Reborn Coffee, Inc. New Standards Disclosure
Recent Accounting Pronouncement
In June 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13, “Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326)” (“ASU 2016-13”). ASU 2016-13 revises the methodology for measuring credit losses on financial instruments and the timing of when such losses are recorded. Originally, ASU 2016-13 was effective for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019, with early adoption permitted. In November 2019, FASB issued ASU 2019-10, “Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326), Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815), and Leases (Topic 842).” This ASU defers the effective date of ASU 2016-13 for public companies that are considered smaller reporting companies as defined by the SEC to fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company is planning to adopt this standard in the first quarter of fiscal 2023. The Company evaluated and concluded that no material effects of adopting the provisions of ASU No. 2016-13 on its consolidated financial statements.
Other recently issued accounting updates are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
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.