1

FASAB UpdateBaltimore AGA – September 16, 2015

Robin Gilliam, CPA, PMP

2

Views expressed are those of the speaker

3

Overview• Leases

• Department of Defense (DOD) – Implementation Issues

• Internal Use Software (IUS)

• Risk Assumed (RA)

• Public-Private Partnerships (P3s)

• Reporting Model

• Tax Expenditures

4

LEASES

5

Leases

• FASAB collaborating with GASB to develop standards for governmental organizations.

• GASB’s preliminary views document should improve clarity of ultimate exposure draft.

• Each board will issue an exposure draft.

6

Leases

• Tentative decision to establish a single model (with exceptions for short-term arrangements – 24 months for federal).• Leases create assets consisting of the “right to use” a

resource.

• Leases create liabilities consisting of the obligation to pay for the resource.

• Treatment should help identify the interest cost associated with leases.

7

Leases-

Intragovernmental Exceptions:• Leases between two consolidation entities

(based on assessment in SFFAS 47, page 13, par. 38-39)

would be expensed by lessor when due and payable.

• Minimal disclosure requirements.

Leases

Tentative Timelines

• FASB/IASB – Final expected late 2015

• GASB – ED early 2016 and final early 2017

• FASAB – ED early 2016 and final early 2017

8

9

Department of Defense- Implementation Issues -

10

DOD – Implementation Issue I• “Opening Balances for Inventory, Operating Materials and

Supplies, and Stockpile Materials”- Exposed for Comments• Statement would apply when presenting f/s for the first time or after

a period when existing systems could not provide the information • Respondents sought clarification but generally supported proposal.

• Deemed Cost• Deemed cost is an acceptable valuation for establishing opening

balances• Several valuation bases permitted• Flexible dates to allow components to establish opening balances

at different dates

• Expect Issuance by March 2016.

11

DOD – Implementation Issue II• Establishing opening balances for general property, plant,

and equipment• DoD sought guidance on detail needed for capital improvements to

real property.• Other issues were identified.

• Tentative decisions:• Allow deemed cost (estimated historical cost, fair value,

replacement cost) for all general PP&E.• Provide prospective treatment for internal use software and land.

• Acres of land would be disclosed.

• Look for an exposure draft by the end of 2015.

12

INTERNAL USE SOFTWARE

13

Internal Use Software (IUS) - Recap of Events

• Feb / Mar 2014: Presented Working Group’s (WG) findings and recommendation to AAPC and FASAB

• Board requested that the WG peruse two concurrent avenues:1. Perform research on information relevant to the users of the

Financial Statements to determine if a change to the standard would be appropriate

2. Draft implementation guidance for IUS

14

IUS - Changes to the Standard

TO DATE:• Met with OMB to understand budgetary reporting

requirements to align to the standard that costs associated with each software development phase should be reported

• Learned that OMB and GSA are moving toward agile development acquisition practices to focus on short-term software capability deliveries

15

IUS -Changes to the Standard

TO DATE (cont.):• Interviewed Program Managers from select agencies to

understand goals and software investment decisions:• PMs and leadership typically focus on total program / project

costs, not just the development (capital) portion

• Working Group believes that a change to the standard that does not completely remove the reporting requirement within the financial statements and notes would cause agencies to incur costs that would exceed the expected benefit

16

IUS - Implementation Guidance

• February 2015:The IUS Working Group held a re- entrance meeting to re-engage agencies in drafting Implementation Guidance.

• Task force included industry representatives from several public accounting and consulting firms as well as representatives from 10 major federal agencies.

17

IUS - Implementation Guidance• The guidance promotes an understanding of rapid

changes related to software development practices that have evolved since the inception of SFFAS10 by:• Highlighting the common issues identified across the federal

government IUS process • Clarifying terminology and introducing new terms• Providing sample IUS practices across the federal government IUS

process

• Exposure draft will be issued in the middle of September

18

RISK ASSUMED

19

RISK ASSUMED (RA)Project objectives are to:• Determine what risks the government assumes when

implementing policy initiatives to provide safety and stabilize financial markets and the economy.

• Update current standards to include:• Concise definitions and terminology• Recognition and measurement for contingent liabilities• Disclosures to provide clear information on fiscal health

• Account for and report all significant risks assumed in order to meet the stewardship and operating performance objectives of federal financial reporting.

20

RA –Three Phases:• Phase I: Insurance Programs including non-loan guarantee programs

• Phase II: Entitlement Programs, including: • natural disaster relief;• entitlement programs other than social insurance;• national defense and security; and• Other potential effects on future outflows, such as:

• regulatory actions, and/or• Government Sponsored Enterprises.

• Phase III: Commitments and other risk areas

21

RA – Phase I: Insurance Program

Each federal insurance program: fills a gap to manage risk for a certain amount of time or

money, where commercial insurance is not willing or able to;

manages unique risk factors and complex certainties; will recognize risk assumed through a variety of liabilities,

such as: Liability for unpaid claims Unearned premiums, Liability for losses on remaining coverage, etc.

22

RA – Government Cost of Federal Crop Insurance (Source: CRS R40532)

Figure 10. Government Cost of Federal Crop Insurance

Source: CRS using data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency, http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/budget/costsoutlays.html.

23

RA – Phase I: Insurance Program

Updated standards will:

• Define insurance programs into three Categories• Exchange Transaction Insurance Programs Other Than

Life Insurance• Nonexchange Transaction Insurance Programs• Life Insurance

• Improve terminology

24

RA – Phase I: Insurance Program

Updated standards will (CONT.):

• Address measurement uncertainty regarding estimated losses on open contracts• Determine best measurement model• Improve disclosures

• Disclose risk assumed for insurance programs with:• Narrative including risk factors• Coverage in force (maximum loss)

• Provide exposure draft in early 2016

25

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

26

Public-Private Partnerships

• Increased use of public-private partnerships (P3s) to accomplish goals.• Sharing of risks and rewards.• Alternative financing arrangements.• May be off-budget and off-balance sheet.

• Overall project objective:• Transparency of the full costs and disclosure of all risks including those deemed remote.

27

Public-Private Partnerships

Phase 1 Disclosures:• Develop a P3 definition with exclusions

• Must be greater than 5 years• Exclude:

• Non-lease • PP&E FAR acquisitions, • GSA delegated unbundled leases, • partnerships that don’t share risks/rewards, • grants to state/local governments, and • P3s with foreign governments.

• ID riskiest P3s by using conclusive & suggestive risk-based characteristics:

28

#AICPAgaac

Public-Private Partnerships

Conclusive Risk Characteristics

1. Conveyance or creation of a long-lived asset or long-term financing liability.

2. The federal entity participates in, helps sponsor, or is party to a Special Purpose Vehicle.

3. Covers a significant portion of the economic life of a project or asset.

4. The principal arrangement or transaction is exempt from either the FAR (contracts) or OMB requirements (grants).

Suggestive Risk Characteristics

1. A Value for Money (VfM) analysis is performed.

2. Consideration or items given up are not readily apparent.

3. Significant work force duties, activities, or knowledge are cross-shared between public and private sector P3 parties.

4. Focus more on collaboration and informal, real-time, resolution processes than on formal, contractual, administrative processes.

5. Entity relies on private sector partner’s or a third party’s determination of a P3’s performance or return on investment/equity without performing its own verification.

29

Public-Private Partnerships

30

Public-Private Partnerships

Phase 1 Disclosures (cont.):

• Disclose qualitative and quantitative information• For example: purpose of P3, funding mix and amount,

benefits/revenues exchanged, payment terms, related risks.

31

Public-Private Partnerships

Status:• Balloting process to begin in September 2015

• Statement to become effective FY19; effective date subject to change.

32 #AICPAgaac

Public-Private Partnerships

Phase 2: Measurement & Recognition Guidance: • To include:

• Deferred revenue implications, • in-kind payments and donated contributions,• nonmonetary exchanges, • balance sheet presentation, • asset capitalization/valuation.

• Board has deferred Phase 2 pending other priorities and to allow for consideration of Phase 1 results

33

REPORTING MODEL

Reporting Model

• Which is Better?

34

Reporting Model

• Objective• Better achieve

• Users’ needs• Reporting objectives

35

Reporting Model

• Input to the Board:• User needs surveys, focus groups, and roundtables• FASAB Task Force on Government-wide Financial Reports (Dec 2010)

• CFO Act 20-Year Report• Input from task forces focusing on agency level reporting on cost, budget and

performance• Statement of spending pilots• Study of other sovereign government practices• NAPA Study• Expert presentations

• Budget• Component Level Reporting

36

Reporting Model

• Cost Information• Users seek cost of programs or functions

• Budget Information• Users expect understandable budget

• Performance Information• Users expect to know program results

• Integration• Users expect integrated cost, budget, and

performance information

37

Key Take-A-Ways

Reporting Model

Presently…

• Financial statements • highly aggregated• Static• Present cost by strategic goals

• Multiple sources of information available through websites

• GAAP• Non-GAAP

• Multiple measurement bases• Accrual, budget, projections

• Spending is mostly mandatory not discretionary

38

However…

Users also looking to ◦ Review functions or

programs◦ Make comparisons◦ Drill-down◦ Access data ◦ Create their own reports◦ Identify trends, patterns◦ Analyze performance◦ Compare budgeted to actual

Challenges observed

Reporting Model

39

How should financial reporting…

Relate GAAP and non-GAAP sourcesHelp users understand

◦Differences between government-wide and component financing

◦The relationship among the different measurement bases

◦Mandatory vs. discretionary spendingFacilitate multi-dimensional analyses

Reporting Model

• Project Status• Board developing concepts statement• Concepts should guide development of ideal reporting model

40

41

TAX EXPENDITURES

Tax Expenditures

•What are they?• Income tax code provisions that decrease tax liabilities or direct cash (credits) to taxpayers engaging in desirable activities or facing certain circumstances.

•Who gets them?• What do you think – more tax expenditures for corporations or individuals?

42

43

Tax ExpendituresSource: Concord Coalition

44

Questions/More Information

For more information on FASAB and active projects please see:http://www.fasab.gov/

http://www.fasab.gov/projects/

Robin Gilliam, CPA, PMPAssistant Director – Risk Assumed Project Lead(202) 512-7356