Recently Issued Accounting Standards

 

In July 2025, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued ASU 2025-05, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses for Accounts Receivable and Contract Assets (ASU 2025-05). ASU 2025-05 provides a practical expedient that all entities can use when estimating expected credit losses for current accounts receivable and current contract assets arising from transactions accounted for under ASC 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. Under this practical expedient, an entity is allowed to assume that the current conditions it has applied in determining credit loss allowances for current accounts receivable and current contract assets remain unchanged for the remaining life of those assets. ASU 2025-05 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2025, and interim reporting periods in those years. Entities that elect the practical expedient and, if applicable, make the accounting policy election are required to apply the amendments prospectively. The Company does not expect this amended guidance will have a material impact on its financial statements.

 

In November 2024, the FASB issued ASU 2024-03, Disaggregation of Income Statement Expenses (Subtopic 220-40), which requires public entities to disclose detailed components of income statement expenses, such as inventory purchases, employee compensation, depreciation and amortization within relevant expense captions. Companies are also required to explain amounts not disaggregated and define and disclose total selling expenses. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2026, and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2027. We are currently evaluating the impact of the guidance on our financial statement disclosures.

 

In November 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-07, Segment Reporting (Topic 280). The guidance requires a public entity to disclose significant segment expenses and other segment items on an annual and interim basis and provide in interim periods all disclosures about a reportable segment’s profit or loss and assets that are currently required annually. Additionally, it requires a public entity to disclose the title and position of the Chief Operating Decision Maker (CODM). The ASU does not change how a public entity identifies its operating segments, aggregates them, or applies the quantitative thresholds to determine its reportable segments. We adopted the new standard effective December 31, 2024. As a result, we have enhanced our segment disclosures to include the disclosure of our CODM. The adoption of this ASU affects only our disclosures, with no impacts to our financial condition and results of operations.

 

On December 31, 2025, we adopted ASU 2023-09, Improvements to Income Tax Disclosures. This guidance requires disaggregated income tax disclosures on the rate reconciliation and income taxes paid. The Company adopted this ASU using the prospective method, and the adoption did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements other than additional information that is provided in the footnote disclosure. See Note 18 for more information.

 

Historical Timeline

Fiscal YearFiled
2025Mar 26, 2026Showing above
2024Mar 27, 2025
2023Apr 1, 2024
2022Mar 16, 2023
2021Mar 17, 2022
2020Mar 18, 2021
2019Mar 19, 2020
2018Mar 28, 2019
2017Mar 20, 2018
2016Mar 28, 2017
2015Mar 30, 2016

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.