New Revenue Standard Issued Potential Challenges in the Asset Management Industry

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

New revenue standard issued Potential challenges in the asset management industry Background The new revenue recognition standard The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update, will likely present challenges for many Revenue from Contracts with Customers in May 2014. The standard provides companies companies in the asset management with a single model for use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with industry, including accounting for customers, and supersedes current revenue recognition guidance, including performance-based and up-front fees. industry-specific revenue guidance. The core principle of the model is to recognize revenue when control of the goods or services transfers to the customer, as opposed to recognizing revenue when the risks and rewards transfer to the customer under the existing revenue guidance. The effective date for public registrants has management fees. Accordingly, an to be recognized as an expense in the period been deferred to 2018 for calendar year-end investment manager elects an accounting in which the amounts are incurred since they (annual reporting periods beginning after policy to do either of the following: represent costs associated with fulfilling the December 15, 2017). Early adoption as of contract2. • Defer recognizing performance-based the original effective date (2017 for calendar fee revenue until the end of the contract year-end) is permitted. The guidance permits As such, under the new guidance, an entity (“Method 1”). companies to either apply the requirements will need to use judgment and consider all retrospectively to all prior periods • Recognize revenue as of an interim date on facts and circumstances when assessing the presented, or apply the requirements in which it is considered realizable because of risk that a subsequent change in an estimate the year of adoption, through a cumulative termination provisions in the arrangement of variable consideration would result in a adjustment. (“Method 2”). significant revenue reversal. Entities should be aware that this assessment may require The delayed effective date and transition While the ASU does not supersede the significant effort in order to create a process options are intended to allow companies guidance in ASC 605-20-S99, it provides that ensures consistent policy application, a reasonable timeframe to comply. specific guidance on accounting for contracts including contract reviews and information However, addressing some areas of the that include variable consideration, i.e. gathering. FASB Accounting Standards Codification arrangements whose consideration may require longer lead-time, particularly fluctuates based on the performance Up-front fees — To the extent an asset related to revenue or billing systems where of an entity. Specifically, it indicates that manager owns a broker that distributes separation and/or allocation changes the estimated variable consideration (or sponsored products (i.e., front-end loaded may be required, so companies should a portion thereof) is only included in the distributions) there is generally an up-front perform a preliminary analysis of the new transaction price (and therefore eligible for fee (initial sales fee) that investors pay to requirements on a timely basis. recognition) to the extent that it is probable the broker upon subscription to the fund. that the cumulative amount of revenue Under the new guidance, if the up-front fees Considerations and challenges recognized will not be subject to significant are determined not to represent a separate The requirements in the standard will reversal. This concept is commonly referred performance obligation (i.e., not to result in present complexity for many companies in to as the “constraint”. Entities may use the transfer of a promised service), revenue the asset management industry. Examples judgment in determining whether to include recognition would be deferred. This would be of some of the challenges are as follows: variable consideration in the transaction a change from current practice. price; however, the ASU notes that if the Performance-based fees — Investment variable consideration is highly susceptible Contract combinations and manager fee arrangements may include to factors outside the entity’s influence modifications— The standard may performance-based fees that are calculated (including volatility in a market), it could be require a company that enters into multiple on the basis of the performance of subject to significant future reversal1. contracts at or near the same time with the underlying assets being managed. the same customer to be accounted for Sometimes the performance of the Since an investment manager’s as a single contract when the pricing underlying assets is evaluated against performance-based fees may be affected or economics for those contracts are external factors such as a market index, by the future performance of the underlying interdependent. These contracts would and the fee arrangements may include assets it manages, it is difficult to accurately need to be evaluated together, in terms complexities such as a high watermark or predict how much of the performance-based of determining separate performance performance hurdles. Performance-based revenue payable to the investment manager obligations and in terms of allocating the fees include carried interests and incentive is not subject to future reversal until the transaction price. Also, adjustments related fees. fees are finalized or close to being finalized. to contract modifications may be required. Accordingly, the constraint on the amount These changes may require some companies In each reporting period, there may of revenue that may be recognized as of a to enhance their contract management be uncertainty about the amount the reporting date may significantly delay the systems and tools. investment manager will ultimately receive timing of revenue recognition for these in performance-based fees until the fees fees under the ASU when compared to an Capitalization of costs to acquire are finalized or close to being finalized. In investment manager that currently applies customer contracts — The standard addition, performance-based fees paid to Method 2. requires certain contract costs, including an investment manager may be subject to costs to acquire a contract with a customer clawback provisions for underperformance Although the ASU could delay the (e.g., sales commissions), be capitalized and in future periods. These clawback provisions recognition of these fees as revenue, the new amortized. As a result, companies may need may exist until the underlying assets are guidance does not modify how investment to develop or enhance process, controls, liquidated (which could be several years managers should account for the associated and systems to identify and account for such after the payment). costs (typically, compensation paid to capitalized costs. employees). That is, although the revenue The SEC staff guidance in ASC 605-20-S99 may be deferred until long after cash has Disclosures — The disclosure requirements (i.e., EITF D-96) provides two alternatives been received by the investment manager, under the standard are significant and for recognizing performance-based amounts distributed to employees may need may require modification to financial management reporting processes and Standards (IFRS) or U.S. Generally Accepted and key contracts to identify the specific systems. Additional disclosures include, Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP), as this revenue recognition changes required and but are not limited to, disaggregation of change may impact both standards. the specific business units where these revenue, certain information about changes changes may have the greatest impact in contract asset and liability balances and • Addressing the longer lead-time areas contract costs, and information related Other implications where new calculation rules or revised to the amount of the transaction price Organizations may need to consider other allocation processes may be required allocated to performance obligations not project needs, including: yet satisfied. • Establishing a granular project plan and • Implementation of updated or new roadmap to manage the effort across processes, controls, and systems, where Tax — Certain tax implications may arise multiple business units and countries required as taxpayers often follow the financial reporting revenue recognition methods in • Determination of new monthly closing How Deloitte Advisory can help the determination of taxable income and process steps to accommodate the new We have an experienced team of transaction tax obligations. The changes requirements professionals, both in the U.S. and globally may have cash tax implications, may require across the member firms of Deloitte • Steps to estimate the impact of the new federal tax accounting method changes, or Touche Tohmatsu Limited, who can assist standard, to facilitate understanding and give rise to new tax temporary differences in developing an action plan to help you planning by other key stakeholders that may need to be captured, calculated, implement the new revenue recognition and tracked through tax provision processes • Effective training and communication of standard. and systems. Taxpayers who do not follow new requirements financial reporting methods for tax may These capabilities includes the full breadth • Effective program and resource also need to consider the impact of these
Recommended publications
  • Technical Line: How the New Revenue Standard Affects Asset Managers

    Technical Line: How the New Revenue Standard Affects Asset Managers

    No. 2017-20 Updated 10 July 2020 Technical Line FASB — final guidance How the new revenue standard affects asset managers In this issue: Overview ....................................... 1 What you need to know Background ................................... 2 Investment management • Asset managers need to make a number of judgments on when and how to recognize arrangements ............................. 3 performance-based fees for their investment management services. This may result Identifying the contract with a in entities recognizing revenue differently than they have in the past. customer ................................. 3 Combining contracts .................... 4 • Certain expenses incurred by the asset manager that are reimbursed by funds or Identifying the performance investors may be required to be presented gross on the income statement (i.e., in obligations ............................... 5 revenue and expense) based on the asset manager’s performance obligations and Determining the transaction price 7 principal versus agent evaluation. Allocating the transaction price to the performance obligations • Asset managers may be required to capitalize certain contract costs (e.g., placement in the contract .......................... 9 Recognizing revenue when fees, implementation costs), amortize these assets and analyze them for impairment. (or as) the entity satisfies a This is a change in practice for entities that have not previously capitalized these costs. performance obligation ............ 9 Carried interest ......................... 10 Contract costs ............................. 11 Overview Costs to obtain and fulfill a The new revenue recognition standard issued1 by the Financial Accounting Standards Board contract ................................. 11 Additional considerations for (FASB or Board) requires entities in the asset management industry to make additional mutual fund asset managers ..... 12 judgments and estimates, such as when and how to recognize performance-based fees for Distribution services .................
  • On the Balance Sheet-Based Model of Financial Reporting

    On the Balance Sheet-Based Model of Financial Reporting

    On the Balance Sheet-Based Model of Financial Reporting Occasional Paper Series Center for Excellence in Accounting & Security Analysis Columbia Business School established the Center for Excellence in Accounting and Security Analysis in 2003 under the direction of Trevor Harris and Professor Stephen Penman. The Center (“CEASA”) aims to be a leading voice for independent, practical solutions for financial reporting and security analysis, promoting financial reporting that reflects economic reality and encourages investment practices that communicate sound valuations. CEASA’s mission is to develop workable solutions to issues in financial reporting and accounting policy; produce a core set of principles for equity analysis; collect and synthesize best thinking and best practices; disseminate ideas to regulators, analysts, investors, accountants and management; and promote sound research on relevant issues. Drawing on the wisdom of leading experts in academia, industry and government, the Center produces sound research and identifies best practices on relevant issues. CEASA's guiding criterion is to serve the public interest by supporting the integrity of financial reporting and the efficiency of capital markets. Located in a leading university with a mandate for independent research, CEASA is positioned to lead a discussion of issues, with an emphasis on sound conceptual thinking and without obstacles of constituency positions. More information and access to current research is available on our website at http://www.gsb.columbia.edu/ceasa/ The Center is supported by our generous sponsors: General Electric, IBM and Morgan Stanley. We gratefully acknowledge the support of these organizations that recognize the need for this center. ON THE BALANCE SHEET-BASED MODEL OF FINANCIAL REPORTING Principal Consultant Ilia D.
  • MASB 9 Revenue

    MASB 9 Revenue

    MASB 9 Revenue MASB 9 Revenue prescribes the accounting treatment of revenue arising from certain types of transactions and events. MASB 9 supersedes MASB Approved Accounting Standard IAS 18, Revenue Recognition adopted previously by the MASB. Highlights: 1. MASB 9 should be applied in accounting for revenue arising from the sale of goods, rendering of services and the use by others of enterprise assets yielding interest, royalties and dividends. It also specifically excludes revenue arising from certain transactions. 2. Exempt enterprises need not comply with certain provisions of this Standard i.e. the recognition of revenue by reference to the stage of completion in rendering services. 3. MASB 9 requires that revenue should be measured at the fair value of consideration received or receivable. In most cases, the consideration is in the form of cash or cash equivalents. Discounting is needed in those circumstances where the inflow of cash is significantly deferred without interest. If dissimilar goods or services are exchanged (as in barter transactions), revenue is the fair value of the goods or services received adjusted by the any cash or cash equivalent transferred or, if this is not reliably measurable, the fair value of the goods or services given up adjusted by the any cash or cash equivalent transferred. 4. Revenue should be recognised when all the following have been satisfied: (a) the significant risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the buyer; (b) managerial involvement and control have passed to the buyer; (c) the amount of revenue can be measured reliably; (d) it is probable that economic benefits will flow to the enterprise; and (e) the costs incurred or to be incurred can be measured reliably.
  • Ten Years of XBRL: Financial-Reporting Experts Reflect on Benefits, Successes, and Remaining Challenges (Part 1)

    Ten Years of XBRL: Financial-Reporting Experts Reflect on Benefits, Successes, and Remaining Challenges (Part 1)

    JUNE & JULY 2019 IN THIS ISSUE Ten years of XBRL: Financial- SEC staff comments are RECENT DEVELOPMENTS reporting experts reflect on revealing, a year after The SEC’s FAST Act rules benefits, successes, and ASC 606 broaden XBRL requirements remaining challenges PAGE 2 PAGE 8 PAGE 10 Ten years of XBRL: Financial-reporting experts reflect on benefits, successes, and remaining challenges (Part 1) Believe it or not, a decade has elapsed since June 2009, when the SEC implemented its XBRL-tagging requirement for financial disclosure filings. Three years later, the XBRL mandate was fully phased in for all SEC filers, and it continues to expand. All regulatory compliance teams at SEC reporting companies are now involved in XBRL tagging. SEC rules that took effect in May 2019 now require Inline XBRL for information on the cover of Forms 8-K, 10-Q, 10-K, 20-F, and 40-F. [See The SEC’s FAST Act rules broaden XBRL requirements in this issue.] To mark the anniversary, DIMENSIONS asked six XBRL experts in the securities regulation, financial reporting, or capital markets sectors to comment on the structured-data revolution in SEC reporting: its benefits to investors and companies; the success stories thus far; and the challenges that remain for structured data and the general modernization of disclosure. • Mike Willis, Assistant Director, SEC Office of Structured Disclosure • J. Louis Matherne, Chief of Taxonomy Development, FASB • Campbell Pryde, President and CEO, XBRL US • Christine Tan, Co-Founder and Chief Research Officer, idaciti • Pranav Ghai, CEO, Calcbench • Lou Rohman, Vice President of XBRL Services, Toppan Merrill NOTE: The views expressed here are solely those of the individual respondents, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective organizations.
  • Q&A Section 6400 for Health Care Entities

    Q&A Section 6400 for Health Care Entities

    Q&A Section 6400 Health Care Entities .63 Background to Sections 6400.64–.70 — CARES Act Provisions Specific to Health Care Entities The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) attempted to alleviate some of the financial strain on hospitals, physicians, and other health care entities through a series of new policies that temporarily boosted Medicare and Medicaid payments, allowed for added flexibility in treatment modalities, and expanded the availability of advance or accelerated payments from Medicare. In addition, the CARES Act established a Provider Relief Fund to be used for economic support of health care entities in connection with health care-related expenses or lost revenues attributable to COVID-19 and treatment of uninsured COVID-19 patients. Initially, $50 billion of the Provider Relief Fund was allocated for general distribution to a wide range of entities across the U.S. health system (hereinafter referred to as the Phase 1 general distribution allocation). Subsequently, amounts were allocated for additional general distributions and targeted distributions to health care entities with specific characteristics, and an unspecified amount was allocated to pay health care entities for treating uninsured COVID-19 patients. Sections 6400.64–.66 pertain to accounting used by nongovernmental fn 13 health care entities that have received Provider Relief Funds as of the revised date of these sections. [Issue Date: September 2020; Revised: April 2021.] .64 Accounting for Provider Relief Fund General and Targeted Distribution Payments Inquiry — Beginning in April 2020, a total of $175 billion in payments from the Provider Relief Fund has been (or will be) allocated for general and targeted distribution to entities across the U.S.
  • Revenue Recognition: a Comprehensive Review for the Energy Industry

    Revenue Recognition: a Comprehensive Review for the Energy Industry

    Revenue Recognition: A Comprehensive Review for the Energy Industry Revenue Recognition: A Comprehensive Review for the Energy Industry Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS...................................................................................................................................... 5 COMMODITY EXCHANGE ARRANGEMENTS (CEA) ................................................................................................................. 6 PRODUCTION IMBALANCES – BALANCING ARRANGEMENTS .................................................................................................... 6 JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENTS (JOA) ............................................................................................................................. 6 DERIVATIVES VERSUS NORMAL PURCHASES & NORMAL SALES ............................................................................................... 7 SALES OF MINERAL INTERESTS .......................................................................................................................................... 7 PRODUCTION PAYMENTS ................................................................................................................................................
  • A Roadmap to the Preparation of the Statement of Cash Flows

    A Roadmap to the Preparation of the Statement of Cash Flows

    A Roadmap to the Preparation of the Statement of Cash Flows May 2020 The FASB Accounting Standards Codification® material is copyrighted by the Financial Accounting Foundation, 401 Merritt 7, PO Box 5116, Norwalk, CT 06856-5116, and is reproduced with permission. This publication contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor. Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication. The services described herein are illustrative in nature and are intended to demonstrate our experience and capabilities in these areas; however, due to independence restrictions that may apply to audit clients (including affiliates) of Deloitte & Touche LLP, we may be unable to provide certain services based on individual facts and circumstances. As used in this document, “Deloitte” means Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP, and Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, which are separate subsidiaries of Deloitte LLP. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of our legal structure. Copyright © 2020 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Publications in Deloitte’s Roadmap Series Business Combinations Business Combinations — SEC Reporting Considerations Carve-Out Transactions Comparing IFRS Standards and U.S.
  • Tax Revenue Recognition: Recent Developments and Planning Considerations

    Tax Revenue Recognition: Recent Developments and Planning Considerations

    TAX REVENUE RECOGNITION: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS January 24, 2019 BDO USA, LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership, is the U.S. member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and forms part of the international BDO network of independent member firms. With you today YUAN CHOU CONNIE CUNNINGHAM Managing Director, Managing Director, National Tax National Tax Accounting Methods Accounting Methods 703-336-1446 310-557-8544 [email protected] [email protected] 2 Agenda Overview of tax revenue recognition rules Quick recap of ASC 606 revenue recognition standard Recent accounting method change procedures Examples Planning considerations and action items Disclaimer: Today’s webcast is intended to provide a high level overview of certain provisions contained in the new tax law and is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion. For application of the new law to specific cases, a tax advisor should be consulted. 3 Overview of Tax Income Recognition Rules 4 Section 451 – General Overview Overall Cash Method Income is included in gross income for the tax year in which actually or constructively received Overall Accrual Method Generally, an accrual-basis taxpayer recognizes income when: 1. All events have occurred which fix the taxpayer’s right to receive the income Event fixing the right to receive is the earliest of when the payment: • Earned through the required performance • Due (or payable) under the contract • Received by the taxpayer 2. Amount can be determined with reasonable accuracy
  • Receivables and Revenue Recognition

    Receivables and Revenue Recognition

    Receivables and Revenue Recognition 15.501/516 Accounting Spring 2004 Professor S. Roychowdhury Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology Feb 23 and 25, 2004 1 WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT REVENUE RECOGNITION? Revenue has a BIG impact on bottom-line profitability ==> managers may be tempted to manage revenue Large Sample Evidence: over 40% of SEC enforcement actions on accounting issues deal with Revenue Recognition Sample of headlines from searching Dow Jones Newswire for 2004 and 2003: Ceridian Results for 2000-2003 to restated, Feb 18 Wolf Popper files Securities Class Action against Sonus Networks, Feb 13, 2004 Tripos postpones earnings release – will revise revenue recognition policies, Feb 12 Opsware expects 100% revenue growth, points out transparent revenue recognition policies, Feb 11 Agco Corp faces class action suit, Feb 6 2 CRITERIA FOR REVENUE RECOGNITION Under accrual accounting, a firm recognizes revenue when it has: Performed all, or a substantial portion of, the services to be provided. Incurred a substantial majority of the costs, and the remaining costs can be reasonably estimated. Received either cash, a receivable, or some other asset for which a reasonably precise value can be measured collectibility is reasonably assured. 3 Cash Basis vs Accrual Basis Recognition Criteria Accrual Cash Revenue Expense 4 Cash Basis vs Accrual Basis Recognition Criteria Accrual Cash Revenue when $ rec’d Expense when $ paid 5 Cash Basis vs Accrual Basis Recognition Criteria Accrual Cash Revenue when earned when $ rec’d and realized Expense when incurred when $ paid 6 EXAMPLES OF REVENUE RECOGNITION EVENTS z At the time of sale (This is, by far, most commonly encountered.) z Title passes to the buyer and delivery takes place z Reasonable estimate of uncollectibles z Reasonable estimate of sales returns z Reasonable estimation of all other material expenses representing uncertain future outflows (e.g., warranty costs).
  • Interpretive Guidance on Revenue Recognition (March 2018)

    Interpretive Guidance on Revenue Recognition (March 2018)

    Life Sciences Accounting and Financial Reporting Update — Interpretive Guidance on Revenue Recognition March 2018 Revenue Recognition Introduction The sections below discuss revenue recognition topics that are particularly relevant to life sciences entities under both of the following: • The guidance in ASU 2014-09, as amended (the “new revenue standard,” codified primarily in ASC 606). • Legacy guidance (specifically, ASC 605 and SAB Topic 13). For public business entities (PBEs) as well as certain not-for-profit entities (NFPs) and employee benefit plans, the new revenue standard is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. For all other entities, the new revenue standard is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. Early adoption is permitted as applicable. New Revenue Standard (Codified Primarily in ASC 606) Background In May 2014, the FASB and IASB issued their final standard on revenue from contracts with customers. The standard, issued as ASU 2014-09 by the FASB and as IFRS 15 by the IASB, outlines a single comprehensive model for entities to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and supersedes most current revenue recognition guidance. Upon issuing the new revenue standard, the FASB and IASB formed a joint revenue transition resource group (TRG). The purpose of the TRG is not to issue guidance but instead to seek and provide feedback on potential issues related to implementation of the new revenue standard. By analyzing and discussing potential implementation issues, the TRG has helped the boards determine whether to take additional action, such as providing clarification or issuing other guidance.
  • Example Revenue Recognition Disclosures Financial Institutions

    Example Revenue Recognition Disclosures Financial Institutions

    Example Revenue Recognition Disclosures Financial Institutions April 2018 Crowe LLP Financial Institutions Example Revenue Recognition Disclosures April 2018 This publication provides an example of how a financial institution might satisfy the new disclosure requirements in Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. However, the appropriate level of disclosure needed to satisfy the disclosure objective of ASU 2014-09 will vary by entity and the surrounding facts and circumstances. The example disclosures below are meant to address both the transition and ongoing disclosure requirements of ASU 2014-09. In addition, they address the transition requirements for entities using either the full retrospective or modified retrospective adoption method. The information in this document is not – and is not intended to be – audit, tax, accounting, advisory, risk, performance, consulting, business, financial, investment, legal, or other professional advice. Some firm services may not be available to attest clients. The information is general in nature, based on existing authorities, and is subject to change. The information is not a substitute for professional advice or services, and you should consult a qualified professional adviser before taking any action based on the information. Crowe is not responsible for any loss incurred by any person who relies on the information discussed in this document. Visit www.crowe.com/disclosure for more information about Crowe LLP, its subsidiaries, and Crowe Global. © 2018
  • The New Revenue Recognition Standard: Guide for Asset Managers

    The New Revenue Recognition Standard: Guide for Asset Managers

    November 2019 The New Revenue Recognition Standard: Guide for Asset Managers By Sabina Miroshnikov, Audit Supervisor In an effort to address concerns surrounding the inconsistencies and weaknesses in existing accounting for revenue transactions, Accounting Standards Codification 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, (“ASC 606”), establishes a principles-based approach for revenue recognition (regardless of industry or geography). The new guidance will: • Provide for a more standardized foundation for addressing revenue issues; • Improve comparability of revenue recognition across entities; • Provide more useful information to financial statement users through improved disclosure requirements; • and simplify the preparation of financial statements by reducing the number of requirements to which an organization must refer. Although, the impact of adoption of the new standard may vary between entities, asset managers will need to re-evaluate fee arrangements under which services are provided to determine accounting changes that will need to be implemented. Those fee arrangements include: • Management fees, unitary management fees and related fee waivers and expense caps; • Incentive or performance fees, including carried interest; • Reimbursement of startup or ongoing costs; • Distribution and related fees, such as fees paid out of fund assets to cover marketing and selling fund shares (12b-1 fees) © 2019 Richey May & Co., LLP All Rights Reserved 1 NOVEMBER 2019 The New Revenue Recognition Standard: Guide for Asset Managers Transitioning to the New Standard The standard allows for either full retrospective or modified retrospective adoption methodology. Under the full retrospective approach, ASC 606 requires determining the cumulative effect of applying the new standard as of the beginning of the first historical period presented, and a comprehensive recasting of the prior year’s financial statements as if the new guidance had always existed for a comparative two- year period prior to the year of adoption.