Recently Adopted and Issued Accounting Standards
In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). The ASU is a converged standard involving FASB and International Financial Reporting Standards that provides a single comprehensive revenue recognition model for all contracts with customers across transactions and industries. The core principal of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount and at a time that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) Deferral of the Effective Date which institutes a one-year deferral of the effective date of this amendment to annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. We are currently evaluating the provisions of this ASU and will be monitoring developments and additional guidance to determine the potential outcome the new standard will have on our financial condition and results of operations.
In June 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-12, Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718) Accounting for Share-Based Payments When the Terms of an Award Provide That a Performance Target Could Be Achieved after the Requisite Service Period. This ASU provides guidance for entities that grant their employees share-based payment awards where a performance target that affects vesting could be achieved after the requisite service period. That is the case when an employee is eligible to retire or otherwise terminate employment before the end of the period in which a performance target could be achieved and still be eligible to vest in the award if and when the performance target is achieved. This ASU stipulates that compensation expense should be recognized in the period where the performance target becomes probable of being achieved as opposed to the date that the award was granted. ASU 2014-12 is effective for annual periods and interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015. We do not expect this ASU to have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.
In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-05, Intangibles - Goodwill and Other - Internal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-40) Customer's Accounting for Fees Paid in a Cloud Computing Arrangement. The amendments in this ASU provide guidance about a customer's accounting for fees paid in a cloud computing arrangement. If a cloud computing arrangement includes a software license, then the customer should account for the software license element of the arrangement consistent with the acquisition of other software licenses. If a cloud computing arrangement does not include a software license, then the customer should account for the arrangement as a service contract. The two criteria that must be met to be considered a software license are: 1) the customer has the contractual right to take possession of the software at any time during the hosting period without significant penalty; and 2) it is feasible for the customer to either run the software on its own hardware or contract with another party unrelated to the vendor to host the software. ASU 2015-05 is effective for annual periods, including interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015. We do not expect this ASU to have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.
In September 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-16, Business Combinations (Topic 805) Simplifying the Accounting for Measurement-Period Adjustments. The amendments in this ASU require that an acquirer recognize adjustments to estimated amounts that are identified during the measurement period in the reporting period in which the adjustment amounts are determined. Prior to the amendments, an acquirer was required to retrospectively adjust the provisional amounts recognized at the acquisition date with a corresponding adjustment to goodwill. ASU 2015-16 is effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015, including interim periods within those fiscal years. We do not expect this ASU to have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.
In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, Financial Instruments - Overall (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. The amendments in this ASU make improvements to GAAP related to financial instruments that include the following as applicable to us.
| |
• | Equity investments, except for those accounted for under the equity method of accounting or those that result in consolidation of the investee, are required to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income. However, an entity may choose to measure equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values at cost minus impairment, if any, plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions for the identical or a similar investment of the same issuer. |
| |
• | Simplifies the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring a qualitative assessment to identify impairment - if impairment exists, this requires measuring the investment at fair value. |
| |
• | Eliminates the requirement for public companies to disclose the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value that is currently required to be disclosed for financial instruments measured at amortized cost on the balance sheet. |
| |
• | Public companies will be required to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes. |
| |
• | Requires separate presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial asset on the balance sheet or the accompanying notes to the financial statements. |
| |
• | The reporting entity should evaluate the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to available-for-sale securities in combination with the entity's other deferred tax assets. |
ASU 2016-01 is effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. This ASU will impact our financial statement disclosures, however, we do not expect this ASU to have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). This ASU was issued to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities, including leases classified as operating leases under previous GAAP, on the balance sheet and requiring additional disclosures of key information about leasing arrangements. ASU 2016-02 is effective for annual periods, including interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018 and requires a modified retrospective approach to adoption. Early application of the amendments is permitted. We are currently evaluating the provisions of this ASU and will be monitoring developments and additional guidance to determine the potential outcome the amendments will have on our financial condition and results of operations.
About New Standards Disclosures
New accounting standards disclosures describe recently adopted pronouncements and those not yet effective, along with management's assessment of their expected impact. This section provides an early warning system for upcoming changes to how a company reports its financial results, often years before the new rules take effect.
Key signals: when management describes a not-yet-adopted standard's impact as "material" or "still being evaluated," it signals potential significant changes to reported metrics upon adoption. Watch for standards that affect a company's core operations — for example, revenue recognition changes for software companies or lease accounting changes for retailers with large store footprints. The transition method chosen (full retrospective versus modified retrospective) affects comparability with prior periods. Companies that delay adoption to the latest permitted date may be struggling with implementation complexity. Compare the disclosed impact assessments against peers in the same industry to gauge whether management's expectations are reasonable.