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.
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.
It’s a slow news day here at the NASPP. I don’t have anything pressing to blog about so I thought it would be a good time for a poll. Below are a few questions that were recently posted to the NASPP Q&A Discussion Forum that are largely unanswered at the moment. If they apply to you, please take a moment to indicate your answers so we can help these folks out. Thanks for indulging me!
If you can’t see the poll below, click here to participate in it. As always, if you are a contractor that works with multiple clients, please answer for just one of your clients (preferably one that won’t otherwise complete this poll).
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.
A recent IASB proposal to amend IFRS 2 offers hope that life under IFRS, if it ever happens for US companies, may not be quite so bad after all.
Background: Share Withholding and the IASB
One area where IFRS 2 differs from ASC 718 is that the US standard incorporates a practical exception that allows share withholding to be used to cover taxes due upon settlement of awards without triggering liability treatment, whereas IFRS 2 has never provided this exception. Thus, awards that allow for share withholding are technically subject to liability treatment under IFRS 2 (although, I’ve heard that compliance with this requirement among US companies is spotty). This seems like such a small thing but it’s actually quite significant and vexing. According to the NASPP’s data(1), share withholding is, by far, the dominant approach to collecting taxes on awards, with around 80% of respondents reporting that this method is used for over 75% of all tax events.
This requirement makes share withholding fairly unattractive under IFRS 2. If US accounting standards are ever brought into convergence with IFRS, this could have been a death knell for share withholding. The amount of variability it would introduce to the P&L could be untenable for many companies.
IASB Backs Off
I’m excited to report, however, that the IASB has issued an exposure draft of an amendment to except share withholding from liability treatment under IFRS 2, similar to the exception that currently exists in ASC 718.
For companies that use share withholding for awards issued to employees in foreign subsidiaries for which they must prepare financial statements in accordance with IFRS, this is one less item to reconcile between the IFRS and US GAAP financials. And, should the SEC ever adopt IFRS here in the US, there will be many things to worry about, but this won’t be one of them. To paraphrase Iggy Azalea (with Ariana Grande in a song that is played way too often my gym): “I got 99 problems but share withholding won’t be one!” (You had no idea they were even singing about IFRS, did you?)
Some People Are Never Happy
But wait, you say—didn’t FASB just announce an amendment to ASC 718 related to share withholding? The IASB’s amendment will align with the current ASC 718, which provides an exception for share withholding for the statutorily required tax withholding. By the time the IASB finalizes their amendment, the FASB may have amended ASC 718 to allow share withholding up to the maximum individual tax rate (even if this exceeds the statutorily required withholding). If so, IFRS 2 and ASC 718 still wouldn’t align on this point. But at least it’s a step in the right direction and maybe someone will point this little nit out to the IASB before they finalize their amendment.
More Information
For more info on the IASB’s proposed amendment and a link to their exposure draft, see the NASPP alert “IASB Proposes Amendments to IFRS 2.” Thanks to Bill Dunn at PwC for alerting me to the IASB proposal.
Last week, I blogged about the proposed amendments to ASC 718. This week, I have some more information about them.
Is This a Done Deal?
Pretty much. The FASB has already considered—and rejected—a number of different alternatives on most of these issues. My understanding is that there was consensus among Board members as to each of the amendments and most of the changes aren’t really controversial, so we don’t expect there to be much debate about them.
Tax accounting is an exception, of course. This change is very controversial; in fact, the FASB considered this approach back when they originally drafted FAS 123(R) and ultimately rejected it is because of the volatility it introduces to the income statement. So perhaps there will be some opposition to this change.
What’s the Next Step?
The FASB will issue an exposure draft with the text of the changes, then will solicit comments, make changes as necessary, and issue the final amendments. I have hopes that we’ll see an exposure draft by the end of the year, with possibly the final amendments issued in the first half of next year.
ASC 718(R)?
No, the new standard will not be called “ASC 718(R),” nor will the amendments be a separate document. That’s the advantage of Codification. The amendments will be incorporated into existing ASC 718, just as if they had been there all along. In a few years, you may forget that we ever did things differently.
What’s the Next Project?
This isn’t the FASB’s last word on ASC 718. They have a number of additional research projects that could result in further amendments to the standard:
Non-Employees: In my opinion, the most exciting research project relates to the treatment of non-employees. As I’m sure you know, it is a big pain to grant awards to consultants, et. al., because the awards are subject to liability treatment until vested. The FASB is considering whether consultants should be included within the scope of ASC 718, with awards to them accounted for in the same manner as employee awards. If not for all consultants, than at least for those that perform services similar to that of employees.
Private Companies: Another research project covers a number of issues that impact private companies, such as 1) practical expedients related to intrinsic value, expected term, and formula value plans and 2) the impact of certain features, such as repurchase features, on the classification of awards as a liability or equity.
Unresolved Performance Conditions: Another project relates to awards with unresolved performance conditions. I’ll admit that I’m not entirely sure what this is.
That’s All, For Now
That’s all I have on this topic for now. You can expect more updates when we hear more news on this from the FASB.
A big thank-you to Ken Stoler and Nicole Berman of PwC for helping me sort through the FASB’s announcement. If you haven’t already, be sure to check out their Equity Expert Podcast on the amendments.
The Financial Accounting Foundation has completed their post-implementation review of FAS 123(R) (see my August 27, 2013 blog entry, “FAF to Review FAS 123(R)“) and the upshot is that they think the standard (now known as ASC 718) needs to be simplified. In response the FASB has proposed some very significant amendments to the standard. In addition to the summary I provide here, be sure to listen to our newest Equity Expert podcast, in which Jenn Namazi discusses the proposed amendments with Ken Stoler and Nicole Berman of PwC.
Share Withholding
Currently, ASC 718 provides that withholding for taxes in excess of the statutorily required rate triggers liability treatment. This has been a problem because of rounding considerations (if companies round the shares withheld up to the nearest whole share, does that constitute withholding in excess of the required rate) and, more significantly in jurisdictions (e.g., US states and other countries) that don’t have a flat withholding rate. The FASB proposal would change the standard to allow share withholding up to the maximum tax rate in the applicable jurisdiction, regardless of the individual’s actual tax rate.
This is obviously great news and would make share withholding a lot more feasible for non-US employees. There is still the question of rounding, however. It also isn’t clear how this would apply in the case of mobile employees. Finally, don’t forget that, here in the US, the IRS still opposes excess withholding at the federal level (see my January 9, 2013 blog entry “Supplemental Withholding“).
Estimated Forfeitures
Estimating forfeitures is one of the most complicated aspects of ASC 718—I’ve seen multiple presentations of over an hour in length on just this topic. The FASB has proposed to dispense with this altogether and allow companies to simply recognize the effect of forfeitures as they occur. Companies would be required to make a policy decision as to how they want to recognize forfeitures that would apply to all awards they grant. I assume that this would apply only to forfeitures due to service-related vesting conditions, but I don’t know this for certain.
Tax Accounting
Another area of the standard that has provided a wealth of material for NASPP webcasts and Conference sessions is how companies account for the tax deductions resulting from stock awards. FASB’s proposal would change the standard to require that all tax savings and all shortfalls flow through the income statement. If an award results in a deduction in excess of the expense recognized for it, the excess savings would reduce tax expense (currently, the excess is recorded to APIC). Likewise, shortfalls would always increase tax expense (currently, shortfalls are deducted from the company’s APIC balance to the extent possible, before reducing tax expense).
With this change, companies would no longer need to track what portion of APIC is attributable to excess tax deductions from stock plan transactions. But this would introduce significant variability into the income statement (which is the reason FASB decided against this approach ten years ago). This approach gets us closer to convergence with IFRS 2, but is still not completely aligned with that standard (in IFRS 2, all excess deductions run through APIC and all shortfalls run through the P&L). But this makes me wonder if companies will simply record the windfall/shortfall tax deductions as they occur, or would they have to estimate the potential outcome and adjust tax expense each period until the deduction is finalized (as under IFRS 2)?
Now? Now They Figure This Out?!
All of these changes will eventually make life under ASC 718 a heck of a lot simpler than it is now. That’s the good news. The bad news is that it’s really too bad the FASB couldn’t have figured this out ten years ago. Not to say “I told you so” but I’m sure there were comment letters on the exposure draft that warned the FASB that the requirements in at least two of these areas were too complicated (I’m sure of this because I drafted one of them).
If you are already thinking wistfully about how much more productively you could have used all that time you spent learning about estimated forfeitures and tax accounting, imagine how your administrative providers must feel. They’ve spent the last ten years (and a lot of resources) developing functionality to help you comply with these requirements; now they’ll have to develop new functionality to comply with the new simpler requirements.
More Info
I’ll have more thoughts on this and some of the FASB’s other decisions—yes, there’s more!—next week. For now, check out the PwC and Mercer alerts that we posted to the NASPP website (under “More Information” in our alert, “FASB Proposes Amendments to ASC 718“). And listen to our Equity Expert podcast on the proposed amendments with Ken Stoler and Nicole Berman of PwC.
Important Reminder This is the last week to participate in the NASPP-PwC Global Equity Incentives Survey. Issuers must participate to access the full survey results; you’re going to be sorry if you miss out. You must complete the survey by May 25; I would not count on this date being extended.
My $.02 on Facebook Facebook’s IPO is all over my Google alerts these days, so it feels like I ought to say something about it. Earlier this year, Jenn covered the painting contractor that was paid in Facebook stock and stands to make a bundle in the IPO (see “Tax Cuts and IPOs: Part II,” February 16, 2012). And he’s not the only one. Based on what I’ve been reading, many Facebook employees are going to do quite well–but not for another six months, when the lock-up ends.
Here are a few interesting tidbits about Facebook that I’ve read:
Facebook has a broad-based RSU plan. While RSUs have been commonly used at public companies for years now, they are relatively new for Silicon Valley start-ups, which have traditionally offered only stock options. Facebook is definitely a groundbreaker here–other start-ups have followed suit (e.g., Twitter).
Even more unusual, the RSUs won’t pay out until six months after the IPO (typically RSUs pay out upon vesting). From an administrative standpoint, the delayed payout makes a lot of sense. You wouldn’t want the RSUs to pay out while the company was still private because then employees would have a taxable event before the shares were liquid–I could write a whole blog entry on why this is something to avoid. Plus, in the pre-JOBS era, the employees would have counted as shareholders, which could have forced Facebook into registration with the SEC earlier than they wanted.
Here in the US, Facebook is looking at a pretty hefty tax deposit–Facebook estimates the deposit liability at over $4 billion–that will most likely have to be made within one business day after the awards pay out. Facebook is planning to use share withholding to cover employee tax liabilities, making cash flow an important consideration. Facebook’s S-1 states that they intend to sell shares to raise the capital to make this deposit, but may use some of the IPO proceeds or may draw on a credit arrangement that they have in place. If Facebook sells stock to raise the capital, the stock that is sold would have to be registered and could, of course, impact their stock price.
Facebook estimates the tax withholding rate to be 45%. I’m not completely sure how they are arriving at this rate. It’s possible they are going to withhold using W-4 rates or, perhaps, the payouts will be so large that most employees will be receiving more than $1,000,000 in supplemental payments for the year and they are going to have to withhold Federal income tax at 35%. Where a payment, such as payout of an RSU, straddles the $1 million threshold, the company can choose to apply the 35% rate to the entire payment (35% + the applicable CA tax rate = about 45%).
All of these employees making lots of money creates problems beyond the tax considerations. As other highly successful high-tech IPOs have experienced, employees may decide they don’t need to work anymore and end up leaving. Those that do stick around, may not be so motivated anymore–maybe I’m wrong but it seems like a millionaire employee is an attitude problem waiting to happen. And there will be the pay disparity to deal with as well; employees that were hired more recently may not do so well in the IPO (and those that are hired after the IPO will really be at a disadvantage).
More at the NASPP Conference
Facebook is presenting on a panel at the 20th Annual NASPP Conference (“Liking Global Equity: Learning from Facebook’s Successful Communication and Compliance Strategies”); while none of the problems I’ve described here are new, Facebook is a company known for innovation and I’m excited to hear their approaches, as well as new ideas they have to offer in other areas of stock plan administration. Register for the Conference by May 31 for the early-bird rate.
NASPP “To Do” List We have so much going on here at the NASPP that it can be hard to keep track of it all, so we keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in our blog.
Register for the 20th Annual NASPP Conference in New Orleans. Don’t wait, the early-bird rate is only available until May 31.
This week I write about how stock compensation can introduce volatility into the P&L and why this is a problem.
The Problem with Liability Treatment
The recent article “Higher Stock Price Triggers First-Quarter Loss for Barnwell” (Honolulu Star Advertiser, May 12, 2011, Andrew Gomes) highlighted for me the exact problem with stock compensation that is subject to liability treatment. The article explains that Honolulu-based Barnwell Industries experienced a $1.5 million loss this quarter–a reversal of a $1.5 million profit for the same quarter last year. The reason for the loss is that their stock price doubled during the quarter.
How can a stock price increase cause the company to recognize a loss? The answer is that Barnwell has granted options that can be paid out in cash (the options include a cash SAR component) and are therefore subject to liability treatment. Thus, the increase in their stock price had a very significant impact on their stock compensation expense. Although they haven’t granted options since 2009, Barnwell’s stock option expense went from $46,000 for the comparable quarter last year to $1,677,000 for the current quarter. That’s an increase of 3,546%–kind of hard to explain to shareholders, who, for the most part, probably don’t have the foggiest understanding of liability vs. equity treatment.
Performance Awards Too
While performance awards receive equity treatment under ASC 718, they can also introduce the potential for similar volatility to the P&L. When performance awards are contingent on non-market based goals (e.g., revenue, earnings, and other internal metrics), the likelihood of forfeiture is estimated and expense is recorded based on this estimate. If the company does well, the likelihood of forfeiture will be lower and the expense for the awards will increase.
It’s important to keep this in mind when designing performance award programs and to set appropriate caps on payouts as a means of controlling stock plan expense (not to mention, how do you handle a situation where awards vest based on earnings, the earnings target is hit, and this decreases the forfeiture estimate to the point where the additional expense for the awards reduces earnings below the target). This is also a reason to consider market-based awards–i.e., awards that vest based on stock price targets or total shareholder return. For these awards, the likelihood of meeting the targets is baked into the initial fair value estimate and there are no further adjustments if the likelihood that the targets will be achieved changes.
Need to know more about the accounting treatment and design considerations for performance awards? Don’t miss the NASPP’s pre-conference program, “Practical Guide to Performance-Based Awards” at this year’s NASPP Conference.
IFRS 2
If ever required for US companies (see last week’s blog entry, “IFRS 2: The Saga Drags On“), there are three requirements under IFRS 2 that could introduce significant volatility to the P&L:
Tax Accounting: IFRS 2 requires all tax shortfalls to run through the P&L and, moreover, requires companies to estimate their tax benefit/shortfall each accounting period and adjust tax expense accordingly. This is the opposite of Barnwell’s problem. Here, an increase in stock price wouldn’t be a problem, but a decrease that causes options and awards to be underwater (i.e., the current intrinsic value of the award is less than the expense) could result in significant increases in tax expense, which would reduce earnings for the period. Sort of rubbing salt into the wound–reduced earnings is not going to help get the stock price back up.
Share Withholding: Share withholding on either options or awards triggers liability treatment (for the portion of the award that will be withheld to cover taxes) under IFRS 2. As the company’s stock price increases, this liablity–and associated P&L expense–will increase.
Payroll Taxes: The company’s matching tax liability for payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare in the US) is also treated as a liability that must be estimated and expensed each accounting period. Again, as the company’s stock price increases, this liability and expense will also increase.
See the NASPP’s IFRS 2 Portal for articles on these IFRS 2 requirements.
Last Chance to Qualify for Survey Results This is the last week to participate in the NASPP’s 2011 Domestic Stock Plan Administration Survey (co-sponsored by Deloitte). Issuers must complete the survey by this Friday, May 20, to qualify to receive the full survey results. Register to complete the survey today.
New “Early-Bird” Rate for the NASPP Conference If you missed last Friday’s early-bird deadline for the 19th Annual NASPP Conference, you can still save $200 on the Conference if you register by June 24.This deadline will not be extended–register for the Conference today, so you don’t miss out.
NASPP “To Do” List We have so much going on here at the NASPP that it can be hard to keep track of it all, so I keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in my blog.
Register for 19th Annual NASPP Conference (November 1-4 in San Francisco). Don’t wait; the new early-bird rate is only available until June 24.
Participate in the NASPP’s 2011 Domestic Stock Plan Administration Survey (co-sponsored by Deloitte, with survey systems support provided by the CEP Institute). Don’t wait–this week is your last chance to participate.
I’m sure many of my readers have been disappointed that I haven’t been writing much about accounting lately, so today I take a look at the status of IFRS here in the United States.
IFRS: No News is Good News? The fact is that there hasn’t really been much to report on IFRS lately. As my readers know, back in 2008, the SEC proposed a roadmap that would have required adoption of IFRS in the United States, phased in from 2014 to 2016. Then the economy collapsed and rushing headlong into IFRS seemed like maybe not such a good idea. More recently, there have apparently been some developments–that I do not understand in the least, so don’t ask me about them–relating to the accounting treatment of highly devalued debt securities that have also given regulators pause on the idea of wholesale adoption of IFRS here in the United States.
In February of last year, the SEC announced that it backed off on the roadmap a bit and would make a decision in 2011 as to whether or not IFRS should be adopted in the United States. I expect that it will be several more months before the SEC announces its decision.
Condorsement?
More recently, the idea of “condorsement” has been proposed. Under this approach, rather than requiring adoption of IFRS, U.S. GAAP would continue to exist, but FASB would work towards converging our standards to IFRS on a standard-by-standard basis. I admit that I am a little fuzzy on how condorsement differs from convergence. I would offer ten points to anyone that can explain it, but, to be honest, I don’t think I really want to know.
Convergence
Speaking of convergence, the FASB and IASB have an ongoing program designed to achieve this goal for projects specified under a memorandum of understanding (issued in 2006 and updated in 2008). Last month, they announced that five of the projects had been completed and the remaining three will be completed in the second half of 2011 (a slight delay from the original schedule). None of the projects relate to stock compensation, however. Phew.
SEC Roundtable
At the same time that the FASB and IASB announced the progress on their convergence project, the SEC announced that it will sponsor a Roundtable on July 7, 2011 to discuss incorporating IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system.
A news bulletin issued by Morrison and Foerster discusses the FASB/IASB and SEC announcements.
Share Withholding: No News is Bad News
A key difference between IFRS 2 and ASC 718 is that, under IFRS 2, liability treatment is required any time shares are withheld by the company to cover tax withholding. I think many of us harbor a secret hope that this will somehow change before IFRS is required in the United States (either that, or that IFRS is never required and this somehow is left out of convergence/condorsement). So far, however, no such luck. A PricewaterhouseCoopers alert issued in September of last year reports that the Interpretations committee of the IASB refused to carve out an exception. The committee felt it did not have the authority to do so; the matter can still be presented to the IASB for relief.
Save Big on NASPP Conference by Completing Survey NASPP members that complete the NASPP’s 2011 Domestic Stock Plan Administration Survey (co-sponsored by Deloitte) by this Friday, May 13, can save 10% off the early-bird rate for the 19th Annual NASPP Conference (which is already a significant savings off the regular registration rate). Register to complete the survey today–so you don’t have to explain to your boss why you missed out on this rate.
Only Ten Days Left for NASPP Conference Early-Bird Rate It’s hard to believe how time flies, but the 19th Annual NASPP Conference early-bird rate expires this Friday, May 13. This deadline will not be extended–register for the Conference today, so you don’t miss out.
NASPP “To Do” List We have so much going on here at the NASPP that it can be hard to keep track of it all, so I keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in my blog.
Register for 19th Annual NASPP Conference (November 1-4 in San Francisco). Don’t wait; the early-bird rate is only available until May 13.