The past 10 days has seen us dealing with a lot of challenges which come about through complex entities trying to be simple.  Most of the challenges come from participants claiming they don’t understand but in reality it is they don’t want to pay the underlying cost of their organization structure.

The condominium association where the board didn’t want to address the interest charges to owners for financing a special assessment over 10 years.  Their stated argument was that they were trying to keep it simple.  The real issue was that they didn’t want to pay a manager or accountant money to track the owner accounts.  Eight years later, they need to perform a new special assessment to come up with the shortfall that is owed the bank.  This is going to be complex.

The investment partnership which wants to shift income between partners.  They crafted a simple partnership agreement and right from the beginning started doing this.  In the beginning they had lots of equity so the tax preparer was not worried about the unequal distributions.  Five years later six of eight members have negative capital accounts and it needs to be fixed.  They created a complex structure and thought a simple partnership agreement would allow them to do what they wanted.  They didn’t understand.   The truth is they didn’t want to pay someone to manage the complex modeling of the cash flow reallocation to ensure it was done correctly.  It is their profit after all.

The Corporation who borrows money from the bank and then retires their majority shareholder.  They write an agreement which says that the Company will repurchase 1/10th of the shares every year for the next 10 years.  At a stated price.  And then they fire the accountant who tells them they need to record a $5.0 Million debt – which of course puts them out of compliance with the bank.  They find a more accommodating CPA to prepare the financial statement.  Bank still finds out and calls the bank loans.  They didn’t understand GAAP.  No, the didn’t want to pay for effective advice.

Complexity has a price.  If you don’t want to pay higher prices, keep it simple.  There are no rules which say that profit can’t be distributed equally amongst all partners.  Shockingly  simple.  There is no rule which says you can’t buy back the owners shares.  But you should probably discuss that with the bank before you borrow money.  And then talk with someone who knows what GAAP might have to say about that kind of transaction.

The old adage is very true: Pay me now or pay me more later.  Alright I confess I added the more but it should have always been there.  It is never cheaper to fix the problem later.  NEVER.

There is another old saying: Accountants have the magic wand and attorneys have the way back machine.  Notice though that you have to go to the true wizards of Oz to fix the problem.  Accountant’s to create the numbers to correct the problem you created and the attorney to create the right paperwork at the right time.  In hindsight.

Today is about clichés apparently.  I believe it was Einstein who said, “A problem can never be solved by the same intellect which created it.” or something to that effect.  What this means, in my world, is that the client goes to one accountant and lawyer to “be simple” and then fires them to find someone to fix the “complexity”.  That means coming up to speed, understanding what you originally did, and then trying brainstorming for hours trying to come up with a plausible solution.

Yes, there is a better way.  Plan for complexity.  Accept that some modes of transacting business require new, or at least different, processes.  Maybe new software; perhaps a new department; perhaps a new legal structure.

The entities above each spent under $2,500 to create the original simple way they wanted.  Each has to be in excess of $20,000 to fix the problem.  I don’t think planning to deal with complexity right up front would have cost anywhere near the cost to fix it.

Complexity.  You will pay for it.  The smarter play is to accept it upfront and make it a cost of being in business.  Or don’t.  You simply pay more to fix it.

Have a great weekend.


Accounting Standards

One of the big issues we face, as auditors, is an entity following an accounting standard for its financial statements.  Which begs the question, what is an accounting standard?

The best way to look at it is that an accounting standard is the expectation of how transactions should be recorded and disclosed in financial statements.   For generally accepted accounting principles, also called GAAP, this way of recording and reporting transactions is presented in the Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC’s.

Why should anyone care?  That is the question we are struggling with this week.  It seems that there are some, even in professional accounting, who are unsure why GAAP should be followed.  I have shared with you some of our more interesting conversation with clients and their management but we have similar discussions within the profession.

The simplest answer is, eliminating confusion.

GAAP, with all its faults, is just what it says it is, generally accepted.  This doesn’t mean universally accepted but it does mean that most of us agree that transactions should be recorded and reported a particular way.  By agreeing, up front, on how transactions should be completed, we get rid of the guesswork and the uncertainty of everyone deciding on their own.

Yes, this is all wonderfully theoretical but the vast majority of small businesses, non-profits and HOA’s don’t care about GAAP, is the argument we hear.  No doubt.  But the people who put their money into it should.

On a simple level, you are approach by a friend, a contractor lets say.  He wants you to be a guarantor on a project.  It seems he can’t get bonding.  You agree but only if you look at his financial statements so you know what you might be getting into.

He hands you a single piece of paper.  On it it says,

Cash        $500,000
A/R       $2,500,000
Profits                 $3,000,000

Are you ready to sign on the dotted line to guarantee this upcoming project?  If so, please write me immediately because I have an investment idea for you!

Of course you are not going to accept it.  Not because you question the numbers, per se, but because you don’t understand how they came into being.  In short, this is confusing isn’t it?

What would you like to know?  How about how he decides to recognize his income?  Perhaps how he elects to record expenses?  Does he have any debts that are not on the books?

You are interested in his accounting principles.  Now, if you happen to know how most (not all) contractors do accounting, you could ask something like,

Other contractors I know record revenues based on how much of the work is completed, is that how you record it?  I have read several other financial statements from contractors and they all have some amount of construction costs, how do you record costs?

If everyone could pick and choose the policy they want to follow we don’t have standards.  You would not have an ability to compare one company against another in the exact same industry – you would not even be able to follow a single company from year-to-year.  Accounting standards enable you to do this.

Look, we know GAAP can be complex.  But in all fairness, your entity is complex.  If you are a retailer of candy bars and you sell for cash only, you have very simple accounting.  If you take money today for work that will be done over the next three years, you created complexity.  And if you do work today and allow people to pay you over the next three years but only in relationship to how effective your work is, you created a nightmare.

As a reader, you should want to know how an entity records and reports transactions.  You should want to feel comfortable that a lot of other similar entities are doing the same thing.  In short, you want to feel good that the financial statements you are looking at are, in fact, generally accepted.

If you don’t like GAAP, then don’t play with other people’s money.   Don’t ask lenders, don’t ask investors, don’t ask me.  If you are the only person who relies upon how you do the accounting do it any damn way you please.  I mean, lets be honest, you won’t even look at a financial statement.  You will log into your bank to see how much cash you have and make all your decisions based on that.

But if you expect others to put their faith in you, then embrace GAAP.  Ensure you prepare financial statements for them to read that comply with the standards the accounting profession has provided.  The standards don’t exist to make your life miserable, they exist to help you get the funding you need.  Overwhelm your reader with good, actionable information and they will return the love.  They may not give you money, but they will likely do what they can to help you succeed.

Because honesty and integrity are still rewarded in this world, even if it often doesn’t seem like it.

Have a great weekend.  And if you are looking for an auditor or CPA firm to review your financial statements, or just help you make sure your financial statements are useful to your readers, feel free to get more information and contact us through our website.  We are here to help you rely upon your management, even if that is you.


The Right Way

People’s reaction to conflict is often amusing.  Last week’s battle with a management company is a great example.

When we first brought the issue to the attention of the management company, they told us that they had authorization to do the work and invoice for it.  Never mind the fact that the minutes to the directors meeting didn’t say that the management company’s proposal was accepted and approved.  The minutes were silent.

As I have pointed out in other blog posts, the minutes in this case were kept by the management company.  This is so even though the bylaws state the board secretary is responsible for recording the meetings and securing the minutes.  But even though the management company kept the minutes, the minutes did not provide approval.

They did the work anyways.  And then billed extra.  We questioned the transaction as we think any good auditor would.

The manager’s response?  They updated the minutes.

Really?  I know, it is wrong on so many levels.  But even though they updated the minutes they still didn’t say that the board approved the transaction.  Even they knew there is a line they can’t cross.

After that, we were met with silence.  Three times we inquired as to additional proof that the transaction was valid and we were met with silence each time.  They figured we would go away or worse, feel no choice but to accept their statement.

But there was a right way to handle this.  First would have not been to do any work not explicitly authorized by the board.  The management company, after all, works for the board the same as the auditor does.  They have a contract which specifies the work they are to do and the compensation they are to receive.  When there is work to be performed beyond the management agreement, that work needs to follow the basic rules the board has laid out.

The right way would have been to solicit three bids from reputable contractors.  The manager would have presented these to the board so they could make an informed decision.  The manager then would have contacted the awarded contractor and scheduled the work.

The right way would include not submitting a proposal from a contractor who didn’t agree to the terms that were apparently presented to the board.  The right way would also not have the manager offer to step in to fulfill the service when the contractor said no.

From our perspective as the auditor, there is a right way and a wrong way.  The right way means acting with integrity and intention.  It means accepting responsibility when things go wrong and reconsidering your processes so that they can’t happen again.

The wrong way is to blame the CPA for questioning the transaction.  The wrong way is to say that the board is wrong and to argue that everyone knew how hard you worked.  The wrong way is to tell us that you can find five different CPA firms who will see it your way and that you will make sure we never audit another of your clients.

As auditors, C.O.R.E. Services follows a simple rule: Do it the Right Way.  If at the end of the day, our clients, the boards of property owner associations and other entities, prefer to have us focus on their rules and compliance so they can feel good about the financial statements, then we will continue to offer our service.  And if the market shifts and these same boards no longer want to know that things are done correctly, well then the market will win and we will have to find some other line of work where our integrity and intention will matter.

As we explained to this community manager, the cost for their referral was too high.  I would rather starve then become beholden to a community management company who skates on ethical thin ice.  And if the day comes when boards would prefer to have a community management company lackey as their auditor so they can avoid the conflict of challenging the manager’s decisions, then we will stand by waiting for the inevitable lawsuits to begin so we can offer our services in support of the litigation.

Do things the right way.  Act with intention.

If you are a board who would like to ensure that your community manager is preparing financial statements you can rely upon, feel free to reach out to us.  And, if you are a community manager who lives with intention and works with integrity, we would love to get to know you and help you by auditing your work on behalf of your boards.  Our mutual client will be most grateful for the opportunity for us to work together on their behalf.

Have a great Monday.

Thoughts on Accounting and Reserve Funds

This weekend Doug and I were discussing the soon-to-be-required ASU 2014-09 and ASC 606 and how it applies to Common Interest Realty Association’s (CIRA).  As we look at this more closely, it is highly likely that something is going to have to change in order for Property Owner Association financial statements to comply with GAAP.

There may be a considerable problem with our current POA financial presentation that we, as a community of professionals, need to address. Specifically, how do we treat the receipt of resources paid to the Association for future activity in the Reserve Fund?

To review the 5 steps as they pertain to a reserve fund transaction as spelled out in ASU 2014-09 and ASC 606:

  1. Identify the contract. The POA passes a motion (resolution) which states that all owners must contribute a certain sum of money. The owners agree (or fail to disagree in sufficient numbers). This likely creates the contract under 2014-09.
  2. Identify the performance obligations. The purpose of the charge is to amass sufficient assets for future repairs and renovations. Thus, the reserve study, which is the underlying documentation calling for the expenditure of funds, creates the performance obligations. The POA could either call each discrete item its own performance obligation or bundle the annual expected disbursements into specific performance obligation groups. The grouping approach is allowed under 2014-09.
  3. Determine the transaction price. The transaction price would be the sum total of the performance obligations as spelled out in the reserve study.
  4. Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations. Since each performance obligation already has an agreed-upon price, no further steps are warranted unless the POA receives information calling the transaction price into question.
  5. Recognize the revenue when performance obligations are satisfied. And here is the problem.

Currently, GAAP treats the request for reserve funding as revenue when billed (received). It bases this on the premise that, while the income is, in theory, unearned, there is no right to request a refund and the funds are owned and controlled by the POA. Since the funds do not ever need to be refunded ASC 605 states that the most appropriate treatment is income.

But ASC 606 and ASU 2014-09 have the new performance obligation. If the performance obligation is in fact the future expenditure of resources in line with the reserve study, then this is no longer revenue but deferred revenues. It doesn’t matter if there is no right of refund anymore. These resources can only be taken into income when the reserve project is authorized and expenditures arise.

It would likely be incorrect to argue that the performance obligation is the mere demand for funds. An association is not allowed to amass assets without some rational basis – like the reserve study. Even if the reserve study is management’s, or the boards, best guest (meaning they don’t hire an independent expert to plan the amassing of reserve funds) the point of the accumulation is to pay it out at some future time: i.e. specific performance obligations.

This assumes, by the way, that the correct treatment of reserve transaction is, in fact, through the income statement. Since there is no profit motive, that is, the goal of the accumulation of reserve funds is to have sufficient assets on hand to address specific items without the expectation of additional accumulation of profits, it is possible that this is some sort of transaction other than revenue. This would imply that the transaction is a liability or an equity transaction, in that the accumulated assets are claims by other, currently unidentified contract members and participants receive the future benefit, but in the long-run since there is no real profit motive, the reserve breaks even.

The accumulation of assets is to ensure sufficient (hopefully) resources to address a future commitment to repair and renovate the property as called for in the reserve study. The problem, of course, is that the POA does not have title to the specific assets for which the funds are being accumulated. This amount is being taken in trust. Thus, the only “items of revenue” in the reserve fund would be the investment earnings and direct expenses, including any agreed-upon management fee, incurred directly by the fund. The payment of a reserve project would be recorded against the trust corpus and accumulated earnings – i.e. the liability account.

So, it is very possible that this new ASC will require a complete rethinking of how POA’s account for reserve funds. If the profession agrees that a POA is subject to ASC 606 for the contractual obligations then reserve funds will likely need to be treated as unearned until the performance obligation is satisfied. Or, if the profession believes that the transaction is not subject to ASC 606, then ASC 972 will need to be clarified to address how such funds are to be recorded. The contribution of those resources can be treated as temporarily restricted contributions in line with NPO accounting but this would necessitate the transition to NPO reporting and away from fund reporting. This will further necessitate an update to 972 to explicitly require this type of accounting. ASU 2014-09 calls into question how reserves will be treated moving forward and ASC 972 appears to be silent on the application of the ASU and the ultimate reporting of claims against assets accumulated for the future repairs and renovation of common property.

Welcome to Monday.  If you are looking for a firm which focuses on audits and reviews of Property Owner Associations and other types of organizations, feel free to get more information about us from our website.  We look forward to the opportunity to be of service to you.