Internal
Controls Top SEC’s Agenda
By
Jay Dismukes
As
the deadline for meeting the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board’s Auditing Standard No. 2 fast approaches, the Securities
and Exchange Commission said this week it will, if necessary,
delay other priorities to make sure that public company management
and their auditors get the internal control requirements “right.”
The standard,
approved by the SEC on June 17, requires auditors to form an opinion
on management’s assessment of a company’s internal
controls that, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, must be included
with financial statements. To form an opinion, auditors now must
evaluate and test management’s internal control process,
the work performed by others (i.e., internal auditors) and the
effectiveness of the controls. For fiscal year-end, accelerated
filers must comply by Nov. 15, while nonaccelerated filers have
until July 15, 2005.
“Of
all the reforms in the act (Sarbanes-Oxley), the internal control
requirements may have the largest effect on improving financial
accuracy,” said SEC Chief Accountant Donald T. Nicolaisen
last month. Speaking at the Sept. 14 Current Developments Under
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Conference, Nicolaisen infused his presentation
with what has become the predominant theme of state and federal
regulators: strengthening the quality and transparency of the
financial reporting process.
For these
reasons, he said, the SEC staff is considering whether to recommend
the postponement, at least temporarily, of other initiatives,
until the Commission is assured that management and their auditors
are fully committed to fulfilling their internal control obligations.
He advised the audit profession and registrants to “keep
the heat” on Section 404—the part of Sarbanes-Oxley
that concerns internal controls—so that they have the ability
to meet the deadlines.
“We
want companies to get (Section) 404 right,” Nicolaisen said.
“That takes precedence.”
In a related
matter, one day after Nicolaisen spoke, the PCAOB announced that
it had adopted amendments to its interim standards that conform
them to Auditing Standard No. 2, “An Audit of Internal Control
Over Financial Reporting Performed in Conjunction with an Audit
of Financial Statements.” Prior to developing its own standards,
the PCAOB adopted, in April 2003, interim auditing, attestation
and independence standards based on those created by the auditing
profession. The amendments will, among other things, “eliminate(ing)
potential confusion and inconsistencies in interpretation”
between the old and the new standards, the PCAOB said in a press
release.
As he discussed
the significance of the new internal control requirements, Nicolaisen
raised an issue that has been simmering for two years. Since its
passage, there has been notable concern publicly registered with
the SEC that Sarbanes-Oxley could have an undue effect on smaller-sized
public companies. The chief accountant stressed the need for balance
on this issue.
“As
a general matter, I believe that small business should be expected
to adhere to those same standards to the extent that they have
like transactions,” Nicolaisen said. “However, the
burden to smaller companies can be disproportionate and needs
to be appropriately weighed against the protection of investors.”
Concern about
trickle-down state legislation that would incorporate Sarbanes-Oxley–type
regulations for nonpublic companies has also been expressed in
the past. While not directly addressing this issue, Nicolaisen
stated his belief that the private sector should consider developing
an internal control framework.
During his
speech, Nicolaisen departed briefly from his prepared remarks
to discuss licensing requirements, emphasizing the importance
of continuing professional education. The New York State Society
of CPAs publicly supports mandatory CPE for all CPAs, including
those in industry.
“I’ve
seen too many examples of professional skills fading over time,”
Nicolaisen said. “We need to ensure expertise grows with
experience.”
In addition
to suggesting the consideration of some form of professional competency
test that extends beyond the CPA exam, Nicolaisen also noted his
belief that the Uniform Accountancy Act “has not worked
well enough” to mitigate the differences in licensing conditions
from state to state.
Good
to Know
Following
Nicolaisen, Carol Stacey, chief accountant in the SEC’s
Division of Corporation Finance, gave a point-by-point review
of the most common questions and problems that her staff encounters.
One area
in which the SEC receives many questions is revenue recognition.
Stacey said the filings should avoid “generally” recognizing
revenue and get specific about the times when revenue is recognized.
The SEC also
wants small business filers to take a closer look at their MD&A
(Management Discussion and Analysis), refusing the temptation
to simply drop in new numbers.
“Get
rid of the boilerplate,” Stacey said.
In general,
the SEC had been dissatisfied with the quality of the MD&As
it was receiving, Stacey said. Last year, the Commission issued
an MD&A interpretation, now effective, to assist companies.
While the SEC has seen improvement, there needs to be more focus
on the analysis side and increased inclusion of forward-looking,
trend information. The MD&A should also feature an overview
at the front that offers readers the most salient news about the
company.
“The
CEO knows what is keeping him up at night,” Stacey said.
“Shouldn’t investors know?”
Finally,
if relevant, the MD&A should include disclosure in the off-balance-sheet
section, she added.
Pertaining
to this matter, Nicolaisen said that Congress requested of the
SEC a study to be issued later this fall that examines issuers’
off-balance-sheet activities—liabilities and assets not
accounted for—to give legislators and regulators more insight
into the prevalence of these items since Enron and other financial
reporting scandals.
The Society’s
SEC Practice Committee, chaired by George I. Victor,
sponsored the conference. Mitchell J. Mertz and
Rita Piazza served as conference cochairs.