- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sears, Going Concern, and Changing Rules
Posted on 3/22/17 at 4:34 pm to LSUFanHouston
Posted on 3/22/17 at 4:34 pm to LSUFanHouston
Unusual that Sears did and Deloitte did not.
The bar for management is 'probable' within 12 months of the date of issuance that it will not meet its obligation.
PCAOB rules for auditors is 12 months from date of financials and is a significant doubt standard.
Also auditors can take into account mitigating plans and assess the likelihood of those being effective (although most auditors want these plans in stone).
ASC 205 does not allow management to take into account things that are not fully implemented regardless of probability of implementation. That could be the difference.
But you are right, in general a cold reading of the new standard along with how Firms instituted AS 2415 suggested that the bar for management to conclude it is a going concern issue was much much higher. This runs contrary
So it could be the calendar as you suggested or some mitigating plan that is highly likely (and appeased Deloitte) but management could not bake in.
The bar for management is 'probable' within 12 months of the date of issuance that it will not meet its obligation.
PCAOB rules for auditors is 12 months from date of financials and is a significant doubt standard.
Also auditors can take into account mitigating plans and assess the likelihood of those being effective (although most auditors want these plans in stone).
ASC 205 does not allow management to take into account things that are not fully implemented regardless of probability of implementation. That could be the difference.
But you are right, in general a cold reading of the new standard along with how Firms instituted AS 2415 suggested that the bar for management to conclude it is a going concern issue was much much higher. This runs contrary
So it could be the calendar as you suggested or some mitigating plan that is highly likely (and appeased Deloitte) but management could not bake in.
This post was edited on 3/22/17 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 3/22/17 at 11:38 pm to igoringa
Thought they just changed rules to auditors assessing 12 months as of report date vs. FS date. Some firms have always done this anyway.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News