Posts

, , , ,

Putting the E in “revenue”: A big challenge of the new rev rec standard

Accounting professionals who have been involved with revenue for many years can recite the four criteria for revenue recognition as quickly as they can their children’s names—it just becomes second nature. For people less familiar with the process, I have used a mnemonic—it’s like learning your ABC’s but without the AB—you can sort the criteria into Collection, Delivery, Evidence, and Fixed Price (C, D, E, F). Gimmicky, but it works.

Well, we’re all going to need new hints for taking on the new revenue recognition standard when it goes into effect. The adoption date may be a ways off with FASB’s recently announced one-year delay, but finance teams still need to get their heads around the changes. Implementation challenges are ahead, and contingent revenue related to bonuses and penalties will be particularly challenging for some organizations.

The new big “E”: Estimates
While many of the same concepts will still exist, the framework of the standard moves to a five-step process rather than relying on criteria. So while collectability, delivery, evidence of the arrangement, and even some aspects of fixed or determinable pricing still come into play, that last aspect is where I see the biggest challenges.

If I had to create a new term for what we currently view as the “fixed or determinable” part of rev rec, I would call it “fixed or estimable” for the new standard. It requires, in almost all circumstances, entities to estimate the amount of contract consideration that they believe they are entitled to (assuming that recording such revenue would not likely result in a significant reversal of revenue in the future). So, there will be more judgment involved and this will require a change in practice.

Much has been written about how the new standard will require organizations to not only make many more estimates but have systems to support those estimates, provide more disclosures in their filings, and have controls to ensure that the system that supports the estimates is controlled—this isn’t about someone just throwing a dart at a board! This is why now is the time—while we all have it—to take a close look at your systems and processes and decide whether they’ll need to be modified to make room for the flexibility that’s needed when you’re dealing with estimates.

You say tomatO, I say tomAto: A bonus and penalty can be the same thing!
How is this different than current practice? Consider this pretty straightforward example of how a contract with a bonus (or penalty) provision would be treated today versus the new standard. Keep in mind this deal (from an economic perspective) can be structured using either a bonus or a penalty.

Assume Customer A purchased a single hardware element that qualified for separate accounting (i.e., it is not a multi-element arrangement). The vendor structures the deal at a fixed price of $10K for Customer A with the understanding if the product meets certain performance parameters after 60 days (i.e., uptime), the vendor gets a bonus of $2K. Then consider a deal that same vendor makes for Customer B: It charges the organization $12K with the understanding it would have to give back $2K if those same parameters are not met.

Current U.S. GAAP treats both these contracts the same—it is a classic “substance over form” example and the reality is that both customers negotiated the same deal. But there’s that $2K unknown; since it does not meet the fixed or determinable criterion, the vendor cannot count the $2K contingent amount as revenue until that 60-day contingency passes (at which point both the vendor and the customer will know if the uptime spec was met). It’s the same scenario even if the vendor can show that 100% of the time it has achieved the specs it’s promising.

Now, fast-forward to the new standard—this contingent revenue will have to be estimated and recorded up-front. The result is binary—either the vendor records the $2K payment or not. This time, if the vendor has a strong history of meeting its performance specs, it would book the $2K. Or it could estimate a weighted-average probability amount if the amount it expects to receive falls within a range of possible outcomes. This would be more appropriate if the contract bonus depended on a percentage of spec achieved (i.e., a different example).

The bottom line
In almost all companies, a purchase order is a big factor for determining the ceiling for revenue recognition. Using our super-simple example above (if only all rev rec determinations were that easy!), the vendor may receive a PO of $10K from Customer A but $12K from Customer B. But let’s say Customer A ends up following up with a second PO for $2K when the performance bonus was earned—just as the vendor predicted. Under the new rule, the vendor would have already recorded $12K for that contract even though the PO said something else—this discrepancy could create challenges for many companies from a systems perspective.

Also important to understand is that the first step of the new standard—determining the contract—contains the old collectability criterion in it. Put another way, you can’t have a contract if you don’t have a contractual right to payment with a credit-worthy customer. In our example, the contract value is “potentially” $12K regardless of the amount and timing of POs received.

Ultimately, companies need to have a process in place and should look at how their ERP system may handle situations like this. Manual, off-line, Excel-based tracking may seem like a reasonable solution, but in my experience, it introduces too many risks for errors and inefficiencies.

In addition to the accounting considerations, the new standard could let sales organizations give customers more contracting options. Often, the finance or accounting organization has had to “hold back” certain deal structures to ensure revenue rules were met. Given the focus on the big “E”—estimates—in the new standard, many organizations will find that they can create contracts with more value for their customers and alter contractual language, win more business and, in turn, increase profits—although that is just my estimate!

Looking for more insight on the new revenue recognition standard? RoseRyan and FinancialForce.com teamed up for a new report that gives companies a starting point for planning for the changes, explaining who should be involved, what areas of the company should be impacted and how to move forward. Click here to download the report: Quick guide to revenue recognition.

John Cook is a member of the RoseRyan dream team. He is a CPA with over 25 years of experience working in finance and accounting organizations in Silicon Valley with a focus on operational finance and technical accounting.

/by
, , , , ,

Revenue recognition: Are you in denial?

After more than a decade in the making, the FASB and the IASB finally issued new revenue recognition rules. Now if the boards needed that kind of a runway, how hard will it be for companies to implement? This is what management should be asking themselves.

But I get a sense that some are just in shock and aren’t asking the questions that need to get asked — maybe because they thought the guidance would never be issued or maybe because it’s just one more thing on the corporate plate right now. I get it. When anyone is in a state of shock, they tend to adopt a couple of go-to coping techniques — denial and procrastination. It’s been just over three months since the rules have been issued, and I have been witness to those coping techniques as companies battle implementation shock. What’s developed is a culmination of misconceptions, which we dispel below.

6 common misconceptions about the new rules

#1 The new rules don’t impact my business.
The new rules will apply to all entities that enter into contracts with customers, including long-term contracts and licenses. You cannot determine the impact until you truly evaluate each of your revenue models under the new guidance. Companies should also look ahead to how their business is growing and changing, and consider the new rules in connection with possible changes in their sales models between now and the adoption date. And, at the end of the day, even if your conclusion is “no impact,” you’ll also need to document your evaluation, vet it with your auditors, and update your financial statement disclosures and policy documentation so that they coincide with the new guidance.

#2 The implementation date is far away, so I can afford to wait.
While the standard is effective Q1 2017 for calendar-based public companies, the guidance does not allow for prospective adoption. You have some choices in terms of adoption methodology, but no matter what you decide you’ll still be looking back to 2016 and possibly 2015 if you choose full retrospective adoption…and 2015 is just around the corner. As a result, you will need to assess current contracts and those that commenced several years before the effective date. Then, when you begin to consider systems, processes, financial planning, investor communications, that date will no longer look so far off — especially when you know implementation duties will be in addition to your day job.

#3 Implementation of the new rules is just an accounting exercise.
So many people believe that it’s something that their accounting department will handle. Quite the contrary! Consider the following: debt covenants (treasury), sales incentives (HR), customer contracts (legal), investor communication (IR), systems (IT), and internal controls (internal audit). Companies big and small will need to think operationally where these rules are concerned. A successful implementation should be a collaborative effort across the organization.

#4 The standard only impacts the timing of revenue.
The fact is the new standard is comprehensive and changes the way we look at contracts with customers, the concept of delivery as well as many other aspects of the revenue process. For example, some of the collaboration revenue of life science companies may be excluded from the revenue guidance if the other party to the deal is not considered a “customer.” The new guidance also considers whether there is a financing component when an arrangement extends beyond one year. And any company opting for the modified retrospective adoption approach may have to record a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle, which means it goes into the “black hole” of retained earnings, skipping the P&L, never to be seen again.

#5 My financial systems are savvy and can handle the rule changes.
With the complexity of contracts, there is no simple “flip-the-switch” scenario that can be employed. All types of revenue models will need to be evaluated. The new standard utilizes estimates and judgments, which can pose challenges in terms of automation. Companies may also want to look at additional reporting functionality to support their estimation process. And with all of this, internal control processes both in and around their system capabilities will need to be reviewed and updated.

#6 These changes always get delayed.
While some of us remember fondly the days when the internal controls part of SOX kept getting delayed, keep in mind that SOX was a U.S.compliance initiative. The new revenue rules, on the other hand, were developed in collaboration with the IASB in an effort to move closer to a single set of global accounting standards. The boards took great pains in developing the new standard and laying down the transition date so that reporting of revenue would be consistently applied on a global basis. So while companies may continue to lobby for postponement, this could result in nothing more than wishful thinking. Investors are going to want their companies to plan ahead — the “wait and see” approach will put delayers at high risk for financial misstatements and delayed filings.

In the face of a sweeping standard that could have extensive implications, it’s easy to understand why anyone would deploy coping strategies and try to look the other way. But as you can see from this list, there’s a lot to be done and only a certain amount of time to get it done right. The best approach is to tackle one step at a time. Start with assessing the impacts to your business — financial, operational and external. Then develop a plan. Knowing what needs to happen and how you can get there is certain to to take you away from the depths of denial to a clear path to compliance.

Kelley Wall leads RoseRyan’s Technical Accounting Group, which provides technical accounting and SEC expertise to public and private companies on complex accounting matters and implementation of new accounting pronouncements.

/by
, , , ,

How the new revenue recognition standard may affect your company

We’ve been hearing about it for years. Finally, the result of the joint project between the FASB and the IASB to update and consolidate accounting standards for revenue recognition into one global standard is just about here. They’re expected to issue it by the end of this month.

This is when the fun begins. While there is time before companies have to issue financial statements under the new standard (which we’ll see in the first interim period of 2017 for public companies with fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016), they will need to disclose the expected impact of the new standard right away. And they will need to be tracking transactions under the new principles beginning in 2015.

The biggest change is the shift from industry-specific guidance to the application of general principles across all industries. Companies will need to re-think how revenue will be recognized for their transactions, and in some cases they will be able to record revenue earlier than they do now. Here are my thoughts on what our clients should be considering in the months ahead.

If you work at a life sciences company
The revenue standard applies to all contracts with customers, including some collaboration arrangements for life sciences companies if they are in effect transactions with a customer. Collaborations might fall outside the scope of the new revenue guidance if the collaborator or partner is not in substance a customer, such as when a biotechnology company and pharmaceutical company have an agreement to share equally in the development of a specific drug candidate as well as the risk that comes with it.

Another change that will arise with the new standard is that variable consideration (such as milestone payments) may be included in the transaction price allocated to deliverables as long as the company has relevant experience with similar performance obligations and, based on that experience, they do not expect a significant reversal in future periods. Changes to these estimates will have to be allocated to performance obligations based on that initial allocation, unless a payment relates to a specific element and is consistent with the amount expected to be entitled for performance of that obligation.

When life sciences companies license their drugs to commercialization partners, they can estimate and recognize sales-based royalties when the partners’ subsequent sales occur and will not have to wait, as they do now, until each partner has reported such sales. These estimates can include only the amount that has a low probable risk of significant reversal.

Another change that will result in earlier recognition of revenue for life sciences companies is the recording of sales of new products when they ship, minus the estimates for returns. Currently, companies have to delay recognition on a sell-through basis if a pattern of return has not been established.

If you enter into license agreements
The new standard’s emphasis on when control transfers to the customer may change the timing of revenue recognition on licenses. A license is the right to use an entity’s intellectual property, such as software and technology, patents, trademarks, copyrights, music and movie rights and franchises. In some cases, a license is a promise to provide a right, which transfers at a point in time. In other cases, it is a promise to provide access to a right that transfers to the customer over time, such as if a licensor has continuing obligations under the arrangement that do not otherwise qualify as separate performance obligations, or if the licensor must actively make the IP available on a continuous basis during the license period, or if the licensee benefits from changes over time.

If you have software arrangements
For software arrangements, VSOE (vendor-specific objective evidence) guidance is no longer required, resulting in earlier recognition of revenue for licenses that lacked it for undelivered elements, including future upgrades, additional product rights or other vendor obligations. Companies still need to allocate revenue to each of the deliverables in the arrangement based upon best estimated selling prices (BESP). It simply allows for alternate methods of determining BESP beyond VSOE.

If you sell software as a service
You will need to assess software license and hosting services to determine if they represent distinct performance obligations. It is unclear what criteria will apply to determine whether a typical SaaS arrangement will qualify for service accounting treatment (over time) or if the software element should be recognized separately (at a point in time).

In addition, provisions entitling the customer to a refund if undelivered elements are not successfully provided — an issue that currently delays recognition — will be a part of the estimate of variable consideration, resulting in earlier revenue recognition in some arrangements.

If you’re a contract manufacturer
In contract manufacturing situations, the timing of revenue recognition will no longer revolve around when units are delivered but instead when a service is performed and when the control of goods are transferred to the customer over time. This change may require contract manufacturers to modify their systems and processes to recognize revenue in the new way.

If you work in the technology sector
Distributors and resellers tend to require price protection or right of return from manufacturers of technology products to protect themselves from obsolescence and price reductions. Manufacturers currently delay recognition of revenue from these transactions because of the possibility they’d have to give money back or accept product returns. Under the new standards, fees that are currently not considered fixed and determinable can be recognized to the extent the company can estimate the amount that has a low probable risk of significant reversal. This will result in earlier recognition of revenue for manufacturers.

When companies license their technology for use in tangible goods or services, they can recognize the royalties when sales or usage occurs to the extent they can estimate the amount that won’t reverse (subject to the constraint on variable consideration). Today, recognition is typically delayed until such sales are reported by the licensee.

What everyone should do in the meantime
These are just a few examples of impacts in certain industries. When the new standard is released, we encourage you to evaluate its impact on your company and business model. Don’t underestimate the subtleties the new principles guidance will change in revenue recognition. Without bright-line rules, there will be room for judgment but also room for differences in interpretation and implementation, particularly between you and your auditor. Let the fun begin!

Diana Gilbert has been a member of the RoseRyan dream team since 2008 with almost 30 years of professional experience. She excels at technical accounting, revenue recognition, SOX/internal controls, business systems and process improvements.

/1 Comment/by
,

Non-GAAP measures: Do they provide helpful insights or hide the “bad stuff”?

Many companies, especially in tech, supplement their income statement produced under generally accepted accounting principles with a non-GAAP income statement. It’s a practice that has proliferated in recent years as companies want to focus attention on the underlying “run rate” of the business and feel pressured to copy what their competitors are doing. Critics label non-GAAP measures as companies presenting “income before the bad stuff.” It’s true that presenting financials on a non-GAAP basis often has a major impact on the bottom line presented, by doubling a profit margin or turning a loss into a profit (as shown in our chart below).

Does non-GAAP reporting mean a company is hiding poor performance? Or is it providing investors with more information for judging the health of the business?

On balance, more disclosure is usually better. When companies present non-GAAP income statements in a thoughtful way and in good faith, investors will usually prefer the additional information and use the non-GAAP income to calculate P/E valuations. Note that most investment analysts report and focus on non-GAAP results. And the Securities and Exchange Commission has accepted their use as well, as long as the information is not misleading. The regulator outlines how and when companies can share non-GAAP figures with Regulation G.

So non-GAAP income statements look like they are here to stay. Let’s look at the most common areas where companies adjust GAAP numbers to give non-GAAP measures and why such measures have become accepted by both companies and investors.

Stock compensation: These are charges based on employee stock options and purchases that rely on theoretical models of their worth. Probably the most commonly listed adjustment to GAAP numbers, this charge is a lightning rod for criticism that GAAP has become overly conceptual and less relevant. As my colleague Stephen Ambler points out in his blog post “Stock compensation rules mask true operating performance,” stock comp charges are non-cash and can vary significantly depending on stock price and model assumptions, making it near impossible to compare two similar companies. Also, if the stock price declines, the company must continue recording the charges, which were based on the grant date value, even though the options have no value to the employees or to the company from a retention point of view.

Amortization of acquired intangibles: GAAP accounting for acquisitions requires the acquiring company to value the intangible assets of the acquired entity, other than goodwill, at fair value and amortize them over their useful lives. On one hand, the acquiring company paid hard cash or used its valuable stock to acquire these assets, and just as companies depreciate the purchase price of equipment they use in production under GAAP, they also should amortize their acquired intangible assets. They are matching cost with use over time. On the other hand, the amortization is a non-cash charge that the acquired business wouldn’t have shown on its own. To assess the sum of the underlying businesses, it is useful to show amortization removed.

Restructuring: These charges include such items as severance, facility and equipment write-offs, and contract termination costs tied to the resizing or closing of some part of a business. CFOs would prefer to keep the costs of these non-recurring events separate from the ongoing business’s results. Companies do need to be careful, though, that these “non-recurring” charges don’t recur every year or two! To mitigate abuse, Reg G sets rules for what is non-recurring — basically, it is something that hasn’t happened two years before the reporting date and is unlikely to happen in the next two years.

We commonly see the non-GAAP income statement remove other measures as well, such as the amounts paid to plaintiffs and attorneys to settle legal disputes or impairments of intangible assets or goodwill. Again, the rationale is to derive an income number that represents the fundamental ongoing business apart from non-cash charges and one-time events. The value to the investor is that these items are shown separately. The investor can value the company on its ongoing business while noting the size and frequency of these non-cash and non-operating charges.

To GAAP or to non-GAAP?
While investors are open and usually welcoming to non-GAAP income statements, they also value consistency. Companies should not use “good news” non-GAAP items and ignore “bad news.” Consider a company that accrues $1 million for a legal settlement and excludes the charge as a non-GAAP measure. It has effectively created a good news item. But if the actual settlement in a subsequent period turns out to be only $800,000, the company should include the $200,000 difference as a non-GAAP item when it comes time to report it. This difference may be perceived as bad news, but this keeps reporting consistent.

In general, companies should use an approach that relies on both full disclosure and moderation. Reg. G requires full disclosure, of course, including a presentation of the most directly comparable GAAP measure with equal or greater prominence as the non-GAAP measure, as well as reconciliation between the two. As for moderation, the investment community will reward companies that practice it, as moderate, thoughtful use of a non-GAAP income statement will build credibility and respect for the company. Finance pros who do these types of evaluations all the time can help you determine when applying non-GAAP makes sense for a particular situation.

Ray Solari is a member of the RoseRyan dream team. He has served as the CFO/VP finance for private companies and managed SEC reporting for public companies. He began his career at Deloitte. 

/by
, , ,

Equity compensation: 4 hard truths you need to know

Equity-based compensation — Northern California’s universal answer to engendering loyalty in employees — is a useful tool but a complicated one. This was one of several hard truths heard by attendees during BayBio’s recent Lunch & Learn event by RoseRyan. Accompanied by compensation consultancy Radford, RoseRyan hosted this packed event on February 26 at BayBio’s headquarters in San Francisco.

To retain top talent these days, companies have a variety of stock-based methods, which are accompanied by their share of accounting, tax, and legal issues. What strategy a company picks today for rewarding employees could affect how smoothly it can transition to another version of itself later on, either as a public entity or as an acquisition target.

During their comprehensive overview of what private companies need to realize as they structure and maintain their comp plans, Kelley Wall, a director at RoseRyan who leads the firm’s Technical Accounting Group, and Kyle Holm, an associate partner at Radford, hit upon the following hard truths.

1. Your company will have to up the ante as it matures.
Startups tend to begin with just stock options and then work their way up to restricted stock or restricted stock units and eventually performance-based awards. Each compensation type comes with its own set of pros and cons. For example, stock options do not lead to immediate dilution whereas restricted stock does. Employees may favor restricted stock for the fact it will give them ownership right away, but tax consequences upon vesting can be troublesome.

And while performance awards encourage goal-based behavior, they are not without their challenges. With these type of awards, companies have to regularly determine the probability of employees meeting their performance targets and adjust their stock-compensation expense accordingly, which can create some volatility in earnings. And it may be difficult for early-stage companies to adequately assess performance targets — any modifications of those targets down the road will result in modification accounting and likely additional compensation expense.

2. Modifications can be messy.
Modifications will happen. The roles of employees change, employees come and go, and employees’ individual targets for reaping the benefits of a pay plan will evolve. And so will the way the company accounts for compensation. Situations where accounting changes come into play include: giving a terminated employee an extended period to exercise their options beyond what was initially agreed upon; changing performance-based metrics; and hiring consultants and allowing them to continue to hold the stock options they were granted as consultants. In general, any change to an award or an award holder’s status should trigger a review of accounting modifications.

3. Your payment systems are only as accurate as the data you’ve put into them.
Wall acknowledged this truth seems fairly obvious but cautioned that lack of data integrity continues to trip up companies. Too often companies lean too heavily on outside lawyers and accountants without realizing those service providers can’t keep up with changes within a business if they don’t know about them.

The fact is the majority of stock-based compensation data has some underlying issues. For instance, RoseRyan has seen a company with vesting stock options for employees who left five years ago — which led to an overstatement when the information was uncovered. To make sure the data surrounding their equity plans are clean, companies need a system of checks and balances — such as reconciling awards granted with board minutes at least once a quarter and having a process to tie employee terminations to the equity records.

4. You have a lot to consider about your equity plans if an IPO is in your future.
One of the hardest truths hits in the time leading up to a public offering. This is when tough questions arise over all the decisions that have been made beforehand, Holm warned, and even more difficult choices will need to be made. Those who have a stake in the company will shift their focus from their percentage of ownership to the actual value of their shares. Companies going through the transition will need to determine whether they should consider amending their stock plans. They’ll also need to define their post-IPO equity pool size. And they’ll need to take a look at how they communicate beyond one-on-one pay agreements. It’s also a good time to consider what information will be publicly disclosed in your registration statement. For one, details about pay plans for the most highly paid senior leaders will be publicized, not only to investors and securities regulators but employees as well. There’s also a lot of information regarding the plans and award details included in SEC filings, and newly-public companies are burdened with additional disclosures around stock valuation.

While equity-based compensation comes with issues, Wall noted, managers can provide robust pay plans that do what they’re supposed to — retain top talent — as long as they operate with their eyes wide open with an awareness of how changes and new decisions will have consequences.

This post originally appeared here, on BayBio’s website.

/by
, , ,

3 quick tips for streamlining your stock-based pay plans

Keep your employees motivated with stock-based compensation, the thinking goes, and you will be rewarded with high productivity and gains in your company’s growth track. What managers often fail to consider is that if they make mistakes along the way—and we’ve seen many when it comes to equity-based compensation plans—they could actually end up with low employee morale, putting a crimp in the pace of the performance-aligned goals they have set up.

Whenever a company has to amend awards previously made or restate their financial statements because of adjustments in equity-based comp, employees will naturally have concerns—even when the change has little, if any, financial impact on them.

The risk of dents in morale is just one of many consequences RoseRyan has observed while helping clients with issues in their equity-based pay strategies. You’d be amazed at the range of problems we have seen—many of them due to honest mistakes. In our experience, 9 out of 10 companies have had some issue with their underlying stock data that affects their stock-based compensation expense.

To prevent such problems at your company, consider these three tips the next time you evaluate your stock-based compensation strategy (we’ll get into more detail about this topic at our February 26 luncheon called Compensation for Private Companies: The Ins and Outs of Equity, which will be held at BayBio with Kyle Holm, associate partner at compensation consulting firm Radford).

Be obsessive about looking for modifications: Some modifications are obvious (say, repricing a stock option); some modifications are less so (say, allowing a consultant to keep options after you hire that person as an employee). Keep an eye out not only for board decisions but also for management decisions, material transactions, and liquidity events. The rule is, any change to the award or the award holder’s status should trigger consideration of accounting modifications.

Identifying that you have a modification is just the first challenge; the accounting can be tricky as well. How you account for the modification will depend on the type of modification. Variations include measuring the incremental value only, accelerating the expense, or valuing the new award and reversing the value associated with the original award. You also need to be sure you’re entering the modification in your equity system in a way that captures the appropriate modification accounting.

Make sure performance-based awards are on everyone’s radar: Performance-based awards are great tools for both retaining employees and motivating goal-driven behavior. But there is accounting risk here as well. With performance-based awards, companies must assess the probability of achieving the metrics at each reporting date and adjust the expense accordingly. This step often doesn’t happen. Maybe the board minutes lay out the performance goals associated with an award, but the stock administrator gets only a spreadsheet of grants to administer, with no indication that vesting is contingent. Or maybe the stock administrator is aware of the performance targets but doesn’t flag performance-based grants in the equity system, so the accounting team doesn’t know they exist. Such miscommunication can lead to overstated stock-based compensation expense.

Tie your 409A valuations to major grant dates: For private companies, the rule of thumb is to obtain a 409A valuation of your stock at least once a year, and in conjunction with major events such as financings, significant transactions, or material changes to the business. Some companies instead tend to do their 409A at the end of the year, just because they’re doing other valuations and financial decompressions at the same time. But think about this example, from one of our clients that approved a major grant to executives and employees in June 2011, six months after valuing its common stock at $1.25 per share for its annual 409A. By that point, the value of the stock had increased significantly—to $3—based on several design wins and other economic factors. While that’s a nice problem to have, they suddenly faced additional stock-based compensation expense and time-consuming updates to their equity system, among other issues.

It’s easy to think your equity-based compensation is under control; however, we have found time and again that it’s an ever-evolving tool that needs tending to, as your headcount grows, the complexity of your company expands, and situations evolve.

Get in the mode of reevaluating your pay strategy during the RoseRyan February 26 Lunch & Learn seminar about equity in South San Francisco. It will be geared toward private companies. Click here to register. And for more details about these best practices as well as some others to consider, also check out the RoseRyan intelligence report I wrote called Stock options: do you have a problem?.

Kelley Wall leads RoseRyan’s Technical Accounting Group, which provides technical accounting and SEC expertise to public and private companies on complex accounting matters and implementation of new accounting pronouncements. 

/by