As followers of this blog know, the FASB recently issued an exposure draft proposing amendments to ASC 718 (see “It’s Here! The FASB’s Amendments to ASC 718,” June 9, 2015). In today’s blog, I take a look at common themes in the comment letters on the exposure draft.
A Lot Less Controversial
The FASB received just under 70 comment letters on the exposure draft, making this proposal far less controversial than FAS 123 or FAS 123(R) (by contrast, the FASB heard from close to 14,000 commenters on FAS 123(R)). In general, the letters are supportive of the proposed amendments.
Opposition to Proposed Tax Accounting
The area of most controversy under the exposure draft is the proposal to require all tax effects (both excess deductions and shortfalls) to be recognized in the income statement. Virtually all of the letters submitted mention this issue and this was the only issue that a number of letters address. A little over 70% of the letters oppose the FASB proposal. About half of the letters suggest that all excess deductions and shortfalls should be recognized in paid-in capital, instead of in earnings.
Many commenters mention the volatility the proposed approach would create in the P&L and express concern that this would be confusing to the users of financial statements. This is the argument we made in the NASPP’s comment letter (see “The NASPP’s Comment Letter,” August 18).
Here are a few other arguments in opposition of the FASB’s proposal that I find compelling (and wish I had thought of):
Several commenters refer to the FASB’s own analysis (in the Basis for Conclusions in FAS 123(R)) that stock awards comprise two transactions: (i) a compensatory transaction at grant and (ii) an equity transaction that occurs when the award is settled. They point out that it is inconsistent to recognize the tax effects of the second transaction in income when the transaction itself is recognized in equity.
Several commenters point out that the increase or decrease in value between the grant date and settlement is not recognized in income, therefore it would be inconsistent to recognize the tax effects of this change in value in income.
One commenter points out that this would merely shift the administrative burden from tracking the APIC pool to forecasting the impact of stock price movements on the company’s earnings estimates, negating any hoped for simplification in the application of the standard.
Share Withholding
The comment letters overwhelming support the proposal to expand the exception to liability accounting for share withholding. Several letters point out what appears to be an inconsistency in the language used to amend the standard with the FASB’s described intentions. While the FASB indicated in its discussion of the exposure draft that it intended to permit share withholding up to the maximum individual tax rate in the applicable jurisdiction, the proposed languages refers to the individual’s maximum tax rate. Also, the exposure draft appears to have inadvertently excluded payroll taxes from the tax rate. Hopefully these are minor issues that will be addressed in the final update.
One commenter suggests that, for mobile employees, companies should also be allowed to consider hypothetical tax rates that might apply to individuals under the company’s tax equalization policy for purposes of determining the maximum withholding rate.
Forfeitures
While the letters also were very supportive of the proposal to allow companies to choose to recognize forfeitures as they occur, I was surprised to find that a couple of letters suggested that companies should be required to recognize forfeitures as they occur.
What’s Next?
The comment period ended on August 14, so the FASB has had close to two months to consider the comments. I heard a rumor at the NASPP Conference that the Board will discuss them at one of its November meetings but I haven’t seen anything on this in the FASB Action Alerts yet. I expect that we won’t see the final amendments until next year. Given the controversy of the tax accounting proposal, possibly late next year.
This is the most controversial aspect of the exposure draft. The volatility that this change introduces to the P&L is likely to be significant for companies that rely heavily on stock compensation. We performed a very quick analysis of a handful of companies and found that, for several of them, recognizing excess tax benefits in their P&L would have increased EPS by 10%. In one case, EPS increased by 60%. Ultimately, we think this will be incredibly confusing to investors and other financial statement users. We also feel that it is highly unintuitive for changes in a company’s stock price to generate significant profits and losses for the company. While eliminating the ASC 718 APIC pool is very attractive, ultimately, we felt that the impact on earnings and effective tax rates would offset the benefits of simplifying this area of the standard. Because of this, we recommended against this amendment.
We suggested that companies record all excess tax benefits and shortfalls to paid-in capital, rather than tax expense. This would eliminate the need to track the APIC pool without impacting the P&L.
Forfeitures
We supported the proposal to allow companies to make a policy election to account for forfeitures as they occur. Our only comment on this topic was to suggest that the FASB provide a mechanism for companies to change their election without treating it as a change in accounting principle (which requires a preferability assessment and retrospective restatement).
Share Withholding
We supported the proposal to amend the standard to provide that shares can be withheld to cover taxes up to the maximum individual tax rate without triggering liability treatment.
We asked the FASB to provide additional guidance on how this requirement applies to mobile employees and suggested that share withholding be allowed up to the combined maximum tax rate in all jurisdictions that the transaction is subject to.
We also asked the FASB to remove the requirement that the tax withholding be mandated by law.
Practical Expedient to Expected Term
We supported allowing private companies to treat the midpoint of the vesting period and contractual term of an option as the option’s expected term for valuation purposes. We asked the FASB to remove the condition that the option be exercisable for only a short period of time after termination of employment and also requested removal of the conditions applicable to performance-based options.
The Rest of It and Thanks
We supported the remaining proposals in the exposure draft without comment.
Thanks to everyone that completed the NASPP’s quick survey on the exposure draft—I hope to have the results posted by the end of this week.
Thanks also to individuals who agreed to serve on our task force for this project: Terry Adamson of Aon Hewitt, Dee Crosby of the CEP Institute, Elizabeth Dodge of SOS, Sean Kelly of Morgan Stanley, Ken Stoler of PwC, Sean Waters of Fidelity, Thomas Welk of Cooley, and Jason Zellmer of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Their help was invaluable.
Last week, I blogged that the FASB has issued the exposure draft of the proposed amendments to ASC 718. In this week’s blog entry, I cover some of the additional issues addressed by the amendments.
Cash Flow Statement
The proposed amendments suggest changes to how a couple of items should be categorized in the cash flow statement. Most significantly, excess tax benefits realized from stock plan transactions would be presented as an operating activity. Currently, excess tax benefits are reported twice in the cash statement: as a cash inflow in the financing activities and a cash outflow in operating activities. In her “Meet the Speaker interview” last summer, Ellie Kehmeier highlighted the failure to do this as a very common error that companies make, so this change will clearly be helpful.
Private Companies
It is often very difficult for private companies to estimate the expected term of option grants. To assist with this, the proposed amendments would allow private companies to use a method similar to simplified method allowed under SABs 107 and 110. I think a lot of private companies are already doing this, so I’m not sure how revelatory this is. Also, the FASB imposes the same limitations that the SEC does, (i.e., the approach can only be used for options that are exercisable for only a short time after termination of employment), making this somewhat less than helpful.
The FASB is also under the impression that there are a bunch of private companies with liability awards that did not know that they could have elected to value these awards using the intrinsic value method back when they adopted the standard and are now stuck with using the fair value method for them. The proposed amendments would give these companies a one-time opportunity to change the measurement of liability awards from fair value to intrinsic value without having to justify the change.
I don’t encounter a lot of liability awards at either public or private companies, so I am skeptical about how helpful this is, but maybe there are a bunch private companies that just cannot wait to change over to the intrinsic value method for their liability awards. Assuming they are paying attention and don’t miss this opportunity. Considering that they apparently already missed the opportunity once, I’m not optimistic. Are we going to have to go through this all again in another ten years? Maybe the FASB should just give private companies a free pass on changing the valuation method for liability awards once every ten years so we don’t have to discuss this again.
FSP FAS 123(R)-2
In somewhat more exciting news, the amendments would make permanent the guidance in FSP FAS 123(R)-2. This means that we no longer have to worry that, in the future, options that are exercisable for an extended period of time after termination of employment will be subject to liability treatment. I know you probably had forgotten that this was even a possibility, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about as I see FASB alerts that seem to indicate that the FASB is making progress on the other projects that would have impacted this. Now we all have one less thing to worry about. I also think this might be a sign that the FASB may eventually allow awards to non-employees to receive the same treatment as awards to employees—how awesome would that be!
The FASB has issued the exposure draft of the proposed amendments to ASC 718. The FASB alert showed up in my email at approximately 1 PM Pacific yesterday and it’s 105 pages long. Suffice it to say, I haven’t exactly read the whole thing yet. Here are some initial thoughts based on a quick skim of the draft.
Don’t remember what the proposed amendments are about? Refresh your memory with my blog entry “Proposed Amendments to ASC 718 – Part I.” Also, don’t miss the 23rd Annual NASPP Conference, where we will be waxing nostalgic about the first ten years under ASC 718 (FASB Chair Russ Golden is even going to say a few words) and will have special session focused on the steps companies need to take to prepare for the amendments.
I Thought This Was About Simplification
105 pages! Come on. The whole entire standard including all the illustrations and basis for conclusions was only 286 pages. This “simplification” is over one-third the length of the original standard.
There’s More to It Than You Might Think
I’ve been focusing on just three areas that will be amended, but the exposure draft addresses nine issues. Two of the issues relate to the classification of stuff on the cash flow statement (snore). Three relate to private companies—I’ll get to these in a subsequent blog entry. And one makes FSP FAS 123(R)-1 permanent, which is a relief. You will recall that this relates to the treatment of options that provide for an extended time to exercise after termination of employment. Perhaps I wasn’t paying attention, but I wasn’t aware that the FASB was considering this.
Share Withholding
The proposed amendments relating to share withholding clarify that the company must have a withholding obligation to avoid triggering liability treatment. So share withholding for outside directors and ISOs will still trigger liability treatment. But, as expected, where the company is obligated to withhold taxes, the proposal allows share withholding for taxes up to the maximum individual tax rate. The proposal doesn’t address mobile employees (i.e., can you use the maximum rate out of all of the applicable jurisdictions?) or whether rounding up is permissible if you are withholding at the maximum rate.
Tax Accounting
Also, as expected, the proposal provides that all tax effects will run through the income statement. What may come as a surprise is that this eliminates the tax benefit under the Treasury Stock Method calculation used for diluted EPS. Because net earnings (the numerator of EPS) is reduced for the full tax benefit to the company, there won’t be any adjustment to the denominator for this benefit anymore.
Expected Forfeitures
For service conditions only, the proposal would allow companies to account for forfeitures as they occur, rather than applying an estimated forfeiture rate to expense accruals. For performance conditions, however, companies will still be required to estimate the likelihood of the condition being achieved.
Comments
Comments on the exposure draft can be submitted using the FASB’s Electronic Feedback Form and must be submitted by August 14, 2015.
I blogged back in October that the FASB has announced amendments to ASC 718 (Proposed Amendments to ASC 718 – Part I and Part II). Some of you may be wondering what happened with that project. The answer is that the FASB is still working on it. They have been meeting to discuss transitional issues and other projects related to the simplification of ASC 718.
The FASB met last Wednesday, February 4, to decide a number of transitional matters. I listened to the meeting; here are my observations. First, even though February 4 was my birthday, the FASB did not appear to be celebrating this in any way. In fact, it appeared that they did not even know it was my birthday. Go figure.
Share Withholding
The FASB debated whether the transition to the new share withholding guidance should be on a modified retrospective basis (essentially, companies switch over to the new method for all outstanding awards with an adjustment in the current period to account for the change) or a prospective basis only (the guidance would only apply to new awards) and decided on the modified retrospective approach. The discussion on this matter seems largely theoretical to me. The transitional guidance would only be a concern for companies that are currently subject to liability treatment due to their share withholding practices. In my experience however, there are very few, if any, companies that fall into that bucket. Most companies have carefully structured their share withholding procedures to avoid liability treatment so they don’t need to worry about any transition.
Estimated Forfeitures
The transition for changing from estimating forfeitures to accounting for forfeitures as they occur garnered even more discussion, with one FASB staffer recommending that companies be given a choice between the modified retrospective and prospective approaches. I guess there was a concern that companies wouldn’t be able to figure out the appropriate adjustment necessary to switch over to the new guidance using the modified retrospective method. But Board members were worried about confusion resulting from two different transition methods, so they decided to require the modified retrospective method.
I think that this whole area is so confusing as to be completely inscrutable to investors. Your auditors barely understand it. So while I appreciate the concern about confusion, personally I can’t see that a modicum more confusion is going to make any difference here.
But, having said that, I also can’t believe that companies would want to switch over to accounting for forfeitures as they occur on a prospective basis. That would leave companies applying an estimated forfeiture rate to awards granted prior to specified date but not after that date (or maybe to employees hired before a specified date—it was a little unclear from the Board’s discussion). That seems crazy complicated to me. My guess is that if companies can’t figure out the adjustment necessary to switch over to accounting for forfeitures as they occur, they’ll just continue to apply an estimated forfeiture rate.
Tax Accounting
For as controversial at it is, there was very little discussion among Board members of the transition to accounting for all excess benefits/shortfalls in the P&L. I guess the accounting is controversial but the transition is relatively simple. The Board decided on prospective approach. As I understand it, once the amendments are in effect, companies will just switch over to recognizing benefits/shortfalls in the P&L—the journal entries they were making to paid-in-capital to account for tax effects will now be made to tax expense.