world stage. These so-called "users" in the U.S. are hiding behind the same curtain that hid the Wizard of Oz and, through their silence, are condoning a new era in financial reporting without having a clue about the enormous effects of this change.
The basic premise for convergence has been more about world politics than financial reporting and common sense. As the world economic crisis has continued for the past 4-5 years, foreign regulators, standard setters and economists have taken the opportunity to strike while they perceive the U.S. is economically injured and unable to defend itself. The perception of many Americans is that Asian, European and even third-world countries have more to say about our own economic woes than our own economy. This has led to a quick and direct strike by foreign governments and standard setters to promote IFRS while U. S. standard setters, economists and even the SEC have surrendered to global political pressure. What those users in the U.S. are quickly finding, however, is that the greener grass was really a layer of green moss on top of a very deep and dangerous swamp called IFRS. What CPA’s in the U.S. have known for years is that U.S. GAAP, with all of its faults and excesses, is still pretty good. The exposure process used by the FASB and its predecessor, the AICPA, for introducing new guidelines and standards assures that both users and the preparers will have direct and meaningful input into the final product. The IRFS freight train, on the other hand, is running amuck primarily because of apathy and fear on the part of users and because neither users nor preparers are having input in the process. Eggheads are talking to Eggheads…………..that is never a good situation. It is time for a serious and concentrated movement toward technical isolationism in the U.S. as it relates to accounting and financial reporting matters. It seems foolish to make massive cultural changes to a system that is tailored specifically to the needs, sophistication level and diversity of U.S. companies, all in the name of submitting to "global economics". In all of my continuing education classes in the past few months (both as an instructor and participant) and in my dialog with my peer CPA’s, not once have I found anyone who believes that a change to IFRS makes sense or comes close to passing the cost/benefit test for U.S. companies. Simply put, it is a change that promises U.S. companies little or nothing, but will cost users and preparers alike a fortune to adopt. The idea for economic isolationism in the U.S goes all the way back to the Revolutionary War days when Thomas Paine, in his landmark work, Common Sense, Thomas Jefferson, in his inaugural address, and even George Washington in his farewell address, all presented very compelling arguments for shunning alliances with foreign powers just for the sake of being good neighbors. The same arguments can be made today as we move toward an illogical, misguided and unnecessary change just so we can say we are good neighbors on the world stage. Clearly the U.S. economy and U.S. businesses are the most sophisticated and complex in the world, so why would we even consider lowering our standards in adopting an illogical, undesirable and, in many cases, completely inappropriate level of financial reporting? If anyone wants to see proof for isolationism, just take a good look at the draft model financial statements being floated by those who are involved in converging IFRS and U.S. GAAP that I have attached to this blog. I challenge anyone to convince me or anyone else that this format represents an "improvement" in financial reporting. I think it is time to put the brakes on this runaway train and close the doors to the rest of the world when it comes to financial reporting. The U.S. needs to reclaim its world leadership in economics and financial reporting and take care of its own needs first. |
Making Credit Decisions Based on.....air?
I have spent the last 25+ years as a volunteer loan committee member of two SBA 504 loan committees and two mezzanine financing organizations. In doing so, I have had the opportunity to look at literally thousands of financial statements from borrowers and potential borrowers from closely held and usually smaller businesses. I have watched lending professionals approve loans using a variety of information, some of which is actually relevant to the loan itself. I have also had the opportunity to watch lending professionals and the U. S. Small Business Administration (SBA) approve loans using financial information that is non-existent, lacking in relevance or just simply wrong. I am continually amazed at how these loans get approved inside a bank, then by a professional loan committee of an enhancement organization and finally, by the SBA itself. Banks often accept a borrower’s internal financial statements and, believe it or not, even the borrower’s business income tax return in order to "evaluate" the creditworthiness of the business. Although the lender may be aware that the internal financial statements are not prepared using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or, for that matter, even on the accrual basis, the lender performs its ritual credit review, faithfully plugging numbers into "spreads" and comparing information to industry standards to highlight anomalies. Likewise, when a business income tax return is used, whether it is for a corporation, an LLC partnership or even a single member LLC (on Schedule C of the owners’ Form 1040), the lender again is very diligent in performing its lending rituals and reaches a conclusion on the creditworthiness of the deal. The resulting credit analyses look very professional, have all of the necessary boxes filled in and often reach a conclusion that the loan is appropriate and that the business is creditworthy. Does anyone see anything missing here…….like basic common sense and logic? The information that the lenders use in both of the above scenarios is totally lacking in appropriateness, consistency, completeness and basic logic. Yet, amazingly, lenders are able to make what they believe are "informed" decisions about the creditworthiness of a potential borrower. The crystal ball the banks and the SBA award their lenders after their first training class must be very powerful indeed…… Internal financial statements almost always are prepared using the cash or modified-cash method of accounting – especially those that are prepared as of a month end other than the end of the borrower’s fiscal year. The cash basis and modified-cash basis include financial statements that are missing most assets and liabilities, except for, of course, cash and a few other assets. Accordingly, all leverage, tangible net worth, working capital and other critical financial condition ratios are completely inapplicable to the credit analysis. Further, the lender has no idea whether the borrower has any inventory, accounts receivable, accounts payable or any other working capital assets and liabilities. The only thing the lender usually knows is how much cash is on the balance sheet at the end of the reporting period. When tax returns are used, things get even further from reality and we now enter the Land of Oz. A business income tax return is a TAX FORM completed to comply with TAX LAWS AND REGULATIONS and, accordingly, has no basis in economic reality. The assets and liabilities listed in a tax return are those assets and liabilities that have been determined using TAX LAW AND REGULATIONS and not basic economic rules and realities. The income statement in a tax return is used to compute TAXABLE INCOME and not net income or earnings as we know it. Taxable income or loss is a "monopoly" or play number that is used solely to determine the amount of income taxes that are due or the amount of earnings losses that are allocated to the owners. It usually bears little or no resemblance to economic reality. A good example of the absurdity of using tax basis financial statements for credit purposes is the manner in which fixed assets are recorded. Under GAAP, all fixed assets are capitalized and depreciated over each asset’s economic useful life. For tax purposes, however, most fixed assets are never recorded as fixed assets and are simply written off as expense in the year in which they were purchased under Section 179 and other similar tax law provisions. Accordingly, not only are fixed assets understated, but equity is also understated by the same amount. Try and put together a solid financial covenant for Minimum Tangible Net Worth using tax basis financial statements. To be fair to lenders and to the SBA, other information besides just business financial statements are used to make credit decisions, especially for smaller loans. For example, in many situations, banks are now performing a Global Credit Analysis that takes into account the owners’ personal assets and credit history in making the determination as to the creditworthiness of the business, which makes some sense in many situations. Lenders also use many of the "Lending C’s" which include Character, Collateral, Cashflow, Creditworthiness, etc. When faced with the absurdity of using information that is inadequate and usually just plain wrong, lenders often point to the SBA as the culprit, reminding me as often as possible that it must be appropriate to use cash basis statements or even tax returns because "the SBA allows it". The SBA does a lot of great things for small businesses and I am thankful every day that we have it, but given its history for loan losses over time, I wouldn’t exactly put the SBA at the top of my list as far as determining the most appropriate information to use to evaluate a loan package. In the final analysis, making credit decisions based on information that is just flat wrong is like using a dart board. If you are an experienced darts player, you generally are successful. If you are a rookie, the results can be devastating. Enron taught the public markets some basic lessons about the importance of using full and fair accounting and disclosure and I think it is time that the banks, enhancement organizations and the SBA itself got into the 21st Century and begin demanding real economic information from their borrowers in order to make real economic lending decisions. Selling a Closely Held Business - a process of evolution
It has been a while since we have seen the Mergers & Acquisition business restart its engine. Since 2007, the number of sales of closely held businesses that have sold has slowed to a standstill. Many businesses that should have sold during the past four years are still sitting on the sidelines waiting for all of the necessary M&A ingredients to come together. Unfortunately, for the smaller size businesses, they may have a bit longer to wait. Closely held businesses that should sell include those that have owners that are no longer capable of growing, stabilizing or even operating the business because of personal, health, emotional, energy or economic reasons. In the business community, we all know of at least a few of these businesses. In my case, I know of more than just a few – there are a number of businesses that, in more normal economic times, would and should have sold during this period. Most of those businesses now continue to sit on the shelf waiting for the planets and stars to line up so their owners can receive some reasonable value for their investment. In talking to investment bankers recently, the deal flow is beginning to pick up – but almost exclusively for businesses with a transaction value of $10 million or better. Bob Welch, of City Securities in Indianapolis, says that three critical ingredients are starting to come together for larger transactions that have not been there in the past four years. Unfortunately for the vast majority of closely held businesses that don’t have a value over $10 million, these factors don’t apply. Those businesses continue to see their value decline and the opportunities to sell shrink. Many have shut down their businesses, sought protection through bankruptcy or essentially given the business away in an effort to at least get out from under personal guarantees. So where does this leave these smaller closely held businesses? I believe that the answer lies in sellers being willing to structure sales transactions that provide for less cash at closing, more assumption of risk and a longer payout. Deals that follow this new structure can be done – but it takes a combination of expertise, risk-taking and finding a buyer that has the financial, operational and market knowledge necessary to make it work. |
Time For States To Get On Board With New Expert Witness RulesTime For States To Get On Board With New Expert Witness RulesEffective December 1, 2010, an important and long-awaited rule change was made to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to expert reports. Working as an expert in a variety of different matters for the past 25 years, I was relieved and overjoyed with the change. Now it is time for the different states to get on board with making changes to their rules to accommodate this same type of change. The changes to Rule 26 now provide that the expert’s draft report is no longer discoverable and will be protected under the work product doctrine. Additionally, and perhaps as importantly, communications between the attorney and the expert will be protected with limited exceptions (expert’s compensation and facts, data and assumptions provided by the attorney to the expert). In those situations where the expert is not producing a report but does plan to provide testimony at trial, the new rule also requires a summary disclosure of the nature of the testimony and the facts and opinions to which the expert will testify. These changes only apply to matters being tried in Federal court and do not change the rules that states employ in matters being tried in state courts. Each state’s requirements are different and historically states are not very prompt in making changes like this, even if they do make sense. Even when states do get around to changes in their trial procedures it is very likely that the changes won’t be wholly consistent with the Federal Rules, if states even adopt the Federal Rules changes. Based on my discussions with lawyers and other experts, the rule change has been universally applauded as both necessary and long overdue. In fact, most everyone wonders why the rule wasn’t changed a long time ago. It is certainly no secret that attorneys and experts have had communications in the past regarding the matters covered or to be covered in the experts report, but the archaic methods of communication were both inefficient and often ineffective – for both parties. With this change, our legal system can finally start to move into the 21st century. Phone calls to attorneys to read a draft report or showing an attorney a draft in person on a laptop are, thankfully, gone as it relates to Federal cases. The extensive efforts that attorneys have gone through to discover draft copies of expert reports and the similar efforts opposing attorneys have used to hide them and protect them, will no longer be necessary. The silliness and waste of valuable court and deposition time that was spent arguing over whether any drafts were available will now hopefully be used to address more salient and important matters. Who knows, this may even result in more time and effort being spent on the substance of the expert’s report and opinion and less time on the drafting habits used by the expert when forming the opinion. Under the old rules, in addition to a testifying expert, attorneys would often have to engage a consulting expert to work with legal counsel on preliminary findings and overall case tactics so that the work product relating to the case strategy could be protected. It is now more likely that the testifying expert can perform the same services as the consulting expert as part of the overall engagement. Using only one expert will not only save client fees, but will very likely reduce the time spent in trial preparation and markedly improve the quality of the expert’s testimony. Another interesting language change to Rule 26 is the requirement that experts disclose "facts or data" used in forming an opinion. The old Rule 26 required that experts disclose "data and other information". I have always wondered about the definition of "other information". I have had attorneys tell me that it meant anything from "anything and everything you used" to "only those substantive matters you considered". Although it does narrow the definition down somewhat, it still leaves questions. The definition of "fact" is "something that is real, actually exists or is true". I guess that eliminates any fantasies or lies. That is good to know. Since so many cases are tried in state courts, it is imperative that each state begin the process of changing its trial procedures as soon as possible in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and affordability of state trials for their clients. The mantra of independence, that the 50 states proudly demonstrate when setting their own rules for matters like this, is admirable and brings back feelings of patriotism stretching back to the founding days of our country. However, this independence also creates a huge waste of resources, client fees and precious time on each case. This is a good rule change and needs to be adopted as quickly as possible by the states. What Happened to Business Ethics?
I made an airline reservation the other day and for the first time read all of the fine print associated with the “contract” to provide me with transportation. The rules were almost limitless and included some scary matters associated with timing (being to the gate on time), cancellation (flight may be cancelled without notice) and my “rights” as a passenger (not many). Having traveled quite a bit for over 40 years, I thought I understood that if I pay for a seat on a plane, the airline had the obligation to provide me with service and transportation. Well, maybe……….
|
Click here to visit website
Click here to visit website
