In 2021, an investment management firm analyst needed to convince his portfolio manager that technology companies such as Amazon.com Inc. (Amazon) could have a strong investment thesis since they improved upon existing business models. To make his argument, he used financial ratio analysis to compare one of the portfolio manager's favourite companies, Walmart Inc. (Walmart), with a more technologically focused competitor in the retail space, Amazon. By analyzing the two companies using ratio analysis to highlight their similarities, the analyst sought to show his portfolio manager that Amazon was not only a technology company, but a better version of Walmart.
In August 2021, the co-owner of the property management and rental business Nassau Property Partnership, located in London, Ontario, asked his brother, a senior partner in a tax firm, for help with the tax structure of various operational and strategic decisions, both for his business and personal affairs. The business managed well over the COVID-19 pandemic, but several recent major events required advice from an experienced tax professional. Regarding his personal life, the co-owner was considering retiring from his company, which was a partnership, and had already put down a deposit on a second home in Florida. He wanted to fund the remaining part of the purchase through either a sale of his business interests to his daughter or through the sale of his family cottage. However, both of these decisions may have repercussions.
In January 2021, the co-founder of Mystery Books Co. (Mystery Books) was evaluating the company’s 2020 performance under the leadership of his daughter as the new chief executive officer. His daughter had ambitions of securing Walmart Inc. as a key client, so the co-founder had promised her an additional performance bonus of 5 per cent of his 30 per cent ownership of common stock if she grew the company’s net income by 20 per cent over the previous year. Throughout his thirty years of managing the company as chief executive officer, the co-founder had maintained very conservative accounting policies, some of which had been modified under his daughter's management. After reviewing the 2020 financial information, the co-founder harboured several concerns: Should he have specified more conditions for his daughter's performance incentive? Would the accounting policy changes pass the scrutiny of the company’s external auditors? And how should he proceed with regard to the suspicious sales activity he noticed? With these questions at the front of his mind, the co-founder of Mystery Books thought that perhaps he should have somehow left more reporting guidance for the company prior to leaving.
In May 2021, a recent graduate from the master of business administration program at Ivey Business School noticed a news article about one of his investments, the leading athletic apparel company Under Armour, Inc. The article stated that Under Armour, Inc. was fined US$9 Million by the US Security and Exchange Commission. The charges were a result of concerns over the company’s revenue reporting practices, but the company's share price dropped only very slightly following the announcement. The investor was considering his options regarding his investment. However, he was still curious and eager to learn more about the circumstances behind the US Security and Exchange Commission’s charge and potential consequences for the company. The investor decided to examine Under Armour, Inc.’s revenue reporting practices, financial reporting practices, and corporate governance issues.
In early 2020, a recent graduate from a prestigious masters of business administration program was working as a financial accountant for a renowned private equity firm in Glasgow, Scotland. For her father’s retirement, she was considering a gift from Highland Malt Inc.. The company’s Scotch whisky was offered in a limited quantity and promoted as an investment opportunity. Unlike ordinary bottled whiskies, Highland Malt Inc. sold this new line solely by the barrel. Collectors had to pay the full amount of CA$10,000 upfront, but could request a full refund within 180 days if unsatisfied with the product. The refund period allowed the collector to visit the distillery and inspect the purchase to ensure it met all expectations. The accountant was wondering if she should proceed with her plan to buy a barrel of Highland whisky as an investment and collector’s item for her father.
In October 2001, the co-founder and vice-president of Veritas Investment Research Corporation (Veritas), was considering his next steps as he prepared to issue a highly critical report on Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier). The vice-president believed that Bombardier had relied upon accounting innovations rather than operating innovations in order to report accounting profits. While numerous issues concerned the vice-president, one of the most critical was the way the company had managed the relationships between its various operating segments. These issues had developed over recent years and threatened to increase following the business decisions in the wake of September 11, 2001, which had dramatically affected the sale of aircraft. The vice-president’s investment report would have significant consequences for numerous stakeholders and would affect both his own and Veritas’s reputations. How should Veritas interpret the various issues related to Bombardier’s accounting and reporting choices?
In October 2017, the managing director at Ohtani Capital faced a critical decision—should the company divest its long-term investment in Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba)? Recent events surrounding Toshiba's disagreement with its auditor over how to best report the writedown of its US nuclear power unit (Westinghouse Electric Co. LLC) had negatively impacted the company’s profitability and internal management, leading to the company’s possible delisting from the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The managing director needed to decide if Toshiba could overcome its difficulties, improve its internal management, and return to profitability, which would then enable the company to secure the necessary emergency funding to survive.
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 March 2018, an analyst at an investment management firm in Toronto, Ontario, had to decide whether or not to recommend that his firm establish a position in shares of Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI). Formed after the merger of Burger King and Tim Hortons Inc., RBI was led by the private equity firm 3G Capital. RBI was a powerhouse–the third-largest, quick-service restaurant chain in the world. Although RBI was performing well and seemed to present an attractive investment opportunity, the company was facing issues from disgruntled franchisees, who were dissatisfied with the cost-cutting measures implemented at Tim Hortons Inc. as part of 3G Capital’s acquisition. This led to class action lawsuits from franchisees as well as a business slow-down, as measured by same-store sales figures. With not much time left, the analyst had to determine and present a decision to the rest of his team on whether or not to invest in RBI.
On November 20, 2015, the chief financial officer of Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer) was preparing to make a recommendation about whether to proceed with or stop merger talks between Pfizer and Allergan plc (Allergan), a pharmaceutical company with headquarters in New Jersey but tax residence in Ireland. Informal talks had been going on for almost a month, but both sides were rapidly approaching the pre-arranged deadline. The two teams had less than a week to either formally agree to proceed with a merger or walk away. Formalizing the agreement meant activating a US$400 million breakup clause that would make it costlier to call the deal off at a later date. Allergan’s Irish tax residency made this merger both attractive and concerning. While it provided the opportunity to lower Pfizer’s worldwide tax rate, the U.S. Treasury Department had recently announced regulatory changes targeting mergers that relocated a company’s tax residence to a low-tax country (called “tax inversions”). Pfizer’s legal team members were confident that the announced changes would not affect the proposed merger with Allergan. However, they were less certain about if—and when—the U.S. Treasury Department might make changes again.
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?
On January 17, 2015, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) released service cost estimates to all municipalities under its new municipal billing model. The new billing model, according to the recommendations of the auditor general, was designed to provide a more consistent, transparent, and accurate reflection of municipal servicing costs. Several mayors were not entirely sold on the new model and had their own opinion on how each municipality should be billed. Municipal officials needed consistent year-to-year service costs to accurately forecast their annual budgets. The OPP had to demonstrate the merit of the new billing model to ensure its adoption by all municipalities.
In 2014, the master distiller from an established Scotch whisky producer founded McPhee Distillers on Vancouver Island, Canada, hoping to capitalize on the growing demand for whisky in the Asia-Pacific region in particular. Rather than competing with larger producers selling by the bottle, McPhee planned to sell whisky exclusively by the barrel, hoping to differentiate McPhee Distillers in the industry. As a first-time entrepreneur, the master distiller was surprised by the amount of overhead costs, but she was determined that there were no costs she could cut without compromising the quality of the whisky. Was her business model profitable, or had she made an error by focusing on barrel sales? Could she improve her operations?
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?
This case provides an opportunity to review Groupon Inc’s S1 filing made prior to an initial public offering. Groupon’s financial statements attracted a great deal of controversy due to revenue recognition policies that produced substantially higher revenues for the corporation, as well as non-GAAP earnings measures, especially ACSOI — an invention of the firm that served to exclude certain marketing expenses from the calculation of profit. Since marketing expenses were a very material expense for Groupon at a stage at which it was building its business, the effect of the use of ACSOI was as substantial as the effect of aggressive revenue recognition policies. Groupon backed down on both revenue recognition and the use of ACSOI following SEC inquiries into the corporation’s accounting policies.
The case comprises an interview with Paul Cherry, who as chair of the Accounting Standards Board of Canada (the Canadian accounting standard setter) led a process that brought Canada to adopt international financial reporting standards (IFRS). The case provides a rich and in-depth examination of the real-world considerations that led Canada to adopt IFRS. It offers analysis of the competing alternatives such as the U.S. GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles), describes the consultation process, and sets out the thinking that led to Canada adopting IFRS. The case offers a unique opportunity for students to see a leader in the Canadian accounting profession set out what actually led to the adoption of IFRS.