Basis of Presentation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Basis of Presentation [Abstract]
Basis of Presentation	1. Basis of Presentation The consolidated financial statements (the "financial statements") include the accounts of Micron Solutions, Inc.® (“Micron Solutions”) and its subsidiary, Micron Products, Inc.® ("Micron" and together with Micron Solutions, the “Company”). All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. The unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements and related notes have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). Accordingly, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in complete financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP") have been omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations. These financial statements and related notes should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the SEC on March 22, 2017. The results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year. The Company's balance sheet at December 31, 2016 has been derived from the audited financial statements at that date, but does not include all the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. The information presented reflects, in the opinion of the management of the Company, all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the financial results for the interim periods presented. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Recent Accounting Pronouncements In the normal course of business, management evaluates all new accounting pronouncements issued by the Financial Accounting Standard Board (“FASB”), Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”), or other authoritative accounting bodies to determine the potential impact they may have on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. Based upon this review, except as noted below, management does not expect any of the recently issued accounting pronouncements, which have not already been adopted, to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842)” In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842),” which requires companies to recognize all leases as assets and liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. The standard retains a distinction between finance leases and operating leases, and the classification criteria for distinguishing between finance leases and operating leases are substantially similar to the classification criteria for distinguishing between capital leases and operating leases in the current accounting literature. The result of retaining a distinction between finance leases and operating leases is that under the lessee accounting model in Topic 842, the effect of leases in a consolidated statement of comprehensive income and a consolidated statement of cash flows is largely unchanged from previous GAAP. The amendments in this standard are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Earlier application is permitted. As of the date of this report, the Company is the lessee of office equipment in a single operating lease and is the lessee of a parking lot as well as storage units. The Company is not a lessor in any arrangements. The Company is evaluating other supplier relationships to determine if such arrangements constitute a lease per this guidance. The Company expects to complete is evaluation prior to the end of 2017 and will evaluate the impact of adoption at that time. The Company does not expect any material impact on reporting or on the results of operations. ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers” (“ASU 2014-09”) In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers” (“ASU 2014-09”). The core principle behind ASU No. 2014-09 is that an entity should recognize revenue in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for delivering goods and services. This model involves a five-step process that includes identifying the contract with the customer, identifying the performance obligations in the contract, determining the transaction price, allocating the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract and recognizing revenue when the entity satisfies the performance obligations. This ASU allows two methods of adoption; a full retrospective approach where historical financial information is presented in accordance with the new standard, and a modified retrospective approach where this ASU is applied to the most current period presented in the financial statements. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No 2015-14 “Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Deferral of the Effective Date,” which deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 to annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, with earlier application permitted as of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. As of the date of this report the Company has established a multi-disciplinary team including members of executive management, accounting, sales, operations and IT which is expected to begin implementation of a transition plan to the new guidance in the third quarter. The team will evaluate all supply and manufacturing agreements with customers as well as the nature of other arrangements and relationships between the Company and all other customers (“arrangements”), to determine if a contract, as defined by the guidance, exists. After evaluating the arrangements, the Company will determine the appropriate treatment for revenue recognition per the guidance compared to the Company’s present revenue recognition policy is outlined in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the SEC on March 22, 2017. As of the date of this report, given the scope of the new standard, the Company is currently unable to provide a reasonable estimate regarding the financial impact or which method of adoption will be elected. Operating matters and liquidity On June 16, 2017 the Company’s credit facility (see Note 6) was renewed for 90 days, expiring September 30, 2017. At June 30, 2017, the outstanding balance on the Company’s revolver was $2,670,000 with $728,879 of borrowing capacity. As of the June 30, 2017 testing date, the Company was in compliance with the terms of the credit facility except with respect to the debt service coverage ratio covenant. Non-compliance with the covenant entitles the bank to declare a default and seek immediate repayment of all outstanding balances. As of the date of these financial statements, the bank has indicated that they will not demand repayment of the outstanding balances. The Company is in discussion with the bank to obtain a waiver of non-compliance with the covenant. Concurrently, the Company is working with bank on extending the credit facility beyond September 30, 2017. As a result of the non-compliance with the debt service coverage ratio covenant, all of the Company’s bank debt has been classified as current liabilities as of June 30, 2017. The Company believes that it will be able to obtain the waiver of non-compliance and extension of the credit facility beyond September 30, 2017, and anticipates that cash flows from its operations, together with its existing working capital, increased booked orders and other resources will be sufficient to fund operations at current levels and repay debt obligations over the next twelve months; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to do so. Assessment of going concern The Company follows accounting standard ASU No. 2014-15, ― Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40), Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. The new accounting standard requires management to evaluate whether there are conditions that give rise to substantial doubt as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year from the date of issuance of these financial statements. Substantial doubt exists when conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, indicate that it is probable that a company will be unable to meet its obligations as they become due within one year after the financial statement issuance date. Management evaluations include identifying relevant conditions and events that were known and reasonably knowable as of the date these financial statements have been issued. At December 31, 2016, the Company identified certain conditions and events which in the aggregate required management to perform an assessment of the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. These conditions included the Company’s ability to renew the credit facility which was maturing in June 2017, negative financial history and the Company’s limited liquidity to meet the working capital needs to support the Company’s operations. While the Company was successful in renewing the credit facility for an additional 90 days, to September 30, 2017, similar conditions exist as of June 30, 2017. As of the June 30, 2017 testing date, the Company was in compliance with the terms of the credit facility except with respect to the debt service coverage ratio covenant. The Company is in discussions with the bank to obtain a waiver of such non-compliance and extension of the credit facility beyond September 30, 2017. Management’s assessment included an analysis of the Company’s first half 2017 results and financial forecasts looking forward twelve months from the date of these financial statements. During the first half of 2017, the Company made strategic decisions to take on new large orders, at aggressive initial pricing, in order to land follow-on orders with lower material costs. During this period the Company incurred extraordinary costs related to the starting up of these new customers, including increased scrap, tooling, labor, rework, expediting charges from suppliers, shift premiums and overtime, in order to meet customer delivery requirements. The Company landed the follow-on orders with the lower material costs and mitigated the startup costs of these new products. The second half 2017 and 2018 forecasts reflect the expected results of austerity measures and productivity improvements implemented, beginning in the second quarter of 2017, which are expected to improve gross margin, reduce operating expenses and return the Company to profitability. These include more efficient use of labor by reducing overtime and modifying production schedules, process improvements, improved material yields, and decreased overhead expenses in part by compensation reductions for all salaried personnel including executive officers. In July 2017, the Company engaged Bonifacio Consulting Services, LLC (“BCS”), a manufacturing consultancy firm with a focus on plastics, medical devices, contract manufacturing and outsourcing to analyze and benchmark the Company’s operations, suggest business development strategies and improve operating performance. Management’s assessment also considered the Company’s history of meeting financial covenants and being able to renew and refinance its debt obligations. Based on the expected extension of the Company’s credit facility beyond September 30, 2017, certain austerity measures and improvements as noted above, cash forecasts, the expected fulfillment of booked orders from existing customers and new customer prospects and the engagement of BCS, the Company expects to continue to meet its obligations for the next twelve months. The financial statements do not include any adjustment that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. Prior period adjustment In the three months ended June 30, 2017, the Company identified $84,721 of cost of goods sold related to revenue recognized in the first quarter of 2017. The statement of operations for the three months ended June 30, 2017 has been adjusted for these amounts so as to accurately present the results of operations for the second quarter of 2017. The statement of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2017 is presented including these amounts on a year to date basis. The Company concluded that the correction of this error was immaterial, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to all relevant periods. The impact of the adjustment on first quarter results is an increase in net loss to $298,436 from $213,715.

1. Basis of Presentation

The consolidated financial statements (the "financial statements") include the accounts of Micron Solutions, Inc.® (“Micron Solutions”) and its subsidiary, Micron Products, Inc.® ("Micron" and together with Micron Solutions, the “Company”). All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

The unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements and related notes have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). Accordingly, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in complete financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP") have been omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations. These financial statements and related notes should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the SEC on March 22, 2017.

The results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year. The Company's balance sheet at December 31, 2016 has been derived from the audited financial statements at that date, but does not include all the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete financial statements.

The information presented reflects, in the opinion of the management of the Company, all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the financial results for the interim periods presented. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In the normal course of business, management evaluates all new accounting pronouncements issued by the Financial Accounting Standard Board (“FASB”), Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”), or other authoritative accounting bodies to determine the potential impact they may have on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. Based upon this review, except as noted below, management does not expect any of the recently issued accounting pronouncements, which have not already been adopted, to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842)”

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842),” which requires companies to recognize all leases as assets and liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. The standard retains a distinction between finance leases and operating leases, and the classification criteria for distinguishing between finance leases and operating leases are substantially similar to the classification criteria for distinguishing between capital leases and operating leases in the current accounting literature. The result of retaining a distinction between finance leases and operating leases is that under the lessee accounting model in Topic 842, the effect of leases in a consolidated statement of comprehensive income and a consolidated statement of cash flows is largely unchanged from previous GAAP. The amendments in this standard are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Earlier application is permitted.

As of the date of this report, the Company is the lessee of office equipment in a single operating lease and is the lessee of a parking lot as well as storage units. The Company is not a lessor in any arrangements. The Company is evaluating other supplier relationships to determine if such arrangements constitute a lease per this guidance. The Company expects to complete is evaluation prior to the end of 2017 and will evaluate the impact of adoption at that time. The Company does not expect any material impact on reporting or on the results of operations.

ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers” (“ASU 2014-09”)

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers” (“ASU 2014-09”). The core principle behind ASU No. 2014-09 is that an entity should recognize revenue in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for delivering goods and services. This model involves a five-step process that includes identifying the contract with the customer, identifying the performance obligations in the contract, determining the transaction price, allocating the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract and recognizing revenue when the entity satisfies the performance obligations. This ASU allows two methods of adoption; a full retrospective approach where historical financial information is presented in accordance with the new standard, and a modified retrospective approach where this ASU is applied to the most current period presented in the financial statements. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No 2015-14 “Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Deferral of the Effective Date,” which deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 to annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, with earlier application permitted as of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016.

As of the date of this report the Company has established a multi-disciplinary team including members of executive management, accounting, sales, operations and IT which is expected to begin implementation of a transition plan to the new guidance in the third quarter. The team will evaluate all supply and manufacturing agreements with customers as well as the nature of other arrangements and relationships between the Company and all other customers (“arrangements”), to determine if a contract, as defined by the guidance, exists. After evaluating the arrangements, the Company will determine the appropriate treatment for revenue recognition per the guidance compared to the Company’s present revenue recognition policy is outlined in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the SEC on March 22, 2017. As of the date of this report, given the scope of the new standard, the Company is currently unable to provide a reasonable estimate regarding the financial impact or which method of adoption will be elected.

Operating matters and liquidity

On June 16, 2017 the Company’s credit facility (see Note 6) was renewed for 90 days, expiring September 30, 2017. At June 30, 2017, the outstanding balance on the Company’s revolver was $2,670,000 with $728,879 of borrowing capacity. As of the June 30, 2017 testing date, the Company was in compliance with the terms of the credit facility except with respect to the debt service coverage ratio covenant. Non-compliance with the covenant entitles the bank to declare a default and seek immediate repayment of all outstanding balances. As of the date of these financial statements, the bank has indicated that they will not demand repayment of the outstanding balances. The Company is in discussion with the bank to obtain a waiver of non-compliance with the covenant. Concurrently, the Company is working with bank on extending the credit facility beyond September 30, 2017. As a result of the non-compliance with the debt service coverage ratio covenant, all of the Company’s bank debt has been classified as current liabilities as of June 30, 2017.

The Company believes that it will be able to obtain the waiver of non-compliance and extension of the credit facility beyond September 30, 2017, and anticipates that cash flows from its operations, together with its existing working capital, increased booked orders and other resources will be sufficient to fund operations at current levels and repay debt obligations over the next twelve months; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to do so.

Assessment of going concern

The Company follows accounting standard ASU No. 2014-15, ― Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40), Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. The new accounting standard requires management to evaluate whether there are conditions that give rise to substantial doubt as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year from the date of issuance of these financial statements. Substantial doubt exists when conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, indicate that it is probable that a company will be unable to meet its obligations as they become due within one year after the financial statement issuance date. Management evaluations include identifying relevant conditions and events that were known and reasonably knowable as of the date these financial statements have been issued.

At December 31, 2016, the Company identified certain conditions and events which in the aggregate required management to perform an assessment of the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. These conditions included the Company’s ability to renew the credit facility which was maturing in June 2017, negative financial history and the Company’s limited liquidity to meet the working capital needs to support the Company’s operations. While the Company was successful in renewing the credit facility for an additional 90 days, to September 30, 2017, similar conditions exist as of June 30, 2017. As of the June 30, 2017 testing date, the Company was in compliance with the terms of the credit facility except with respect to the debt service coverage ratio covenant. The Company is in discussions with the bank to obtain a waiver of such non-compliance and extension of the credit facility beyond September 30, 2017.

Management’s assessment included an analysis of the Company’s first half 2017 results and financial forecasts looking forward twelve months from the date of these financial statements. During the first half of 2017, the Company made strategic decisions to take on new large orders, at aggressive initial pricing, in order to land follow-on orders with lower material costs. During this period the Company incurred extraordinary costs related to the starting up of these new customers, including increased scrap, tooling, labor, rework, expediting charges from suppliers, shift premiums and overtime, in order to meet customer delivery requirements. The Company landed the follow-on orders with the lower material costs and mitigated the startup costs of these new products.

The second half 2017 and 2018 forecasts reflect the expected results of austerity measures and productivity improvements implemented, beginning in the second quarter of 2017, which are expected to improve gross margin, reduce operating expenses and return the Company to profitability. These include more efficient use of labor by reducing overtime and modifying production schedules, process improvements, improved material yields, and decreased overhead expenses in part by compensation reductions for all salaried personnel including executive officers. In July 2017, the Company engaged Bonifacio Consulting Services, LLC (“BCS”), a manufacturing consultancy firm with a focus on plastics, medical devices, contract manufacturing and outsourcing to analyze and benchmark the Company’s operations, suggest business development strategies and improve operating performance. Management’s assessment also considered the Company’s history of meeting financial covenants and being able to renew and refinance its debt obligations.

Based on the expected extension of the Company’s credit facility beyond September 30, 2017, certain austerity measures and improvements as noted above, cash forecasts, the expected fulfillment of booked orders from existing customers and new customer prospects and the engagement of BCS, the Company expects to continue to meet its obligations for the next twelve months. The financial statements do not include any adjustment that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Prior period adjustment

In the three months ended June 30, 2017, the Company identified $84,721 of cost of goods sold related to revenue recognized in the first quarter of 2017. The statement of operations for the three months ended June 30, 2017 has been adjusted for these amounts so as to accurately present the results of operations for the second quarter of 2017. The statement of operations for the six months ended June 30, 2017 is presented including these amounts on a year to date basis. The Company concluded that the correction of this error was immaterial, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to all relevant periods. The impact of the adjustment on first quarter results is an increase in net loss to $298,436 from $213,715.