Category Archives: MyLogIQ Fact Studies

CEO State Pay Ratios – Less Than a Day to Earn a Year’s Salary

MyLogIQ Fact Studies

Several of America’s CEOs have to work less than a day to earn a year’s salary/the average person’s annual salary.  That’s the finding from MyLoGIQ’s review of CEO pay of S&P 500 companies.

MyLogIQ reviewed the 2017 pay of 164 CEOs of S&P 500 companies and found that 70 of those CEOS had to work less than one day to make the annual salary of the median worker in the state where their company is headquartered.

14 CEOs only had to work until lunch to make the same salary as the median worker in their state.

Another 62 CEOs had to work between a day and 2.5 days to earn the median salary of their state.

The MyLoGIQ pay ratio provides a state by state comparison of average CEO state median pay ratios.

 

 

Cannabis Proposal Up for Proxy Vote at Eli Lilly Shareholder Meeting in May 2018

MyLogIQ Fact Studies
Cannabis Proposal Up for Proxy Vote at Eli Lilly Shareholder Meeting in May 2018.

A shareholder proposal to help decriminalize cannabis will be on Eli Lilly’s 2018 proxy and will be up for a vote at the annual shareholder meeting on May 7, 2018.

Fred Pfenninger of Indiana, who owns 79 shares of Eli Lilly common stock, started the process of placing this proposal before the Lilly Board on November 2016 for the 2017 proxy vote.  Lilly forwarded the proposal to the SEC under Rule 14a-8 the following month as a no act filing requesting that the SEC deny the proposal from going forward. At that time, Lilly argued that the proposal was not received at their headquarters before the deadline for submitting shareholder proposals. However, the proposal made it to the 2018 Annual shareholders meeting.

The Lilly Board is recommending against the proposal, which appears as Item 7 on the 2018 Proxy Statement.  This should lead to an interesting vote in May.

Interesting Facts from the Proposal:

  • Lilly was a world leader in cannabis based pharmaceutical products in the early 1900s
  • Lilly sold 23 different cannabis items in its medical catalog in 1935
  • Eli Lilly, the third president of the company from 1932-1948, did his doctoral dissertation on cannabis in 1907.
  • Parke Davis worked with Lilly to create its own strain, Cannabis Americana, which Lilly grew in Greenfield, Indiana.

Source:  https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/59478/000005947818000111/proxy2018_def14a.htm

Talk to Your Auditor Now or Pay Later: FERF 2017 Audit Fee Survey Report

MyLogIQ Fact Studies

January 16, 2018      Featured in FEI Daily, Pelland, Auditor Fees

FERF 2017 Audit Fee Survey Report – A Financial Executives Research Foundation Report Written by Dave Pelland in Collaboration with MyLogIQ

By Dave Pelland January 16, 2018

Mergers and acquisitions, growing documentation requests from external auditors and new accounting standards are among the factors contributing to higher fees during the 2016 audit season.

Taking a broader look at public companies, an analysis of 2016 SEC filing data by data analysis provider MyLogIQ reveals a median audit fee increase of 2.6 percent among 6,394 registrants. This compares favorably with the 3.5 percent median increase reported for the 2015 audit season.

To view the entire report, click http://daily.financialexecutives.org/talk-auditor-now-pay-later/

Some Reported Staggering Increases in 2016 Cash Bonuses of More than 40 percent

MyLogIQ Fact Studies

The Conference Board, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. and MyLogIQ Release Comprehensive Review of Russell 3000 Executive Pay Packages

According to research on executive compensation released today by The Conference Board, while the value of cash bonuses awarded by publicly traded U.S. financial firms grew 10.6 percent overall in 2016, the analysis by asset value shows extraordinarily wide variation in the level of such growth. CEOs of leading companies with asset value in the US$50-99.9 billion group reported staggering year-on-year bonus increases of more than 40 percent in value (and almost 500 percent since 2010). However, even during the 2016 expansionary period, annual bonuses were affected by the cyclical fortunes of underperforming industries, with companies in consumer discretionary, consumer staples, health care and telecommunications services reporting median declines.

A collaboration between The Conference Board, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. and MyLogIQ, CEO and Executive Compensation Practices: 2017 Edition documents trends and developments in CEO and senior management compensation at companies that issue equity securities registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and were included in the Russell 3000 index as of May 2017. The study of disclosed compensation elements is complemented by the review of the major features of short-term and long-term incentive plans (STIs and LTIs) in a subset of 100 mid-market companies included in the Russell 3000 index as of May 2017. (For the purpose of this report, mid-market refers to nonfinancial companies with annual revenue between US$1 billion and US$5 billion, and financial companies with asset value between US$1 billion and US$10 billion). In addition, the publication illustrates findings from The Conference Board survey of corporate secretaries and general counsels on the role of the board of directors in setting executive compensation, as well as the analysis of say-on-pay resolutions and shareholder proposals at Russell 3000 companies on issues of executive pay that went to a vote in the 2017 proxy season.

“We are pleased to present the new edition of what has become one of the most comprehensive benchmarking publications on the executive compensation of U.S. public companies,” said Matteo Tonello, Managing Director of Corporate Leadership at The Conference Board and a co-author. “Given today’s emphasis on pay for performance and the dialogue on equality that is expected to continue in coming years, our granular data on CEO pay across the entire Russell 3000 is a window into long-term business strategy and the changing corporate culture.”

“Using the data contained in this report as both a benchmark and trend indicator empowers employers, their compensation committees and boards to design strategic executive compensation programs to meet the needs of today’s key talent,” added co-author James Reda, Managing Director, Executive Compensation in the Human Resources & Compensation Consulting practice of Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. “Balancing the pay mix to incentivize performance, retain top performers and drive shareholder value is a complex task. This report is a valuable tool to help drive employers’ strategic decision making.”

“Our broader sample highlights the bigger picture,” said Paul Hodgson, partner of governance research firm BHJ Partners and co-author of the study. “Rather than limiting our analysis to the S&P 500 or another sample of large public corporations, our report highlights the important differences that exist in executive compensation between the S&P 500 and the broader Russell 3000 universe, making it that much more relevant and applicable to thousands of employers.”

Other findings highlighted in CEO and Executive Compensation Practices: 2017 Edition include:

  • Exceptional financial market performance continued to fuel the recourse to equity-based compensation, with the pay mix analysis confirming the inexorable rise of stock awards at the expense of both base salary and stock options. Compensation committees of boards of directors have continued to take advantage of high equity valuations to increase the amount of pay at risk, and shift the weighting of compensation elements from cash to stock. From 2010 to 2016, stock awards are up from 22.8 percent to 36.7 percent in the Russell 3000 and from 32 percent to 47.4 percent in the S&P 500, occupying a greater portion of total pay than ever before. Only seven years ago, base salary represented 30.25 percent of the typical Russell 3000 CEO pay mix, a share that fell consistently over time to reach 23.93 percent in 2016; in the S&P 500, it went from 14.22 percent in 2010 to 11.3 percent last year. In general, as widely documented since the financial crisis of 2008, the weight of stock options in the typical compensation package has been gradually reduced, mostly due to their volatility and concerns about their real effectiveness as performance motivators.
  • In addition to expanding their share of the total compensation mix, stock awards have been growing in value and offsetting the softening of stock option grants. In 2016, the median Russell 3000 CEO received US$1.4 million worth of company shares, while their counterpart in the S&P 500 received US$5.4 million—marking a growth rate of 12.4 percent in the Russell 3000 and almost 8 percent in the S&P 500. Even more remarkable is the trajectory that this component of pay has followed over the last few years: In the 2010-2016 period alone, the value of stock awarded to CEOs has risen 265 percent in the Russell 3000 and almost 100 percent in the S&P 500. Energy companies were the most generous in terms of stock grants in 2016, awarding US$3 million at the median, while health care companies reported the lowest amounts (US$402,000). Over the six-year period, the highest median increase in stock award value was tenfold and seen among consumer staples organizations. The analysis by company size reveals a direct correlation between the value of stock grants to CEOs and the size of their employer.
  • Increases in CEO base salary vary considerably by index, with the median rise in the Russell 3000 close to that for total compensation and little or no movement in the S&P 500.Low inflation rates and the shift to compensation in the form of equity awards continue to explain the moderate rise in base salary. In 2016, the median base salary rise for CEOs in the Russell 3000 was 4.6 percent, compared to less than a percentage point in the S&P 500. By means of comparison, for 2016 The Conference Board has recently reported an overall base salary increase for the general workforce of U.S. public companies of 3 percent, the same as in each of the last seven years.[1] A more detailed breakdown by revenue and asset value confirms that rises in base salary for CEOs of the largest companies lagged those of the smallest by significant amounts. Only those CEOs leading the very largest companies, US$50 billion and more in revenue, received an increase of more than 5 percent. Most others were in the region of 2 percent or less.
  • While increases in base salary for Named Executive Officers were similar to those for total compensation, NEOs benefited from much higher bonuses, especially in the S&P 500.The rates of increase in NEO base salary closely mirrored those seen for their total compensation—more specifically, they were 5.1 percent in the Russell 3000 and 3.2 percent in the S&P 500. No significant variation in base salary emerges from the analysis by industry, either over the last year or over the last six years, except for health care companies that reported the highest of all median annual salary raises (8.6 percent). In the analysis by size, changes in base salary also followed a pattern that is very similar to the one described for total compensation. The rate of change for annual bonuses, on the other hand, was higher than that for total compensation, which would lead to an increase in cash incentives in the overall mix. The pattern by company size was also reversed, as bonuses increased by more for NEOs in the S&P 500 (9.3 percent) compared to those in the Russell 3000 (7.7 percent). The overall value of annual bonuses has changed very little over the last six years, especially in the S&P 500, where it has hovered around US$600,000 for the whole period. For both groups, there was a drop in bonus value in 2015, leading to the more substantial increase to 2016 as bonuses recovered.
  • Performance-based awards now approach 50 percent of the total LTI award value at mid-market companies, demonstrating that these companies adopt the LTI trends of the country’s largest companies, but with some lag time. Among the Top 200 U.S. companies by market capitalization, performance-based LTI awards first averaged 50 percent of LTI grant value back in 2012, reflecting at that time a greater desire among large companies for pay-for-performance alignment and rewards with a big potential upside still within the limit of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) tax-deductibility. That said, the mid-market is catching up, with performance-based awards making up 48 percent of the total LTI grant value in 2016, up from just 39 percent in 2014. Following the trend of large companies, as performance-based awards have increased in the mid-market, both appreciation awards and time-based restricted stock/units have declined (from 26 percent and 35 percent in 2014 to 20 percent and 32 percent in 2016, respectively). With respect to the choice of compensation vehicles, in designing LTI awards with two or more performance metrics, a number of companies tend to prefer a balanced approach that incentivizes stock appreciation, corporate results and retention. In 2016, 29 percent of companies used all three types of LTI awards: 1) appreciation awards that include stock options, SARs (stock appreciation rights) and incentivized stock price increases); 2) performance-based awards that include performance shares, performance restricted stock, and performance or premium stock options; and 3) long-term incentive cash—effective vehicles to promote corporate performance targets and restricted stock to ensure executive retention. Use of all three LTI award vehicles has nearly doubled since 2014, when only 16 percent of companies structured plans this way.

CEO and Executive Compensation Practices: 2017 Edition is available for download here.

A fee may apply for non-members of The Conference Board.

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.

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

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.