All posts by support@mylogiq.com

Disclosures from two giants (Intel and Caterpillar) in this week’s 10-K regarding revenue recognition

MyLogIQ Fact Studies, ,

Disclosures from two giants (Intel and Caterpillar) in this week’s 10-K regarding revenue recognition

INTEL CORP: 10-K Filed February 17, 2017:
ACCOUNTING POLICIES
We recognize net product revenue when the earnings process is complete, as evidenced by an agreement, delivery has occurred, pricing is deemed fixed, and collection is considered probable. We record pricing allowances, including discounts based on contractual arrangements with customers, when we recognize revenue as a reduction to both accounts receivable and net revenue. Because of frequent sales price reductions and rapid technology obsolescence in our industry, we defer product revenue and related costs of sales from component sales made to distributors under agreements allowing price protection or right of return until the distributors sell the merchandise. The right of return granted generally consists of a stock rotation program in which distributors are able to exchange certain products based on the number of qualified purchases made by the distributor. Under the price protection program, we give distributors credits for the difference between the original price paid and the current price that we offer. We include shipping charges billed to customers in net revenue, and include the related shipping costs in cost of sales.

Revenue Recognition – Contracts with Customers. This standard was issued to achieve a consistent application of revenue recognition within the U.S., resulting in a single revenue model to be applied by reporting companies under U.S. GAAP. Under the new model, recognition of revenue occurs when a customer obtains control of promised goods or services in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In addition, the new standard requires that reporting companies disclose the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers.   Effective in the first quarter of 2018. We plan to adopt the standard retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying it recognized at the date of initial application (“modified retrospective” approach).   Our assessment has identified a change in revenue recognition timing on our component sales made to distributors. We expect to recognize revenue when we deliver to the distributor rather than deferring recognition until the distributor sells the components.
On the date of initial application, we will remove the deferred net revenue on component sales made to distributors through a cumulative adjustment to retained earnings. We expect the revenue deferral, historically recognized in the following period, to be offset by the acceleration of revenue recognition as control of the product transfers to our customer.
Our assessment has also identified a change in expense recognition timing related to payments we make to our customers for distinct services they perform as part of cooperative advertising programs. We expect to recognize the expense for cooperative advertising in the period the marketing activities occur. We currently recognize the expense in the period the customer is entitled to participate in the program, which coincides with the period of sale.
On the date of initial adoption, we will capitalize the expense of cooperative advertising not performed through a cumulative adjustment to retained earnings. We expect the recognition of capitalized advertising to offset the deceleration in expense recognition until the marketing services are performed.
We will continue our assessment, operate parallel systems and processes, as well as finalize our evaluation of any changes to our accounting policies and disclosures. This excludes our planned divestiture of Intel Security Group (ISecG).

Caterpillar Inc. 10-K Filed February 15, 2017:

Sales of Machinery, Energy & Transportation are recognized and earned when all the following criteria are satisfied: (a) persuasive evidence of a sales arrangement exists; (b) price is fixed and determinable; (c) collectibility is reasonably assured; and (d) delivery has occurred. Persuasive evidence of an arrangement and a fixed or determinable price exist once we receive an order or contract from a customer or independently owned and operated dealer. We assess collectibility at the time of the sale and if collectibility is not reasonably assured, the sale is deferred and not recognized until collectibility is probable or payment is received. Typically, where product is produced and sold in the same country, title and risk of ownership transfer when the product is shipped. Products that are exported from a country for sale typically pass title and risk of ownership at the border of the destination country.

Revenue recognition – In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued new revenue recognition guidance to provide a single, comprehensive revenue recognition model for all contracts with customers. Under the new guidance, an entity will recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers at an amount that the entity expects to be entitled to in exchange for those goods or services. A five step model has been introduced for an entity to apply when recognizing revenue. The new guidance also includes enhanced disclosure requirements, and is effective January 1, 2018, with early adoption permitted for January 1, 2017. Entities have the option to apply the new guidance under a retrospective approach to each prior reporting period presented, or a modified retrospective approach with the cumulative effect of initially applying the new guidance recognized at the date of initial application within the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity. We plan to adopt the new guidance effective January 1, 2018.

We have made substantial progress in our evaluation of the impact of the new standard. Under the new guidance, we anticipate sales of certain turbine machinery units will change to a point-in-time recognition model. Under current guidance, we account for these sales under an over-time model following the percentage-of-completion method as the product is manufactured. In addition, under the new guidance we will begin to recognize an asset for the value of expected replacement part returns. At this time we have not identified any impacts to our financial statements that we believe will be material in the year of adoption. We are still evaluating the impact to certain revenue streams within our Energy & Transportation and Resource Industries segments and expect that evaluation to be completed during the first half of 2017. Based on the current estimated impact to our financial statements, we plan to adopt the new guidance under the modified retrospective approach.

The Virtual Shareholder Meeting: A Growing Way to Avoid Protestors?

Uncategorized

The upcoming March 22nd annual shareholder meeting of the Hewlett Packer Enterprise (HPE) Company during President Trump’s first 100 days in office will be interesting in one fascinating way. It will be completely virtual.

As protests of all kinds rock American society, we may be on the cutting edge of a trend that will become standard operating procedure in the near future. According to HPE, an all virtual meeting enables shareholder participation. But is that their only objective?

This is the second year that HPE held an all virtual annual meeting. Only 70 companies out of the existing 8,000 held virtual meetings last year. Of those 70, only the following eight joined HPE as a S&P 500 company:

1) Alaska Air
2) CA Technologies
3) CSRA
4) Harman International
5) Illumina
6) Laboratory Corp of America
7) Mosaic
8) PayPal

Companies have always had shareholder meetings. Some of these meetings are more popular than others. But they were always held in hotels or fancy corporate offices. This will be the first all virtual meeting with no physical meeting location since President Trump took office. To be clear, companies have always given shareholders the opportunity to listen in online or phone in but that has always been in connection to a meeting happening in a physical location.

Could this be a growing trend? A result of the corporate backlash from the masses aided by our country’s CEO? In our view, it makes most sense to hold shareholder meetings online. It provides safety to the attendees and host. But how will protesters, who are used to having a physical location to disrupt, react? Will they call in on the internet and submit a protest video stream? Danger: Could activist hackers take over a meeting and spread fake corporate news? IR officers may have a new role!

Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645590/000104746917000541/a2230793zdef14a.htm

New Trends in Disclosure. MyLogIQ teams up with EY & FERF on “Disclosure effectiveness in action: companies make great strides.”

MyLogIQ Fact Studies, , , ,

Disclosure effectiveness has been generating a lot of buzz. Forward-thinking enterprises are creating innovative approaches to the presentation of key metrics in disclosures, particularly in MD&A and Risk Factors. The world is taking notice. As you might imagine, we at MyLogIQ love a good trend. We’re a bit obsessed with disclosure data. So we teamed up with EY & FERF and supplied key data and metrics for the recently published report “Disclosure effectiveness in action: companies make great strides.” The full report can be found in our recent article, linked below. Our intelligent algorithms curated, sorted, and analyzed disclosures pulled from S&P 500 companies. Our data clearly shows new trends…

Click on the picture below to view our full article with a link to the report:
New Trends in Disclosure
image001

Is the SEC listening to your earnings calls?

Non-GAAP Earnings Call, , ,
conf-transcripts

You bet they do! May be they are very busy and don’t listen in live, but they surely are scanning the earnings call transcripts.

It is earnings season again. As the analysts and investors are curious to hear how companies have fared, the regulators may be listening in to see what Non-GAAP metrics companies are disclosing & talking about.
The use of Non-GAAP is not new and neither is the SEC’s comments on the use of Non-GAAP. Recently with speeches being made by SEC Commissioner Mary Jo white (Dec 2015) and other senior staffers giving their opinions, the heat seems to be picking up.

In fairness to the SEC protecting the investors interest, they ask that companies do the following “Where non-GAAP financial measures are made public orally, telephonically, by webcast, broadcast or similar means, please ensure that you include the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure as required by Item 100(a)(1) of Regulation G and provide a cross reference to the location on your website where the reconciliation for such measures can be
found’

How then do we know the SEC is listening/reading your earnings calls?
We looked at our SECAnalyzer™ SEC Comments Database for “earnings call” and “Non GAAP” and found the regulators refer to comments made during the earnings calls, and wrote the companies an SEC comment. Listed below are three companies that SEC staff have commented on.
So this earnings season, we will be analyzing the earnings releases to see what Non-GAAP companies are disclosing, never mind whether the sec comments or not.
——————————————————————————————————————-
COVISINT CORP SEC Comment [12/23/2015] Comment Letter
4. In your Q2 2016 earnings call, management indicates that “free cash burn” for the quarter was about $5.4 million, which appears to be a discussion of non-GAAP measures. In the future, where non-GAAP financial measures are made public orally, telephonically, by webcast, broadcast or similar means, please ensure that you include the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure as required by Item 100(a)(1) of Regulation G and provide a cross reference to the location on your website where the reconciliation for such measures can be found. We refer you to Note 1 of Item 100 of Regulation G and Question 105.02 of the Non-GAAP Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations.

6. In your Q2 2016 earnings call, management states that you expect to finish the year with a net loss of between $11 and $14 million on a non-GAAP pro forma basis. However, the Guidance Summary on slide 4 of the presentation materials does not specify that your Net Income projections are on a non-GAAP basis and they are not reconciled to the comparable GAAP measure. Similarly, the Free Cash Flow projections are not reconciled to the comparable GAAP measure. In future filings and public presentations please ensure that your non-GAAP measures are clearly identified as such. In addition, ensure that you reconcile your non-GAAP projections to the most directly comparable GAAP measure or explain to us why you cannot provide that information without unreasonable effort. Please refer to Item 10(e)(1)(i) of Regulation S-K.

TRIMAS CORP SEC Comment [05/03/2016] Comment Letter
2. We note disclosure in your earnings presentation that “free cash flow approximated 87% of net income for 2015, excluding special items.” We also note your CFO stated on your earnings call that “free cash flow approximated 87% of net income.” It appears to us: the measure you refer to as “free cash flow” is adjusted for items in addition to what is commonly referred to as free cash flow; and the 87% calculation is actually based on “Income from Continuing Operations, Excluding Special Items. ” Please revise future filings to use titles or descriptions for non-GAAP financial measures that accurately reflect the amounts presented or calculated, and are not the same as, or confusingly similar to, GAAP measures. Also, to the extent you continue to present a cash conversion percentage based on non-GAAP financial measures, it appears you should also present the most directly comparable GAAP measure.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. SEC Comment [03/18/2016] Comment Letter
1. We note that, over the past four years, you have reported approximately $9.8 billion of non – GAAP net income. During this same period, you reported GAA P net loss of approximately $330 million for a total increase from GAAP loss to non – GAAP income of over $10 billion.

In addition, you have reported taxes on $10.2 billion of non – GAAP pretax income at a rate of only 3% . During the call on February 26, 2016 between Valeant and the SEC staff, we discussed the company’s proposed change to the reconciliation between the GAAP tax provision and the non – GAAP provision. On that call, we expressed significant concern about the non – GAAP tax provision.

We learned through your March 15th earnings call that you plan to increase the tax rate used in calculating your future non – GAAP measure to between 10 and 15% in 2016. We also learned that you attributed this change to a suggestion made by the staff. At the time you publicized this change, the staff had informed you that we had concerns about whether your non – GAAP measure was potentially misleading due to the tax provision but we had not suggested any particular tax rate that would be appropriate nor that it would be appropriate to make a change only prospectively.

The measure used over at least the past four years gives the impression that you could have generated $10.2 billion in pre – tax profits during that time without paying any significant amount of tax. We find this presentation to be potentially misleading.

You should amend or supplement your earnings release to inform investors promptly that the hypothetical results suggested by this non – GAAP measure were unrealistic and show how the revised tax rates would have affected prior periods.
————————————————————————————————————————————–

MyLogIQ Fact Study

MyLogIQ Fact Studies, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Analysis of 10-K Filing Dates & Auditor Opinion Date

By using data retrieved from MyLogIQ, we were able to compile this analysis about filing dates for annual reports with a perspective on auditor opinion date, for all public companies. This study is based on annual reports as filed in the year 2015 for FYE in 2014. We will publish updates to this report when the annual reports for the majority of the companies FYE 2015 are filed in 2016.

Summary of Findings:
• Average number of days it takes a Large accelerator to file 10-K: 55 days
• Average number of days it takes an auditor to sign off (based on audit opinion date) for large accelerated filer: 55 days
• 16% of Large companies have their FYE outside of December, yet the average number of days to file (54) is only one day less.
• Fastest filing for FYE Dec. 31, 2015 is 27 days after FYE by filer United Rentals, Inc. (Ticker: URI) and filer Schlumberger, Ltd. (Ticker: SLB), while it was 21 days for FYE Dec 31, 2014. Which was also filed by United Rentals, Inc. (TICKER: URI).
• Within 30 Days after a Dec. 31st FYE, 7 companies filed their 10-K in 2016 vs 8 for FYE 2014.
• Auditors sometimes make mistakes and send in the auditor’s report signed before the FYE of the registrant.
• Majority of the Non-Accelerated filers don’t file their XBRL along with their 10-K (in html).

 

Overall picture of Annual report filing for all public companies:

On average it took Large Accelerated Filer companies 55 days from the fiscal year end to the audit opinion date, coinciding exactly with the average days it took Large Accelerated Filer companies to file their 10-Ks. We see this pattern continue with the other filers as well in the following table.

No. of Days Between 2014 FYE and Opinion Date
(days taken to file 10-K with the SEC)

Large Accelerated Filers

 Accelerated Filers Non-Accelerated Filers Smaller Reporting Companies
55 (55) 69 (69) 73 (75) 97 (99)

 

Only 16% of Large Accelerated Filer companies don’t have their fiscal year end date fall in December. On average, it confirms auditors need 54-55 days to review a company’s annual financials (LAF). It raises the question, how are some giants like Schlumberger, Netflix, Amazon and Facebook getting their financials audited and filed within 30 days?

Filer Status

 No. of Companies

(in %)

 Average No. Of Days It Takes to Publish 10-K

(FYE = Dec)

 No. of Companies

(in %)

 Average No. Of Days It Takes to Publish 10-K

(FYE ≠ Dec)

Large Accelerated Filers

 84% 55 16% 54

Accelerated Filers

 80% 68 20%

73
Non-Accelerated Filers 89% 78 11%

81
Smaller Reporting Companies 66% 96 34%

105

 

Detailed Analysis by Filer Status

Large Accelerated Filer:
For FYE 2014, on average it took all Large Accelerated Filer companies 55 days to publish their annual reports, regardless. Although the fiscal year end date for all of these companies vary and are spread throughout the year, 84% of them have a fiscal year end of December 31st, making it an extremely busy season for both companies and auditors. While the SEC gives Large Accelerated Filers 60 days past their fiscal year end to publish their annual reports, there are some overachievers who managed to do it in 30 days or less.

No. of Large Accelerated Filer Companies who filed within 30 days whose Fiscal Year Ends on Dec. 31, 2014 = 8
No. of Large Accelerated Filer Companies who filed within 30 days whose Fiscal Year Ends on Dec. 31, 2015 = 7

The following table shows all of the Large Accelerated Filer companies with FYE December 31st in 2014 and in 2015 who filed in half the time (30 days) of the 60-day SEC filing deadline:

Fastest Large Accelerated Filer Companies Filing 10-K Whose Fiscal Year Ends on December 31st

2014

2015

Company

 Days to File Company

Days to File

UNITED RENTALS INC /DE

 21 SCHLUMBERGER LTD /NV/ 27

MDC HOLDINGS INC

 28 UNITED RENTALS INC /DE

27

SCHLUMBERGER LTD /NV/

 29 FACEBOOK INC

28

NETFLIX INC

 29 NETFLIX INC

28
FACEBOOK INC 29 AMAZON COM INC

29

BROADCOM CORP

 29 CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORP

29

AMAZON COM INC

 30 KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN

29

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN

30

 

4

 

Accelerated Filers:
For FYE 2014, on average it took all Accelerated Filer companies 69 days to publish their annual reports. While the SEC gives Accelerated Filers 75 days past their fiscal year end to publish their annual reports, there are some overachievers who manage to do it in half the time.

No. of Accelerated Filer Companies who filed within 38 days whose Fiscal Year Ends on Dec. 31, 2014 = 6
No. of Accelerated Filer Companies who filed within 38 days whose Fiscal Year Ends on Dec. 31, 2015 = 5

The following table shows all of the Large Accelerated Filer companies with FYE December 31st in 2014 and in 2015 who filed in half the time (38 days) of the 75-day SEC filing deadline:

Fastest Accelerated Filer Companies in Filing 10-K Whose Fiscal Year Ends on December 31st

2014

2015

Company

 Days to File Company

Days to File

FLOTEK INDUSTRIES INC/CN/

 27 WL ROSS HOLDING CORP.

14

UNITIL CORP

 28 VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, INC

22

VASCULAR SOLUTIONS INC

 34 FLOTEK INDUSTRIES INC/CN/

27

CAMBREX CORP

 37 UNITIL CORP

28

22nd CENTURY GROUP, INC

 37 HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC

39

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, LTD

37

 

2a

 

Non- Accelerated Filers:
For FYE 2014, on average it took all Non-Accelerated Filer companies 75 days to publish their annual reports. While the SEC gives Non-Accelerated Filers 90 days past their fiscal year end to publish their annual reports, there are some overachievers who manage to do it in 45 days or less.

No. of Non-Accelerated Filer Companies who filed within 45 days whose Fiscal Year Ends on Dec. 31, 2014 = 20
No. of Non-Accelerated Filer Companies who filed within 45 days whose Fiscal Year Ends on Dec. 31, 2015 = 6 (As of Feb. 10, 2016)

The following table shows all of the Large Accelerated Filer companies with FYE December 31st in 2014 and in 2015 who filed in half the time (45 days) of the 90-day SEC filing deadline:

Fastest Non-Accelerated Filer Companies in Filing 10-K Whose Fiscal Year Ends on December 31st

2014

2015

Company

 Days to File Company

Days to File

KANSAS CITY SOUTHER DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V.

 30 PACE HOLDINGS CORP

26

GENERAL MOTORS FINANCIAL COMPANY, INC

 35 MEDICAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC

29

BIOMED REALTY L.P.

 37 GENERAL MOTORS FINANCIAL COMPANY, INC

34

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC Co

 41 CNX COAL RESOURCES LP

36

HIGHWOODS REALTY LTD PARTNERSHIP

 41 NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC

36

KILROY REALTY, L.P.

 41 HIGHWOODS REALTY LTD PARTNERSHIPS

40

OWENS-ILLINOIS GROUP INC

41

CARETRUST REIT, INC

42

ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN L.P.

43

TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS, INC

 43

BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO

 44
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO

44
DTE ELECTRIC CO

44

FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO LLC

 44

PECO ENERGY CO

 44

UNION CARBIDE CORP /NEW/

44
MLM INDEX FUND

44
EXELON GENERATION CO LLC

44

TROPICANA LAS VEGAS HOTEL & CASINO, INC

 44
IMS HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC

44

 

2b

 

Smaller Reporting Companies:
For FYE 2014, on average it took all Smaller reporting companies 99 days to publish their annual reports, regardless. While the SEC gives Large small reporting Filers 90 days past their fiscal year end to publish their annual reports, there are some overachievers who manage to do it in 45 days or less.

No. of Smaller Reporting Companies who filed within 45 days whose Fiscal Year Ends on Dec. 31, 2014 = 18
No. of Smaller Reporting Companies who filed within 45 days whose Fiscal Year Ends on Dec. 31, 2015 = 12 (As of Feb. 10, 2016)

The following table shows all of the Smaller Reporting companies with FYE December 31st in 2014 and in 2015 who filed in half the time (45 days) of the 90-day SEC filing deadline:

Fastest Smaller Reporting Companies in Filing 10-K Whose Fiscal Year Ends on December 31st
2014

2015

Company

 Days to File Company

Days to File

DIEGO PELLICER WORLDWIDE, INC

 28 DUTCH OVEN GOLD GROUP, INC

27

COMSTOCK MINING, INC

 29 RAMPART STUDIOS, INC

27

INFINITY ENERGY RESOURCES, INC

 35 COMSTOCK MINING, INC

28

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INC

 37 ANDES 9, INC

32

BOSTON OMAHA Corp

 37 ANDES 8, INC 32

FUTURE HEALTH CARE OF AMERICA

 37 HEADGEPATH PHARMACEUTICAL, INC

32
INUVO, INC 40 ANDES 7, INC

32

CORBUS PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS, INC

 41 YANGTZE RIVER DEVELOPMENT, LTD

33
SCI ENGINEERED MATERIALS, INC 42 PARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY & INVESTMENT TRUST

36

PARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY & INVESTMENT TRUST

 42 LABSTYLE INNOVATIONS CORP

39

AKARI THERAPEUTICS PLC

 42 SCI ENGINEERED MATERIAL, INC

40

GLOBAL SEAFOOD HOLDINGS CORP

 43 TRANSACT ENERGY CORP

40

RVUE HOLDINGS, INC.

 43
MEDIZONE INTERNATIONAL INC

44

HEDGEPATH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC

 44
PROTEA BIOSCIENCES GROUP, INC

44

SEMLER SCIENTIFIC, INC

 44
TRIUMPH VENTURES CORP

44

 

2c

 

Curious Public Accountant Errors:

We never thought we would find auditors making a mistake on their opinion date, but the table below shows the companies whose auditors signed off on their reports prior to the FYE. Are the auditors thinking ahead?

The following table lists the companies whose auditor reports are dated before their fiscal year end, in 2015:

Company Filer Status Auditor FYE

Opinion date

CALAVO GROWERS, INC.

 Large Accelerrated ERNST & YOUNG LLP 10/31/2015

1/30/2015

CHINA YCT INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.

 Smaller Reporting Company PARITZ & COMPANY PA 3/31/2015

7/9/2014

REGI U S INC

 Smaller Reporting Company MALONEBAILEY LLP 4/30/2015

7/28/2014
TARSIER LTD. Smaller Reporting Company KCCW ACCOUNTANCY CORP 5/31/2015

9/15/2014

VERITEC INC

 Smaller Reporting Company WEINBERG & COMPANY, P.A. 6/30/2015

1/21/2015

PETRICHOR CORP.

 Smaller Reporting Company KLJ & ASSOCIATES, LLP 5/31/2015

8/20/2014

CODE NAVY

 Smaller Reporting Company YU CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C. 6/30/2015

12/11/2014

PEAK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 Smaller Reporting Company EIDE BAILLY LLP 9/30/2015

1/12/2015

AXIOM HOLDINGS, INC.

 Smaller Reporting Company SADLER, GIBB AND ASSOCIATES, LLC 9/30/2015

1/20/2015

INTERUPS, INC.

 Smaller Reporting Company SADLER, GIBB AND ASSOCIATES, LLC 5/31/2015

1/20/2015

 

Other Observations:

Another observation we have made was the number of companies who filed their XBRL on the same day as their HTML in 2014. The following table shows the number of companies who filed their XBRL and HTML on the same day based on the filer status.

Was the XBRL & HTML filed on the same day?

Filer Status

Large Accelerated Filers

 Accelerated Filers Non-Accelerated Filers

Smaller Reporting Companies

Yes

 1811 1321 741

2684

No

 18 42 591

171

 

Future Study & Follow-Up:

After completion of period end, during the month of March 2016, MyLogIQ, LLC will be releasing a study of earnings releases.

Help Tip: How to find the auditor’s opinion date & filter your keyword search?

SECAnalyzer™ Help Tips, , , , , ,

Help Tip #1: As you may know, finding the auditor’s opinion date in the annual report is not always the quickest task. But we’ve managed to find a way to get this information to you in just a few clicks.

Please take a look at the step by step process below:
1. From the search panel, click on filter, ‘Form types, Sections, Notes to Financials, Exhibits & Contracts’.
2. Select, ‘Form Itemization’.
3. By default, it should be set to form ’10-K’, but if not, click on ’10-K’.
4. Scroll down the items list and select ‘LD_TOPIC- AUDITOR OPINION’.
5. If needed, insert company name, CIK or ticker in the company search box, adjust date range or select filter, ‘Company Identification Codes, Principals & Properties’, to filter by filer status, SIC group, auditor, etc.
6. Click ‘Search’.

Help Tip #2: Are you looking for a specific keyword and would only like to see it it within tables? What about within a paragraph in relation to percentages or dollar amounts? Did you know you could do both of these actions in the SECAnalyzer™?
There are two ways to filter your keyword search, by ‘quantified text’ or ‘in tables’. By quantified text we mean anything that can be measured, like dates, dollar amounts, percentages, etc. And by in tables, we mean anything in a table-chart like structure.

Please take a look at the step by step process below:
1. Input your keyword in the keyword search box, adjust the date range. If needed choose your filters or input the company name.
2. Below the keyword search box select either, ‘Quantified Text’ or ‘In Tables’ or both.
3. Click ‘Search’

You’re also able to view all results for your search criteria by selecting ‘All’. And if you want to switch between ‘Quantified Text’, ‘In Tables’ or ‘All’ after you’ve made your search, just look for the options in the middle of the screen, above your search results.
It’ll look like the following:
Filter

Help Tip: How to search for preferability letters?

SECAnalyzer™ Help Tips, , , , , , ,

Disclosed by Exhibit 18 are the Preferability letters which as you know are changes in the accounting policies relating to goodwill. The SECAnalyzer™, offers you a simple way to search for keywords within exhibits. In this case, we would search for specific keywords within exhibit 18 to find research about Preferability letters that were released.

Interestingly enough not all companies release Preferability letters after making changes. But don’t worry, we have you covered there too! Most of these companies state their changes within the footnote: accounting policies. You can easily search for specific keywords within footnotes just like exhibits. Allowing you to find all those nitty gritty details without breaking a sweat.

Please take a look at the step by step process below:
1. From the search panel, select ‘Form types, Sections, Notes to Financials, Exhibits & Contracts’.
2. Click on ‘Exhibits’ and select ‘EX-18 LETTER RE CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES’.
3. Enter your desired keywords in the Keyword/Concept search box and select the dates you’d like to search within.
4. Click ‘Search’.

Alternatively, if the company has not released a Preferability letter:
1. From the search panel, select ‘Form types, Sections, Notes to Financials, Exhibits & Contracts’.
2. Click on ‘Form Types’ and select 10-K & 10-Q (hold ctrl key to select multiple items)
3. Click on ‘Notes to Financial’ and select ‘Accounting Policies’.
4. Enter your desired keywords in the Keyword/Concept search box and select the dates you’d like to search within.
5. Click ‘Search’.