Our featured article offers 5 tips to increase financial reporting control effectiveness from a process standpoint. Controls can be resource intensive and not understanding their linkage with objectives, risks, and opportunities can lead to value destruction rather than creation. As always, we invite you to discuss this topic further with the author –
Ron Kral
.
We have also included a brief summary and link to FASB’s recent press release on a proposal to shift back the effective dates for the new accounting standards of current expected credit losses (CECL), leases, and hedging.
|
|
ICFR success is contingent on understanding the objectives and relating risks and opportunities, and then focusing on controls to best address the risks and opportunities in the spirit of meeting financial reporting objectives.
|
|
By Ron Kral,
CPA, CMA, CGMA
|
When Congress first mandated SOX for public companies, requiring them to document and assess internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR), many executives viewed the requirement simply as a compliance exercise. While some may continue to feel this way, the more successful companies have recognized that a well-designed control system can deliver greater efficiencies to a business. Companies that have successfully ingrained a healthy ICFR process into their cultures realize the most value and best controls for detecting and preventing material errors or fraud in financial reporting.
|
|
A Shift in the FASB’s Philosophy Around Effective Dates
|
|
The FASB issued a proposed Accounting Standards Update (ASU) on August 15, 2019, that would grant private companies, most not-for-profit organizations, and certain small public companies additional time to implement FASB standards on current expected credit losses (CECL), leases, and hedging. The comment period on the proposed ASU extends through September 16, 2019. Refer to their
press release for further details.
According to the press release;
The proposed ASU describes a new FASB philosophy that extends and simplifies how effective dates for major standards are staggered between larger public companies and all other entities. Those other entities include private companies, smaller public companies, not-for-profit organizations, and employee benefit plans. Under this philosophy, a major standard would first be effective for larger public companies. For all other entities, the FASB would consider requiring an effective date staggered at least two years later. Generally, it is expected that early application would continue to be permitted for all entities.
|
|
|
Kral Ussery serves US public and private companies to protect and grow shareholder value, as well as non-profits and governments with internal controls and in combating fraud. Download our
services flyer.
|
|
About Governance
Issues
TM
|
|
Go
vernance Issues
TM is an electronic newsletter published by
Kral Ussery LLC, a public accounting firm delivering advisory services, litigation support and internal audits. The newsletter focuses on our practice areas of SEC compliance, internal controls, IT general controls, risk assessments, IPO readiness, M&A transactions, US GAAP compliance and internal auditing.
|
|
Content in this newsletter is for general information purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional consultation.
|
|
TX Office (817) 416-6842
|
NV Office (702) 565-2727
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|