GUIDE to GOING CONCERN ASSESSMENTS Contents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GUIDE TO GOING CONCERN ASSESSMENTS Contents INTRODUCTION � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1 FINANCIAL REPORTING FRAMEWORK � � � � � 3 DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS � � � � � � � � � � � � � 7 INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 8 GUIDE TO GOING CONCERN ASSESSMENTS 1 Introduction While particularly important in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the evaluation of going concern is not new. Under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, entities have been required to consider going concern since 2014 and auditors have been required under their professional standards to evaluate their client’s ability to continue as a going concern for much longer than that. In making this evaluation, significant judgment will be required as no two entities’ fact patterns, even if operating in the same industry, will be the same. At the end of the day, it will come back to one central question - will the company have sufficient cash flows to meet its existing obligations and alleviate any conditions that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern? 2 GUIDE TO GOING CONCERN ASSESSMENTS GUIDE TO GOING CONCERN ASSESSMENTS 3 Financial Reporting Framework In accordance with ASC 205-40, Presentation of Financial ASC 205-40 states that substantial doubt about an entity’s Statements — Going Concern, in preparing financial statements ability to continue as a going concern may exist when for each annual and interim reporting period, management current conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, must evaluate whether there are conditions and events that raise substantial doubt about whether the entity will be raise substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue able to meet its obligations as they become due within the as a going concern within one year after the date the financial assessment period. If management’s plans to address those statements are issued or available to be issued (when conditions and events do not alleviate the adverse concerns, applicable), collectively referred to as “the assessment period” then substantial doubt does exist. throughout this document. The following diagram illustrates how the two-step assessment is performed: Is it probable that the entity STEP 1 will not be able to meet its No going concern financial Assess if substantial obligations during the NO reporting implications. doubt is raised: assessment period? YES STEP 2 Assess if substantial doubt exists: Is it probable that management’s Substantial doubt does plans will be effectively Disclose that substantial not exist and disclose implemented? Is it probable doubt exists. Continue management’s plans that that management’s plans will to apply going concern YES NO alleviate the substantial alleviate the factors that raise basis of accounting until doubt that was raised. substantial doubt? liquidation is imminent. 4 GUIDE TO GOING CONCERN ASSESSMENTS STEP 1: DETERMINE WHETHER CONDITIONS AND EVENTS RAISE SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT Management’s evaluation of an entity’s ability to continue as Examples of adverse conditions and events that may raise a going concern typically is based on conditions and events substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a that are relevant to an entity’s ability to meet its obligations as going concern include but are not limited to: they become due during the assessment period. X Negative financial trends such as recurring operating Management’s evaluation is based only on relevant conditions losses, working capital deficiencies, negative cash flows and events that are known and reasonably knowable at the from operating activities and adverse key financial ratios date that the financial statements are issued, and should be X Other indications of possible financial difficulties such approved by those with proper authority. The term “reasonably as defaults on loans or similar agreements, arrearages in knowable” is intended to emphasize that an entity may not dividends, denials of usual trade credit from suppliers, a readily know all conditions and events, but management need to restructure debt to avoid default, noncompliance should make a reasonable effort to identify conditions and with statutory capital requirements and a need to seek events that can be identified without undue cost and effort. new sources or methods of financing or to dispose of When evaluating an entity’s ability to meet its obligations, substantial assets management should consider information about the following: X Forecasted debt covenant violations during the assessment X The entity’s current financial condition, including its period even if no violation has yet occurred liquidity sources (e.g., available liquid funds, available access to credit) at the date the financial statements X Internal matters such as work stoppages or other labor are issued difficulties, substantial dependence on the success of a project, uneconomic long-term commitments and a need X The entity’s conditional and unconditional obligations to significantly revise operations due or anticipated within the assessment period, regardless of whether they are recognized in the entity’s X External matters such as legal proceedings, legislation financial statements or similar matters that might jeopardize the entity’s ability to operate; supply chain disruptions; loss of a key X The funds necessary to maintain the entity’s operations franchise, license or patent; no or reduced purchases considering its current financial condition, obligations and by a principal customer, none or reduced quantities other expected cash flows within the assessment period available for purchase from a supplier; and an uninsured or underinsured catastrophe such as a hurricane, tornado, X Other conditions and events, when considered in earthquake or flood conjunction with the items listed above, that may adversely affect the entity’s ability to meet its obligations Management must also consider the likelihood, magnitude within the assessment period and timing of the potential effects of any adverse conditions and events. This evaluation is required each reporting period. Management’s evaluation of whether substantial doubt is raised (step 1) does not take into consideration the potential mitigating effect of management’s plans that have not been fully implemented as of the date that the financial statements are issued (step 2). GUIDE TO GOING CONCERN ASSESSMENTS 5 STEP 2: CONSIDER MANAGEMENT’S PLANS IF SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT IS RAISED If conditions or events indicate that substantial doubt about The evaluation of the second criterion should consider the the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern is raised, expected magnitude and timing of the mitigating effect. For management is required to evaluate whether its plans that are example, if management concludes that substantial doubt intended to mitigate those conditions and events will alleviate is alleviated by its plan to restructure debt, management’s that substantial doubt. evaluation of the restructuring must consider whether: ASC 205-40 specifies that management may consider its plans X The revised debt agreement would be executed within the only when both of the following criteria are met: assessment period and in time to avoid cash shortages X X It is probable that those plans will be The terms of the revised debt agreement (e.g., debt effectively implemented payment schedule, interest rate) alleviate the relevant conditions and events (e.g., inability to make timely debt X It is probable that the plans will mitigate the relevant payments under the existing debt agreement) conditions and events that raise substantial doubt within the assessment period That is, management must be able to conclude that it is probable that the debt will be restructured and that the Management’s plans that do not meet these criteria cannot entity will be able to make the payments under the new debt be considered in the evaluation of whether substantial doubt agreement and all other obligations that are due within the is alleviated. These criteria prevent management from placing assessment period. undue reliance on the potential mitigating effect of plans that are not probable of being implemented or succeeding. In other ASC 205-40 states that a plan to meet an entity’s obligations words, if events and conditions make it probable that the as they become due through liquidation is not considered part entity will be unable to meet its obligations as they become of management’s plans to alleviate substantial doubt, even if due, plans to mitigate those conditions must be likely to liquidation is probable. succeed (i.e., management’s plans must be probable of both being implemented and mitigating the events and conditions within the assessment period). The evaluation of the first criterion is based on the feasibility of implementation of management’s plans considering an entity’s facts and circumstances and whether they make sense in light of other publicly available information (e.g., a manufacturing company’s cash savings plan includes mothballing a plant, but management has recently disclosed to investors that the plant is key to achieving expected revenue growth and that growth is still reflected in management’s revenue plan). 6 GUIDE TO GOING CONCERN ASSESSMENTS STEP 2: CONTINUED The following are examples of plans that management Historically management may have a track record of may implement to mitigate conditions or events that successfully planning