by Ian Striplin
  Equity Analyst, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

The very nature of borrowing shares, securities lending, and short selling is opaque. During recent equity events, existing reporting procedures exacerbated the misperception of short interest levels and influenced the intentional short squeeze mechanics. Without rehashing what has been discussed at length, written about, and even chronicled in film, the SEC has been put in a difficult – but not unmanageable – position to “do something” about nefarious practices among some powerful short sellers. As a result, the SEC is proposing Rule 10c-1 under the Exchange Act, which would require any person who loans a security on behalf of itself or another person (Lender) to provide the specified material terms of their securities lending transactions to a registered national securities association (RNSA).

While the proposal impacts many asset classes, the securities lending market is dominated by US equities, and we focus on those impacts here at Gradient Analytics. Our clients look to us for differentiated short ideas built on a foundation of earnings quality concerns. Along with other liquidity measures, Gradient has always been mindful of short interest, not only to avoid crowded short trades but also to provide fresh ideas to our institutional clientele. If anything, we believe our research will stand to benefit from increased transparency, which demands greater effort to find actionable short ideas.

There are many items on SEC chairman Gary Gensler's agenda, and this may simply be the “topic of the day.” Indeed, we believe the short-seller bogeyman fits well with other recent demands – including a congressional stock trading ban, forced ESG investment, and T+0 (i.e., same-day) settlement of security transactions. In the interim, we looked at the proposal and came away with several thoughts, many of which one also might find in the comment section of the SEC website.  Read on…

  by Rachel Annis
  Equity Analyst, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

A common misconception is that accounting figures are always black and white, i.e., well known and precise. But in practice, there are many ways that the estimates and subjective judgement of management can color financial statements. Recent amendments to accounting standards address specific examples when companies have applied prior accounting guidelines differently from their peers. When this occurs, analysts are unable to compare accounting figures across companies without additional analysis. Further, differing accounting methodologies coupled with opaque disclosures may prevent analysts from ascertaining an accurate apples-to-apples comparison.

Here at Gradient Analytics, we specialize in forensic accounting research and consulting, and our analysts stay current on changes in the regulatory landscape, including crucial updates to disclosure requirements. Normally, we focus research on areas in which companies might be tempted to “manage” or overstate earnings, either by pulling forward future revenues or pushing out current expenses. Layer on more complexity from changing reporting requirements and it becomes clearer how a vital piece to the puzzle might slip through the cracks.

In this article, I provide details on updates to four accounting standards – and how they may shape financial statements with the potential to mislead investors. First, several Interbank Offered Rates (IBORs) ceased to exist at the end of 2021, and countries are transitioning to alternative reference rates. Second, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) revised guidance such that companies no longer may deduct certain items from the cost of property, plant, and equipment (PPE). Third, the IASB now requires that a proportion of production overhead must be included when reporting so-called “onerous contracts.” And fourth, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued a proposal to eliminate accounting for loans in modification through troubled debt restructurings.  Read on....

  by Rachel Bradley
  Equity Analyst, Gradient Analytics LLC (a Sabrient Systems company)

“Every man hears only what he understands.” – Goethe

Often, details in the financial statements hold the key to understanding a company. Here at Gradient Analytics, we specialize in forensic accounting research and consulting, and our analysts stay up-to-date on changes in the regulatory landscape, including crucial updates to disclosure requirements. Normally, we focus research on areas that might tempt companies to “manage” or overstate earnings, either by pulling forward future revenues or pushing out current expenses. Layer on more complexity from changing reporting requirements and it becomes clearer how a vital piece to the puzzle might slip through the cracks.

Below, I cover three broad topics. First, effective January 1, 2020, the governing accounting boards updated the very definition of a business. This new definition has multiple implications for reporting, but my focus in this article is the impact on M&A transactions. Moreover, this year both the Financial Accounting Standards board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) changed required disclosures for U.S. and international companies. Among other things, there is a new method for determining appropriate loan loss reserves, and there will soon be a requirement for companies to stop using Inter-Bank Offered Rates (IBOR) as reference rates, instead switching to Alternative Reference Rates (ARR). I describe these updates with four real-life examples of how they shape financial statements, with the potential to mislead investors. Read on….