Stock-based compensation can be difficult. Two approaches to measurement, valuation uncertainty, frequent adjustments for changes in estimates (including sometimes the stock price), and a dilutive effect in addition to an expense, all contribute this being a topic many investors try their best to avoid. Investors are not helped by inadequate stock-based compensation disclosures. Some companies go further than required by accounting standards, such as Swiss bank UBS, whose helpful additional a...| The Footnotes Analyst
Amazon provides investors with three alternative calculations of a free cash flow metric. For 2018 these range from $8.4bn to $19.4bn. In contrast our preferred approach gives a negative free cash flow of $3.4bn. What explains these material differences? The disclosures by Amazon about its free cash flow measures are good and the calculations go further than many other companies. However, in our view important components are missing. We explain our additional adjustments in respect of leased ...| The Footnotes Analyst
Limited disaggregation of income and expense items with different characteristics impair investors’ ability to assess and forecast performance. Recent proposals by the IASB for a new disaggregation principle and related disclosures of ‘unusual’ items will help. However, in our view, they do not go far enough. The IASB also proposes to include management alternative performance measures (non-GAAP or non-IFRS) within audited financial statements. We welcome this. Additional subtotals can ...| The Footnotes Analyst
Stock-based compensation can have a significant impact on the effective tax rate. For US companies the effect is driven to a large extent by changes in the stock price. In 2021 this reduced the effective tax rate for many companies; however, in 2022 you could well see the reverse. We use Netflix to explain the effect of stock-based compensation on cash taxes and deferred tax adjustments. The accounting is complex and made even more challenging for investors by differences between IFRS and US ...| The Footnotes Analyst
Non-GAAP measurers, but they are also controversial. Some argue that certain non-GAAP adjustments are unacceptable and should not be permitted. This recently happened to US company MicroStrategy, where the SEC required it to amend the presentation of cryptocurrency gains and losses. We do not agree with the SEC approach and believe MicroStrategy gives valid reasons for its cryptocurrency non-GAAP adjustment. We have less sympathy with other aspects of the company’s non-GAAP earnings calcula...| The Footnotes Analyst
Stock-based compensation grants to employees in 2020 are likely to be affected by the changes to share prices and reduction in profitability currently being experienced by many companies. However, the impact on the related expense and on reported profit may not be what you might expect. For most companies, stock-based compensation is a ‘sticky’ expense that is only indirectly or partially affected current period changes. Limited disclosure in financial statements makes forecasting this ex...| The Footnotes Analyst
In many transactions the amount payable may not be not known until sometime after the related asset, liability, income or expense is recognised in financial statements. In some cases, the accounting for this ‘variable consideration’ is clearly specified by IFRS. However, in others, including the purchase of fixed assets, companies are free to adopt different approaches. Intangible assets arising from football player transfers are a good example of where companies can apply different accou...| The Footnotes Analyst