Audit considerations for Japan real estate companies

According to report from Standard & Poor’s with regard to Japan’s property market:

“ Diversified real estate companies had strong condominium sales in fiscal 2010 but at the expense of margins. Companies cut selling prices to clear inventory despite unrealized losses on fixed assets. Earnings could come under further pressure in fiscal 2011 because of possible delays in construction completions or sales slippage due to the earthquake. Japanese real estate investment trusts have turned acquisitive after recapitalizing their balance sheets, and this has”

[Note: the paragraph above was quoted from Standard & Poor’s]

If you are the auditor of a real estate companies in country, where the economy is suffering from the global slow down, please take note of the marketing strategy adopted by your audit client. As evident above, certain real estated companies are cutting their selling prices of the properties developed at the expense of profit margins. In worst case scenario, the real estate may even incur a negative margin (ie. selling the property at losses).

There are a number of reasons, where a real estate developer may conduct the sales transactions in above patterns:

- to meet the cash flow/ working capital demand (i.e. to pay off debt due / repay vendors)

- to meet the analyst’ expectation on sales revenue; the drop in GP Margin might not be evidenced obviously, as the real estate companies may have earned positive GP Margin in previous quarters / from other projects (i.e. cushion effect)

- to minimize the risks that the inventory might not be sold in a slowing-down market

- to avoid the actual and economic costs of holding on to inventory

What will be the implication for the audit for the above scenario? There are risks that the real estate company may end up in a gross loss position from this project, if margin is too thin. “Provision for foreseeable losses” need to be recognised immediately.

How to estimate the “Provision for Foreseeable Losses”:

(a) Determine the remaining quantified (of properties) to be sold;
(b) Determine the projected / estimated selling prices and compare that to the cost-to-build for each property; if it’s a gross loss position, then provision need to be provided
(c) Total provision to be provided = remaining quantities x gross loss estimated

Please apply professional judgement and maintain professional susceptibility while reviewing the working prepared by client to ensure that all costs have been considered.

Implication of Bangkok's floods to Company's financials

Earlier on, Thailand Finance Minister commented that the devastating floods in Bangkok could lower Thailand's Gross Domestic Products. The floods have caused damage to equipment in the flooded industril plant.

Your audit client may have a plants / factories located in the areas affected by the massive flood. In this instance, a proper check need to be performed to assess if the audit client's plants / factories are affected.

Assuming that the plants / factories are affected by the flood, the following procedures need to be performed, including (but not limited to):

- are the machineries and equipments been damaged in the flood. Should impairment been recorded given that the machineries and equipments are damaged?
- are there any going concern issue, given that the operations are likely to be stop?
- is your audit client able to produce financials on time for reporting?
- is there any penalty on contracts with customer if audit client is not able to deliver agreed items on time?
- is your audit client able to collect outstanding debts from customers who maybe affected as well?


A thorough understanding of the floods, and how will that affect the operations are required to determine the nature and extent of audit procedures to tackle the impact of floods.

This month's boards meeting

On Oct. 19, the FASB & IASB again met to discuss the new lease accounting standard. In a marathon session (scheduled for 5 hours), they reached a number of decisions in several areas. (Note: in the discussion below, and elsewhere in discussions about this standard, "effective date" is the date companies must start reporting under the new standard, while "date of initial application" is the date, normally two years earlier for U.S. companies, as of which leases must be treated as capital once the new standard takes effect, due to the requirement to restate years shown as comparables in the annual report.)

Lessee transition

• All existing capital leases will be carried over with no changes required. Previously, they had planned to require restatement of capital leases with variable payments or renewal options that would be treated differently under the new standard. They decided the benefit wasn't worth the cost, because in most cases the differences would be small (particularly given recent decisions to reduce recognition of variable payments and options).
• The incremental borrowing rate to use for operating leases to be capitalized will be a single company-wide rate, not based on the individual characteristics of each transitioning lease.
• Operating leases can be recalculated using either a "full" or a "modified" retrospective methodology. The same methodology must be chosen for all leases. Full means going back to lease inception and calculating the lease as capital. Modified is different from what was in the original Exposure Draft; I described it last month. They have clarified that the difference between asset and liability generated by this method is to be booked to retained earnings (no P&L impact).
• The simplifications ("reliefs") mentioned last month were all confirmed: leases that terminate before the effective date of the new standard won't have to be restated, even if they start after the date of initial application; initial direct costs are excluded during the same period; and preparers may use hindsight to set up the leases.

Lessor transition

• Capital leases other than leveraged leases can be carried over with no adjustments.
  
• Leveraged lease accounting is eliminated. Such leases will have to be restated.
• Current operating leases will have a receivable and residual set up using the present value of the rents and expected residual value at date of initial application, the interest rate being the rate charged in the lease as of lease inception; the underlying asset is derecognized. Lessors also have the option of full retrospective application.

Lessor receivables held for sale

• A proposal to report receivables held for sale at fair value was rejected. While this would superficially be consistent with IFRS 9 and the FASB's Accounting for Financial Instruments project, it was felt that it added complexity, was inconsistent with the rest of the leasing standard, offered opportunities for structuring, and would add more variability in profit and loss. Instead, any gain or loss would be recognized when a sale of the receivable is completed.

Variable payments for lessors

• If the rate a lessor charges a lessee assumes "reasonably assured" variable lease payments will be made, the residual asset (which by default contains the value of those payments, since the value is not in the receivable) will be adjusted by recognizing an adjustment to the residual. The adjustment is the variable lease payment divided by the fair value of the underlying asset, times its carrying amount.

Lessor receivable and residual

• Investment property is excluded from the lease standard scope. This keeps those properties under IAS 40 for companies using IFRS. The FASB is working on a project to create the same standard for the U.S. (which presumably will be complete by the time the lease standard takes effect).
• Profit on the residual will not be recognized until the asset is sold or re-leased.
• The residual is initially booked at the present value of the residual. The value is accreted, with interest income recognized for the accretion, using the same interest rate as for the receivable.
  

Exposure Draft delayed to 2012

The FASB & IASB have updated their project schedules to indicate that the revised exposure draft (RED) will be released in Q1 2012. That's another delay of three months from what was expected when they announced in July that a RED would be released. The Equipment Lease and Financing Association is reporting that the comment period will be a full 120 days; there had been speculation that the comment period might be shorter the second time around. That means that the comment period won't end until near the end of Q2. With time for redeliberation, that suggests that the final standard won't be out until late in 2012.

It's yet the latest delay in an oft-delayed project. When originally announced back in 2006, the boards expected to be done in 2009. The latest delay could affect the implementation date; speculation recently has focused on 2015 as the implementation date, but given the planned requirement to restate the prior two years of comparable financials, that means there could be just weeks between the release of the standard and when (1/1/2013) leases will effectively need to be reported under it. During those two years until actual implementation, bookings will be done under current standards, but companies will need to make sure they keep complete information on their leases to enable recreating their accounting under the new methodology. Of course, with the active consideration of full retrospective accounting (though probably not to be required, just optional), it would be good to be keeping information right now on any leases that you expect to remain active into 2015. (It is expected that leases that expire before implementation won't need to be recalculated.)

The boards held a lengthy meeting this week on leases, but I don't have time to review the 5 hours of recordings, and my normal sources haven't yet posted summaries of the events.

#107- Audit tips on reviewing legal expenses

This post intend to share with our Accouting & Auditing blogs readers on a number of tips while performing the review of audit client's legal expense account, as follows:

a) Review the invoice & billing details sent by the audit client's lawyer to identify any law suits / legal cases that's against the audit client [ note: disclosure is required in the financial statement, if the exposure is material]

b) To investigate further if there's vague and inadequate descriptions on the billings from the lawyers.

c) Review the engagement letter / contract entereted into by audit client with the lawyers to find out how detailed the firms’ fee bills should be.

d) From internal control perspective, audit client should have adequate and consistent policy for reviewing legal fee bills once they came in. [ i.e. determination of the verifier and reviewers of the legal fee bills, etc]

e) Please obtain confirmation from audit client's lawyer on the on-going legal cases/ law suits to identify if there's any material exposure.