The Coca-Cola Company, founded in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1886, is an iconic American company that sells its products around the world. As the business and financial reporting context has changed over the decades, the company’s financial disclosure practices have also evolved—from its first, two-page, public annual report in 1920 to present-day annual reports that extend to over 150 pages. This note introduces corporate disclosure and the expansion of such disclosures over time. To aid the discussion and contextualize the evolution of corporate disclosure, the note also presents a short history of the Coca-Cola Company and securities legislation in the United States.
In November 2014, questions were raised about American electric car manufacturer Tesla Motors Inc.'s (Tesla's) accounting practices, which did not follow the generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP). Tesla’s third quarter 2014 financial statements showed a loss of almost US$75 million when using U.S. GAAP standards, compared to a profit of over $5 million when using its own non-GAAP standards. The accounting discrepancy between the two systems was due mainly to the allotment of vehicle buybacks, stock-based compensation, and regulatory credit sales. Tesla’s share price had risen to $242 from its initial public offering of $17. Had the company’s non-GAAP adjustments influenced investors’ perception of Tesla’s performance and, therefore, the resulting stock price? Specifically, was it reasonable to state that Tesla had been profitable in the third quarter of 2014? Were Tesla’s non-GAAP adjustments appropriate? How could the adjustments between Tesla’s GAAP and non-GAAP numbers be explained? What would Tesla’s performance look like if the financial statements were adjusted for the resale value guarantee, regulatory credits, and stock-based compensation?
In 2015, Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (Penn West), a large Canadian oil company, made multiple acquisitions that led to a buildup of goodwill (i.e., the purchase price was higher than the net book value of the acquisitions). When the economic environment worsened, there was concern that this goodwill had been impaired. The concern deepened as economic factors improved but Penn West’s stock performance continued to be poor, indicating that the market believed that the company was potentially overvalued. A review of Penn West’s accounting practices revealed irregularities, and industry analysts — as well as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — began to question the value of the company’s goodwill. It was becoming clear that Penn West had been overly optimistic in its forecasts regarding revenue streams from its properties. Would the company be able to move forward? How?