Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) revenue recognition changes: What it means for NFPs

Editor's note: read this if you are a CFO, controller, accountant, or business manager.

We auditors can be annoying, especially when we send multiple follow-up emails after being in the field for consecutive days. Over the years, we have worked with our clients to create best practices you can use to prepare for our arrival on site for year-end work. Time and time again these have proven to reduce follow-up requests and can help you and your organization get back to your day-to-day operations quickly. 

1. Reconcile early and often to save time.
   Performing reconciliations to the general ledger for an entire year's worth of activity is a very time consuming process. Reconciling accounts on a monthly or quarterly basis will help identify potential variances or issues that need to be investigated; these potential variances and issues could be an underlying problem within the general ledger or control system that, if not addressed early, will require more time and resources at year-end. Accounts with significant activity (cash, accounts receivable, investments, fixed assets, accounts payable and accrued expenses and debt), should be reconciled on a monthly basis. Accounts with less activity (prepaids, other assets, accrued expenses, other liabilities and equity) can be reconciled on a different schedule.
2. Scan the trial balance to avoid surprises.
   As auditors, one of the first procedures we perform is to scan the trial balance for year-over-year anomalies. This allows us to identify any significant irregularities that require immediate follow up. Does the year-over-year change make sense? Should this account be a debit balance or a credit balance? Are there any accounts with exactly the same balance as the prior year and should they have the same balance? By performing this task and answering these questions prior to year-end fieldwork, you will be able to reduce our follow up by providing explanations ahead of time or by making correcting entries in advance, if necessary. 
3. Provide support to be proactive.
   On an annual basis, your organization may go through changes that will require you to provide us documented contractual support.  Such events may include new or a refinancing of debt, large fixed asset additions, new construction, renovations, or changes in ownership structure.  Gathering and providing the documentation for these events prior to fieldwork will help reduce auditor inquiries and will allow us to gain an understanding of the details of the transaction in advance of performing substantive audit procedures. 
4. Utilize the schedule request to stay organized.
   Each member of your team should have a clear understanding of their role in preparing for year-end. Creating columns on the schedule request for responsibility, completion date and reviewer assigned will help maintain organization and help ensure all items are addressed and available prior to arrival of the audit team. 
5. Be available to maximize efficiency. 
   It is important for key members of the team to be available during the scheduled time of the engagement.  Minimizing commitments outside of the audit engagement during on site fieldwork and having all year-end schedules prepared prior to our arrival will allow us to work more efficiently and effectively and help reduce follow up after fieldwork has been completed. 

Careful consideration and performance of these tasks will help your organization better prepare for the year-end audit engagement, reduce lingering auditor inquiries, and ultimately reduce the time your internal resources spend on the annual audit process. See you soon. 

Editor’s note: Read this if you are a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Information Officer, or Controller.

Last month, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued its Semiannual Risk Perspective for Fall 2019. The report addresses key issues facing banks and focuses on those that pose threats to their safety and soundness. According to the report:

• Bank financial performance is strong due to a favorable credit environment and the longest economic expansion in U.S. history.
• Capital levels have reached historical highs.
• Return on equity was above its 2006 pre-crisis level for the first time at 12.7%.
• Net income grew 8.22% from the same period a year ago; however, net interest income grew only 4%, as loan growth is below historical averages and an increasing number of banks are facing a flat or declining net interest margin.
• There is continued weakness in residential and commercial real estate loan growth.
• Delinquent and nonperforming loans remain below their long-term averages.

Banks can thrive even with economic uncertainty

While these trends indicate that 2019 was by and large an excellent year, banks cannot afford to be complacent, as 2019 also saw increasing risks to the industry. For instance, in 2019 there was much discussion of the future cessation of the London InterBank Offer Rate (LIBOR). The OCC has indicated it will increase its regulatory oversight regarding the anticipated cessation, to ensure banks assess their exposure to LIBOR and are appropriately planning their transition from the widely used benchmark rate. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is also working on a project to address accounting issues that could arise from the transition from LIBOR.

And, although 2019 continued the longest economic expansion in US history, economic uncertainty exists due to, in part, the US-China trade conflict and ongoing Brexit discussions. This economic uncertainty has caused volatility in the interest rate environment. Aside from the yield curve inverting in 2019, banks also saw the Federal Funds target rate increase 25 basis points prior to decreasing 50 basis points. Given the typically asset-sensitive nature of banks’ balance sheets, the current interest rate environment will also put pressure on net interest margins. The current volatility of interest rates has caused the OCC to conclude interest rate risk is currently at heightened levels. 

Net interest income continues to be the most significant driver of net revenues for community banks, comprising nearly 80% of net revenues. With a difficult interest rate environment and lackluster loan growth in residential and commercial real estate, banks may face a difficult path ahead. Banks should tread cautiously, especially if this uncertainty persists. Asset-liability management will need be a significant focus (more than usual) as banks try to position themselves to not only maintain profitability through this uncertainty, but also come out stronger than before. Specifically, if lower rates persist, asset growth will need be a priority over deposit growth to maintain profitability at lower net interest margins. If loan growth continues to wane, this will prove to be difficult.

Innovations to compete with new lending sources

Adding to the list of threats to performance is the increasing amount of alternative financial resources available to borrowers. Banks have traditionally been the only source of credit for borrowers. However, technology has rapidly changed that landscape. Person-to-person (P2P) lending (also known as crowd lending, or social lending), allows people to borrow funds directly from another person, cutting out traditional lending sources (banks). Additionally, blockchain technology, if the hype is accurate, has the potential to eliminate the need of a financial intermediary altogether. 

Banks are adapting to this competition and to customers looking for more convenience and alternative services by offering new, unique services that differentiate themselves from others and provide added value to the customer. Banks have delivered through remote deposit, ATMs, and interactive teller machines (ITMs). Banks will need to continue to adopt innovative services to remain competitive. 

For instance, banks could offer video conferencing services, in which customers could have a live conversation with a bank representative through their smartphone. This convenience would allow a customer to conduct a transaction, such as apply for a loan, from the convenience of their home, while still maintaining human interaction throughout the transaction. Such a service would help banks compete with digital channels offered by non-banks, such as Quicken Loans, which is now the largest mortgage originator in the United States.

Strategies to protect against technological risks

These services all require the use of existing and new technologies, which have caused banks to hold more personally identifiable information (PII) digitally across an increasing number of digital platforms. As noted by the OCC, this digital exposure has created persistent cybersecurity risks for banks. Adopting a robust cybersecurity framework is no longer an option. 

Banks should bring cybersecurity to the forefront of their strategic planning. Any strategic plan must consider cybersecurity implications, as a single disaster can be detrimental to a bank’s reputation. And, given this rapidly changing environment, the cybersecurity conversation must be ongoing through relevant bank committees and the board of directors.

Furthermore, these technological solutions require partnerships with businesses that banks would not traditionally partner with. Financial technology (fintech) companies don’t just pose as a competitor to traditional banks. Many fintech companies are offering their technological solutions to traditional banks. However, outsourcing technological solutions to fintech companies and other businesses does not relieve a bank from performing its own due diligence and ensuring those companies meet the bank’s standards. 

Banks should evaluate potential vendors to ensure they comply with the bank’s vendor management policy. Since environments are constantly changing, this evaluation should be ongoing. Many vendors now provide System and Organization Controls (SOC) reports which detail the control environment at the vendor and involve independent third-party testing of those controls that exist at the vendor. SOC reports can provide a useful starting point for evaluating a vendor’s ongoing compliance with the bank’s vendor management policy. However, it is not a substitute for ongoing communication with a vendor.

There is no doubt 2019 was a successful year for banks. But past performance is not a guarantee of future success. Banks face many challenges, risks, and uncertainties, of which only a few have been outlined above. The current landscape may be challenging but it is also filled with opportunity. Banks should consider expanding their services, adopting new technologies, and partnering with other companies to leverage their strengths. Doing so should help position themselves for an exciting decade ahead.

If you have specific concerns about challenges facing your institution, please contact the team. 

Editor’s note: Read this if your organization is an entity with significant lease transactions with terms greater than a year.  

Updated: June 2020

The new Accounting Standards Codification Topic 842 (ASC 842) lease accounting standard is actually not that new. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) first released the standard in 2016 but, due to a series of delays, it hasn’t been required yet. Even with delays, some organizations have already started to implement ASC 842. They include:

1. Public business entities
2. Not-for-profits that have issued or are conduit bond obligors for securities traded, listed, or quoted on an exchange or an over the-counter market

All other entities will start implementing for fiscal years starting after December 15, 2021 and internal periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022 (January 1 for calendar reporting periods).

Here’s a quick rundown of the lease classifications and how they’ll impact your financial statements.  

Classifying leases

Under the new standards, leases fall into one of two classifications: finance leases and operating leases. This classification makes all the difference in how leases are reported in the financial statements. 

Finance lease

A finance lease essentially treats an asset as if it were purchased by the lessee and financed with funds from the lessor. This prevents companies from hiding financial obligations that are basically liabilities. ASC 842 requires leases to be classified as finance leases if they meet any of the following five criteria:

1. The lease transfers ownership of the underlying asset to the lessee by the end of the lease term.
2. The lease grants the lessee an option to purchase the underlying asset that the lessee is reasonably certain to exercise.
3. The lease term is for the major part of the remaining economic life of the underlying asset. However, if the commencement date falls at or near the end of the economic life of the underlying asset, this criterion shall not be used for purposes of classifying the lease.
4. The present value of the sum of the lease payments and any residual value guaranteed by the lessee that is not already reflected in the lease payments in accordance with paragraph 842-10-30-5(f) equals or exceeds substantially all of the fair value of the underlying asset.
5. The underlying asset is of such a specialized nature that it is expected to have no alternative use to the lessor at the end of the lease term.

As you can see from the five criteria, finance leases are just purchase arrangements financed over time. ASC 842 is designed to reflect that and improve transparency for investors and other stakeholders.  

Operating lease

Any lease not meeting any of the above criteria is classified as an operating lease. 

No more off-book leases

One of the problems ASC 842 seeks to solve is “off-book” operating leases that show up only as notes on the balance sheet and cloud the debt ratios of companies. Under the new standards, both operating and finance leases will be reported on the balance sheet. The only exceptions are certain leases with terms of 12 months of less. 

Recording finance vs. operating leases

With both operating and finance leases reported on the balance sheet, what’s the difference between the two? The major difference is the way they are recorded on the income statement:

• Interest and amortization are recorded separately on the income statement for finance leases.
• Operating leases will report a single line item based on the lease payment. 
• Principal repayments for finance lease are classified as financing activities.
• Payments on operating leases are classified as operating activities.

Next Steps 

Make sure you start by implementing for fiscal years starting after December 15, 2021 and internal periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022. If you have questions about finance or operating leases, or need help with the new standard, please don’t hesitate to contact the team. 

Download our lease classification infographic for a comparison of finance and operating leases under ASC 842.

Editor’s note: If you are a state government CFO, CIO, project or program manager, this blog is for you. 

This is the second blog post in the blog series: “Procuring Agile vs. Non-Agile Service”. Read the first blog. This blog post demonstrates the differences in Stage 1: Plan Project in the five stages of procuring agile vs. non-agile services.

Overview of Procurement Process for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services

What is important to consider in agile procurement?

Here are some questions that can help focus the planning for procurement of IT services for agile vs. non-agile projects.

Plan Project Considerations for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services

Why are these considerations important?

When you procure agile IT services, you can define the scope of your procurement around a vision of what your organization intends to become, as opposed to being restricted to an end-date for a final delivery.

In an agile project, you get results iteratively; this allows you to constantly reassess requirements throughout the project, including the project plan, the guiding principles, and the project schedule. Your planning is not restricted to considering the effect of one big result at the end of the project schedule. Instead, your plan allows for sequencing of changes and improvements that best reflect the outcomes and priorities your organization needs. 

Since planning impacts the people-aspect of your strategy, it is important to consider how various teams and stakeholders will provide input, and how you will make ongoing communication updates throughout the project. With an agile procurement project, your culture will shift, and you will need a different approach to planning, scheduling, communicating, and risk management. You need to communicate daily, allowing for reviewing and adjusting priorities and plans to meet project needs. 

How do you act on these considerations?

A successful procurement plan of agile IT services should include the following steps:

1. Develop a project charter and guiding principles for the procurement that reflect a vision of how your organization’s teams will work together in the future
2. Create a communication plan that includes the definition of project success and communicates project approach
3. Be transparent about the development strategy, and outline how iterations are based on user needs, that features will be re-prioritized on an ongoing basis, and that users, customers, and stakeholders are needed to help define requirements and expected outcomes
4. Provide agile training to your management, procurement, and program operation teams to help them accept and understand the project will present deliverables in iterations, to include needed features, functionality and working products
5. Develop requirements for the scope of work that align with services and outcomes you want, rather than documented statements that merely map to your current processes 

What’s next? 

Now that you have gained insight into the approach to planning an agile project, consider how you may put this first stage into practice in your organization. Stay tuned for guidance on how to execute the second stage of the procurement process—how to draft the RFP. Our intention is that, following this series, your organization will better understand how to successfully procure and implement agile services. If you have questions or comments, please contact our team.
 

Editor’s note: If you are a state government CFO, CIO, project or program manager, this blog is for you.

What is the difference in how government organizations procure agile vs. non-agile information technology (IT) services? (Learn more about agile here).

In each case, they typically follow five stages through the process as shown in Figure A:
 

Figure A: Overview of Procurement Process for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services

However, there are differences in how these stages are carried out if procuring agile vs. non-agile IT services. 

Unfortunately, most government organizations are unaware of these differences, which could result in unsuccessful procurements and ultimately not meeting your project’s needs and expectations. 
This blog series will illustrate how to strategically adjust the standard stages outlined in Figure A to successfully procure agile IT services.

Stage 1: Plan project
In Stage 1, you define the scope of the project by identifying what your organization wants, needs, and can achieve within the available timeframe and budget. You then determine the project’s objectives while strategically considering their impact on your organization before developing the RFP. Figure B summarizes the key differences between the impacts of agile vs. non-agile services to consider in this stage.

Figure B: Plan Project for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services

The nuances of planning for agile services reflect an organization’s readiness for a culture shift to a continuous process of development and deployment of software and system updates. 

Stage 2: Draft RFP
In Stage 2, as part of RFP drafting, define the necessary enhancements and functionality needed to achieve the project objectives determined in Stage 1. You then translate these enhancements and functionalities into business requirements. Requirement types might include business needs as functionality, services, staffing, deliverables, technology, and performance standards. Figure C summarizes the key differences between drafting the RFP for a project procuring agile vs. non-agile services.

Figure C: Draft RFP for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services

In drafting the RFP, the scope of work emphasizes expectations for how your team and the vendor team will work together, the terms of how progress will be monitored, and the description of requirements for agile tools and methods.

Stage 3: Issue RFP
In Stage 3, issue the RFP to the vendor community, answer vendor questions, post amendments, and manage the procurement schedule. Since this stage of the process requires you to comply with your organization’s purchasing and procurement rules, Figure D illustrates very little difference between issuing an RFP for a project procuring agile or non-agile services.

Figure D: Issue RFP for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services 

Stage 4: Review proposals
In Stage 4, you evaluate vendor proposals against the RFP’s requirements and project objectives to determine the best proposal response. Figure E summarizes the key differences in reviewing proposals for a project that is procuring agile vs. non-agile services.

Figure E: Reviewing Proposals for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services 

Having appropriate evaluation priorities and scoring weights that align with how agile services are delivered should not be under-emphasized. 

Stage 5: Award and implement contract
In Stage 5, you award and implement the contract with the best vendor proposal identified during Stage 4. Figure F summarizes the key differences in awarding and implementing the contract for agile vs. non-agile services.

Figure F:  Award and Implement Contract for Agile vs. Non-Agile Services 

Due to the iterative and interactive requirements of agile, it is necessary to have robust and frequent collaboration among program teams, executives, sponsors, and the vendor to succeed in your agile project delivery.

What’s next?
The blog posts in this series will explain step-by-step how to procure agile services through the five stages, and at the series conclusion, your organization will better understand how to successfully procure and implement agile services. If you have questions or comments, please contact our team.  

LIBOR is leaving—is your financial institution ready to make the most of it?

In July 2017, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority announced the phasing out of the London Interbank Offered Rate, commonly known as LIBOR, by the end of 2021¹. With less than two years to go, US federal regulators are urging financial institutions to start assessing their LIBOR exposure and planning their transition. Here we offer some general impacts of the phasing out, some specific actions your institution can take to prepare, and, finally, background on how we got here (see Background at right).

How will the phase-out impact financial institutions?

The Federal Reserve estimates roughly $200 trillion in LIBOR-indexed notional value transactions in the cash and derivatives market². LIBOR is used to help price a variety of financial services products,  including $3.4 trillion in business loans and $1.3 trillion in consumer loans, as well as derivatives, swaps, and other credit instruments. Even excluding loans and financial instruments set to mature before 2021—estimated by the FDIC at 82% of the above $200 trillion—LIBOR exposure is still significant³.

A financial institution’s ability to lend money is largely dependent on the relative stability of its capital position, or lack thereof. For institutions with a significant amount of LIBOR-indexed assets and liabilities, that means less certainty in expected future cash flows and a less stable capital position, which could prompt institutions to deny loans they might otherwise have approved. A change in expected cash flows could also have several indirect consequences. Criticized assets, assessed for impairment based on their expected future cash flows, could require a specific reserve due to lower present value of expected future cash flows.

The importance of fallback language in loan agreements

Fallback language in loan agreements plays a pivotal role in financial institutions’ ability to manage their LIBOR-related financial results. Most loan agreements include language that provides guidance for determining an alternate reference rate to “fall back” on in the event the loan’s original reference rate is discontinued. However, if this language is non-existent, contains fallbacks that are no longer adequate, or lacks certain key provisions, it can create unexpected issues when it comes time for financial institutions to reprice their LIBOR loans. Here are some examples:

• Non-existent or inadequate fallbacks
  According to the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, a group of private-market participants convened by the Federal Reserve to help ensure a successful LIBOR transition, "Most contracts referencing LIBOR do not appear to have envisioned a permanent or indefinite cessation of LIBOR and have fallbacks that would not be economically appropriate"⁴.
  
  For instance, industry regulators have warned that without updated fallback language, the discontinuation of LIBOR could prompt some variable-rate loans to become fixed-rate², causing unanticipated changes in interest rate risk for financial institutions. In a declining rate environment, this may prove beneficial as loans at variable rates become fixed. But in a rising rate environment, the resulting shrink in net interest margins would have a direct and adverse impact on the bottom line.

• No spread adjustment
  Once LIBOR is discontinued, LIBOR-indexed loans will need to be repriced at a new reference rate, which could be well above or below LIBOR. If loan agreements don’t provide for an adjustment of the spread between LIBOR and the new rate, that could prompt unexpected changes in the financial position of both borrowers and lenders³. Take, for instance, a loan made at the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), generally considered the likely replacement for USD LIBOR. Since SOFR tends to be lower than three-month LIBOR, a loan agreement using it that does not allow for a spread adjustment would generate lower loan payments for the borrower, which means less interest income for the lender.
  
  Not allowing for a spread adjustment on reference rates lower than LIBOR could also cause a change in expected prepayments—say, for instance, if borrowers with fixed-rate loans decide to refinance at adjustable rates—which would impact post-CECL allowance calculations like the weighted-average remaining maturity (WARM) method, which uses estimated prepayments as an input.

What can your financial institution do to prepare?

The Federal Reserve and the SEC have urged financial institutions to immediately evaluate their LIBOR exposure and expedite their transition. Though the FDIC has expressed no intent to examine financial institutions for the status of LIBOR planning or critique loans based on use of LIBOR³, Federal Reserve supervisory teams have been including LIBOR transitions in their regular monitoring of large financial institutions⁵. The SEC has also encouraged companies to provide investors with robust disclosures regarding their LIBOR transition, which may include a notional value of LIBOR exposure².

Financial institutions should start by analyzing their LIBOR exposure beyond 2021. If you don’t expect significant exposure, further analysis may be unnecessary. However, if you do expect significant future LIBOR exposure, your institution should conduct stress testing using LIBOR as an isolated variable by running hypothetical transition scenarios and assessing the potential financial impact.

Closely examine and assess fallback language in loan agreements. For existing loan agreements, you may need to make amendments, which could require consent from counterparties². For new loan agreements maturing beyond 2021, lenders should consider selecting an alternate reference rate. New contract language for financial instruments and residential mortgages is currently being drafted by the International Securities Dealers Association and the Federal Housing Finance Authority, respectively³—both of which may prove helpful in updating loan agreements.

Lenders should also consider their underwriting policies. Loan underwriters will need to adjust the spread on new loans to accurately reflect the price of risk, because volatility and market tendencies of alternate loan reference rates may not mirror LIBOR’s. What’s more, SOFR lacks abundant historical data for use in analyzing volatility and market tendencies, making accurate loan pricing more difficult.

Conclusion: Start assessing your LIBOR risk soon

The cessation of LIBOR brings challenges and opportunities that will require in-depth analysis and making difficult decisions. Financial institutions and consumers should heed the advice of regulators and start assessing their LIBOR risk now. Those that do will not only be better prepared―but also better positioned―to capitalize on the opportunities it presents.

Need help assessing your LIBOR risk and preparing to transition? Contact BerryDunn’s financial services specialists.

¹ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2017/07/27/acdd411c-72bc-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html?utm_term=.856137e72385
² Thomson Reuters Checkpoint Newsstand April 10, 2019
³ https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/examinations/supervisory/insights/siwin18/si-winter-2018.pdf
^{4 https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2019/04/libor-transition-panel-recommends-fallback-language-for-key-instruments/
5} https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-libor/fed-urges-u-s-financial-industry-to-accelerate-libor-transition-idUSKCN1RM25T

In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.

A brief definition

The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.

Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.

Why does it matter? Audit quality.

First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.

These questions not only help the auditor appropriately apply professional standards, but also help the auditor gain a deeper understanding of your business. This will enable the auditor to provide insights and value-added services an auditor who doesn’t apply the right degree of skepticism may never identify.

Therefore, as the white paper notes, audit committees, management, and investors should be asking “How hard do our auditors get pushed on fees, and what effect does that have on the quality of the audit?” If your auditor is overly concerned with completing the audit within a fixed time budget, professional skepticism and, ultimately, the quality of the audit, may suffer.

Applying skepticism internally

By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.

However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.

Specific to the financial statement reporting function, these stakeholders should be assessing the financial statements and ask questions that can help prevent or detect flaws in the financial reporting process. For example, when considering significant estimates, management should ask: are we considering all relevant information? Are our estimates unbiased? Are there alternative accounting treatments we haven’t considered? Can we justify our selected accounting treatment? Essentially, management should start by asking itself: what questions would we expect our auditor to ask us?

It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.

The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate. Although it receives a lot of attention in the audit profession, it is a concept that, slightly altered, can be of value to other audit stakeholders. Doing so will help you create a stronger relationship with your auditor and, ultimately, improve the quality of the financial reporting process—and resulting outcome.

Good fundraising and good accounting do not always seamlessly align. While they all feed the same mission, fundraisers work to meet revenue goals while accountants focus on recording transactions in compliance with accounting standards. We often see development department totals reported to boards that are not in line with annual financial statements, causing confusion and concern. To bridge this information gap, here are five accounting concepts every not-for-profit fundraiser should know:

Understanding the differences in how the development department and finance department track these gifts will allow for better reporting to the board throughout the year—and fewer surprises when you present financial statements at the end of the year. Stay tuned for parts two and three of our contribution series. Have questions? Please contact Emily Parker of Sarah Belliveau.