SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin:
Codification of Staff Accounting Bulletins

Topic 5: Miscellaneous Accounting

1. Expenses of Offering

2. Gain or Loss From Disposition of Equipment

3. C.1. Deleted by SAB 103

   C.2. Deleted by SAB 103

4. Organization and Offering Expenses and Selling Commissions--Limited Partnerships Trading in Commodity Futures

5. Accounting for Divestiture of a Subsidiary or Other Business Operation

6. Accounting Changes Not Retroactively Applied Due to Immateriality

7. Transfers of Nonmonetary Assets by Promoters or Shareholders

8. Deleted by SAB 112

9. Deleted by SAB 70

10. Push Down Basis of Accounting Required in Certain Limited Circumstances

11. Deleted by SAB 95

12. LIFO Inventory Practices

13. Other Than Temporary Impairment of Certain Investments in Equity Securities

14. Discounting by Property-Casualty Insurance Companies

15. Research and Development Arrangements

16. Restructuring Charges

    1. Deleted by SAB 103

    2. Deleted by SAB 103

    3. Income statement presentation of restructuring charges

    4. Disclosures

17. Increasing Rate Preferred Stock

18. Deleted by SAB 103

19. Quasi-Reorganization

20. Accounting for Expenses or Liabilities Paid by Principal Stockholder(s)
    (replaced by SAB 107)

21. Deleted by SAB 112
22. Certain Transfers of Nonperforming Assets

23. Contingency Disclosures Regarding Property-Casualty Insurance Reserves for Unpaid Claim Costs

24. Deleted by SAB 103

25. Accounting and Disclosures Relating to Loss Contingencies

26. Accounting and Disclosure Regarding Discontinued Operations

    1. Deleted by SAB 103

    2. Deleted by SAB 103

    3. Deleted by SAB 103

    4. Disposal of operation with significant interest retained

    5. Classification and disclosure of contingencies relating to discontinued operations

    6. Deleted by SAB 103

    7. Accounting for the spin-off of a subsidiary

    AA. Deleted by SAB 103

    BB. Inventory Valuation Allowances

    CC. Impairments

    DD. Loan Commitments Accounted for as Derivative Instruments

Topic 5: Miscellaneous Accounting

A. Expenses of Offering

Facts: Prior to the effective date of an offering of equity securities, Company Y incurs certain expenses related to the offering.

Question: Should such costs be deferred?

Interpretive Response: Specific incremental costs directly attributable to a proposed or actual offering of securities may properly be deferred and charged against the gross proceeds of the offering. However, management salaries or other general and administrative expenses may not be allocated as costs of the offering and deferred costs of an aborted offering may not be deferred and charged against proceeds of a subsequent offering. A short postponement (up to 90 days) does not represent an aborted offering.

B. Gain or Loss From Disposition of Equipment

Facts: Company A has adopted the policy of treating gains and losses from disposition of revenue producing equipment as adjustments to the current year's provision for depreciation. Company B reflects such gains and losses as a separate item in the statement of income.

Question: Does the staff have any views as to which method is preferable?

Interpretive Response: Gains and losses resulting from the disposition of revenue producing equipment should not be treated as adjustments to the provision for depreciation in the year of disposition, but should be shown as a separate item in the statement of income.

If such equipment is depreciated on the basis of group of composite accounts for fleets of like vehicles, gains (or losses) may be charged (or credited) to accumulated depreciation with the result that depreciation is adjusted over a period of years on an average basis. It should be noted that the latter treatment would not be appropriate for (1) an enterprise (such as an airline) which replaces its fleet on an episodic rather than a continuing basis or (2) an enterprise (such as a car leasing company) where equipment is sold after limited use so that the equipment on hand is both fairly new and carried at amounts closely related to current acquisition cost.

C.1. Deleted by SAB 103

C.2. Deleted by SAB 103

D. Organization and Offering Expenses and Selling Commissions--Limited Partnerships Trading in Commodity Futures

Facts: Partnerships formed for the purpose of engaging in speculative trading in commodity futures contracts sell limited partnership interests to the public and frequently have a general partner who is an affiliate of the partnership's commodity broker or the principal underwriter selling the limited partnership interests. The commodity broker or a subsidiary typically assumes the liability for all or part of the organization and offering expenses and selling commissions in connection with the sale of limited partnership interests. Funds raised from the sale of partnership interests are deposited in a margin account with the commodity broker and are invested in Treasury Bills or similar securities. The arrangement further provides that interest earned on the investments for an initial period is to be retained by the broker until it has been reimbursed for all or a specified portion of the aforementioned expenses and commissions and that thereafter interest earned accrues to the partnership.

In some instances, there may be no reference to reimbursement of the broker for expenses and commissions to be assumed. The arrangements may provide that all interest earned on investments accrues to the partnership but that commissions on commodity transactions paid to the broker are at higher rates for a specified initial period and at lower rates subsequently.

Question 1: Should the partnership recognize a commitment to reimburse the commodity broker for the organization and offering expenses and selling commissions?

Interpretive Response: Yes. A commitment should be recognized by reducing partnership capital and establishing a liability for the estimated amount of expenses and commissions for which the broker is to be reimbursed.

Question 2: Should the interest income retained by the broker for reimbursement of expenses be recognized as income by the partnership?

Interpretive Response: Yes. All the interest income on the margin account investments should be recognized as accruing to the partnership as earned. The portion of income retained by the broker and not actually realized by the partnership in cash should be applied to reduce the liability for the estimated amount of reimbursable expenses and commissions.

Question 3: If the broker retains all of the interest income for a specified period and thereafter it accrues to the partnership, should an equivalent amount of interest income be reflected on the partnership's financial statements during the specified period?

Interpretive Response: Yes. If it appears from the terms of the arrangement that it was the intent of the parties to provide for full or partial reimbursement for the expenses and commissions paid by the broker, then a commitment to reimbursement should be recognized by the partnership and an equivalent amount of interest income should be recognized on the partnership's financial statements as earned.

Question 4: Under the arrangements where commissions on commodity transactions are at a lower rate after a specified period and there is no reference to reimbursement of the broker for expenses and commissions, should recognition be given on the partnership's financial statements to a commitment to reimburse the broker for all or part of the expenses and commissions?

Interpretive Response: If it appears from the terms of the arrangement that the intent of the parties was to provide for full or partial reimbursement of the broker's expenses and commissions, then the estimated commitment should be recognized on the partnership's financial statements. During the specified initial period commissions on commodity transactions should be charged to operations at the lower commission rate with the difference applied to reduce the aforementioned commitment.

E. Accounting for Divestiture of a Subsidiary or Other Business Operation

Facts: Company X transferred certain operations (including several subsidiaries) to a group of former employees who had been responsible for managing those operations. Assets and liabilities with a net book value of approximately $8 million were transferred to a newly formed entity — Company Y — wholly owned by the former employees. The consideration received consisted of $1,000 in cash and interest bearing promissory notes for $10 million, payable in equal annual installments of $1 million each, plus interest, beginning two years from the date of the transaction. The former employees possessed insufficient assets to pay the notes and Company X expected the funds for payments to come exclusively from future operations of the transferred business. Company X remained contingently liable for performance on existing contracts transferred and agreed to guarantee, at its discretion, performance on future contracts entered into by the newly formed entity. Company X also acted as guarantor under a line of credit established by Company Y.

The nature of Company Y's business was such that Company X's guarantees were considered a necessary predicate to obtaining future contracts until such time as Company Y achieved profitable operations and substantial financial independence from Company X.

Question: If deconsolidation of the subsidiaries and business operations is appropriate, can Company X recognize a gain?

Interpretive Response: Before recognizing any gain, Company X should identify all of the elements of the divesture arrangement and allocate the consideration exchanged to each of those elements. In this regard, we believe that Company X would recognize the guarantees at fair value in accordance with FIN 45, Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of the Indebtedness of Others; the contingent liability for performance on existing contracts in accordance with Statement 5, Accounting for Contingencies; and the promissory notes in accordance with APB 21, Interest on Receivables and Payables, and Statements 114, Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan, and 118, Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan — Income Recognition and Disclosures.

F. Accounting Changes Not Retroactively Applied Due to Immateriality

Facts: A registrant is required to adopt an accounting principle by means of restatement of prior periods' financial statements. However, the registrant determines that the accounting change does not have a material effect on prior periods' financial statements and, accordingly, decides not to restate such financial statements.

Question: In these circumstances, is it acceptable to adjust the beginning balance of retained earnings of the period in which the change is made for the cumulative effect of the change on the financial statements of prior periods?

Interpretive Response: No. If prior periods are not restated, the cumulative effect of the change should be included in the statement of income for the period in which the change is made (not to be reported as a cumulative effect adjustment in the manner of APB Opinion 20). Even in cases where the total cumulative effect is not significant, the staff believes that the amount should be reflected in the results of operations for the period in which the change is made. However, if the cumulative effect is material to current operations or to the trend of the reported results of operations, then the individual income statements of the earlier years should be retroactively adjusted.

This position is consistent with the requirements of Statement 5 and Statement 13, which indicate that "the cumulative effect [of the change] on retained earnings at the beginning of the earliest period restated shall be included in determining net income of that period."

G. Transfers of Nonmonetary Assets by Promoters or Shareholders

Facts: Nonmonetary assets are exchanged by promoters or shareholders for all or part of a company's common stock just prior to or contemporaneously with a first-time public offering.

Question: Since paragraph 4 of APB Opinion 29 states that Opinion 29 is not applicable to transactions involving the acquisition of nonmonetary assets or services on issuance of the capital stock of an enterprise, what value should be ascribed to the acquired assets by the company?

Interpretive Response: The staff believes that transfers of nonmonetary assets to a company by its promoters or shareholders in exchange for stock prior to or at the time of the company's initial public offering normally should be recorded at the transferors' historical cost basis determined under GAAP.

The staff will not always require that predecessor cost be used to value nonmonetary assets received from an enterprise's promoters or shareholders. However, deviations from this policy have been rare applying generally to situations where the fair value of either the stock issued¹ or assets acquired is objectively measurable and the transferor's stock ownership following the transaction was not so significant that the transferor had retained a substantial indirect interest in the assets as a result of stock ownership in the company.

H. Deleted by SAB 112

I. Deleted by SAB 70

J. Push Down Basis of Accounting Required in Certain Limited Circumstances

Facts: Company A (or Company A and related persons) acquired substantially all of the common stock of Company B in one or a series of purchase transactions.

Question 1: Must Company B's financial statements presented in either its own or Company A's subsequent filings with the Commission reflect the new basis of accounting arising from Company A's acquisition of Company B when Company B's separate corporate entity is retained?

Interpretive Response: Yes. The staff believes that purchase transactions that result in an entity becoming substantially wholly owned (as defined in Rule 1-02(aa) of Regulation S-X) establish a new basis of accounting for the purchased assets and liabilities.

When the form of ownership is within the control of the parent, the basis of accounting for purchased assets and liabilities should be the same regardless of whether the entity continues to exist or is merged into the parent's operations. Therefore, Company B’s separate financial statements should reflect the new basis of accounting recorded by Company A upon acquisition (i.e., “pushed down” basis).

Question 2: What is the staff's position if Company A acquired less than substantially all of the common stock of Company B or Company B had publicly held debt or preferred stock at the time Company B became wholly owned?

Interpretive Response: The staff recognizes that the existence of outstanding public debt, preferred stock or a significant noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary might impact the parent's ability to control the form of ownership. Although encouraging its use, the staff generally does not insist on the application of push down accounting in these circumstances.

Question 3: Company A borrows funds to acquire substantially all of the common stock of Company B. Company B subsequently files a registration statement in connection with a public offering of its stock or debt.² Should Company B's new basis ("push down") financial statements include Company A's debt related to its purchase of Company B?

Interpretive Response: The staff believes that Company A's debt,³ related interest expense, and allocable debt issue costs should be reflected in Company B's financial statements included in the public offering (or an initial registration under the Exchange Act) if: (1) Company B is to assume the debt of Company A, either presently or in a planned transaction in the future; (2) the proceeds of a debt or equity offering of Company B will be used to retire all or a part of Company A's debt; or (3) Company B guarantees or pledges its assets as collateral for Company A's debt. Other relationships may exist between Company A and Company B, such as the pledge of Company B's stock as collateral for Company A's debt.⁴ While in this latter situation, it may be clear that Company B's cash flows will service all or part of Company A's debt, the staff does not insist that the debt be reflected in Company B's financial statements providing there is full and prominent disclosure of the relationship between Companies A and B and the actual or potential cash flow commitment. In this regard, the staff believes that Statements 5 and 57 as well as Interpretation 45 require sufficient disclosure to allow users of Company B's financial statements to fully understand the impact of the relationship on Company B's present and future cash flows. Rule 4-08(e) of Regulation S-X also requires disclosure of restrictions which limit the payment of dividends.

Therefore, the staff believes that the equity section of Company B's balance sheet and any pro forma financial information and capitalization tables should clearly disclose that this arrangement exists.⁵ Regardless of whether the debt is reflected in Company B's financial statements, the notes to Company B's financial statements should generally disclose, at a minimum: (1) the relationship between Company A and Company B; (2) a description of any arrangements that result in Company B's guarantee, pledge of assets⁶ or stock, etc. that provides security for Company A's debt; (3) the extent (in the aggregate and for each of the five years subsequent to the date of the latest balance sheet presented) to which Company A is dependent on Company B's cash flows to service its debt and the method by which this will occur; and (4) the impact of such cash flows on Company B's ability to pay dividends or other amounts to holders of its securities. Additionally, the staff believes Company B's Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations should discuss any material impact of its servicing of Company A's debt on its own liquidity pursuant to Item 303(a)(1) of Regulation S-K.

K. Deleted by SAB 95

L. LIFO Inventory Practices

Facts: On November 30, 1984, AcSEC and its Task Force on LIFO Inventory Problems (task force) issued a paper, "Identification and Discussion of Certain Financial Accounting and Reporting Issues Concerning LIFO Inventories." This paper identifies and discusses certain financial accounting and reporting issues related to the last-in, first-out (LIFO) inventory method for which authoritative accounting literature presently provides no definitive guidance. For some issues, the task force's advisory conclusions recommend changes in current practice to narrow the diversity which the task force believes exists. For other issues, the task force's advisory conclusions recommend that current practice should be continued for financial reporting purposes and that additional accounting guidance is unnecessary. Except as otherwise noted in the paper, AcSEC generally supports the task force's advisory conclusions. As stated in the issues paper, "Issues papers of the AICPA's accounting standards division are developed primarily to identify financial accounting and reporting issues the division believes need to be addressed or clarified by the Financial Accounting Standards Board." On February 6, 1985, the FASB decided not to add to its agenda a narrow project on the subject of LIFO inventory practices.

Question 1: What is the SEC staff's position on the issues paper?

Interpretive Response: In the absence of existing authoritative literature on LIFO accounting, the staff believes that registrants and their independent accountants should look to the paper for guidance in determining what constitutes acceptable LIFO accounting practice.⁷ In this connection, the staff considers the paper to be an accumulation of existing acceptable LIFO accounting practices which does not establish any new standards and does not diverge from GAAP.

The staff also believes that the advisory conclusions recommended in the issues paper are generally consistent with conclusions previously expressed by the Commission, such as:

1. Pooling-paragraph 4-6 of the paper discusses LIFO inventory pooling and concludes "establishing separate pools with the principal objective of facilitating inventory liquidations is unacceptable." In Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release 35, August 13, 1984, the Commission stated that it believes that the Company improperly realigned its LIFO pools in such a way as to maximize the likelihood and magnitude of LIFO liquidations and thus, overstated net income.

2. New Items-paragraph 4-27 of the paper discusses determination of the cost of new items and concludes "if the double extension or an index technique is used, the objective of LIFO is achieved by reconstructing the base year cost of new items added to existing pools." In ASR 293, the Commission stated that when the effects of inflation on the cost of new products are measured by making a comparison with current cost as the base-year cost, rather than a reconstructed base-year cost, income is improperly increased.

Question 2: If a registrant utilizes a LIFO practice other than one recommended by an advisory conclusion in the issues paper, must the registrant change its practice to one specified in the paper?

Interpretive Response: Now that the issues paper is available, the staff believes that a registrant and its independent accountants should re-examine previously adopted LIFO practices and compare them to the recommendations in the paper. In the event that the registrant and its independent accountants conclude that the registrant's LIFO practices are preferable in the circumstances, they should be prepared to justify their position in the event that a question is raised by the staff.

Question 3: If a registrant elects to change its LIFO practices to be consistent with the guidance in the issues paper and discloses such changes in accordance with APB Opinion 20 will the registrant be requested by the staff to explain its past practices and its justification for those practices?

Interpretive Response: The staff does not expect to routinely raise questions about changes in LIFO practices which are made to make a company's accounting consistent with the recommendations in the issues paper.

M. Other Than Temporary Impairment of Certain Investments in Equity Securities

Facts: FASB Staff Position No. FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2, Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments (“FSP 115-2”) does not define the phrase "other than temporary” for available-for-sale equity securities. For its available-for-sale equity securities, Company A has interpreted "other than temporary" to mean permanent impairment. Therefore, because Company A's management has not been able to determine that its investment in Company B’s equity securities is permanently impaired, no realized loss has been recognized even though the market price of Company B's equity securities is currently less than one-third of Company A's average acquisition price.

Question: For equity securities classified as available-for-sale, does the staff believe that the phrase "other than temporary" should be interpreted to mean "permanent"?

Interpretive Response: No. The staff believes that the FASB consciously chose the phrase "other than temporary" because it did not intend that the test be "permanent impairment," as has been used elsewhere in accounting practice.⁸

The value of investments in equity securities classified as available-for-sale may decline for various reasons. The market price may be affected by general market conditions which reflect prospects for the economy as a whole or by specific information pertaining to an industry or an individual company. Such declines require further investigation by management. Acting upon the premise that a write-down may be required, management should consider all available evidence to evaluate the realizable value of its investment in equity securities classified as available-for-sale.

There are numerous factors to be considered in such an evaluation and their relative significance will vary from case to case. The staff believes that the following are only a few examples of the factors which, individually or in combination, indicate that a decline in value of an equity security classified as available-for-sale is other than temporary and that a write-down of the carrying value is required:

1. The length of the time and the extent to which the market value has been less than cost;
    
2. The financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, including any specific events which may influence the operations of the issuer such as changes in technology that may impair the earnings potential of the investment or the discontinuance of a segment of the business that may affect the future earnings potential; or
    
3. The intent and ability of the holder to retain its investment in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in market value.

Unless evidence exists to support a realizable value equal to or greater than the carrying value of the investment in equity securities classified as available-for-sale, a write-down to fair value accounted for as a realized loss should be recorded. Such loss should be recognized in the determination of net income of the period in which it occurs and the written down value of the investment in the company becomes the new cost basis of the investment.

N. Discounting by Property-Casualty Insurance Companies

Facts: A registrant which is an insurance company discounts certain unpaid claims liabilities related to short-duration⁹ insurance contracts for purposes of reporting to state regulatory authorities, using discount rates permitted or prescribed by those authorities ("statutory rates") which approximate 3 1/2 percent. The registrant follows the same practice in preparing its financial statements in accordance with GAAP. It proposes to change for GAAP purposes, to using a discount rate related to the historical yield on its investment portfolio ("investment related rate") which is represented to approximate 7 percent, and to account for the change as a change in accounting estimate, applying the investment related rate to claims settled in the current and subsequent years while the statutory rate would continue to be applied to claims settled in all prior years.

Question 1: What is the staff's position with respect to discounting claims liabilities related to short-duration insurance contracts?

Interpretive Response: The staff is aware of efforts by the accounting profession to assess the circumstances under which discounting may be appropriate in financial statements. Pending authoritative guidance resulting from those efforts however, the staff will raise no objection if a registrant follows a policy for GAAP reporting purposes of:

• Discounting liabilities for unpaid claims and claim adjustment expenses at the same rates that it uses for reporting to state regulatory authorities with respect to the same claims liabilities, or

• Discounting liabilities with respect to settled claims under the following circumstances:

• the payment pattern and ultimate cost are fixed and determinable on an individual claim basis, and

• the discount rate used is reasonable on the facts and circumstances applicable to the registrant at the time the claims are settled.

Question 2: Does the staff agree with the registrant's proposal that the change from a statutory rate to an investment related rate be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate?

Interpretive Response: No. The staff believes that such a change involves a change in the method of applying an accounting principle, i.e., the method of selecting the discount rate was changed. The staff therefore believes that the registrant should reflect the cumulative effect of the change in accounting by applying the new selection method retroactively to liabilities for claims settled in all prior years, in accordance with the requirements of APB Opinion 20. Initial adoption of discounting for GAAP purposes would be treated similarly. In either case, in addition to the disclosures required by APB Opinion 20 concerning the change in accounting principle, a preferability letter from the registrant's independent accountant is required.

O. Research and Development Arrangements

Facts: Statement 68 paragraph 7 states that conditions other than a written agreement may exist which create a presumption that the enterprise will repay the funds provided by other parties under a research and development arrangement. Paragraph 8(c) lists as one of those conditions the existence of a "significant related party relationship" between the enterprise and the parties funding the research and development.

Question 1: What does the staff consider a "significant related party relationship" as that term is used in paragraph 8(c) of Statement 68?

Interpretive Response: The staff believes that a significant related party relationship exists when 10 percent or more of the entity providing the funds is owned by related parties.¹⁰ In unusual circumstances, the staff may also question the appropriateness of treating a research and development arrangement as a contract to perform service for others at the less than 10 percent level. In reviewing these matters the staff will consider, among other factors, the percentage of the funding entity owned by the related parties in relationship to their ownership in and degree of influence or control over the enterprise receiving the funds.

Question 2: Paragraph 7 of Statement 68 states that the presumption of repayment "can be overcome only by substantial evidence to the contrary." Can the presumption be overcome by evidence that the funding parties were assuming the risk of the research and development activities since they could not reasonably expect the enterprise to have resources to repay the funds based on its current and projected future financial condition?

Interpretive Response: No. Paragraph 5 of Statement 68 specifically indicates that the enterprise "may settle the liability by paying cash, by issuing securities, or by some other means." While the enterprise may not be in a position to pay cash or issue debt, repayment could be accomplished through the issuance of stock or various other means. Therefore, an apparent or projected inability to repay the funds with cash (or debt which would later be paid with cash) does not necessarily demonstrate that the funding parties were accepting the entire risks of the activities.

P. Restructuring Charges

1. Deleted by SAB 103

2. Deleted by SAB 103

3. Income statement presentation of restructuring charges

Facts: Restructuring charges often do not relate to a separate component of the entity, and, as such, they would not qualify for presentation as losses on the disposal of a discontinued operation. Additionally, since the charges are not both unusual and infrequent¹¹ they are not presented in the income statement as extraordinary items.

Question 1: May such restructuring charges be presented in the income statement as a separate caption after income from continuing operations before income taxes (i.e., preceding income taxes and/or discontinued operations)?

Interpretive Response: No. Paragraph 26 of APB Opinion 30 states that items that do not meet the criteria for classification as an extraordinary item should be reported as a component of income from continuing operations.¹² Neither Opinion 30 nor Rule 5-03 of Regulation S-X contemplate a category in between continuing and discontinued operations. Accordingly, the staff believes that restructuring charges should be presented as a component of income from continuing operations, separately disclosed if material. Furthermore, the staff believes that a separately presented restructuring charge should not be preceded by a sub-total representing "income from continuing operations before restructuring charge" (whether or not it is so captioned). Such a presentation would be inconsistent with the intent of Opinion 30.

Question 2: Some registrants utilize a classified or "two-step" income statement format (i.e., one which presents operating revenues, expenses and income followed by other income and expense items). May a charge which relates to assets or activities for which the associated revenues and expenses have historically been included in operating income be presented as an item of "other expense" in such an income statement?

Interpretive Response: No. The staff believes that the proper classification of a restructuring charge depends on the nature of the charge and the assets and operations to which it relates. Therefore, charges which relate to activities for which the revenues and expenses have historically been included in operating income should generally be classified as an operating expense, separately disclosed if material. Furthermore, when a restructuring charge is classified as an operating expense, the staff believes that it is generally inappropriate to present a preceding subtotal captioned or representing operating income before restructuring charges. Such an amount does not represent a measurement of operating results under GAAP.

Conversely, charges relating to activities previously included under "other income and expenses" should be similarly classified, also separately disclosed if material.

Question 3: Is it permissible to disclose the effect on net income and earnings per share of such a restructuring charge?

Interpretive Response: Discussions in MD&A and elsewhere which quantify the effects of unusual or infrequent items on net income and earnings per share are beneficial to a reader's understanding of the financial statements and are therefore acceptable.

MD&A also should discuss the events and decisions which gave rise to the restructuring, the nature of the charge and the expected impact of the restructuring on future results of operations, liquidity and sources and uses of capital resources.

4. Disclosures

Beginning with the period in which the exit plan is initiated, Statement 146 requires disclosure, in all periods, including interim periods, until the exit plan is completed, of the following:

1. A description of the exit or disposal activity, including the facts and circumstances leading to the expected activity and the expected completion date

2. For each major type of cost associated with the activity (for example, one-time termination benefits, contract termination costs, and other associated costs):

   (1) The total amount expected to be incurred in connection with the activity, the amount incurred in the period, and the cumulative amount incurred to date

   (2) A reconciliation of the beginning and ending liability balances showing separately the changes during the period attributable to costs incurred and charged to expense, costs paid or otherwise settled, and any adjustments to the liability with an explanation of the reason(s) therefor

3. The line item(s) in the income statement or the statement of activities in which the costs in (b) above are aggregated

4. For each reportable segment, the total amount of costs expected to be incurred in connection with the activity, the amount incurred in the period, and the cumulative amount incurred to date, net of any adjustments to the liability with an explanation of the reason(s) therefor

5. If a liability for a cost associated with the activity is not recognized because fair value cannot be reasonably estimated, that fact and the reasons therefor.

Question: What specific disclosures about restructuring charges has the staff requested to fulfill the disclosure requirements of Statement 146 and MD&A?

Interpretive Response: The staff often has requested greater disaggregation and more precise labeling when exit and involuntary termination costs are grouped in a note or income statement line item with items unrelated to the exit plan. For the reader's understanding, the staff has requested that discretionary, or decision-dependent, costs of a period, such as exit costs, be disclosed and explained in MD&A separately. Also to improve transparency, the staff has requested disclosure of the nature and amounts of additional types of exit costs and other types of restructuring charges¹³ that appear quantitatively or qualitatively material, and requested that losses relating to asset impairments be identified separately from charges based on estimates of future cash expenditures.

The staff frequently reminds registrants that in periods subsequent to the initiation date that material changes and activity in the liability balances of each significant type of exit cost and involuntary employee termination benefits¹⁴ (either as a result of expenditures or changes in/reversals of estimates or the fair value of the liability) should be disclosed in the footnotes to the interim and annual financial statements and discussed in MD&A. In the event a company recognized liabilities for exit costs and involuntary employee termination benefits relating to multiple exit plans, the staff believes presentation of separate information for each individual exit plan that has a material effect on the balance sheet, results of operations or cash flows generally is appropriate.

For material exit or involuntary employee termination costs related to an acquired business, the staff has requested disclosure in either MD&A or the financial statements of:

1. When the registrant began formulating exit plans for which accrual may be necessary,

2. The types and amounts of liabilities recognized for exit costs and involuntary employee termination benefits and included in the acquisition cost allocation, and

3. Any unresolved contingencies or purchase price allocation issues and the types of additional liabilities that may result in an adjustment of the acquisition cost allocation.

The staff has noted that the economic or other events that cause a registrant to consider and/or adopt an exit plan or that impair the carrying amount of assets, generally occur over time. Accordingly, the staff believes that as those events and the resulting trends and uncertainties evolve, they often will meet the requirement for disclosure pursuant to the Commission's MD&A rules prior to the period in which the exit costs and liabilities are recorded pursuant to GAAP. Whether or not currently recognizable in the financial statements, material exit or involuntary termination costs that affect a known trend, demand, commitment, event, or uncertainty to management, should be disclosed in MD&A. The staff believes that MD&A should include discussion of the events and decisions which gave rise to the exit costs and exit plan, and the likely effects of management's plans on financial position, future operating results and liquidity unless it is determined that a material effect is not reasonably likely to occur. Registrants should identify the periods in which material cash outlays are anticipated and the expected source of their funding. Registrants should also discuss material revisions to exit plans, exit costs, or the timing of the plan's execution, including the nature and reasons for the revisions.

The staff believes that the expected effects on future earnings and cash flows resulting from the exit plan (for example, reduced depreciation, reduced employee expense, etc.) should be quantified and disclosed, along with the initial period in which those effects are expected to be realized. This includes whether the cost savings are expected to be offset by anticipated increases in other expenses or reduced revenues. This discussion should clearly identify the income statement line items to be impacted (for example, cost of sales; marketing; selling, general and administrative expenses; etc.). In later periods if actual savings anticipated by the exit plan are not achieved as expected or are achieved in periods other than as expected, MD&A should discuss that outcome, its reasons, and its likely effects on future operating results and liquidity.

The staff often finds that, because of the discretionary nature of exit plans and the components thereof, presenting and analyzing material exit and involuntary termination charges in tabular form, with the related liability balances and activity (e.g., beginning balance, new charges, cash payments, other adjustments with explanations, and ending balances) from balance sheet date to balance sheet date, is necessary to explain fully the components and effects of significant restructuring charges. The staff believes that such a tabular analysis aids a financial statement user's ability to disaggregate the restructuring charge by income statement line item in which the costs would have otherwise been recognized, absent the restructuring plan, (for example, cost of sales; selling, general, and administrative; etc.).

Q. Increasing Rate Preferred Stock

Facts: A registrant issues Class A and Class B nonredeemable preferred stock¹⁵ on 1/1/X1. Class A, by its terms, will pay no dividends during the years 20X1 through 20X3. Class B, by its terms, will pay dividends at annual rates of $2, $4 and $6 per share in the years 20X1, 20X2 and 20X3, respectively. Beginning in the year 20X4 and thereafter as long as they remain outstanding, each instrument will pay dividends at an annual rate of $8 per share. In all periods, the scheduled dividends are cumulative.

At the time of issuance, eight percent per annum was considered to be a market rate for dividend yield on Class A, given its characteristics other than scheduled cash dividend entitlements (voting rights, liquidation preference, etc.), as well as the registrant's financial condition and future economic prospects. Thus, the registrant could have expected to receive proceeds of approximately $100 per share for Class A if the dividend rate of $8 per share (the "perpetual dividend") had been in effect at date of issuance. In consideration of the dividend payment terms, however, Class A was issued for proceeds of $79 3/8 per share. The difference, $20 5/8, approximated the value of the absence of $8 per share dividends annually for three years, discounted at 8%.

The issuance price of Class B shares was determined by a similar approach, based on the terms and characteristics of the Class B shares.

Question 1: How should preferred stocks of this general type (referred to as "increasing rate preferred stocks") be reported in the balance sheet?

Interpretive Response: As is normally the case with other types of securities, increasing rate preferred stock should be recorded initially at its fair value on date of issuance. Thereafter, the carrying amount should be increased periodically as discussed in the Interpretive Response to Question 2.

Question 2: Is it acceptable to recognize the dividend costs of increasing rate preferred stocks according to their stated dividend schedules?

Interpretive Response: No. The staff believes that when consideration received for preferred stocks reflects expectations of future dividend streams, as is normally the case with cumulative preferred stocks, any discount due to an absence of dividends (as with Class A) or gradually increasing dividends (as with Class B) for an initial period represents prepaid, unstated dividend cost.¹⁶ Recognizing the dividend cost of these instruments according to their stated dividend schedules would report Class A as being cost-free, and would report the cost of Class B at less than its effective cost, from the standpoint of common stock interests (i.e., for purposes of computing income applicable to common stock and earnings per common share) during the years 20X1 through 20X3.

Accordingly, the staff believes that discounts on increasing rate preferred stock should be amortized over the period(s) preceding commencement of the perpetual dividend, by charging imputed dividend cost against retained earnings and increasing the carrying amount of the preferred stock by a corresponding amount. The discount at time of issuance should be computed as the present value of the difference between (a) dividends that will be payable, if any, in the period(s) preceding commencement of the perpetual dividend; and (b) the perpetual dividend amount for a corresponding number of periods; discounted at a market rate for dividend yield on preferred stocks that are comparable (other than with respect to dividend payment schedules) from an investment standpoint. The amortization in each period should be the amount which, together with any stated dividend for the period (ignoring fluctuations in stated dividend amounts that might result from variable rates,¹⁷ results in a constant rate of effective cost vis-a-vis the carrying amount of the preferred stock (the market rate that was used to compute the discount).

Simplified (ignoring quarterly calculations) application of this accounting to the Class A preferred stock described in the "Facts" section of this bulletin would produce the following results on a per share basis:

Carrying amount of preferred stock

	Beginning of Year (BOY)	Imputed Dividend (8% of Carrying Amount at BOY)	End of year
Year 20X1	$79.38	6.35	85.73
Year 20X2	85.73	6.86	92.59
Year 20X3	92.59	7.41	100.00

During 20X4 and thereafter, the stated dividend of $8 measured against the carrying amount of $100¹⁸ would reflect dividend cost of 8%, the market rate at time of issuance.

The staff believes that existing authoritative literature, while not explicitly addressing increasing rate preferred stocks, implicitly calls for the accounting described in this bulletin.

The pervasive, fundamental principle of accrual accounting would, in the staff's view, preclude registrants from recognizing the dividend cost on the basis of whatever cash payment schedule might be arranged. Furthermore, recognition of the effective cost of unstated rights and privileges is well-established in accounting, and is specifically called for by APB Opinion 21 and Topic 3.C of this codification for unstated interest costs of debt capital and unstated dividend costs of redeemable preferred stock capital, respectively. The staff believes that the requirement to recognize the effective periodic cost of capital applies also to nonredeemable preferred stocks because, for that purpose, the distinction between debt capital and preferred equity capital (whether redeemable¹⁹ or nonredeemable) is irrelevant from the standpoint of common stock interests.

Question 3: Would the accounting for discounts on increasing rate preferred stock be affected by variable stated dividend rates?

Interpretive Response: No. If stated dividends on an increasing rate preferred stock are variable, computations of initial discount and subsequent amortization should be based on the value of the applicable index at date of issuance and should not be affected by subsequent changes in the index.

For example, assume that a preferred stock issued 1/1/X1 is scheduled to pay dividends at annual rates, applied to the stock's par value, equal to 20% of the actual (fluctuating) market yield on a particular Treasury security in 20X1 and 20X2, and 90% of the fluctuating market yield in 20X3 and thereafter. The discount would be computed as the present value of a two-year dividend stream equal to 70% (90% less 20%) of the 1/1/X1 Treasury security yield, annually, on the stock's par value. The discount would be amortized in years 20X1 and 20X2 so that, together with 20% of the 1/1/X1 Treasury yield on the stock's par value, a constant rate of cost vis-a-vis the stock's carrying amount would result. Changes in the Treasury security yield during 20X1 and 20X2 would, of course, cause the rate of total reported preferred dividend cost (amortization of discount plus cash dividends) in those years to be more or less than the rate indicated by discount amortization plus 20% of the 1/1/X1 Treasury security yield. However, the fluctuations would be due solely to the impact of changes in the index on the stated dividends for those periods.

Question 4: Will the staff expect retroactive changes by registrants to comply with the accounting described in this bulletin?

Interpretive Response: All registrants will be expected to follow the accounting described in this bulletin for increasing rate preferred stocks issued after December 4, 1986.²⁰ Registrants that have not followed this accounting for increasing rate preferred stocks issued before that date were encouraged to retroactively change their accounting for those preferred stocks in the financial statements next filed with the Commission. The staff did not object if registrants did not make retroactive changes for those preferred stocks, provided that all presentations of and discussions regarding income applicable to common stock and earnings per share in future filings and shareholders' reports are accompanied by equally prominent supplemental disclosures (on the face of the income statement, in presentations of selected financial data, in MD&A, etc.) of the impact of not changing their accounting and an explanation of such impact (e.g., that dividend cost has been recognized on a cash basis).

R. Deleted by SAB 103

S. Quasi-Reorganization

Facts: As a consequence of significant operating losses and/or recent write-downs of property, plant and equipment, a company's financial statements reflect an accumulated deficit. The company desires to eliminate the deficit by reclassifying amounts from paid-in-capital. In addition, the company anticipates adopting a discretionary change in accounting principles²¹ that will be recorded as a cumulative-effect type of accounting change. The recording of the cumulative effect will have the result of increasing the company's retained earnings.

Question 1: May the company reclassify its capital accounts to eliminate the accumulated deficit without satisfying all of the conditions enumerated in Section 210²² of the Codification of Financial Reporting Policies for a quasi-reorganization?

Interpretive Response: No. The staff believes a deficit reclassification of any nature is considered to be a quasi-reorganization. As such, a company may not reclassify or eliminate a deficit in retained earnings unless all requisite conditions set forth in Section 210²³ for a quasi-reorganization are satisfied.²⁴

Question 2: Must the company implement the discretionary change in accounting principle simultaneously with the quasi-reorganization or may it adopt the change after the quasi-reorganization has been effected?

Interpretive Response: The staff has taken the position that the company should adopt the anticipated accounting change prior to or as an integral part of the quasi-reorganization. Any such accounting change should be effected by following GAAP with respect to the change.²⁵

Chapter 7A of ARB 43 indicates that, following a quasi-reorganization, a "company's accounting should be substantially similar to that appropriate for a new company." The staff believes that implicit in this "fresh-start" concept is the need for the company's accounting principles in place at the time of the quasi-reorganization to be those planned to be used following the reorganization to avoid a misstatement of earnings and retained earnings after the reorganization.²⁶ Chapter 7A of ARB 43 states, in part, ". . . in general, assets should be carried forward as of the date of the readjustment at fair and not unduly conservative amounts, determined with due regard for the accounting to be employed by the Company thereafter." (emphasis added)

In addition, the staff believes that adopting a discretionary change in accounting principle that will be reflected in the financial statements within 12 months following the consummation of a quasi-reorganization leads to a presumption that the accounting change was contemplated at the time of the quasi-reorganization.²⁷

Question 3: In connection with a quasi-reorganization, may there be a write-up of net assets?

Interpretive Response: No. The staff believes that increases in the recorded values of specific assets (or reductions in liabilities) to fair value are appropriate providing such adjustments are factually supportable, however, the amount of such increases are limited to offsetting adjustments to reflect decreases in other assets (or increases in liabilities) to reflect their new fair value. In other words, a quasi-reorganization should not result in a write-up of net assets of the registrant.

Question 4: The interpretive response to question 1 indicates that the staff believes that a deficit reclassification of any nature is considered to be a quasi-reorganization, and accordingly, must satisfy all the conditions of Section 210.²⁸ Assume a company has satisfied all the requisite conditions of Section 210, and has eliminated a deficit in retained earnings by a concurrent reduction in paid-in capital, but did not need to restate assets and liabilities by a charge to capital because assets and liabilities were already stated at fair values. How should the company reflect the tax benefits of operating loss or tax credit carryforwards for financial reporting purposes that existed as of the date of the quasi-reorganization when such tax benefits are subsequently recognized for financial reporting purposes?

Interpretive Response: The staff believes Statement 109 requires that any subsequently recognized tax benefits of operating loss or tax credit carryforwards that existed as of the date of a quasi-reorganization be reported as a direct addition to paid-in capital. The staff believes that this position is consistent with the "new company" or "fresh-start" concept embodied in Section 210,²⁹ and in existing accounting literature regarding quasi-reorganizations, and with the FASB staff's justification for such a position when they stated that a "new enterprise would not have tax benefits attributable to operating losses or tax credits that arose prior to its organization date.³⁰

The FASB recognized that a practice existed of recording deficit elimination type quasi-reorganizations without evaluating the concurrent need to restate assets and liabilities to fair values, and provided guidance on accounting for the tax benefits of carryforward items subsequent to such an event.³¹ This practice and accounting is not permitted by Section 210, and accordingly, is not appropriate for registrants. The staff believes that all registrants that comply with the requirements of Section 210 in effecting a quasi-reorganization should apply the accounting required by the first sentence of paragraph 39 of Statement 109 for the tax benefits of tax carryforward items.³² Therefore, even though the only effect of a quasi-reorganization is the elimination of a deficit in retained earnings because assets and liabilities are already stated at fair values and the revaluation of assets and liabilities is unnecessary (or a write-up of net assets is prohibited as indicated in the interpretive response to question 3 above), subsequently recognized tax benefits of operating loss or tax credit carryforward items should be recorded as a direct addition to paid-in capital.

Question 5: If a company had previously recorded a quasi-reorganization that only resulted in the elimination of a deficit in retained earnings, may the company reverse such entry and "undo" its quasi-reorganization?

Interpretive Response: No. The staff believes Opinion 20 would preclude such a change in accounting. It states: "a method of accounting that was previously adopted for a type of transaction or event which is being terminated or which was a single, nonrecurring event in the past should not be changed." (emphasis added.)³³

T. Accounting for Expenses or Liabilities Paid by Principal Stockholder(s)

(Replaced by SAB 107)

Facts: Company X was a defendant in litigation for which the company had not recorded a liability in accordance with Statement 5. A principal stockholder³⁴ of the company transfers a portion of his shares to the plaintiff to settle such litigation. If the company had settled the litigation directly, the company would have recorded the settlement as an expense.

Question: Must the settlement be reflected as an expense in the company's financial statements, and if so, how?

Interpretive Response: Yes. The value of the shares transferred should be reflected as an expense in the company's financial statements with a corresponding credit to contributed (paid-in) capital.

The staff believes that such a transaction is similar to those described in paragraph 11 of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards Statement No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (Statement 123R), which states that "share-based payments awarded to an employee of the reporting entity by a related party or other holder of an economic interest³⁵ in the entity as compensation for services provided to the entity are share-based payment transactions to be accounted for under this Statement unless the transfer is clearly for a purpose other than compensation for services to the reporting entity.” As explained in paragraph 11 of Statement 123R, the substance of such a transaction is that the economic interest holder makes a capital contribution to the reporting entity, and the reporting entity makes a share-based payment to its employee in exchange for services rendered.

The staff believes that the problem of separating the benefit to the principal stockholder from the benefit to the company cited in Statement 123R is not limited to transactions involving stock compensation. Therefore, similar accounting is required in this and other³⁶ transactions where a principal stockholder pays an expense for the company, unless the stockholder's action is caused by a relationship or obligation completely unrelated to his position as a stockholder or such action clearly does not benefit the company.

Some registrants and their accountants have taken the position that since Statement 57 applies to these transactions and requires only the disclosure of material related party transactions, the staff should not analogize to the accounting called for by Statement 123R, paragraph 11 for transactions other than those specifically covered by it. The staff notes, however, that Statement 57 does not address the measurement of related party transactions and that, as a result, such transactions are generally recorded at the amounts indicated by their terms.³⁷ However, the staff believes that transactions of the type described above differ from the typical related party transactions.

The transactions for which Statement 57 requires disclosure generally are those in which a company receives goods or services directly from, or provides goods or services directly to, a related party, and the form and terms of such transactions may be structured to produce either a direct or indirect benefit to the related party. The participation of a related party in such a transaction negates the presumption that transactions reflected in the financial statements have been consummated at arm's length. Disclosure is therefore required to compensate for the fact that, due to the related party's involvement, the terms of the transaction may produce an accounting measurement for which a more faithful measurement may not be determinable.

However, transactions of the type discussed in the facts given do not have such problems of measurement and appear to be transacted to provide a benefit to the stockholder through the enhancement or maintenance of the value of the stockholder's investment. The staff believes that the substance of such transactions is the payment of an expense of the company through contributions by the stockholder. Therefore, the staff believes it would be inappropriate to account for such transactions according to the form of the transaction.

U. Deleted by SAB 112

V. Certain Transfers of Nonperforming Assets

Facts: A financial institution desires to reduce its nonaccrual or reduced rate loans and other nonearning assets, including foreclosed real estate (collectively, "nonperforming assets"). Some or all of such nonperforming assets are transferred to a newly-formed entity (the "new entity"). The financial institution, as consideration for transferring the nonperforming assets, may receive (a) the cash proceeds of debt issued by the new entity to third parties, (b) a note or other redeemable instrument issued by the new entity, or (c) a combination of (a) and (b). The residual equity interests in the new entity, which carry voting rights, initially owned by the financial institution, are transferred to outsiders (for example, via distribution to the financial institution's shareholders or sale or contribution to an unrelated third party).

The financial institution typically will manage the assets for a fee, providing necessary services to liquidate the assets, but otherwise does not have the right to appoint directors or legally control the operations of the new entity.

Statement 140 provides guidance for determining when a transfer of financial assets can be recognized as a sale. The interpretive guidance provided in response to Questions 1 and 2 of this SAB does not apply to transfers of financial assets falling within the scope of Statement 140. Because Statement 140 does not apply to distributions of financial assets to shareholders or a contribution of such assets to unrelated third parties, the interpretive guidance provided in response to Questions 1 and 2 of this SAB would apply to such conveyances.

Further, registrants should consider the guidance contained in FASB Interpretation 46 in determining whether it should consolidate the newly-formed entity.

Question 1: What factors should be considered in determining whether such transfer of nonperforming assets can be accounted for as a disposition by the financial institution?

Interpretive Response: The staff believes that determining whether nonperforming assets have been disposed of in substance requires an assessment as to whether the risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred. SAB Topic 5.E³⁸ discusses some factors that the staff believes should be considered in determining whether the risks of a business have been transferred. Consistent with the factors discussed in SAB Topic 5.E, the staff believes that the transfer described should not be accounted for as a sale or disposition if (a) the transfer of nonperforming assets to the new entity provides for recourse by the new entity to the transferor financial institution, (b) the financial institution directly or indirectly guarantees debt of the new entity in whole or in part, (c) the financial institution retains a participation in the rewards of ownership of the transferred assets, for example through a higher than normal incentive or other management fee arrangement,³⁹ or (d) the fair value of any material non-cash consideration received by the financial institution (for example, a note or other redeemable instrument) cannot be reasonably estimated. Additionally, the staff believes that the accounting for the transfer as a sale or disposition generally is not appropriate where the financial institution retains rewards of ownership through the holding of significant residual equity interests or where third party holders of such interests do not have a significant amount of capital at risk.

Where accounting for the transfer as a sale or disposition is not appropriate, the nonperforming assets should remain on the financial institution's balance sheet and should continue to be disclosed as nonaccrual, past due, restructured or foreclosed, as appropriate, and the debt of the new entity should be recorded by the financial institution.

Question 2: If the transaction is accounted for as a sale to an unconsolidated party, at what value should the transfer be recorded by the financial institution?

Interpretive Response: The staff believes that the transfer should be recorded by the financial institution at the fair value of assets transferred (or, if more clearly evident, the fair value of assets received) and a loss recognized by the financial institution for any excess of the net carrying value⁴⁰ over the fair value.⁴¹ Fair value is the amount that would be realizable in an outright sale to an unrelated third party for cash.⁴² The same concepts should be applied in determining fair value of the transferred assets, i.e., if an active market exists for the assets transferred, then fair value is equal to the market value. If no active market exists, but one exists for similar assets, the selling prices in that market may be helpful in estimating the fair value. If no such market price is available, a forecast of expected cash flows, discounted at a rate commensurate with the risks involved, may be used to aid in estimating the fair value. In situations where discounted cash flows are used to estimate fair value of nonperforming assets, the staff would expect that the interest rate used in such computations will be substantially higher than the cost of funds of the financial institution and appropriately reflect the risk of holding these nonperforming assets. Therefore, the fair value determined in such a way will be lower than the amount at which the assets would have been carried by the financial institution had the transfer not occurred, unless the financial institution had been required under GAAP to carry such assets at market value or the lower of cost or market value.

Question 3: Where the transaction may appropriately be accounted for as a sale to an unconsolidated party and the financial institution receives a note receivable or other redeemable instrument from the new entity, how should such asset be disclosed pursuant to Item III C, "Risk Elements," of Industry Guide 3? What factors should be considered related to the subsequent accounting for such instruments received?

Interpretive Response: The staff believes that the financial institution may exclude the note receivable or other asset from its Risk Elements disclosures under Guide 3 provided that: (a) the receivable itself does not constitute a nonaccrual, past due, restructured, or potential problem loan that would require disclosure under Guide 3, and (b) the underlying collateral is described in sufficient detail to enable investors to understand the nature of the note receivable or other asset, if material, including the extent of any over-collateralization. The description of the collateral normally would include material information similar to that which would be provided if such assets were owned by the financial institution, including pertinent Risk Element disclosures.

The staff notes that, in situations in which the transaction is accounted for as a sale to an unconsolidated party and a portion of the consideration received by the registrant is debt or another redeemable instrument, careful consideration must be given to the appropriateness of recording profits on the management fee arrangement, or interest or dividends on the instrument received, including consideration of whether it is necessary to defer such amounts or to treat such payments on a cost recovery basis. Further, if the new entity incurs losses to the point that its permanent equity based on GAAP is eliminated, it would ordinarily be necessary for the financial institution, at a minimum, to record further operating losses as its best estimate of the loss in realizable value of its investment.⁴³

W. Contingency Disclosures Regarding Property-Casualty Insurance Reserves for Unpaid Claim Costs

Facts: A property-casualty insurance company (the "Company") has established reserves, in accordance with Statement 60 for unpaid claim costs, including estimates of costs relating to claims incurred but not reported ("IBNR").⁴⁴ The reserve estimate for IBNR claims was based on past loss experience and current trends except that the estimate has been adjusted for recent significant unfavorable claims experience that the Company considers to be nonrecurring and abnormal. The Company attributes the abnormal claims experience to a recent acquisition and accelerated claims processing; however, actuarial studies have been inconclusive and subject to varying interpretations. Although the reserve is deemed adequate to cover all probable claims, there is a reasonable possibility that the abnormal claims experience could continue, resulting in a material understatement of claim reserves.

Statement 5 requires, among other things, disclosure of loss contingencies.⁴⁵ However, paragraph 2 of that Statement notes that "[n]ot all uncertainties inherent in the accounting process give rise to contingencies as that term is used in [Statement 5]."

SOP 94-6 ⁴⁶ also provides disclosure guidance regarding certain significant estimates.

Question 1: In the staff's view, do Statement 5 and SOP 94-6 disclosure requirements apply to property-casualty insurance reserves for unpaid claim costs? If so, how?

Interpretive Response: Yes. The staff believes that specific uncertainties (conditions, situations and/or sets of circumstances) not considered to be normal and recurring because of their significance and/or nature can result in loss contingencies⁴⁷ for purposes of applying Statement 5 and SOP 94-6 disclosure requirements. General uncertainties, such as the amount and timing of claims, that are normal, recurring, and inherent to estimations of property-casualty insurance reserves are not considered subject to the disclosure requirements of Statement 5. Some specific uncertainties that may result in loss contingencies pursuant to Statement 5, depending on significance and/or nature, include insufficiently understood trends in claims activity; judgmental adjustments to historical experience for purposes of estimating future claim costs (other than for normal recurring general uncertainties); significant risks to an individual claim or group of related claims; or catastrophe losses. The requirements of SOP 94-6 apply when "[i]t is at least reasonably possible that the estimate of the effect on the financial statements of a condition, situation, or set of circumstances that existed at the date of the financial statements will change in the near term due to one or more future confirming events ... [and] the effect of the change would be material to the financial statements."

Question 2: Do the facts presented above describe an uncertainty that requires disclosures under Statement 5 and SOP 94-6?

Interpretive Response: Yes. The staff believes the judgmental adjustments to historical experience for insufficiently understood claims activity noted above results in a loss contingency within the scope of Statement 5 and SOP 94-6. Based on the facts presented above, at a minimum the Company's financial statements should disclose that for purposes of estimating IBNR claim reserves, past experience was adjusted for what management believes to be abnormal claims experience related to the recent acquisition of Company A and accelerated claims processing. It should also be disclosed that there is a reasonable possibility that the claims experience could be the indication of an unfavorable trend which would require additional IBNR claim reserves in the approximate range of $XX-$XX million (alternatively, if Company management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, a statement to that effect should be disclosed).

Additionally, the staff also expects companies to disclose the nature of the loss contingency and the potential impact on trends in their loss reserve development discussions provided pursuant to Property-Casualty Industry Guides 4 and 6. Consideration should also be given to the need to provide disclosure in MD&A.

Question 3: Does the staff have an example in which specific uncertainties involving an individual claim or group of related claims result in a loss contingency the staff believes requires disclosure?

Interpretive Response: Yes. A property-casualty insurance company (the "Company") underwrites product liability insurance for an insured manufacturer which has produced and sold millions of units of a particular product which has been used effectively and without problems for many years. Users of the product have recently begun to report serious health problems that they attribute to long term use of the product and have asserted claims under the insurance policy underwritten and retained by the Company. To date, the number of users reporting such problems is relatively small, and there is presently no conclusive evidence that demonstrates a causal link between long term use of the product and the health problems experienced by the claimants. However, the evidence generated to date indicates that there is at least a reasonable possibility that the product is responsible for the problems and the assertion of additional claims is considered probable, and therefore the potential exposure of the Company is material. While an accrual may not be warranted since the loss exposure may not be both probable and estimable, in view of the reasonable possibility of material future claim payments, the staff believes that disclosures made in accordance with Statement 5 and SOP 94-6 would be required under these circumstances.

The disclosure concepts expressed in this example would also apply to an individual claim or group of claims that are related to a single catastrophic event or multiple events having a similar effect.

X. Deleted by SAB 103

Y. Accounting and Disclosures Relating to Loss Contingencies

Facts: A registrant believes it may be obligated to pay material amounts as a result of product or environmental remediation liability. These amounts may relate to, for example, damages attributed to the registrant's products or processes, clean-up of hazardous wastes, reclamation costs, fines, and litigation costs. The registrant may seek to recover a portion or all of these amounts by filing a claim against an insurance carrier or other third parties.

Question 1: Assuming that the registrant's estimate of an environmental remediation or product liability meets the conditions set forth in paragraph 132 of SOP 96-1 for recognition on a discounted basis, what discount rate should be applied and what, if any, special disclosures are required in the notes to the financial statements?

Interpretive Response: The rate used to discount the cash payments should be the rate that will produce an amount at which the environmental or product liability could be settled in an arm's-length transaction with a third party. SOP 96-1 further states that the discount rate used to discount the cash payments should not exceed the interest rate on monetary assets that are essentially risk free⁴⁸ and have maturities comparable to that of the environmental or product liability.

If the liability is recognized on a discounted basis to reflect the time value of money, the notes to the financial statements should, at a minimum, include disclosures of the discount rate used, the expected aggregate undiscounted amount, expected payments for each of the five succeeding years and the aggregate amount thereafter, and a reconciliation of the expected aggregate undiscounted amount to amounts recognized in the statements of financial position. Material changes in the expected aggregate amount since the prior balance sheet date, other than those resulting from pay-down of the obligation, should be explained.

Question 2: What financial statement disclosures should be furnished with respect to recorded and unrecorded product or environmental remediation liabilities?

Interpretive Response: Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Statement 5 identify disclosures regarding loss contingencies that generally are furnished in notes to financial statements. SOP 96-1 identifies disclosures that are required and recommended regarding both recorded and unrecorded environmental remediation liabilities. The staff believes that product and environmental remediation liabilities typically are of such significance that detailed disclosures regarding the judgments and assumptions underlying the recognition and measurement of the liabilities are necessary to prevent the financial statements from being misleading and to inform readers fully regarding the range of reasonably possible outcomes that could have a material effect on the registrant's financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. In addition to the disclosures required by Statement 5 and SOP 96-1, examples of disclosures that may be necessary include:

• Circumstances affecting the reliability and precision of loss estimates.

• The extent to which unasserted claims are reflected in any accrual or may affect the magnitude of the contingency.

• Uncertainties with respect to joint and several liability that may affect the magnitude of the contingency, including disclosure of the aggregate expected cost to remediate particular sites that are individually material if the likelihood of contribution by the other significant parties has not been established.

• Disclosure of the nature and terms of cost-sharing arrangements with other potentially responsible parties.

• The extent to which disclosed but unrecognized contingent losses are expected to be recoverable through insurance, indemnification arrangements, or other sources, with disclosure of any material limitations of that recovery.

• Uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims or solvency of insurance carriers.⁴⁹

• The time frame over which the accrued or presently unrecognized amounts may be paid out.

• Material components of the accruals and significant assumptions underlying estimates.

Registrants are cautioned that a statement that the contingency is not expected to be material does not satisfy the requirements of Statement 5 if there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss exceeding amounts already recognized may have been incurred and the amount of that additional loss would be material to a decision to buy or sell the registrant's securities. In that case, the registrant must either (a) disclose the estimated additional loss, or range of loss, that is reasonably possible, or (b) state that such an estimate cannot be made.

Question 3: What disclosures regarding loss contingencies may be necessary outside the financial statements?

Interpretive Response: Registrants should consider the requirements of Items 101 (Description of Business), 103 (Legal Proceedings), and 303 (MD&A) of Regulations S-K and S-B. The Commission has issued interpretive releases that provide additional guidance with respect to these items.⁵⁰ In a 1989 interpretive release, the Commission noted that the availability of insurance, indemnification, or contribution may be relevant in determining whether the criteria for disclosure have been met with respect to a contingency.⁵¹ The registrant's assessment in this regard should include consideration of facts such as the periods in which claims for recovery may be realized, the likelihood that the claims may be contested, and the financial condition of third parties from which recovery is expected.

Disclosures made pursuant to the guidance identified in the preceding paragraph should be sufficiently specific to enable a reader to understand the scope of the contingencies affecting the registrant. For example, a registrant's discussion of historical and anticipated environmental expenditures should, to the extent material, describe separately (a) recurring costs associated with managing hazardous substances and pollution in on-going operations, (b) capital expenditures to limit or monitor hazardous substances or pollutants, (c) mandated expenditures to remediate previously contaminated sites, and (d) other infrequent or non-recurring clean-up expenditures that can be anticipated but which are not required in the present circumstances. Disaggregated disclosure that describes accrued and reasonably likely losses with respect to particular environmental sites that are individually material may be necessary for a full understanding of these contingencies. Also, if management's investigation of potential liability and remediation cost is at different stages with respect to individual sites, the consequences of this with respect to amounts accrued and disclosed should be discussed.

Examples of specific disclosures typically relevant to an understanding of historical and anticipated product liability costs include the nature of personal injury or property damages alleged by claimants, aggregate settlement costs by type of claim, and related costs of administering and litigating claims. Disaggregated disclosure that describes accrued and reasonably likely losses with respect to particular claims may be necessary if they are individually material. If the contingency involves a large number of relatively small individual claims of a similar type, such as personal injury from exposure to asbestos, disclosure of the number of claims pending at each balance sheet date, the number of claims filed for each period presented, the number of claims dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved for each period, and the average settlement amount per claim may be necessary. Disclosures should address historical and expected trends in these amounts and their reasonably likely effects on operating results and liquidity.

Question 4: What disclosures should be furnished with respect to site restoration costs or other environmental remediation costs?⁵²

Interpretive Response: The staff believes that material liabilities for site restoration, post-closure, and monitoring commitments, or other exit costs that may occur on the sale, disposal, or abandonment of a property as a result of unanticipated contamination of the asset should be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. Appropriate disclosures generally would include the nature of the costs involved, the total anticipated cost, the total costs accrued to date, the balance sheet classification of accrued amounts, and the range or amount of reasonably possible additional losses. If an asset held for sale or development will require remediation to be performed by the registrant prior to development, sale, or as a condition of sale, a note to the financial statements should describe how the necessary expenditures are considered in the assessment of the asset's value and the possible need to reflect an impairment loss. Additionally, if the registrant may be liable for remediation of environmental damage relating to assets or businesses previously disposed, disclosure should be made in the financial statements unless the likelihood of a material unfavorable outcome of that contingency is remote.⁵³ The registrant's accounting policy with respect to such costs should be disclosed in accordance with Opinion 22.

Z. Accounting and Disclosure Regarding Discontinued Operations

1. Deleted by SAB 103

2. Deleted by SAB 103

3. Deleted by SAB 103

4. Disposal of operation with significant interest retained

Facts: A Company disposes of its controlling interest in a component of an entity as defined by Statement 144. The Company retains a minority voting interest directly in the component or it holds a minority voting interest in the buyer of the component. Controlling interest includes those controlling interests established through other means, such as variable interests. Because the Company's voting interest enables it to exert significant influence over the operating and financial policies of the investee, the Company is required by Opinion 18 to account for its residual investment using the equity method.⁵⁴

Question: May the historical operating results of the component and the gain or loss on the sale of the majority interest in the component be classified in the Company's statement of operations as "discontinued operations" pursuant to Statement 144?

Interpretive Response: No. A condition necessary for discontinued operations reporting, as indicated in paragraph 42 of Statement 144 is that an entity "not have any significant continuing involvement in the operations of the component after the disposal transaction." In these circumstances, the transaction should be accounted for as the disposal of a group of assets that is not a component of an entity and classified within continuing operations pursuant to Statement 144.⁵⁵

5. Classification and disclosure of contingencies relating to discontinued operations

Facts: A company disposed of a component of an entity in a previous accounting period. The Company received debt and/or equity securities of the buyer of the component or of the disposed component as consideration in the sale, but this financial interest is not sufficient to enable the Company to apply the equity method with respect to its investment in the buyer. The Company made certain warranties to the buyer with respect to the discontinued business, or remains liable under environmental or other laws with respect to certain facilities or operations transferred to the buyer. The disposition satisfied the criteria of Statement 144 for presentation as "discontinued operations." The Company estimated the fair value of the securities received in the transaction for purposes of calculating the gain or loss on disposal that was recognized in its financial statements. The results of discontinued operations prior to the date of disposal or classification as held for sale included provisions for the Company's existing obligations under environmental laws, product warranties, or other contingencies. The calculation of gain or loss on disposal included estimates of the Company's obligations arising as a direct result of its decision to dispose of the component, under its warranties to the buyer, and under environmental or other laws. In a period subsequent to the disposal date, the Company records a charge to income with respect to the securities because their fair value declined materially and the Company determined that the decline was other than temporary. The Company also records adjustments of its previously estimated liabilities arising under the warranties and under environmental or other laws.

Question 1: Should the writedown of the carrying value of the securities and the adjustments of the contingent liabilities be classified in the current period's statement of operations within continuing operations or as an element of discontinued operations?

Interpretive Response: Adjustments of estimates of contingent liabilities or contingent assets that remain after disposal of a component of an entity or that arose pursuant to the terms of the disposal generally should be classified within discontinued operations.⁵⁶ However, the staff believes that changes in the carrying value of assets received as consideration in the disposal or of residual interests in the business should be classified within continuing operations.

Paragraph 44 of Statement 144 requires that "adjustments to amounts previously reported in discontinued operations that are directly related to the disposal of a component of an entity in a prior period shall be classified separately in the current period in discontinued operations." The staff believes that the provisions of paragraph 44 apply only to adjustments that are necessary to reflect new information about events that have occurred that becomes available prior to disposal of the component of the entity, to reflect the actual timing and terms of the disposal when it is consummated, and to reflect the resolution of contingencies associated with that component, such as warranties and environmental liabilities retained by the seller.

Developments subsequent to the disposal date that are not directly related to the disposal of the component or the operations of the component prior to disposal are not "directly related to the disposal" as contemplated by paragraph 44 of Statement 144. Subsequent changes in the carrying value of assets received upon disposition of a component do not affect the determination of gain or loss at the disposal date, but represent the consequences of management's subsequent decisions to hold or sell those assets. Gains and losses, dividend and interest income, and portfolio management expenses associated with assets received as consideration for discontinued operations should be reported within continuing operations.

Question 2: What disclosures would the staff expect regarding discontinued operations prior to the disposal date and with respect to risks retained subsequent to the disposal date?

Interpretive Response: MD&A⁵⁷ should include disclosure of known trends, events, and uncertainties involving discontinued operations that may materially affect the Company's liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations (including net income) between the date when a component of an entity is classified as discontinued and the date when the risks of those operations will be transferred or otherwise terminated. Disclosure should include discussion of the impact on the Company's liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations of changes in the plan of disposal or changes in circumstances related to the plan. Material contingent liabilities,⁵⁸ such as product or environmental liabilities or litigation, that may remain with the Company notwithstanding disposal of the underlying business should be identified in notes to the financial statements and any reasonably likely range of possible loss should be disclosed pursuant to Statement 5. MD&A should include discussion of the reasonably likely effects of these contingencies on reported results and liquidity. If the Company retains a financial interest in the discontinued component or in the buyer of that component that is material to the Company, MD&A should include discussion of known trends, events, and uncertainties, such as the financial condition and operating results of the issuer of the security, that may be reasonably expected to affect the amounts ultimately realized on the investments.

6. Deleted by SAB 103

7. Accounting for the spin-off of a subsidiary

Facts: A Company disposes of a business through the distribution of a subsidiary's stock to the Company's shareholders on a pro rata basis in a transaction that is referred to as a spin-off.

Question: May the Company elect to characterize the spin-off transaction as resulting in a change in the reporting entity and restate its historical financial statements as if the Company never had an investment in the subsidiary, in the manner specified by paragraph 34 of APB Opinion 20?

Interpretive Response: Not ordinarily. If the Company was required to file periodic reports under the Exchange Act within one year prior to the spin-off, the staff believes the Company should reflect the disposition in conformity with Statement 144. This presentation most fairly and completely depicts for investors the effects of the previous and current organization of the Company. However, in limited circumstances involving the initial registration of a company under the Exchange Act or Securities Act, the staff has not objected to financial statements that retroactively reflect the reorganization of the business as a change in the reporting entity if the spin-off transaction occurs prior to effectiveness of the registration statement. This presentation may be acceptable in an initial registration if the Company and the subsidiary are in dissimilar businesses, have been managed and financed historically as if they were autonomous, have no more than incidental common facilities and costs, will be operated and financed autonomously after the spin-off, and will not have material financial commitments, guarantees, or contingent liabilities to each other after the spin-off. This exception to the prohibition against retroactive omission of the subsidiary is intended for companies that have not distributed widely financial statements that include the spun-off subsidiary. Also, dissimilarity contemplates substantially greater differences in the nature of the businesses than those that would ordinarily distinguish reportable segments as defined by Statement 131.

AA. Deleted by SAB 103

BB. Inventory Valuation Allowances

Facts: ARB 43, Chapter 4, Statement 5, specifies that: "[a] departure from the cost basis of pricing the inventory is required when the utility of the goods is no longer as great as its cost. Where there is evidence that the utility of goods, in their disposal in the ordinary course of business, will be less than cost, whether due to physical obsolescence, changes in price levels, or other causes, the difference should be recognized as a loss of the current period. This is generally accomplished by stating such goods at a lower level commonly designated as market."

Footnote 2 to that same chapter indicates that "[i]n the case of goods which have been written down below cost at the close of a fiscal period, such reduced amount is to be considered the cost for subsequent accounting purposes."

Lastly, Opinion 20 provides "inventory obsolescence" as one of the items subject to estimation and changes in estimates under the guidance in paragraphs 10-11 and 31-33 of that Opinion.

Question: Does the write-down of inventory to the lower of cost or market, as required by ARB 43, create a new cost basis for the inventory or may a subsequent change in facts and circumstances allow for restoration of inventory value, not to exceed original historical cost?

Interpretive Response: Based on ARB 43, footnote 2, the staff believes that a write-down of inventory to the lower of cost or market at the close of a fiscal period creates a new cost basis that subsequently cannot be marked up based on changes in underlying facts and circumstances.⁵⁹

CC. Impairments

Standards for recognizing and measuring impairment of the carrying amount of long-lived assets including certain identifiable intangibles to be held and used in operations are found in Statement 144. Standards for recognizing and measuring impairment of the carrying amount of goodwill and identifiable intangible assets that are not currently being amortized are found in Statement 142.

Facts: Company X has mainframe computers that are to be abandoned in six to nine months as replacement computers are put in place. The mainframe computers were placed in service in January 20X0 and were being depreciated on a straight-line basis over seven years. No salvage value had been projected at the end of seven years and the original cost of the computers was $8,400. The board of directors, with the appropriate authority, approved the abandonment of the computers in March 20X3 when the computers had a remaining carrying value of $4,600. No proceeds are expected upon abandonment. Abandonment cannot occur prior to the receipt and installation of replacement computers, which is expected prior to the end of 20X3. Management had begun reevaluating its mainframe computer capabilities in January 20X2 and had included in its 20X3 capital expenditures budget an estimated amount for new mainframe computers. The 20X3 capital expenditures budget had been prepared by management in August 20X2, had been discussed with the company's board of directors in September 20X2 and was formally approved by the board of directors in March 20X3. Management had also begun soliciting bids for new mainframe computers beginning in the fall of 20X2. The mainframe computers, when grouped with assets at the lowest level of identifiable cash flows, were not impaired on a "held and used" basis throughout this time period. Management had not adjusted the original estimated useful life of the computers (seven years) since 20X0.

Question 1: Company X proposes to recognize an impairment charge under Statement 144 for the carrying value of the mainframe computers of $4,600 in March 20X3. Does Company X meet the requirements in Statement 144 to classify the mainframe computer assets as "to be abandoned?"

Interpretive Response: No. Statement 144, paragraph 28, provides that "a long-lived asset to be abandoned is disposed of when it ceases to be used. If an entity commits to a plan to abandon a long-lived asset before the end of its previously estimated useful life, depreciation estimates shall be revised in accordance with Opinion 20 to reflect the use of the asset over its shortened useful life."

Question 2: Would the staff accept an adjustment to write down the carrying value of the computers to reflect a "normalized depreciation" rate for the period from March 20X3 through actual abandonment (e.g., December 20X3)? Normalized depreciation would represent the amount of depreciation otherwise expected to be recognized during that period without adjustment of the asset's useful life, or $1,000 ($100/month for ten months) in the example fact pattern.

Interpretive Response: No. The mainframe computers would be viewed as "held and used" at March 20X3 under the fact pattern described. There is no basis under Statement 144 to write down an asset to an amount that would subsequently result in a "normalized depreciation" charge through the disposal date, whether disposal is to be by sale, abandonment, or other means. For an asset that meets the requirements to be classified as "held for sale" under Statement 144, paragraph 34 of that standard requires the asset to be valued at the lower of carrying amount or fair value less cost to sell. For assets that are classified as "held and used" under Statement 144, an assessment must first be made as to whether the asset (asset group) is impaired. Paragraph 7 of Statement 144 indicates that an impairment loss shall be recognized only if the carrying amount of a long-lived asset (asset group) is not recoverable and exceeds its fair value. The carrying amount of a long-lived asset (asset group) is not recoverable if it exceeds the sum of the undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the asset (asset group). The staff would object to a write down of long-lived assets to a "normalized depreciation" value as representing an acceptable alternative to the approaches required in Statement 144.

The staff also believes that registrants must continually evaluate the appropriateness of useful lives assigned to long-lived assets, including identifiable intangible assets and goodwill. In the above fact pattern, management had contemplated removal of the mainframe computers beginning in January 20X2 and, more formally, in August 20X2 as part of compiling the 20X3 capital expenditures budget. At those times, at a minimum, management should have reevaluated the original useful life assigned to the computers to determine whether a seven year amortization period remained appropriate given the company's current facts and circumstances, including ongoing technological changes in the market place. This reevaluation process should have continued at the time of the September 20X2 board of directors' meeting to discuss capital expenditure plans and, further, as the company pursued mainframe computer bids. Given the contemporaneous evidence that management's best estimate during much of 20X2 was that the current mainframe computers would be removed from service in 20X3, the depreciable life of the computers should have been adjusted prior to 20X3 to reflect this new estimate. The staff does not view the recognition of an impairment charge to be an acceptable substitute for choosing the appropriate initial amortization or depreciation period or subsequently adjusting this period as company or industry conditions change. The staff's view applies also to selection of, and changes to, estimated residual values. Consequently, the staff may challenge impairment charges for which the timely evaluation of useful life and residual value cannot be demonstrated.

Question 3: Has the staff expressed any views with respect to company-determined estimates of cash flows used for assessing and measuring impairment of assets under Statement 144?

Interpretive Response: In providing guidance on the development of cash flows for purposes of applying the provisions of Statement 144, paragraph 17 of that Statement indicates that "estimates of future cash flows used to test the recoverability of a long-lived asset (asset group) shall incorporate the entity's own assumptions about its use of the asset (asset group) and shall consider all available evidence. The assumptions used in developing those estimates shall be reasonable in relation to the assumptions used in developing other information used by the entity for comparable periods, such as internal budgets and projections, accruals related to incentive compensation plans, or information communicated to others."

The staff recognizes that various factors, including management's judgments and assumptions about the business plans and strategies, affect the development of future cash flow projections for purposes of applying Statement 144. The staff, however, cautions registrants that the judgments and assumptions made for purposes of applying Statement 144 must be consistent with other financial statement calculations and disclosures and disclosures in MD&A. The staff also expects that forecasts made for purposes of applying Statement 144 be consistent with other forward-looking information prepared by the company, such as that used for internal budgets, incentive compensation plans, discussions with lenders or third parties, and/or reporting to management or the board of directors.

For example, the staff has reviewed a fact pattern where a registrant developed cash flow projections for purposes of applying the provisions of Statement 144 using one set of assumptions and utilized a second, more conservative set of assumptions for purposes of determining whether deferred tax valuation allowances were necessary when applying the provisions of Statement 109. In this case, the staff objected to the use of inconsistent assumptions.

In addition to disclosure of key assumptions used in the development of cash flow projections, the staff also has required discussion in MD&A of the implications of assumptions. For example, do the projections indicate that a company is likely to violate debt covenants in the future? What are the ramifications to the cash flow projections used in the impairment analysis? If growth rates used in the impairment analysis are lower than those used by outside analysts, has the company had discussions with the analysts regarding their overly optimistic projections? Has the company appropriately informed the market and its shareholders of its reduced expectations for the future that are sufficient to cause an impairment charge? The staff believes that cash flow projections used in the impairment analysis must be both internally consistent with the company's other projections and externally consistent with financial statement and other public disclosures.

DD. Written Loan Commitments Recorded at Fair Value Through Earnings

Facts: Bank A enters into a loan commitment with a customer to originate a mortgage loan at a specified rate. As part of this written loan commitment, Bank A expects to receive future net cash flows related to servicing rights from servicing fees (included in the loan's interest rate or otherwise), late charges, and other ancillary sources, or from selling the servicing rights to a third party. If Bank A intends to sell the mortgage loan after it is funded, pursuant to paragraph 6 of FASB Statement No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended by FASB Statement No. 149, Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities ("Statement 133"), the written loan commitment is accounted for as a derivative instrument and recorded at fair value through earnings (referred to hereafter as a "derivative loan commitment"). If Bank A does not intend to sell the mortgage loan after it is funded, the written loan commitment is not accounted for as a derivative under Statement 133. However, paragraph 7(c) of FASB Statement No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities ("Statement 159"), permits Bank A to record the written loan commitment at fair value through earnings (referred to hereafter as a "written loan commitment"). Pursuant to Statement 159, the fair value measurement for a written loan commitment would include the expected net future cash flows related to the associated servicing of the loan.

Question 1: In measuring the fair value of a derivative loan commitment accounted for under Statement 133, should Bank A include the expected net future cash flows related to the associated servicing of the loan?

Interpretive Response: Yes. The staff believes that, consistent with the recently issued guidance in FASB Statement No. 156, Accounting for Servicing of Financial Assets ("Statement 156")⁶⁰, and Statement 159, the expected net future cash flows related to the associated servicing of the loan should be included in the fair value measurement of a derivative loan commitment. The expected net future cash flows related to the associated servicing of the loan that are included in the fair value measurement of a derivative loan commitment or a written loan commitment should be determined in the same manner that the fair value of a recognized servicing asset or liability is measured under FASB Statement No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities, as amended by Statement 156 ("Statement 140"). However, as discussed in paragraphs 61 and 62 of Statement 140, a separate and distinct servicing asset or liability is not recognized for accounting purposes until the servicing rights have been contractually separated from the underlying loan by sale or securitization of the loan with servicing retained.

The views in Question 1 apply to all loan commitments that are accounted for at fair value through earnings. However, for purposes of electing fair value accounting pursuant to Statement 159, the views in Question 1 are not intended to be applied by analogy to any other instrument that contains a nonfinancial element.

Question 2: In measuring the fair value of a derivative loan commitment accounted for under Statement 133 or a written loan commitment accounted for under Statement 159, should Bank A include the expected net future cash flows related to internally-developed intangible assets?

Interpretive Response: No. The staff does not believe that internally-developed intangible assets (such as customer relationship intangible assets) should be recorded as part of the fair value of a derivative loan commitment or a written loan commitment. Such nonfinancial elements of value should not be considered a component of the related instrument. Recognition of such assets would only be appropriate in a third-party transaction. For example, in the purchase of a portfolio of derivative loan commitments in a business combination, a customer relationship intangible asset is recorded separately from the fair value of such loan commitments. Similarly, when an entity purchases a credit card portfolio, EITF Issue No. 88-20, Difference between Initial Investment and Principal Amount of Loans in a Purchased Credit Card Portfolio, requires an allocation of the purchase price to a separately recorded cardholder relationship intangible asset.

The view in Question 2 applies to all loan commitments that are accounted for at fair value through earnings.

Endnotes:

http://www.sec.gov/interps/account/sabcodet5.htm