DOCSLIB.ORG

Revenue Recognition: a Complex Effort

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revenue Recognition: a Complex Effort Revenue recognition: A complex effort Implementing the new standard requires careful judgment. By Ken Tysiac Sponsored by IMAGES THESEAMUSS/ISTOCK IMAGES BY Workiva • Thomson Reuters How do I spend less time on tedious admin tasks and more time advising my clients? Thomson Reuters UltraTax CS® You’re the expert on what your clients need — and you need more than just tax software. With UltraTax CS, you join a collaborative community where tools, resources and ideas help you better serve your clients in less time. You can use UltraTax CS to: • Automate your tax workfl ow across all your clients • Address tax law changes faster to serve all clients better • Identify your most profi table clients and grow your fi rm • Give clients what they need before they know they need it Contact us at 800.968.8900 or visit tax.tr.com/ultrataxcs ©2017 Thomson Reuters UltraTaxCSJOA_Print.indd 1 1/27/17 11:58 AM SPONSORED REPORT rian Allen, CPA, jokes about the five cess to include a clear governance structure, a steering stages of grief when he explains the committee, and executive sponsorship across all the key groups, including finance, IT, investor relations, and potential for change inherent in the im- tax. Individual working groups move forward with clear Bplementation of the new revenue recognition directions and responsibilities, and meticulously docu- standard by financial statement preparers. ment their work. This careful process and the documentation sur- The standard developed jointly by FASB and the Inter- rounding it are important internal controls in themselves. national Accounting Standards Board (IASB) does away Groups that are working to implement the revenue with the industry-specific, rules-based guidance under recognition standard can maintain minutes of meetings which U.S. companies have prepared financial state- and document views considered and views rejected, ments. The new guidance is principles-based and over- and why decisions were made. In addition to preparing arching, with a goal of promoting comparability across white papers describing the reasoning behind techni- industries and global jurisdictions. cal assessments, Paul advocates putting together a Financial statement preparers who are deep into their white paper describing exactly what the implementation implementation processes describe a complex effort. process was. When management goes through later and Implementation may require an organizationwide exami- assesses internal controls, company leaders will be able nation of impacts, the attention of personnel in various to look back at documentation from meetings to arrive at functions, an updating of internal controls, some difficult a level of comfort that preparers made sound decisions. judgments, and a lot of new disclosures. “I think all of that lines up and provides a clear picture Depending on the industry and the company, the of a robust implementation and control framework,” level of change and the amount of work involved may Paul said. be so substantial, Allen joked, that some preparers may Internal controls will need to be updated as changes need to experience the grieving stages of anger, denial, are made to processes and procedures, and perhaps IT bargaining, and depression before ultimately arriving at systems, and new data are gathered. And in a sepa- the final stage of accepting the change. rate speech at the conference, SEC Chief Accountant “The FASB didn’t spend 12 years [developing the Wesley Bricker stressed the importance of properly standard] so that everyone’s accounting would stay developing internal controls (see the sidebar, “What the the same,” said Allen, a KPMG partner who served on SEC Says”). the joint FASB/IASB transition resource group for the “Over the next several years, updating and main- revenue recognition standard. taining internal controls will be particularly important Allen joined a panel of experts who provided per- as companies work through the implementation of the spective on the new standard at the recent AICPA significant new accounting standards,” Bricker said. Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments “Companies’ implementation activities will require care- in Washington. The panelists conveyed a message of ful planning and execution, as well as sound judgment urgency with the date of implementation approaching at from management.” the beginning of 2018 for public companies that report on a calendar-year basis (private companies have an MOMENT OF TRUTH extra year for implementation). Some preparers who have delayed their implementation The standard may require significant judgment to be process have cited questions about the standard as well applied in many areas because it is principles-based. as clarifications by FASB and the IASB. They may have And preparers may find that they need to collect a sig- been reluctant to begin implementing because they nificant amount of new data to comply with new disclo- viewed the standard as not quite finalized. sure requirements. Allen said he doesn’t expect FASB to make any more “It’s complex,” said Josh Paul, CPA, director–tech- meaningful revisions to the standard. But what may be nical accounting for Alphabet Inc., which is Google’s holding back preparers now is a hesitation to make dif- parent company. “It’s difficult, and it takes a long time to ficult judgments. work through and really understand the issues.” “It’s the moment of truth, and you’ve got to use your best judgment in an unbiased, objective way to reach UPDATING INTERNAL CONTROLS the best accounting answer,” Allen said. This complexity is why organizations that haven’t Some preparers are belatedly arriving at that mo- already started implementation are facing a significant ment of truth. Almost one-fifth (19%) of respondents challenge. Paul described a robust implementation pro- to a KPMG survey of 515 corporate financial reporting journalofaccountancy.com March 2017 | 69 SPONSORED REPORT executives in December said they had not even begun Sources of information that preparers also can con- implementing the new standard. An additional 62% of sult include the AICPA Revenue Recognition—Audit & the participants in the survey, conducted at the firm’s Accounting Guide and literature produced by account- annual accounting and financial reporting symposium, ing firms that describes best practices with respect to were just working on their assessment of the account- common judgments encountered while implementing ing impacts of the standard. Just a few respondents the standard. The AICPA guide includes the observa- reported that they were actually implementing the tions of 16 industry groups that are working through standard (13%), developing systems requirements implementation issues specific to their respective indus- (4%), selecting software vendors (2%), or finished with tries. Meanwhile, the basis for conclusions in the stan- implementation (1%). dard itself can provide insight on the board’s intentions But there are many ways for preparers to gain as it created the new rules, and documents prepared by comfort as they attempt to make the best choice when the boards’ joint transition resource group also can help faced with difficult judgments related to the new revenue with challenging judgments. While this is not an exhaus- recognition standard. First, preparers in many industries tive list of information sources, these resources may be have banded together in working groups to arrive at a helpful for preparers. consensus on difficult areas of judgment in the standard If necessary, preparers can discuss judgments with that are common in their industries. This careful, col- their auditors, who are able to provide advice if the audi- laborative work helps them arrive at similar accounting tors are careful not to compromise their independence. treatments for similar transactions. Finally, preparers may wish to consider preclearing a “You don’t want to be an outlier in your industry,” said judgment with the SEC or inquiring about the judgment Lara Long, CPA, vice president for corporate accounting through FASB’s technical hotline. and reporting for farm machinery manufacturer AGCO Eventually, though, the preparer will need to make in Atlanta. a judgment, and documentation is a critical step in the process. Auditors and regulators will scrutinize whether a judgment is well-reasoned and well-supported, and documentation of the different approaches consid- WHAT THE SEC SAYS ered—and why a certain decision was considered most appropriate—can help preparers provide important SEC Chief Accountant Wesley Bricker offered the perspective about their decisions. Bricker, the SEC chief following thoughts on the new revenue recognition accountant, said it is important for companies to clearly standard during a speech at the AICPA Confer- articulate the basis for their accounting under the new ence on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments in standard. Documentation helps with that articulation. December in Washington: “We’re in an environment of not being rules-based, ■■ “Revenue impacts key analytical ratios and it’s principles-based,” Long said. “It feels awkward. It bottom-line earnings. Although often a complex feels weird. That’s why maybe there’s some consterna- area, companies cannot afford to get the ac- tion out there. Make a decision, document it, support it, counting wrong.” get your auditors on the same page with you if you can, ■■ “Investors and OCA [Office of the Chief Accoun- and move forward.” tant] staff will be looking for increased disclo- sures in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 .................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]