Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Hi everyone, welcome to Deloitte Financial Reporting Update, our webcast series for issues

  • and developments related to the various accounting frameworks. Today, we present bringing clarity

  • to an IFRS world - IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. I am Jon Kligman, your host

  • for today’s webcast, and I am joined by Maryse Vendette, Cindy Veinot, and Joyce Lam.

  • I will tell you more about our speakers a little later on. Before we get to our agenda,

  • a few housekeeping items. In the lower right hand corner of your screen, you will see the

  • webcast links including a link to download and print today’s slides and links for webcast

  • assistance, Deloitte updates, upcoming sessions, and archive sessions. If you have a pop-up

  • blocker on your computer, you will need to disengage it in order to download the slides

  • and participate in our polling questions. If you know of colleagues who could not attend

  • today’s live event, they can simply register at any time the same way you did and they

  • will be able to view the archived webcast within 48 hours. So, invite your colleagues

  • to take advantage of this feature. Although you are on a listen-only mode, you can ask

  • our presenters content related questions at any time by entering your question in the

  • box at the bottom of the screen and clicking on submit. We will do our best to respond

  • to your questions and comments during the presentation. We also have interactive polling

  • questions that will appear on your screen throughout the webcast. We invite your participation

  • by simply answering these questions. A summary of the results will be provided on the screen

  • shortly afterwards. Okay, let us get to our agenda. First you

  • will hear from Maryse Vendette, who will provide us with an introduction to the new standard

  • and to speak to a scope. As well Maryse will begin walking us through the steps of new

  • revenue model. After Maryse, Joyce Lam will continue to walk us through the remaining

  • steps of the new revenue model, will then be joined by Cindy Veinot, who provide us

  • with some guidance and some of the other matters related to the standard and to speak to some

  • of the expected impacts, challenges and issues. We will conclude by highlighting some resources

  • for future reference and with a brief question and answer session. You can read the bios

  • of our presenters and access the agenda and technical support in the navigation area of

  • your screen. We have a lot of material for a 90-minute webcast, so we will need to keep

  • the discussion at a fairly high level. I would like to remind our viewers that our comments

  • on this webcast represent our own personal views and do not constitute official interpretive

  • accounting guidance from Deloitte. Before taking any action on any of these issues,

  • it is always a good idea to check with a qualified advisor.

  • Okay, to kick things off, let us start with our first polling question. We are going to

  • ask everyone online to participate in this webcast by answering the polling question.

  • Can we have the question please, there we go.

  • Okay, so the question is, have you started assessing the impact of IFRS 15 - Revenue

  • from Contracts with Customers and the answers are:

  • Project plan is in placeAware of the new Standard and will start

  • assessment in the near termNo plan to commence work at this time

  • Not applicable After you select your answer, which is the

  • best in your circumstances, please remember to hit submit answer to register your response.

  • While we are waiting for the responses, I would like to remind you that today’s webcast

  • maybe counted towards your continuing professional education. If you stay with us for the whole

  • webcast, you can credit yourself with one-and-a-half hours towards your yearly total. This applies

  • to those in public practice and those working in industry. We do not issue certificates

  • for the webcast, but your email registration confirmation conform part of your documentation

  • in support of your attendance. Okay, let us see if we have the responses

  • please. There we go. Okay almost 45% are going to start their assessment in the near term

  • and 11.7% have a project plan in place, that is a very healthy percentage of folks online

  • who are either already started or near starting. As you will hear on this webcast, the new

  • standard can have significant impact on both the accounting and on the information requirements.

  • Okay, I would now like to welcome our first two speakers, Maryse Vendette and Joyce Lam.

  • Maryse Vendette is a Partner at our National Office and is a co-deputy leader of the Canadian

  • IFRS Centre of Excellence. She is the National subject matter authority in the field of revenue

  • recognition as well as a member of Deloitte’s Global Expert Advisory panel on revenue. Joyce

  • Lam is a Senior Manager in the Advisory Services Group of Deloitte and specializes in providing

  • accounting advisory services to clients in all industries. Joyce has extensive experience

  • in assisting clients on accounting matters in the areas of revenue recognition, business

  • combinations and share-based payments under IFRS and US GAAP.

  • Over to you Maryse.

  • Thanks Jon. Good afternoon, I guess good morning for some of you across the country. Let us

  • start with some background information on IFRS 15. We received what I would refer to

  • exciting news in the accounting world on May 28, 2014, when IFRS 15 was finally issued.

  • It was issued concurrently with Accounting Standards Update ASU 2014-09 it is US GAAP

  • equivalent. The issuance of IFRS 15 completes a long-standing project that began back in

  • 2002 between the IASB and the FASB to develop a high quality global accounting standard.

  • For all intents and purposes, IFRS 15 and US GAAP are converged. There are minor differences

  • between the two standards and those have been identified in an appendix to the standard

  • in the basis for conclusions. This standard addresses how to account for all contracts

  • of customers using one model of accounting that will apply to all types of transactions

  • in all industries in capital markets. Currently, we have diverse pieces of guidance under IFRS

  • over some 200 pieces of literature dealing with specific transactions or industries under

  • US GAAP. This new standard will replace all or most of that by one model. We will have

  • to wait and see how it is interpreted how it is interpreted and implemented, but the

  • objective is that the new standard will increase comparability, reduce diversity in accounting

  • for similar transactions across industries. We wanted to highlight that the IASB and FASB

  • have created a joint Transition Resource Group. So, the members of the resource group have

  • been announced and they include financial statement preparers, auditors, users, obviously

  • the boards and members of the regulator community, people in various industries and geographic

  • locations. The purpose of the Transition Resource Group is not to issue guidance, but is really

  • to solicit, analyze and discuss issues arising from implementation, inform the boards about

  • the issues that are being dealt with so that the boards can take decisions about actions

  • that need to be taken, provide a form for stakeholders to learn about the new standard.

  • The boards expect that the Transition Resource Group will meet twice in 2014 and four times

  • in 2015 and the first meeting is scheduled July 18. All the meetings will be public and

  • anybody can submit a potential implementation issue for discussion at the Transition Resource

  • Group meetings. The boards will evaluate those submissions and prioritize the issues for

  • discussion. I realize that the text maybe a bit small on the slide, but we have here,

  • to the left of the screen, the requirements currently found in IFRS on revenue in the

  • main standards as well as in the interpretations and this contrasts with the new requirements

  • to the right of the screen. A couple of points to bring to your attention here.

  • The first one is as you see IFRS 15 has a

  • broad scope. It has guidance on a number of aspects that are now included in various pieces

  • of literature under IFRS. IFRS currently has guidance on construction contracts in IAS

  • 11, sales of goods, sales of services under IAS 18, construction of real-estate under

  • IFRIC 15 and IFRS 15 will replace all of that and IFRS 15 will not distinguish explicitly

  • or does not distinguish explicitly between sales of goods or serves, but rather it provides

  • guidance on whether revenue should be recognized overtime similar to a service or long-term

  • construction contracts or revenue should be recognized at a particular point in time similar

  • to a sale of good and we will discuss that in more detail later on. IFRIC 13 is superseded

  • and replaced by broader guidance on options granted to customers to acquire additional

  • goods or services or at a discount and provides broad guidance on breakage, customer unexercised

  • rights. IFRIC 18 and 631 dealing with Transfers of Assets from Customer and Advertising Barter

  • Transactions are superseded and IFRS 15 includes guidance on how to deal with noncash consideration

  • and nonmonetary exchanges generally and finally where are previously IAS 18 contains specific

  • guidance on accounting for interest and dividends. These are now scoped out of IFRS 15 and dealt

  • with by IAS 39 and IFRS 9. Consequential amendments were made to those two standards to incorporate

  • guidance that was previously included in IAS 18 and its appendices.

  • Moving onto effective date and transition options. IFRS 15 is effective for annual reporting

  • periods beginning on or after January 1, 2017 including interim periods. For an entity with

  • a calendar year-end, it would apply IFRS 15 in the first interim period and on March 31,

  • 2017, early application is permitted under IFRS 15, but it is not permitted under US

  • GAAP. The boards have provided a bit of relieve by way of transition methods. An entity can

  • choose between two transition options. So it can elect to either apply the standard

  • fully retrospectively or apply it retrospectively but taking into account three practical expedients

  • to retrospective application, which are identified obviously in standard and if any of the practical

  • expedients are used, they have to be applied consistently to all reporting periods. They

  • have to be disclosed to the extent that it is possible an entity will have to include

  • a qualitative assessment of the likely effect of applying the practical expedients or an

  • entity can also choose to apply the standard using a modified approach, so that means that

  • it would apply the revenue standard retrospectively, but only to contracts that are not completed

  • as of the date of initial application of the standard so that is again January 1, 2017

  • and it would recognize a cumulative catch-up adjustment to retained earnings as of that

  • date without restating comparative figures. The use of the modified approach may reduce

  • the cost and complexity of adopting the standard because there is no need to make an assessment

  • of contract completed prior to the year of adoption, but it also has its drawbacks and

  • that some revenue will not be presented in profit and loss, but instead would be included

  • in the beginning retained earnings as a cumulative catch-up adjustment and obviously some parallel

  • accounting will be required in 2017 to be able to disclose the information that is required

  • by the standard.

  • The following slide provides a tabular example that is intended to illustrate visually the

  • two transition methods. Under the full retrospective approach, it is clear from here that for new

  • contracts and existing contracts you have to apply IFRS 15 in the current year, but

  • also in the prior that is presented and also to produce our opening balance sheet that

  • would be required under IAS 1 when you apply a new standard. Under the modified approach,

  • the standard would be applied to any new contracts entered into on or after the initial application

  • date of January 1, 2017 for a calendar year-end example.

  • An entity would also need to evaluate those

  • contracts that are not complete at the date of initial application using the new revenue

  • model and determine the cumulative catch-up adjustment to be recorded to beginning retained

  • earnings and finally any contracts completed prior to the year of adoption would not need

  • to be re-evaluated or accounted for under the modified approach, that means that revenue

  • from these contracts recognized in prior periods presented would not be restated under this

  • approach. If an entity decides to employ this modified transition approach, it is required

  • to provide some additional disclosures, of course, to show to users how they transition

  • from the legacy guidance to IFRS 15. The first of which is to present the financial statement

  • line items and the related amounts that are affected in the current year in 2017 because

  • of the application of the standard and second a description of significant changes between

  • the new standard and the legacy guidance.

  • As mentioned previously, IFRS 15 has a broad and all-encompassing scope. It applies to

  • contracts with customers except those that are within the scope of other IFRSs. It is

  • important to understand how IFRS 15 defines a contract and defines a customer. Under IFRS

  • 15, a contract is defined as an agreement between two or more parties that creates enforceable

  • rights and obligations and a customer is defined as a party that has contracted with an entity

  • to obtain goods or services that are an output of the entity’s ordinary activities in exchange

  • for consideration. IFRS 15 includes in its scope transfers of assets that are not an

  • output of the entity’s ordinary activities. For instance, transfers of sales of property,

  • plant and equipment, real-estate or intangible assets would be within the scope of certain

  • aspects of the IFRS 15 model. Specifically, the criteria for determining the existence

  • of a contract, measurement and control principles would apply to these transfers or sales of

  • non-financial assets to determine when and for what amount the asset should be derecognized.

  • With respect to contracts with collaborators or partners, during the re-deliberations,

  • the boards acknowledge that parties to collaborative arrangements, which are common in certain

  • industries such as in the pharmaceutical industry or biotechnology industry could represent

  • customers and that therefore certain collaborative arrangements would be within the scope of

  • IFRS 15. To determine whether a transaction or a collaboration arrangement is in or out

  • of scope of IFRS 15, an entity would consider the structure and purpose of the arrangement

  • to determine whether the transaction is for the sale of goods and services as part of

  • the entity’s normal business activities and whether the counterparty represents a

  • customer and if that is the case then the collaborative arrangement would fall within

  • its scope. The revenue model does not apply to contracts within the scope of other IFRSs,

  • so IAS 17 contracts those within the scope of IFRS 4 for insurance contracts, those within

  • the scope of financial instruments and other contractual rights or obligations, which would

  • be in the scope of IFRS 9, IFRS 10, IFRS 11 for instance and finally nonmonetary exchanges

  • between entities in the same line of business whose purpose is to facilitate self to customers.

  • On this one, I believe this requirement is a bit different from the scope exception currently

  • found in IAS 18, which would exclude non-monetary exchanges of goods and services that are of

  • a similar nature and value. There could potentially be differences there in terms of accounting

  • for non-monetary exchanges to watch out for.

  • Moving on the core principle of IFRS 15 that you see highlighted here at the top of the

  • screen is to recognize revenue to depict the transfer so the transfer of control of goods

  • or services in an amount that an entity expects to be entitled to. The word expects seems

  • to bring in some element of potential variability and we will touch up on that a bit later.

  • There is a five-step approach to applying this principle, which is not too unfamiliar

  • in terms of an approach and we name all these steps here, but we will cover those in turn

  • in more detail. 1. Identify the contract.

  • 2. Identify the performance obligations in that similar to separating a multiple element

  • arrangement into different units of account. 3. Determine the transaction price so that

  • would be the amount the entity expects to be entitled to under the contract.

  • 4. Allocate the transaction price amongst the performance obligations identified.

  • 5. Recognize revenue when or as performance obligations are satisfied, so that is when

  • control of the goods and services is transferred to the customer.

  • Note that this is not exactly how the standard itself is laid out. It is not necessarily

  • laid out sequentially in terms of steps. It deals with recognition first, so steps 1,

  • 2, and 5 and then measurement pieces that is step 3 and 4 and then presentation disclosure

  • and effective date. We have highlighted that for you on the slide. It is also important

  • to point out that this revenue recognition model is based on a control approach and that

  • differs from the risks and rewards approach that you are still applying under current

  • IFRS. The boards decided that an entity should assess the transfer of good or service by

  • considering when a customer obtains control of that good or service as opposed to when

  • the supplier gets that control or when the risks and rewards have been transferred.

  • Okay, now that we have gone through scope, transition, effective date and the overall

  • model, let us get started with the first step in applying the model, which is to identify

  • the contract with customer. This is basically identifying the unit of the account to which

  • the IFRS 15 analysis will apply. We mentioned previously that a contract creates a legally

  • enforceable rights and obligations. A legally enforceable contract would only be deemed

  • to exist if the criteria on the slide here are all met.

  • 1. The parties to the contract have approved the contract that can be in writing, orally

  • or in accordance with customer business practices and the parties are committed to perform under

  • the contract. 2. The entity can identify the payment terms

  • for the goods and service. 3. The entity can identify each party’s

  • rights. 4. The contract has commercial substance in

  • the sense that future cash flows are expected to change because of the contract.

  • 5. Finally, it is probable, which means more likely than not under IFRS that the entity

  • will collect the consideration to which it is entitled in exchange for the goods and

  • services. This collectability threshold is assessing

  • the customer’s credit risk and you may recall that in the exposure draft, there was no collectability

  • threshold. In this final standard, they reintroduced the collectability threshold of probable.

  • It is also important to note that there is a difference between consideration from a

  • customer not being collectible and the entity offering a concession to a customer and the

  • standard goes into some discussion about that and we will provide an example of that later.

  • If the arrangement fails to meet these criteria that we have just gone through for identifying

  • a contract, the entity will have to reassess every reporting period whether it subsequently

  • meets this criteria. However, an entity would not be able to recognize revenue from a contract

  • as serves this step until either it reassesses its collectability and concludes it becomes

  • probable and/or the amounts received are non-refundable and either the entity has satisfied all its

  • performance obligations and all the consideration has been received and it is not refundable

  • and the contract has been terminated or canceled and whatever consideration has been received

  • is non-refundable. As well as the final point on this step, IFRS

  • 15 also includes guidance under step 1 and how to determine whether contracts need to

  • be combined when they are entered into at or near the same time with the same customer

  • and also deals with some questions about contract modifications and we will discuss that a bit

  • later as well.

  • Step 2, identifying the performance obligations. This is basically identifying that deliverables

  • are identified, the elements of the arrangement that maybe terms that you are more used to.

  • What is a performance obligation under IFRS 15? It is a promise to transfer to the customer

  • a good or service or a bundle of goods or services that is distinct. The first thing

  • to do is to identify all the promised goods and services in the contract. IFRS 15 provides

  • a list of typical promises you may find in a contract, but this list is not all-inclusive.

  • These promises in a contract can be explicit or they can be implicit, meaning that they

  • are implied by customary business practices, published policies or specific statements

  • that create valid expectations on the part of the customer that they will receive those

  • goods and services. An example of that maybe a practice of offering a free one-year maintenance

  • with a sale of a product. The second thing you need to do is to determine whether the

  • promised goods and services that you have identified are distinct from other goods and

  • services in the contract and there is two criteria that have to be met to conclude that

  • they are distinct. The first one to the left of the screen there in the light blue box

  • is, is the good or service capable of being distinct. Basically, the question is can the

  • customer benefit from the good or service on its own or together with other readily

  • available resources? So that is similar to the standalone value that we may be familiar

  • with and we do not necessarily expect change in practice in this regard.

  • The second criteria is, is a good or service distinct in the context of the contract? Is

  • the good or service separately identifiable from the other promised goods and services

  • in the contract and that is a new requirement that goes over and above the standalone value

  • test. IFRS 15 sets out a number of factors to consider in making that determination and

  • we expect a lot of discussion around this application of the second criteria, which

  • could lead to more combining of promises than it is currently the case. If the good and

  • service is deemed to be distinct than you would account for as a performance obligation.

  • If not than you would have to combine two or more promised goods and services and re-evaluate

  • what is the lower level that you can find that is distinct within the arrangement.

  • Final point on this that I would like to make here is IFRS 15 also identifies that it is

  • possible that you have a promise to transfer to a customer a series of distinct goods or

  • services that are substantially the same and have the same pattern of transfer to the customer

  • and the guidance explains what is meant by that exactly and they say that in that case

  • if you meet this criteria then you should account for the series of distinct goods and

  • services as a single performance obligation. An example of that is contract by a payroll

  • provider to provide weekly payroll services over a 12-month period. One might conclude

  • this is really 12 months of different services or 365 days of services, but in this case

  • IFRS 15 would lead you to a conclusion that is only one performance obligation. The contract

  • includes one because the entity is providing a series of distinct services that are substantially

  • the same and have the same pattern of transfer throughout the year. Let us know look at an

  • example, here we have an example of how step 2 might apply to a specific fact pattern,

  • so the facts are working with an entity’s manufacturer enters into a contract to sell

  • a customer a printer and a ink cartridge that is shipped two weeks later. The printer cannot

  • work without the ink cartridge, but both the printer manufacturer and the sellers of generic

  • ink cartridges sell ink cartridges for the printer separately. The question is, are these

  • performance obligations? The entity here would identify two promises, the printer and the

  • cartridge and two performance obligations in this fact pattern.

  • Both the printer and the cartridge represent distinct goods because first of all it is

  • clear that the customer can benefit from the good on its own or together with other resources

  • that are readily available to the customer and secondly the entity’s promise to transfer

  • the good or service to the customer is separately identifiable from other promises in the contract.

  • The customer does not need to buy the cartridge or the printer from the entity in order to

  • use the other good. There is a point of caution here though this conclusion is based on our

  • current understanding of the IASB’s intention for interpreting this requirement. However,

  • there is some debate among preparers, users and auditors as to whether in this case the

  • two products are separable in the context of the contract because of the notion of are

  • the goods and services highly dependent or are they highly interrelated. So, we expect

  • further discussion on this issue and it may actually be an issue that will be raised at

  • an upcoming Transition Resource Group meeting later this year. So that is all from me for

  • step 2. I think I will hand it over to Joyce to go through the next steps in the model.

  • Thanks Maryse. The third step of the revenue model is to determine the transaction price.

  • Under IFRS 15, transaction price is defined as the amount of consideration to which an

  • entity expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring promised goods or services

  • to the customer. In determining the transaction price companies will need to consider the

  • amount of fixed consideration, variable consideration as well as any non-cash consideration in the

  • contract. An example of non-cash consideration can be shares of the customer common stock.

  • Under the new standard, we are required to adjust the transaction price to exclude the

  • fact of time value of money if there is a significant financing component embedded in

  • the contract price. Also the transaction price should be adjusted for any consideration payable

  • to the vendor, to the customers. This last requirement to adjust a transaction price

  • by consideration payable to the customers is essentially the same as what we are used

  • under EIC 156 under the old Canadian GAAP. We should also note that in determining the

  • transaction price, we do not adjust for the effect of customer credit risk. As Maryse

  • has mentioned and also you may recall, back in 2010 exposure draft it was proposed that

  • the transaction price be measured based on the amount that the entity expects to receive,

  • which effectively requires the entity to reflect the customer’s credit risk in measurement

  • of the transaction price; however, because nearly all respondents expressed concerns

  • about applying that concept, the boards decided to not adopt that proposal. The boards later

  • came up with another proposal in 2011, but proposing to have the fact of the credit risk

  • presented as an adjacent item to the revenue line in the statement of earnings, which they

  • have also later abandoned that proposal. One of the main concern is that they were concerned

  • company may be grossing up the revenue balance with an offsetting impairment loss. In the

  • new standard, the boards ultimately decided that they would include the consideration

  • of collectability in step 1 of the revenue model and the reason for including that in

  • step 1 essentially provides a critical consideration point in determining whether or not the contract

  • is valid.

  • What constitutes variable considerable? Variable consideration is any consideration that is

  • subject to uncertainty other than collectability. For example, discounts, rebates, sales credits,

  • sales incentives, performance bonuses or price concessions. When the transaction price is

  • variable, the standard requires the entity to estimate the variable consideration using

  • one of two methods, the expected value method or the most likely amount method. The expected

  • value method is calculated using the probability weighted method, which is appropriate when

  • the entity has a large number of contracts with similar characteristics. The most likely

  • amount method is appropriate when the contract only has two possible outcomes. For example,

  • the entity is entitled to a performance bonus only if it achieves a specified outcome. However,

  • if there is a high probability that a subsequent change in the variable consideration estimate

  • will lead to a significant revenue reversal, the variable consideration should be excluded

  • from the determination of transaction price. In assessing the likelihood and the magnitude

  • of a potential revenue reversal, company should consider the following factors: Whether the

  • consideration is highly susceptible to factors outside the company’s control or influence.

  • For example, for an asset management company, usually they will have a portion of the fee

  • earned on the investment portfolio based on the performance at a certain point in time,

  • which in their case there may be a lot of factors effecting the value or the performance

  • of investment portfolio and those factors are typically outside of the control of the

  • asset management company.

  • We also need to look at whether or not there is any uncertainty relating to the amount

  • of consideration and whether or not that uncertainty will take a long time to resolve. As you may

  • expect, the longer the time it takes to resolve the uncertainties around the variable consideration,

  • the higher the likelihood that those estimate is going to change. Also we should consider

  • whether or not the entity has limited experience with similar contract and therefore limiting

  • their ability to estimate variable consideration. Also if the entity has a significant historical

  • experience in offering a broad range of price concessions or made significant changes to

  • the payment terms of the contracts as well as any relevant provisions, it will also increase

  • the likelihood of changes in the future.

  • The last indicator is whether or not the contract itself contains a large number and a wide

  • range of possible consideration amounts. If any of these factors exist, it is an indicator

  • that there is a high probability that a significant revenue reversal will occur and that the entity

  • should not include the variable consideration in the determination of transaction price.

  • Let us go through an example to illustrate the point. In this example, the entity sells

  • a prescription drug for a $1 million payable in 90 days to a customer located in a country

  • that is experiencing economic difficulty. At the time when the contract was entered

  • into, the entity determines that there is a significant risk that the customer will

  • accept the product and also there is a high probability that the customer will ask for

  • a price reduction, which is a customary business practice in that country. The entity estimates

  • that the parties will ultimately settle on a price of $400,000, which the entity is willing

  • to accept as it will still make a profit at that price. The entity also assesses that

  • it is probable that it will collect the $400,000. In this example:

  • Is the transaction price variable? • Does this contract meet the criteria laid

  • out in step 1 of the revenue model? With respect to the first question, the transaction

  • price contains a variable consideration component because both the customer and the entity expects

  • to ultimately settle at $400,000, which is, in fact, means the entity expects to offer

  • a price concession of $600,000. The transaction price is variable.

  • In terms of whether the criteria in step 1 are met?

  • You can see on the slide that we have concluded all criteria are met. Based on the

  • case facts, both parties have approved the contract and are committed to perform under

  • the contract. The entity has transferred the drug and expects the customer to pay a portion

  • of the contract price. • The entity believes that it is probable

  • that it will collect, however expects to offer a price concession based on the expected amount

  • to collect. • The contract has commercial substance.

  • The entity has identified each party’s rights regarding the prescription drug.

  • The payment terms is also identified in the contract.

  • The important point that we want to highlight in here is that the entity has adjusted the

  • transaction price for the estimated price concession and not for the customer credit

  • risk. Also, the criteria relating to collectability is assessed based on the amount that the entity

  • expected to be entitled to, which in this case is the amount after the adjustment for

  • the price concession and because this is probable that the entity will collect the $400,000

  • transaction price, therefore collectability criterion along with the other criteria in

  • the step 1 are met. The reason that we address the criteria in the step 1 in this example

  • is to reiterate that the consideration of collectability should be based on the entity’s

  • transaction price after adjusting for any variable consideration and not necessary based

  • on the contractual price. If the assessment is based on the collectability of the contractual

  • price, the entity would not meet the collectability criteria in step 1 of the revenue model.

  • Let us move on to step 4 of the revenue model allocating transaction price model. Under

  • the IFRS 15, transaction price will be allocated to the different performance obligations identified

  • in step 2 based on the relative stand-alone selling prices. If the stand-alone selling

  • price are not observable either because this is a new product or a new service or the entity

  • has never sold those products or service on the stand-alone basis, the entity is required

  • to estimate the stand-alone selling price. To estimate stand-alone selling price, there

  • are a few acceptable methods under the standard. The expected cost-plus margin method, which

  • we are all familiar with. The adjusted market assessment method, which is estimated by reference

  • to prices of similar goods or services in the market and adjusted for the entity specific

  • cost and margins or the residual method. Note that the residual method is expected to be

  • used if the price is highly variable or uncertain. In situations where the transaction price

  • changes from the initial allocation, for example due to change in estimate of variable consideration,

  • the changes should be allocated to the performance obligations based on the relative selling

  • prices unless the change in the transaction price related entirely to one or more, but

  • not all of the performance obligations. Also the initial allocation of transaction price

  • does not need to be adjusted if the stand-alone selling prices of those performance obligations

  • change in subsequent periods. This concept is the same as the current practice.

  • The Standard also provides guidance for situations where it would be appropriate to allocate

  • the discount or any other variable consideration to one or more, but not all of the performance

  • obligations. For example, in transactions where the entity sells the customers three

  • different products, product A, B and C for $430. The entity sells each of those products

  • on a stand-alone basis and has a stand-alone selling price for each of them at $50 each.

  • In this transaction, the sum of the stand-alone prices equals to $150. Comparing to the $130

  • transaction contract price, there is a discount of $20 in this arrangement. The entity also

  • sells product B and C in a bundle on a stand-alone basis and also usually thrice the bundle at

  • $80. The bundle itself contains a discount of $20. In this case, because the discount

  • that typically offered for the bundle of product B and C is equal to the discount being offered

  • in the current transaction, the entity would under IFRS 15 allocate the entire $20 discount

  • to product B and C only.

  • Once the transaction price is allocated, the entity will have to determine when to recognize

  • revenue for each performance obligation. Note that there is only one single model for recognizing

  • revenue for goods and services. The new standard does not distinguish recognition of revenue

  • for goods or for services. Under IFRS 15, revenue is recognized when control of the

  • good or service is transferred to the customer, sounds simple. There are actually many situations

  • where it is not clear as to when control is transferred particularly when the arrangements

  • involve construction of an asset or rendering of services over a period of time. The standard

  • does provide some indicators to help companies in their determination of whether performance

  • obligation is satisfied over time or at a point in time. It is considered that the entity

  • satisfies a performance obligation over time if one of the following indicators exist:

  • 1. The first indicator is that the customer receives and consumes the benefit as the entity

  • performs. An example of such contract is when an entity provides cleaning service to a customer

  • where the customer is simultaneously receiving and consuming the benefit of the cleaning

  • service as the entity renders the service. 2. The second indicator is that the entity’s

  • performance actually creates or enhances an asset that is controlled by the customer.

  • An example is a home addition contract, where the entity is contracted by the customer to

  • renovate the customer’s house. 3. The last indicator is the situations where

  • performance by the entity does not create an asset that has alternative use meaning

  • there is limitation as to the entity’s ability to use the asset created for another customer

  • or redirect the asset without having to incur significant cost and that the entity has an

  • enforceable right to payments for performance completed to date and expects to fulfill contract

  • as promised. The amount that the entity is entitled at any point in time during the term

  • of the contract should approximate the selling price for the asset created or partially created.

  • We will illustrate this point in an example in the later slide. When the performance obligation

  • is considered to be satisfied over time, the entity would recognize revenue based on the

  • progress towards completion, which the progress can be measured using either the input or

  • output method. On the other hand, if the performance obligation is not considered to be satisfied

  • over time, revenue should be recognized at a point in time, which is at the time when

  • control of the asset is transferred to the customer.

  • The determination as to when control of the asset has been transferred can be made based

  • on the following indicators: • When the entity has a present right to

  • the payment for the assetWhen the customer has legal title to the

  • asset When the entity has transferred physical possession

  • of the asset, when the customer has significant risks and rewards of ownership of the asset

  • or when the customer has accepted the asset. To illustrate whether revenue should be recognized

  • at a point in time or over time. Let us walk through an example.

  • A manufacturer enters into a contract with a customer to produce 52,000 units of a customized

  • part, which cannot be sold to any customer without substantial rework. The entity expects

  • to produce and ship 1000 units per week. Under the contract, if the customer cancels the

  • arrangement for reasons other than entity’s failure to perform. The customers require

  • to pay the entity and amount equal to cost plus a reasonable margin for each unit produced

  • or partially produced, but not yet delivered. So, should the entity recognize revenue at

  • a point in time or over time? To help make this assessment, we should ask ourselves two

  • questions. 1. Does the product have an alternative use?

  • 2. Does the entity have an enforceable right to payment?

  • For the first question, because the parts produced or customized and cannot be sold

  • to other customer without substantial rework, these products deemed to not have alternative

  • use.  

  • Regarding the second question, as agreed in the contract, the customers require to pay

  • the entity an amount equals to cost plus a reasonable margin for each unit produced or

  • partially produced, but not yet delivered if the customer cancels the contract. As such,

  • the entity has an enforceable right to be reimbursed for each unit produced or partially

  • produced even if the product has not been delivered to the entity prior to its cancelation.

  • Therefore, in this example, our conclusion is that the entity will recognize revenue

  • over time on the basis that the asset produced does not have an alternative use and that

  • the entity has an enforceable right to payment that approximates the selling price of the

  • goods produced to date. What if we change the fact of the previous example and stated

  • that their contract terms require the customer to pay the entity an amount equal to just

  • the cost for each product or each unit produced or partially produced. Should the manufacturer

  • recognize revenue over time or at the point in time? With this change, the entity does

  • not have an enforceable right to payment that approximates the selling price of the goods

  • transferred to date. It does not meet the criteria to recognize revenue over time. Therefore,

  • revenue would be recognized at a point in time. The entity would recognize revenue when

  • control of the product is transferred to the customer. To make this assessment, the five

  • indicators laid out on this slide should be considered and determining at what point has

  • control been transferred to the customer. Whether or not it would be at the time when

  • the entity has present right to payment for the asset or when the customer has the legal

  • title to the asset. When the entity transferred the physical possession of the asset, when

  • the customer has the significant risk and worth of ownership of the asset or when the

  • customer has accepted the asset. Now, I am going to turn it back to Jon for

  • a second polling question. Thank you very much Joyce and thank you Maryse and let us

  • move onto our second polling question. What step of the revenue model do you think

  • will have the most significant impact on your organization?

  • Identifying the performance obligations, determining the transaction price, allocating the transaction

  • price to the performance obligations and the contract or determining when to recognize

  • revenue? Once you select your answer, remember to click on submit answer to register it.

  • While we are waiting for the boats to come in, I have a question here for Maryse and

  • it deals with the scope of IFRS 15. The question is how about those contracts that are only

  • partly in scope. For example, leases, financial instruments and similar kind of subject areas.

  • How will these fit under IFRS 15? Sure Jon. That is a good question. As you

  • mentioned, a contract with the customer maybe partly within the scope of IFRS 15 and partly

  • within the scope of another standard and the examples you gave are good examples, so leases

  • could be one of them. So, you could have lease with the service element or you could have

  • even in maybe an investment banking situation where you have a mini-deal, you could have

  • an investment banker that enters into some type of financing arrangement, but also has

  • other services like M&A services. So, the idea is that if the other standard that applies

  • specifies how to separate or initially measure any parts of contract while the entity first

  • applies those separation and/or measurement requirement so that other standard takes precedence

  • over IFRS 15. If the other standard is quiet on that topic, so it does not specify how

  • to separate or initially measure any parts of the contract, then entity would apply the

  • recurrence of IFRS 15 to separate and initially measure those parts and consideration based

  • on a relative stand-alone selling price method. I hope that answers the question Jon. It certainly

  • does. Thank you very much.  

  • Okay. Let us see if we can get our results of polling question #2 up there. I finally

  • guess, which will be the most popular one, but as 41% is determining when to recognize

  • revenues, people views are the most challenging with the third saying allocating the transaction

  • price of the performance obligations and the contract. Eileen this is going to depend very

  • much on the nature and complexity of our particular business, exciting, it might actually vary.

  • Okay. I will now welcome our next speaker Cindy Veinot. Cindy Veinot is a Partner in

  • Toronto and has over 20 years of public accounting experience with Deloitte in both Toronto and

  • the United States. She has worked with clients on revenue recognition issues under multiple

  • different accounting frameworks over the last 15 years, has currently focused on working

  • with clients and assessing the impact of the new revenue recognition standard. Over to

  • you Cindy. Thanks Jon. Okay, now that we walked through model. Let

  • us talk about aspects of the standard that provide new or more specific items of the

  • number of areas. First area that we have selected to focus on is contract modifications. Modifications

  • to contracts have been rarely in some industries, but actually happen quite regularly and others.

  • So, think about your own cellphone contract, maybe of added features to it. You are now

  • data sharing with someone. You have added some additional bells and whistles. There

  • were modifications there or you can think about a home renovation or a major construction

  • contract for a highway or a new manufacturing plan where there can be numerous change orders

  • and a standard has specific guidance to deal with the accounting for modifications. Depending

  • on the nature of the medication, the impact can be to treat the modification prospectively

  • or to record accumulative ketch up in revenue. So, started the top of the slide, when you

  • have a modification, you need to determine whether the additional goods or services are

  • distinct, so that is for Maryse talked about in step 2 and whether they been priced at

  • their stand-alone selling price. So, Joyce touched on that a little bit in terms allocating

  • the transaction price. If both of these conditions are met, then the new performance obligations

  • and the transaction price associated with them are accounted for as a separate contract,

  • but if that is not case, then the contract modification is accounted for on a combined

  • basis with the original contract, but the impact on that accounting still depends on

  • whether goods and services in the modification are distinct. If they are, we are on the far

  • left at the bottom of the slide. There is no impact on revenue already recognized, but

  • the remaining performance obligations are allocated revenue based on the remaining revenue

  • not yet recognized under the original contract and the revenue from the modification. We

  • will go through an example of this. If the goods and services are not distinct,

  • which maybe the scenario in the case of a change order for a construction project where

  • there may just be a single performance obligation, they have to look at the modified contract

  • in its entirety and determine if there was a cumulative catch up at the date of modification

  • regarding the amount of revenue already recognized. Based on applying either an input method or

  • an output method or whatever the appropriate model is as Joyce touched on. Finally, down

  • there on the right hand bottom side, you could have a combination of these two types of modifications

  • and you have to apply judgment to account for modification in a way that is consistent

  • with the principles that we just discussed. So, let us walk through an example.

  • In this case, we have an entity that enters

  • into a three-year contract to provide daily cleaning services. The customer pays the stand-alone

  • selling price of $100,000 at the beginning of each year. So, at $300,000 contract in

  • total. At the end of the second year, the contract is modified and the fee for the third

  • year of services is reduced to $80,000 plus an additional $200,000 to extend the contract

  • for three additional years. The stand-alone selling price of the services at the beginning

  • of the third year is $80,000 per year and the entity stand-alone selling price multiplied

  • by the number of years is deemed to be an appropriate estimate of the stand-alone selling

  • price of the multiyear contract. So, in other words, if you take the stand-alone selling

  • price for four years, which is four times $80,000 that stand-alone selling price would

  • be $320,000. So, in terms of determining how to account for this modification, there are

  • two steps. First, are the services in the modification district and second is the additional

  • consideration reflective of the stand-alone selling price of the services. So, when I

  • start looking at the chart on the top right corner of the slide and so in the first column

  • of that chart we have got all the years, so now it is a 60-year contract after the modification

  • was three years to begin with and an additional three years were added. In the middle column,

  • we have got the initial amount of revenue that was agreed to buy the party, which was

  • $100,000 in each year of the first three years. Then, in the last column, we have got the

  • modified amount, so as we noted on the previous slide, at the end of year 2, the price for

  • year 3 was reduced to $80,000 and there was an extension to the contract for three additional

  • years at $200,000 now. Let us go back to the questions now.

  • First are the services distinct. We would say yes. Daily cleaning services

  • that is something that customer can benefit on its own and it would be separately identifiable

  • on the contract. The second question is, is the additional consideration reflective of

  • the stand-alone selling price of the services. In this case, we would say no because the

  • amount of the additional consideration or the remaining consideration to be paid is

  • $280,000, $80,000 for this third year and $200,000 extension, and this does not reflect

  • the stand-alone selling price if the services to be provided. So, in this case, it does

  • not meet the requirement to account for as a separate contract and you have to account

  • for this as a termination of the original contract and the creation of a new contract

  • with the consideration of $280,000, which is $80,000 left from the third year and $200,000

  • for the remaining new three years, to recognize the over the four remaining years of cleaning

  • services or $70,000 per year. The closing thought on modifications is there is now a

  • lot of detail guidance, so it is going to take some work to ensure that the processes

  • and controls are in place to monitor them and then determine what the appropriate accounting

  • should be? Next we are going to talk about licenses.

  • The main point here is that a license depending on its attributes can be accounted for in

  • one of two ways. It can be accounted for as a performance obligation that the entity satisfies

  • at a point in time or it can be an obligation at the entity satisfies over time. So, Joyce

  • touched on those two different models of recognizing revenue and depending on the circumstances,

  • both can apply when you are talking about licenses. The first step is to consider whether

  • the license is distinct or included in a bundle of goods, so back to step 2. So, an example

  • that you might think about as I walked through the rest of the slide is a software license

  • and in the software industry, often an entity also sells maintenance contract, which provides

  • the customer with one of available upgrades. So, the license is evaluated as distinct from

  • the maintenance contract and is only the initial license that we are talking about in terms

  • of making this next assessment. The key question is what is the nature of the entity’s promise?

  • They have a right to access the intellectual property of the company throughout the license

  • term or just to use the intellectual property as it exists when the license is granted.

  • A few consideration points that are noted there on the right hand side of the slide,

  • is there an explicit or implicit understanding that the entity will undertake activities

  • that significantly affect the intellectual property due to rights granted by the license

  • expose the customer to any positive or negative effects to the activities result in a transfer

  • of a good or service to the customers if those activities occur. I would say there are some

  • very interesting examples in the standard that cover the licensing of intellectual properties

  • in various forms. So, I touched on software, which we just thought about the software license,

  • you might come to the conclusion that it would be satisfied at a point in time when you are

  • only thinking about the license like license to use Word or Excel or something like that

  • in this example, but there are also other examples that cover things like patterns for

  • drug compounds, franchise rates, images, music recording, movies, logos, so if you are in

  • the business of licensing intellectual property, I would certainly take a look at those examples,

  • because I think it is going to be a challenging determination in some cases to determine what

  • the appropriate model is. This next area might be a bit of a sleeper, but there actually

  • is guidance in IFRS 15 in terms of how to treat cost and those include cost to obtain

  • a contract and cost to fulfil a contract. With respect to cost to obtain a contract

  • either capitalized if they are incremental and expected to be recovered. So, the most

  • frequent example of these types of cost are sales commissions. There is a practical experience

  • in the standard where if you expect that you would amortize the cost over one year or less,

  • you do not have to capitalize it. Then, we have got cost that are encouraged to fulfil

  • a contract and these costs are accounted in accordance with other standards to the extent

  • that they are within the scope of another standard, so inventory or property, plant,

  • and equipment would be accounted for under their respective IFRS’s, but if they are

  • not within the scope of another standard, then this guidance applies and this guidance

  • requires an entity to capitalize the cost of fulfil a contract if they relate directly

  • to a contract or anticipated contract, if they generate or enhance a resource that will

  • be used to satisfy obligations in the future and if they are expected to be recovered.

  • There are specific exclusions in the standard for types of costs cannot be capitalized,

  • so things like general administrative cost, waste of materials, there are a number of

  • things to think about, like cost to obtain a contract once capitalized. These costs are

  • amortized on a basis consistent with the transfer of the goods or services. In addition to standard

  • does include guidance on assessing these costs for impairment and then potentially reversing

  • the impairment charge if the circumstances change. This slide includes mattering of other

  • matters, so just things we wanted to bring to your attention in terms of guidance being

  • in the standard. I am going to talk about them, starting at the top left and going clockwise.

  • So, product warranties. There is guidance in the standard on accounting required for

  • standard, assurance, warranties, so the type of warranty you would get if you bought a

  • product and it basically has a warranty that says we will perform based on the status for

  • a year and if it does not recover by warranty. Those types of warranties will continue to

  • be accounted for using a cost accrual method, but there are other types of warranties like

  • extended warranties or things that are called warranties, but they are more extended service

  • contracts and those will be accounted for as separate performance obligations. Moving

  • on to the box on the top right, we will talk about options to acquire goods or services.

  • This is the guidance in the standard that requires you to assess whether something in

  • the contract provides the customer with the right acquire future goods or services for

  • free or at a discount. So, this is where the guidance from IFRIC 13 fits into this new

  • standard regarding wealthy point programs. Now to the bottom right. Customers unexercised

  • rights, this is the concept that we refer to as breakage. So, a simple example is if

  • I sell a prepaid phone card and I sell thousands of these cards and I know from historical

  • experience that customers do not use up all of the reminisce, the question is when to

  • recognize revenue for those minutes that will never be used and the standard basically pointed

  • to evaluate the same criteria as Joyce talked about when looking at variable consideration

  • to determine if you can recognize that expected revenue as the delivered service or whether

  • you have to wait until it is remote that the customer is going to exercise at its rates.

  • Finally, the last box is repurchase agreement and so, if an entity has an obligation or

  • right repurchase the asset, then generally the customer has not obtained control over

  • the asset and therefore, you do not have a revenue contract to account for what you have

  • a least or financing arrangement. A final topic in the other matters section

  • I am going to touch on is disclosures. So, the disclosure requirements with respect to

  • revenue recognition have increased significantly. We have bucketed the disclosure requirements

  • into three different categories and the first is at the top, groups those are related to

  • disclosures with contracts customers. So, first step disaggregation of revenue.

  • This then requires more granular detail about revenue to be disclosed and to determine how

  • you actually go about that, you need to consider information presented about revenue and other

  • documents such as investor presentations and also consider how the chief operating decision

  • maker looks at the information. The disaggregation could be by type of service, by geography,

  • by type of customer, by contract duration. It really depends on how the contracts are

  • impacted by economic factors. With respect to contract balances, there is required disclosure

  • for what is sitting on your balance sheets, so receivables, contract assets, contract

  • liability balances if they are not already separately presented. As long as what I would

  • refer to as information about transactions that stand over multiple periods. So, for

  • example, there is a requirement disclosed, revenue recognized in the current period,

  • that was included as a contract liability at the beginning of the period. There is also

  • requirement to disclose revenue recognized in the period from performance obligations

  • that were satisfied in prior period. So, if you think of the variable consideration that

  • Joyce is talking about, you could be constrained and recognizing that until the uncertainties

  • resolved, but the performance obligation could have been recognized long ago, so this standard

  • is requiring you to provide disclosure with respect to that. There are also several required

  • disclosure about performance obligations including what remained at standing at the end of the

  • period and when the entity expected to recognize that revenue as long as general information

  • and the entity satisfies performance obligations. You might typically satisfy performance obligation

  • upon statement of good or upon delivery. Also, information about significant payment terms

  • as well as other items such as types of warranties. Then looking at the bottom row, there is disclosure

  • quite a bit significant judgments including those related to timing of recognition of

  • revenue as well as transaction price and its allocation. Finally, there is required disclosure

  • about policy decisions, for example if you utilize any of the practical experience as

  • an example that when I touched on in terms of not having to capitalize costs of obtaining

  • a contract of the amortization period would be less than one year. We have to disclose

  • information about the contract cost themselves whether they be cost to obtain a contract

  • or cost to fulfil a contract including both closing balance information by category of

  • asset as well as methods and amounts of amortization and that is a number of examples with respect

  • to disclosure, I would just say that there are many many more, so I think it is an area

  • to start thinking about early. Even if you do not think, you are going to have that many

  • impacts from the standard in terms of timing or measurement, I think you will impacts from

  • disclosure. Jon, I will turn it back to you. Okay. Thanks Cindy and we will pause there

  • for another polling question. Do you believe the new standard will require

  • significant changes to current IT systems and processes?

  • Potential answers are; 1. Yes.

  • 2. No. 3. Not assessed at this time.

  • 4. Not applicable. Remember to click on submit answer. While

  • we are waiting for the polling question to accumulate the results, there is a question

  • here for you Cindy and it relates to contract cost.

  • What if I sell a bundle that includes a lost leader, though I still capitalize the cost

  • to fulfil related to the lost leader? Well. I would say that probably the first

  • thing you need to do is go through your allocation process in terms of allocating revenue to

  • your deliverables because if you have a lost leader, then I guess I would first question

  • in terms of how you are allocating fair value to your transaction, but then there are requirements

  • in the standard to consider impairment analysis for contract cost, so I think that would be

  • the second step of working through that analysis to determine whether you would have contract

  • cost to capitalize. Okay. Let us see if we got the results for

  • this third polling question. Well, 44% says that this is not yet assessed

  • and almost there is statistically insignificant difference between those who think that will

  • have an impact on IT systems and processes and those who do not. On this subject, Cindy

  • is going to now speak about some of the impacts on processes and systems. Okay, thanks Jon.

  • So, we walked through a lot of technical material over the last hour and a bit. We have never

  • going to spend some time on recapping and thinking about how to begin implementing the

  • impact of this new standard. Certainly, I think as Jon mentioned earlier given the diversity

  • and in terms of how organizations generate revenue and how they contract with their customers,

  • the impacts of adopting this new standard will be just as diverse, but on this slide

  • we have tried to highlight some of the significant impacts from the standard and I think step

  • 1 from any organizations will be figuring out at a high level where the hot spots are

  • for your organization. So, for example, do you have contracts with

  • multiple performance obligations and there is a separation guidance in this standard,

  • going to change how you currently separate those obligations or is that going to change

  • how you allocate consideration to the performance obligations that you have identified? Do you

  • have contracts with variable consideration and how are you accounting for that variable

  • consideration today? In some cases, depending on the nature of the variable consideration,

  • the standard may require you to come up with an estimate and Joyce talked about the two

  • methods that exist either expected value are most likely amount and actually record that

  • or once you goes through all of those criteria that need to be taken into consideration in

  • terms of assessing whether you might have a significant revenue reversal, you may find

  • that you actually have to delay recognition of variable consideration as compared to what

  • you are doing now. I am just touched on contract costs and you may need to rethink what you

  • are doing there in terms of capitalization and if you have to capitalize those costs,

  • then you need to think about how you are going to amortize them and how you would assess

  • them for impairment and I think the guidance from my perspective on modifications and licenses

  • is fairly complicated, so if those are areas that impact your business, I would take a

  • good look at those new provisions and the examples. Finally, as I noted, earlier disclosures

  • really going to impact every organization that has material transactions within the

  • scope of the standard and I think for the most part that is going to be almost every

  • organization, certainly there will be a view that how all their contracts with customers

  • or revenue transactions within another standard, but most organizations are going to be hit

  • someway by this new standard and we often leave sorting out disclosure until after we

  • figured out the accounting, but because there are so many new disclosure requirements, I

  • will drive the need to collect data is probably something to make sure you touch on in terms

  • of doing your initial assessment. So, there are many ways to approach working

  • to the impact of a new standard like IFRS 15 and these are just some initial thoughts

  • on one approach, so, across the top of the slide, we got three different I would say

  • steps, so the assessment phase, business analysis phase and then implementation phase and then

  • just start down the column on the left hand side of all the various things that you would

  • want to be thinking about. Technical accounting, we probably will all have, but I think data

  • and systems definitely could be impacted and will be impacted for many organizations looking

  • at controls and then just program management and other things like taxes, communication,

  • training, all those things need to put in place, so during the assessment phase, you

  • might start that by, first of all going through a completeness check for scope to ensure you

  • have captured all the revenue that will be subject to the requirements of IFRS 15 and

  • then maybe taking a sample of contract or revenue streams and just walking them through

  • the standard to ensure that views identified all of the areas of potential change. I am

  • also at the good time to start identifying system impacts and once you have done that,

  • then I think you would be in a position to develop a preliminary project plan including

  • your communication requirements. In the second stage, I think you start to delve deeper and

  • start to develop policies and determine the adoption methods and restarts done earlier

  • in the presentation, about the different alternatives that are available and you might want to think

  • through what method you want to flexed because I think especially if you are doing full retrospective,

  • you might want to get started earlier rather than later and then figuring out the system

  • requirement. So, what rules the system is to recognize the revenue now and if your timing

  • and recognition changes, can your system actually accommodate that or what you need to do in

  • terms of building a bridge or doing something different in terms of ensuring that your system

  • is going to be able to handle these changes. I am thinking about impact on controls though,

  • again all these modifications as an example, do you have controls in place to capture modifications

  • and look at the impact of modifications because the accounting can be different depending

  • on the type of modification. I think this is the good time to also start evaluating

  • training requirements, update stakeholders and to consider any tax implications that

  • may result from the standard. Finally, implementation. By this time, you will be into preparing disclosures

  • ensuring that your auditor is up-to-date with all of the decisions you have made to date

  • and concurs with them certainly well into systems testing, rolling out training and

  • updating stakeholders, so, I think it is quite a process to go through and of course, we

  • need each of those steps. There are numerous other steps too to consider. Finally, we will

  • just touch on what we will call the broader impact, so on this slide, we have identified

  • a number of stakeholders down the left hand side that will be potentially interested and

  • understanding what the impact will be. So, you have got lenders, market, investors, employees,

  • the board and across the top, the different types of impact that actually could come into

  • place, though things like perception and understanding of analysts and broader market impacts. Certainly,

  • the markets will want to know if your revenue recognition model is going to change significantly.

  • Does it impact the availability of profits for distribution? Does it change key performance

  • indicators and other metrics that you might use to manage our business internally? If

  • you could just advance the slide. Are there things like potential noncompliance with loan

  • covenants? You are going to have new assets and liabilities on your balance sheet, you

  • are going to have potentially different timing in terms of revenue recognition, so how does

  • that impact the covenants that you may have in place and then finally last but not least,

  • if you have compensation and bonus plans in place that relate to financial performance

  • and financial performance is going to change, then those are things that you are also going

  • to want to look at in terms of thinking through what these impacts are, so I think once you

  • get started in terms of assessing the impacts and I know you are going to be starting that

  • soon. I think about the fact that the impacts maybe broader than initially thought and it

  • is worthwhile spending some time to think through all of those stakeholders that maybe

  • impacted. Jon, I will turn it back to you. Thank you very much Cindy.

  • I think we have our final polling question now.

  • What level of impact you believe the new revenue standard will have?

  • 1. Will that be a significant change to current practice

  • 2. Any material change to current practice. 3. Not assessed

  • 4. Not applicable. Remember to click on submit answer. So, we

  • are waiting for the results. There is another question for you Cindy and it relates to implementation.

  • The question is: Why can start it now? The standards mandatory

  • effect to date is still more than two years away. It seems like a quite a bit of time.

  • I think that that maybe true for some entities, but if you look at the way that some industries

  • that are impacted like the telecom sector. They have actually been working on this for

  • at least a year, if not more. So, I think you got to start at least thinking about how

  • bigger an impact is this on your organization and how are you going to actually implement

  • a standard. If you do full retrospective, which you may want to do maintain trends,

  • then you are going to have to sort out what the impact is on your contracts in the near

  • term. I think to give big system implications related to the scanner, those take a lot of

  • time to deal with. So, I think from our experience certainly some larger companies and that all

  • started to deal with it prior to the finalization of the standard, but I think what we talked

  • to more and more companies about it, they are getting started now. The standard is final

  • and it is a good time to at least do a preliminary assessment and figure out how much work it

  • is going to do to implement to standard. Thanks a lot.

  • Let us see, we have got the results. This is an interesting split. 38% have not

  • yet assessed, 28% think that the change will be immaterial and almost a quarter say it

  • will be significant. Again, it is going to take some time to figure all of this out and

  • I guess the devils going to be in the details. Okay, please do not hesitate to take advantage

  • of our global publications and resources related to IFRS 15 and look out for the Canadian versions

  • of IFRS 15 industry insights for a number industries that will be headed your way soon.

  • Also, please do not hesitate to contact any of our experts and you will see the names

  • on screen. A couple of them should be familiar to you now. They will be more than happy to

  • assist you with any questions or concerns that you might have. This is the formal part

  • of our presentation, but before we begin our question and answer period, just a note to

  • say that we do appreciate your feedback and kindly ask that you fill out our survey. You

  • should expect to see a pop-up survey appear on your screen shortly. This has some development

  • of our future webcast, we take these surveys very seriously, so please continue to send

  • us suggestions and feel free to also let us know what we are doing well so we can keep

  • it up. We do have quite a few questions in the queue today, so we will not be able to

  • get all of them, particularly those related to specific fact patterns for your organizations.

  • I would recommend that you discuss your questions with your Deloitte Partner or Deloitte Contact,

  • so they can help you resolve any questions or concerns that you might have. So, I think

  • getting to the questions, let me just get to the queue here. The first one is for Maryse

  • and the question is: On a long-term construction contract, with

  • the revenue recognition be based on a milestone schedule for example. Is that of measuring

  • percentage of cost completed?  

  • Okay sure. Good question. I guess with IFRS 15, I think similar to what we had under IAS

  • 11 on construction contracts, the standard acknowledges there are different methods of

  • measuring the extent of satisfaction of performance obligation and the standard basically says

  • that there are different methods that might include output method and input method. In

  • output method, it is well acknowledge that there are different methods again, so it could

  • be a milestone method, it could be units produced or some type of measure based on some output.

  • I think the idea is that although IFRS 15 acknowledges that you can use and input and

  • output method that encourages or tells you that the method chosen, needs to reflect faithfully,

  • the entity’s performance in satisfying a performance obligation. It also indicates

  • that you have to challenge yourself on that, so if you do choose an output method and the

  • example given in the standard based on units produced that may not necessarily reflect

  • the entity’s performance and satisfying the performance obligation, if for example

  • there is work in progress or there are some finished goods that are controlled by the

  • customer, that are included in that measure of progress.

  • So, we have to take a note of that and also the standard highlights that certain costs

  • need to be expensed and costs that related to satisfy performance obligations or partially

  • satisfied performance obligations in a contract also need to be expensed. So, those are things

  • that I would put out there as consideration points Jon.

  • Okay, thanks Maryse. Actually we have Lloyd in question for Joyce. The question is any

  • fundamental changes to construction contract, revenue recognition under the new standard.

  • I mean currently under the existing IFRS guidance when you have a construction contract, you

  • are following scope of IAS 11 and it gives the revenue recognition guidance and there

  • are typically as over time and taken to consideration, recoverability of the consideration to be

  • received and that will dictate how you account for the construction contracts from the revenue

  • perspective. Under the news, there is extensive guidance that talks about whether or not you

  • would recognize revenue at a point in time or over time and particularly with constructing

  • an asset or construction contract, in situations where you are not delivering benefits to the

  • customers throughout the construction process, then you fall under the section where you

  • need to consider whether or not and what you have constructed, has alternative use and

  • whether or not the entity is able to enforce payment and an amount that is approximating

  • the purchase price or the selling price of that asset whether or not it is fully constructed

  • or partially constructed. So, in order to be able to recognize revenue over time, we

  • need to meet those two conditions, which is not something that we currently need to assess

  • in terms of the amount that you can enforce payment for. I would say in applying the new

  • standard, company would need to look at all their contracts, how it is being structured

  • particularly around the payments term, the amount that has been paid and whether or not

  • at any point during the contract term the entity is entitled to an amount that approximate

  • the selling price of the assets in progress in order to be able to support revenue recognition

  • over time; otherwise, then the center would pursue that you would need to recognize that

  • at the point in time and you need to then assess when that happen, you need to assess

  • when control has been transferred to the customer. Okay. Thanks Joyce.

  • Another question for Maryse here. What would

  • consider at or near the same time i.e. what period related to contract combinations?

  • Another very common question I think that we previously had as well in application of

  • prior GAAP. So, under IFRS 15, I think there is no clear or explicit threshold or guidance

  • to look to in terms of determining what time proximity you need to consider. I think the

  • closer the time period, the more likely that some contracts will need to be combined to

  • further away the time period. Obviously, at the other end of the spectrum less likely

  • that the contracts will be combined, but it is not just a question of time proximity,

  • the standard talks about a number of criteria and they say, if contracts are negotiated

  • at or near the same time with the same customer and you meet one of the following criteria

  • then you should combine those contract and those criteria are that the contracts are

  • negotiated as a package, so we will need to do one single project, the amount of consideration

  • in one is dependent on the price of performance of another contract and the goods or the services

  • promised in the contracts or a single performance obligation in accordance with assessing the

  • other pieces of the literature that would cover today. So, hope that helps Jon. Yes.

  • Thank you. There is a question here for Cindy. What are

  • the significant differences between this new standard and equivalent US GAAP standard?

  • Okay. Actually, I think the boards did a nice job and actually in laying out those differences,

  • so, there is an appendix to the basis for conclusion, which lists five different areas

  • where IFRS 15 differs from FASB Topic 606 in terms of a new standard. They are first

  • of all related to collectability threshold, so as we have about on this webcast, there

  • is a requirement to assess probability of collectability because probable has a different

  • meaning under IFRS and US GAAP that is identified as a difference. There is some different disclosures

  • required with respect to interim disclosures, the US having additional disclosure requirements.

  • There is a difference with respect to being able to adopt a standard early, so, I think

  • as Maryse mentioned under IFRS you can and under GAAP you cannot. There is a difference

  • related to impairment reversals though I touched on having to assess contract cost for impairment

  • and then having to assess whether or not those impairment charges could be reversed when

  • you can reverse them under US GAAP and then finally there is different requirements in

  • terms of dealing with non-public entities. So, those are then listed differences. The

  • only other thing I would point out is when you are dealing with like this standard and

  • another standard. So, Maryse touched on if you have contracts under multiple standards.

  • The other standards could be different rate. So, you could run into actually differences

  • in treatments not because of what is an IFRS 15, but because of how IFRS 15 relates to

  • the other standards or the equivalent US standard related to the other standards. One more question

  • for you Cindy. The question is, I have read through these disclosure requirements of the

  • standard, and we use the word shell, what does that mean. Does that mean that all disclosures

  • are required? If you read through all the disclosures, there are a lot and I think that

  • you certainly have to into consideration what material and the guidance does talk about

  • some objectives with respect to disclosure requirement. So, I am not sure at the point

  • where we would say everything go and line item is required from an IFRS perspective

  • that is certainly you need to go through them to assess how they apply to your organization

  • and whether they provide meaning information to the readers of the statements. Thank you.

  • Thanks again to our speakers, Maryse Vendette, Joyce Lam and Cindy Veinot. Also thanks to

  • our behind scenes team Nura Taef, Karen Dooley and Elise Beckles. We hope you found this

  • webcast helpful and informative. If you want additional information, please visit our website

  • at www.corpgov.deloitte.com and to all of you viewing our webcast today, thank you for

  • joining us and happy Canada Day. This concludes our webcast bringing clarity to an IFRS world

  • - IFRS 15 revenue from contracts with customers.

Hi everyone, welcome to Deloitte Financial Reporting Update, our webcast series for issues

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B1 中級 美國腔

新的收入確認標準----財務報告更新(德勤加拿大) (The new revenue recognition standard - Financial Reporting Update (Deloitte Canada))

  • 46 8
    陳虹如 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字