Back to basics: Consolidation—Getting started

WEBVTT
00:00:00.320 --> 00:00:04.719
Thought Leadership from PwC's National Office.
00:00:07.759 --> 00:00:11.439
Hello, and welcome to PWC's Accounting Podcast.
00:00:11.599 --> 00:00:12.880
I'm Heather Horn.
00:00:13.279 --> 00:00:26.559
I'm excited to introduce our new Back to Basics series where we'll revisit some of the foundational accounting topics that are important to understand, whether you're learning them for the first time or just looking for a refresher.
00:00:26.800 --> 00:00:34.000
And with people heading back to school and getting back into that learning mindset, we thought there's no better time to launch the series.
00:00:34.240 --> 00:00:40.240
We're starting with consolidation accounting and in particular variable interest entities or VIEs.
00:00:40.399 --> 00:00:43.920
It's a topic that can get very complicated very quickly.
00:00:44.079 --> 00:00:58.560
So we're going back to a few of our favorite conversations with Matt Sabatini, a deputy chief accountant in PWC's national office, and Alexander Martin, a partner in PWC Steel's practice, that break the framework down step by step.
00:01:02.079 --> 00:01:15.280
Over the next four episodes, we'll start with an overview of the consolidation models and the VIE framework, then take a deeper dive into how to identify a VIE and determine which party, if any, should consolidate it.
00:01:15.439 --> 00:01:20.560
We'll wrap up the series with an episode focused on consolidation presentation and disclosures.
00:01:20.799 --> 00:01:32.560
In this first episode, Matt and Alexander start at the beginning, including some helpful background on why we have two consolidation models under US GAP before walking through their overall framework and scope considerations.
00:01:33.200 --> 00:01:37.200
And I will say anecdotally, these are a few of my favorite episodes.
00:01:37.280 --> 00:01:38.879
So I'm so glad you're tuning in.
00:01:39.120 --> 00:01:43.120
With that, let's listen back to my conversation with Matt and Alexander.
00:01:43.760 --> 00:01:47.280
So with all of that background, Alexander, can you get us started?
00:01:47.599 --> 00:01:48.400
Yep, absolutely.
00:01:48.560 --> 00:01:51.200
And thanks so much for having us back to talk about VIEs.
00:01:51.280 --> 00:01:54.719
I'm probably going to lose some friends here, but it's easily my favorite topic to talk about.
00:01:54.799 --> 00:01:56.159
So I'm amped to be part of that.
00:01:56.319 --> 00:01:59.040
Yeah, I'm not sure that's something to brag about.
00:01:59.120 --> 00:02:00.799
But no, definitely good to have you on.
00:02:01.040 --> 00:02:03.359
Well, I mean, with that, I'm a VIE apologist, right?
00:02:03.439 --> 00:02:06.239
So I'm going to say right off the bat that I think they get a bad rap.
00:02:06.319 --> 00:02:10.960
I I like to think about them as like the duckbilled platypus of accounting standards, right?
00:02:11.039 --> 00:02:16.479
They're they're a little bit ugly and kind of weird to look at, but it's really just a function of how the guidance has evolved over the years.
00:02:16.879 --> 00:02:17.039
All right.
00:02:17.120 --> 00:02:21.599
So hopefully we don't have any advocates for duckbilled platypuses on that are going to be offended.
00:02:21.680 --> 00:02:23.599
You said they were ugly, but anyway, with that.
00:02:24.080 --> 00:02:24.560
Let me finish.
00:02:24.719 --> 00:02:24.960
Okay.
00:02:25.199 --> 00:02:26.800
My youngest daughter thinks that they're very cute.
00:02:26.879 --> 00:02:27.039
Right.
00:02:27.120 --> 00:02:32.159
And so we're our job today is we're going to try to make them warm and cuddly, and you could see how great the platybi are.
00:02:32.400 --> 00:02:37.039
That might be the only time those words have been used on this podcast, but keep going.
00:02:37.680 --> 00:02:43.199
Um so maybe to do that right, I think Matt Matt and I's goal really, we're going to demystify the model a little bit.
00:02:43.360 --> 00:02:45.520
And so I'll start with what it looks like today.
00:02:45.599 --> 00:02:50.719
Um, I want to preface it by saying what we're going to talk about is the model that's used for profit entities.
00:02:50.879 --> 00:02:56.879
So not-for-profit entities that are subject to ASC 958, they have a separate model that we're not going to talk about today.
00:02:57.039 --> 00:03:01.360
So for the for-profit folks, right, under US GAAP today, we have two models of consolidation.
00:03:01.439 --> 00:03:05.759
We have our traditional voting interest model, or sometimes called the VOE model.
00:03:05.840 --> 00:03:13.599
Um, this is where we basically, in order to figure out who consolidates, we look to the traditional voting interests and see who holds a majority of those, right?
00:03:13.680 --> 00:03:15.599
If so, then you're viewed as controlling the entity.
00:03:15.680 --> 00:03:17.039
So then you have to consolidate it.
00:03:17.199 --> 00:03:17.439
Right.
00:03:17.520 --> 00:03:21.520
And then we have our big scary VIE or variable interest entity model, right?
00:03:21.599 --> 00:03:27.280
And this is where we have to look beyond the voting equity interest to figure out who actually controls and therefore should consolidate the entity.
00:03:27.439 --> 00:03:27.599
Right.
00:03:27.680 --> 00:03:36.400
And so before I kind of dive into the VIE model specifically, I think it actually might be helpful to have a little bit of a background and talk about how we got to the dual model in the first place.
00:03:36.639 --> 00:03:40.719
Yes, so I'm assuming we're going to start with FIM46, unless you're going further back than that.
00:03:40.879 --> 00:03:41.520
Maybe you are.
00:03:41.759 --> 00:03:44.240
But wait, before you do that, I do have one question.
00:03:44.879 --> 00:03:51.280
So you mentioned uh the VOE model and the fact that's based on the majority of the voting equity.
00:03:51.599 --> 00:04:00.879
Do we see under even that model that you could have less than the majority of the equity, but you could still wind up consolidating, or is that only under the VIE model?
00:04:01.199 --> 00:04:03.439
You do see it under the VOE model as well.
00:04:03.520 --> 00:04:07.520
And, you know, Matt, feel free to jump in, but it's really in limited circumstances, right?
00:04:07.599 --> 00:04:10.800
They have this idea of being able to be controlled by a contract.
00:04:10.879 --> 00:04:16.079
Um, but most of the time, if that guidance is going to apply, you're actually probably gonna be in the VIE model anyway.
00:04:16.160 --> 00:04:18.480
And so you're gonna consolidate it under the VIE framework.
00:04:18.720 --> 00:04:21.279
Yeah, I'm just gonna enjoy my role of nodding along as you come.
00:04:21.519 --> 00:04:24.000
So although nodding doesn't work on a podcast.
00:04:24.160 --> 00:04:25.759
So maybe at least say and I agree.
00:04:26.000 --> 00:04:26.959
It's working really well for me.
00:04:27.360 --> 00:04:29.279
We'll have a bell that you can ring if you all right.
00:04:29.360 --> 00:04:33.680
But basically, the key thing there is the in the VOE model that you have the control.
00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:36.319
Yeah, we're gonna dive into that in a little bit more detail in a bit too.
00:04:36.399 --> 00:04:36.959
So perfect.
00:04:37.040 --> 00:04:37.360
Thank you.
00:04:37.439 --> 00:04:39.680
See, you you do have more of a role than just nodding.
00:04:39.920 --> 00:04:40.399
All right.
00:04:40.639 --> 00:04:44.720
So, Alexander, you sort of shook your head when I mentioned FIM46.
00:04:44.800 --> 00:04:46.800
So I imagine you are going further back than that.
00:04:46.959 --> 00:04:48.160
So, where are we starting?
00:04:48.800 --> 00:04:51.360
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
00:04:51.519 --> 00:04:53.920
Um, yeah, so I'm gonna go back to the beginning, right?
00:04:54.480 --> 00:05:02.959
So the current framework that we actually have, right, actually can be traced back to an original accounting research bulletin that was issued back in 1959, right?
00:05:03.040 --> 00:05:08.240
This is even pre-FASB, pre-accounting principles board, pre-Matt Sabatini, right?
00:05:08.319 --> 00:05:09.600
Uh, this goes way back, right?
00:05:09.759 --> 00:05:21.680
But the the bulletin, which is called ARB 51, uh, this basically established the whole idea that if a reporting entity has control over another entity, then it's more meaningful to present consolidated financial statements, right?
00:05:21.839 --> 00:05:28.000
So, so even back then, the whole idea was that if I control another entity, then I should be including that entity in my financial results.
00:05:28.240 --> 00:05:28.879
So it's interesting.
00:05:28.959 --> 00:05:36.560
We talk, we have talked previously here on the podcast about ARB 43, but I don't know that we've talked a lot about ARB 51.
00:05:36.639 --> 00:05:39.199
So it's good, it's a good little bit of history there to know that.
00:05:39.439 --> 00:05:40.879
So treading treading new ground.
00:05:41.120 --> 00:05:42.000
Yeah, exactly.
00:05:42.399 --> 00:05:48.399
So the the model still had the idea of this controlling financial interest being the predicator for some consolidation.
00:05:48.560 --> 00:05:52.800
And so the the next natural question is, okay, well, how do I know if I have control over another entity?
00:05:52.959 --> 00:05:53.120
Right.
00:05:53.199 --> 00:05:56.800
And so at the time, the answer was, hey, just look at the voting equity interests, right?
00:05:56.959 --> 00:06:00.639
Whoever owns a majority of the vote means that they control the entity, means that they should consolidate.
00:06:00.720 --> 00:06:01.439
Easy peasy.
00:06:01.519 --> 00:06:03.920
Um, so this model hung around for a while.
00:06:04.079 --> 00:06:05.519
Like it worked really well.
00:06:05.600 --> 00:06:15.439
You know, so there were some minor tweaks and clarifications over the years, but for the most part, it was basically 40 years of having a really solid voting interest model that was used for consolidation.
00:06:15.680 --> 00:06:30.079
Fast forward from the late 50s to the late 1990s, early 2000s, and then we started to have some companies that were setting up what was referred to as special purpose entities or SPEs and basically structuring them in a way to avoid consolidation under that voting model.
00:06:30.319 --> 00:06:30.720
Right.
00:06:30.879 --> 00:06:33.199
Some people remember it, it was kind of a kind of a Yeah.
00:06:33.279 --> 00:06:39.279
So I think if we uh refer our listeners to Enron, they may know exactly the type of entities we're talking about.
00:06:39.519 --> 00:06:41.040
They wrote books and movies, right?
00:06:41.279 --> 00:06:42.000
Yes, exactly.
00:06:42.240 --> 00:06:42.800
Exactly.
00:06:43.040 --> 00:06:51.680
So basically, what they were doing to achieve that non-consolidation was they were separating the economics in the entity from the from the voting interests themselves, right?
00:06:51.839 --> 00:06:56.399
Obviously, this was viewed as a whole in the guidance when people started to see that it could be abusive, right?
00:06:56.480 --> 00:07:01.360
And so in response in 2003, this is where the FASB came out with Fin 46, right?
00:07:01.439 --> 00:07:05.120
And that was basically a whole new landscape that they put together, right?
00:07:05.199 --> 00:07:08.720
They they created the concept of a variable interest entity or a VIE.
00:07:09.120 --> 00:07:15.120
And they also created this new framework for evaluating who actually controlled these uh special purpose entities, right?
00:07:15.199 --> 00:07:17.040
Or these highly structured type of entities.
00:07:17.120 --> 00:07:26.480
And the idea was really, hey, given the unique design of these SPEs and the way that they're structured, uh, evaluating consolidation based solely on the voting equity doesn't really work, right?
00:07:26.560 --> 00:07:28.879
It won't tell me who actually controls the entity, right?
00:07:28.959 --> 00:07:32.879
So instead, I need a new model or a different model to evaluate these things, right?
00:07:32.959 --> 00:07:36.959
And so that's how we settled on having a separate VIE framework, right?
00:07:37.040 --> 00:07:41.120
It was really in response to the high structured entities that kind of set the ball in motion here.
00:07:41.439 --> 00:07:49.199
And actually, if you think about it, so Enron, I think went into bankruptcy like the tail end of 2001, beginning of 2002, sometime around that timeframe.
00:07:50.000 --> 00:07:56.319
So the fact they were able to come out with this entirely new model that quickly is impressive.
00:07:56.399 --> 00:08:01.680
But I know you're going to get to some changes to the model, or maybe Matt, this is when you jump in.
00:08:01.759 --> 00:08:06.319
But nonetheless, the concept of variable interest entity, you know, still persists.
00:08:06.480 --> 00:08:07.120
So yeah.
00:08:07.199 --> 00:08:14.000
And I don't want to take away the glory that you're giving to the FASB for working quickly, but they had been working on a new consolidation model for 10 years leading up to Enron.
00:08:14.480 --> 00:08:17.519
So then at least they were anticipating what may happen.
00:08:17.920 --> 00:08:20.399
So it did result in kind of a right-hand turn, right?
00:08:20.480 --> 00:08:22.639
So they had to quickly adjust and they did.
00:08:22.720 --> 00:08:26.800
Um what they ended up with was uh what you referred to as FIN46, right?
00:08:26.879 --> 00:08:30.079
It was a financial, sorry, it was a FASB interpretation.
00:08:30.319 --> 00:08:33.919
Um, and we were there, you know, what Fin 46 was, right?
00:08:34.080 --> 00:08:36.639
In response to Enron and some of these other accounting schedules.
00:08:36.720 --> 00:08:42.080
And it was really meant to deal with special purpose entities, like Alexander said, although it applied a little bit more broadly.
00:08:42.159 --> 00:08:44.320
Um and it was really a risk-based model, right?
00:08:44.399 --> 00:08:53.919
So it really focused on who had the majority of the economic risks and rewards with these type of entities, and that entity would be the one who was deemed to have a controlling financial interest.
00:08:54.080 --> 00:08:57.519
So that's really how Fin 46 worked for a while.
00:08:57.600 --> 00:09:05.200
The premise behind it was if you were willing to take on exposure to a majority of the risks of ownership of an entity, that likely came with control.
00:09:05.360 --> 00:09:11.120
So that was a kind of neat way to figure out who had a controlling financial interest in entities where it wasn't all that clear.
00:09:11.360 --> 00:09:17.679
Um, that that model lasted for a couple of years, um, and it's you know, evolved, is what I'll say.
00:09:18.000 --> 00:09:19.679
Kind of like the duckbill platypose, right?
00:09:19.840 --> 00:09:20.799
Going back to that analogy.
00:09:20.879 --> 00:09:24.639
It's evolved over several years to where we are today, right?
00:09:24.799 --> 00:09:34.559
Where we are today is we still have this economic interest concept, but it's not whether or not you have a majority of the economic interest, it's whether you have an economic interest along with power.
00:09:34.720 --> 00:09:43.440
So it's kind of a hybrid between the old voting model and the Fin 46 risk and rewards model that focuses on both power and economics.
00:09:43.600 --> 00:09:48.320
It's kind of similar to where IFRS is today, too, focusing on whether you have power and economics.
00:09:48.559 --> 00:09:49.600
Just a fun fact, right?
00:09:49.759 --> 00:09:55.440
They even though the models changed and we're in a different place than we were in early 2000s, a lot of the terminology stayed the same.
00:09:55.519 --> 00:10:00.799
So if you hear us say like the primary beneficiary, that's the party who we consolidate, a VIE.
00:10:00.960 --> 00:10:09.600
And generally it makes sense when you're thinking about if you have a majority of the risks and rewards, you would be the primary beneficiary with error quotes that I'm making that you can't see, right?
00:10:09.840 --> 00:10:13.919
Um, today, right, you would be the primary beneficiary if you have power in economics.
00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:15.279
You don't have to have a majority, though.
00:10:15.360 --> 00:10:20.879
So it's a term that we still use that doesn't necessarily fit the current model, but is is remnant of the old model.
00:10:21.200 --> 00:10:21.440
All right.
00:10:21.519 --> 00:10:24.480
And obviously, listeners, we're going to get into more detail there.
00:10:24.559 --> 00:10:26.399
And Matt, you mentioned IFRS.
00:10:26.480 --> 00:10:36.720
And actually, uh, right when I walked in the room, I made the point that IFRS doesn't have this VIE concept, but it sounds like in some cases you could come to similar.
00:10:37.120 --> 00:10:42.879
This is not a podcast about IFRS, but I at least want to mention because I know we have a a lot of non-US listeners.
00:10:43.120 --> 00:10:43.360
Yes.
00:10:43.440 --> 00:10:48.399
So there are more similarities than there are differences in the consolidation models between US GAAP and IFRS.
00:10:48.559 --> 00:10:50.080
The terminology is completely different.
00:10:50.240 --> 00:10:53.120
So there's no VIEs, there's no primary beneficiary in IFRS.
00:10:53.279 --> 00:10:57.759
And if you start using that terminology with somebody over in Europe, they're going to look at you like you have two heads.
00:10:58.000 --> 00:11:07.600
Um but the the basic concept of having power and an economic interest is really how they determine consolidation overseas and how how we do it here.
00:11:07.840 --> 00:11:11.039
All right, that maybe it's a fourth episode, but not for today.
00:11:11.200 --> 00:11:22.080
So, all right, so then kind of with that background, now we've given our uh listeners some accounting trivia in case you know there's a question they get at some trivia contest, maybe not that likely.
00:11:22.159 --> 00:11:30.480
But nonetheless, I do think it's helpful to sort of understand how this grew up because there are some things about the model that maybe a clean sheet of paper, you'd say, hmm.
00:11:30.639 --> 00:11:33.360
But it's so it's kind of helpful to understand that evolution.
00:11:33.759 --> 00:11:34.080
Exactly.
00:11:34.159 --> 00:11:38.960
And and and since then, right, that was in 2009 where we changed to this power and economics model.
00:11:39.120 --> 00:11:45.840
Since then, there have been a couple of tweaks around um related party guidance, around decision maker fees, so tweaks around the edges.
00:11:45.919 --> 00:11:47.279
And we're and I call them tweaks.
00:11:47.360 --> 00:11:52.879
They were actually pretty significant changes if you deal with the model on a regular basis, but they weren't a major overhaul.
00:11:52.960 --> 00:12:04.559
So, and you do see it when you're trying to apply certain chapters or certain paragraphs of the guidance in certain scenarios where maybe it doesn't always like read like it was one coherent standard that was put out at the same time.
00:12:04.639 --> 00:12:07.200
And that's because of this evolution and these modifications over time.
00:12:07.519 --> 00:12:15.279
Well, and I think, Matt, the other point that's extremely important that you made there is the fact that even though the terminology has changed, some of the definitions haven't.
00:12:15.440 --> 00:12:22.480
So people maybe who aren't dealing with this model every day, they may have dealt with it at some point, and things have evolved since then.
00:12:22.639 --> 00:12:28.159
So it's very important to make sure A, you're listening, but B then that you're looking at the most recent guidance.
00:12:28.399 --> 00:12:28.720
That's right.
00:12:28.799 --> 00:12:30.399
And you can always call one of us for help.
00:12:30.639 --> 00:12:30.960
Exactly.
00:12:31.120 --> 00:12:31.440
All right.
00:12:31.679 --> 00:12:33.519
Hotline to Alexander and that.
00:12:33.759 --> 00:12:38.720
So with all of that then, now maybe we should dive in, at least at a high level, to the detail.
00:12:38.879 --> 00:12:40.559
That's that's sort of an oxymoron.
00:12:40.720 --> 00:12:44.000
But anyway, Alexander, can you start walking us through the framework?
00:12:44.240 --> 00:12:44.799
Yeah, sure.
00:12:44.960 --> 00:12:47.440
So um, you know, we where we're starting now.
00:12:47.519 --> 00:12:50.639
We got to we have this new fancy VIE model, right?
00:12:50.720 --> 00:12:52.799
But that's not really the end of the story just yet.
00:12:52.960 --> 00:13:02.159
Um, you know, the whole idea of having the VIE model was really to address these highly structured SPEs, but that didn't necessarily mean that the voting model was broken entirely, right?
00:13:02.240 --> 00:13:06.080
And so for the most part, there's a lot of entities where applying a voting model makes sense.
00:13:06.159 --> 00:13:08.639
The the vote is is correlated with the control.
00:13:08.879 --> 00:13:18.960
Um, so what the FASB decided to do, and this is why we have this dual model, is they retained the voting model and they basically said you can apply it to these plain vanilla type of entities, right?
00:13:19.120 --> 00:13:27.600
And so uh the way that they decided to operationalize that was really establishing a what I'll call a guilty until proven innocent approach, right?
00:13:27.759 --> 00:13:34.559
Where everybody has to start by evaluating the VIE model first, and then you determine if you're kicked out of the VIE model, right?
00:13:34.639 --> 00:13:44.320
So I can get kicked out by either having a scope exception or I can evaluate the entity and say, hey, it's not really designed in a way or structured in a way that it meets the definition of a VIE.
00:13:44.639 --> 00:13:46.799
So then I would just go and apply the voting model instead.
00:13:46.879 --> 00:13:48.559
And that's how our guidance works today.
00:13:48.879 --> 00:13:53.519
Although I do think from a practical point of view, people often jump to the voting model.
00:13:53.759 --> 00:14:00.240
So it's helpful maybe to remind people what this VIE model is so that they can make sure they sort of quote run those traps.
00:14:00.320 --> 00:14:01.279
So what is the model?
00:14:01.600 --> 00:14:01.759
Right.
00:14:01.840 --> 00:14:05.919
So yeah, I'll start with a light touch over the model at a very high level.
00:14:06.080 --> 00:14:06.720
It's hard to do that.
00:14:06.960 --> 00:14:08.799
I know that's another oxymoron, I think.
00:14:09.120 --> 00:14:09.360
Exactly.
00:14:09.600 --> 00:14:11.279
But just like three simple steps.
00:14:11.440 --> 00:14:11.679
All right.
00:14:11.759 --> 00:14:19.200
So number one, determine if the entity meets a scope exception for either consolidation in general or for VIE um consolidation.
00:14:19.440 --> 00:14:23.919
Number two, um, if it doesn't meet a scope exception, you determine whether or not the entity is a VIE.
00:14:24.240 --> 00:14:26.159
We're gonna teach you how to do that, I promise.
00:14:26.480 --> 00:14:30.639
Number three, if it is a VIE, you determine who the primary beneficiary is.
00:14:30.720 --> 00:14:34.159
And like I said before, that's the party who ends up consolidating the VIE.
00:14:34.399 --> 00:14:39.120
So that's it in a kind of nutshell, but I'll go into each step in a little bit more detail.
00:14:39.360 --> 00:14:42.399
I'm gonna skip number one, self-explanatory scope exceptions.
00:14:42.559 --> 00:14:43.919
We're gonna come back to that a little bit later.
00:14:44.159 --> 00:14:46.320
Number two, determine if the entity is a VIE.
00:14:46.559 --> 00:14:59.200
So this is what Alexander was explaining before, which is really what we're trying to do with the VIE model is identify situations in which it doesn't make sense to rely on the voting interests to determine who should consolidate an entity.
00:14:59.360 --> 00:14:59.600
Right.
00:14:59.759 --> 00:15:05.440
So what we're really looking for is there are five characteristics that the guidance lays out, five criteria.
00:15:05.679 --> 00:15:13.120
And what they're all really focused on is trying to figure out if the equity in the entity is really behaving like traditional equity.
00:15:13.360 --> 00:15:13.600
All right.
00:15:13.679 --> 00:15:15.919
So air quotes around traditional.
00:15:16.080 --> 00:15:18.799
And what exactly do we mean when we say that?
00:15:19.039 --> 00:15:19.279
Right.
00:15:19.519 --> 00:15:21.440
So it does it does warrant an explanation.
00:15:21.600 --> 00:15:22.320
I think that's fair.
00:15:22.720 --> 00:15:36.399
Um so what I mean by that is when you're thinking about the voting model, which again was the model that existed for 40 years, it was very much dependent or predicated on voting rights associated with common stock or the most residual interest in an entity.
00:15:36.559 --> 00:15:48.799
And in order to distinguish between maybe an entity that it makes sense to rely on the voting model versus a variable interest entity, you're gonna look for situations in which maybe the residual equity isn't really behaving like real equity, right?
00:15:48.879 --> 00:15:49.840
And what do I mean by that?
00:15:49.919 --> 00:15:52.080
Well, maybe that voting rights aren't all that substantive.
00:15:52.240 --> 00:15:54.320
Maybe the equity owners don't really have the power.
00:15:54.480 --> 00:15:57.759
So that'd be a situation where you could look at the voting rights, but they're kind of irrelevant.
00:15:58.399 --> 00:16:06.080
Um, or situations where the residual equity is not um exposed to losses or in enjoying the upside of an entity, right?
00:16:06.159 --> 00:16:12.320
So that again, it's typically you expect residual or common equity to get unlimited upside and be exposed to first dollar loss.
00:16:12.399 --> 00:16:16.399
And in situations where that doesn't happen, then maybe the variable interest entity makes more sense.
00:16:16.480 --> 00:16:18.720
Um so that's really what the five characteristics are doing.
00:16:18.799 --> 00:16:22.559
And we're gonna tell you what all five of them are, and we're gonna walk you through some detail on how to do it.
00:16:22.720 --> 00:16:28.799
But if you keep that in the back of your head, it always helps to make those characteristics um resonate a little bit more.
00:16:29.120 --> 00:16:32.879
Yeah, I mean, it sounds like in a way you're talking about entities that are structured.
00:16:32.960 --> 00:16:33.840
Is that fair?
00:16:34.159 --> 00:16:36.639
Or is that making it too narrow?
00:16:36.960 --> 00:16:37.200
Yeah.
00:16:37.279 --> 00:16:46.559
I mean, remember when I said the FASB had been working for 10 years and trying to identify a new consolidation model, they were marching down a path of really trying to identify what a structured entity is.
00:16:46.799 --> 00:16:48.960
And it was hard, and that's why it took them 10 years.
00:16:49.039 --> 00:16:52.960
So it does apply, the model does apply more neatly to structured entities.
00:16:53.039 --> 00:16:55.919
Um, and it makes more sense when you're looking at structured entities.
00:16:56.159 --> 00:16:57.200
We're gonna get into scope.
00:16:57.279 --> 00:16:58.960
It applies to all legal entities.
00:16:59.120 --> 00:17:09.279
Um, but yeah, I mean, I what you are looking for is other contracts, other interests, or other um kind of designs or structure around the entity that are gonna stop the residual equity from behaving like equity.
00:17:09.440 --> 00:17:10.160
So I think it's fair.
00:17:10.480 --> 00:17:10.720
All right.
00:17:10.880 --> 00:17:12.960
So now I'm totally taking us off track.
00:17:13.119 --> 00:17:15.839
We still haven't even given the high level of step three.
00:17:15.920 --> 00:17:16.400
So what's that?
00:17:16.720 --> 00:17:17.519
I didn't get to three yet.
00:17:17.680 --> 00:17:20.480
So three is you determine who should consolidate the VAE.
00:17:20.559 --> 00:17:22.480
And like I said, that's the primary beneficiary.
00:17:22.640 --> 00:17:26.160
That's the party that generally has meets two criteria, right?
00:17:26.240 --> 00:17:28.079
So remember I said power in economics.
00:17:28.240 --> 00:17:35.039
What we mean by power is it's the party that has the power to make the decision decisions over the most significant activities of the entity.
00:17:35.200 --> 00:17:42.240
And what I mean by economics is it's somebody who's exposed to at least a significant amount of economics in the entity.
00:17:42.400 --> 00:17:46.799
Um, so again, not the majority, but a significant um economic interest in the entity.
00:17:47.039 --> 00:17:49.839
You have to meet both in order to be the primary beneficiary.
00:17:49.920 --> 00:17:51.519
So you have to have power and economics.
00:17:51.599 --> 00:17:58.640
So there are lots of people that might have economic interests in an entity, and lots of people who may have more than insignificant economic interests.
00:17:58.799 --> 00:18:00.640
But only one will generally have power.
00:18:00.720 --> 00:18:02.640
So only one will generally have both.
00:18:02.799 --> 00:18:11.599
Um and so the only other thing I'll I'll add here is you don't if you conclude that you're not the primary beneficiary, it's not necessarily a uh get out of jail free card, right?
00:18:11.680 --> 00:18:18.559
You have to look to see whether or not you and your related parties um might meet the definition of a primary beneficiary as a group.
00:18:18.720 --> 00:18:24.480
And then when that happens, um, oftentimes you'll identify one of the related parties who should consolidate the entity.
00:18:24.559 --> 00:18:27.440
Sometimes not, but oftentimes there is a related party who should consolidate.
00:18:27.759 --> 00:18:33.839
Well, and even if you're not the primary beneficiary, you do have disclosure requirements, which I'm sure we're gonna get to at some point.
00:18:34.000 --> 00:18:38.880
But it's again, you can't just say, oh, I'm not the primary beneficiary, so I'm done with this entity.
00:18:39.119 --> 00:18:39.440
Correct.
00:18:39.599 --> 00:18:39.839
All right.
00:18:39.920 --> 00:18:44.240
So I do remember something from my old days of doing consolidation.
00:18:44.480 --> 00:18:59.920
So with all of that said, then, I think one of the key things to talk about here is the fact that if we're thinking about whether or not you're the primary beneficiary, this is not a one-time evaluation, but maybe Alexander, you can provide some more perspective on that.
00:19:00.160 --> 00:19:00.960
Yeah, that's right.
00:19:01.119 --> 00:19:06.960
So it's the the primary beneficiary or PB, you know, we typically call it for us cool VIE guys call it for short.
00:19:07.359 --> 00:19:09.119
So we can be part of the cool kids if we use that.
00:19:09.359 --> 00:19:11.039
Yeah, welcome to the cool kid club.
00:19:11.200 --> 00:19:15.200
Um, but yeah, the the primary beneficiary determination is ongoing, right?
00:19:15.279 --> 00:19:20.799
So basically every reporting period, you have to relook at your answer and and make sure that it still makes sense, right?
00:19:21.119 --> 00:19:23.920
But that's only for the primary beneficiary, right?
00:19:24.079 --> 00:19:33.680
You you don't go and you don't have an ongoing reassessment of your determination of whether an entity is or isn't a VIE unless there's a triggering event, right?
00:19:33.759 --> 00:19:45.119
So like a recapitalization or like a change in the design or structure of the entity, that would trigger a reassessment of the VIE determination, but the the PB test is an ongoing analysis.
00:19:45.359 --> 00:19:50.880
I do think a key point here is that you need controls in place to make sure you're identifying those triggering events.
00:19:51.039 --> 00:20:03.680
And I will say I was a specialist on what engagement where my whole role every quarter was to make sure the client had done properly their assessment of all their VIEs and making sure whether or not they were still the primary beneficiary.
00:20:03.839 --> 00:20:04.480
So there you go.
00:20:04.720 --> 00:20:05.039
All right.
00:20:05.119 --> 00:20:10.960
So with all that said then, uh I think we'll get into some more detail on what those triggers are.
00:20:11.200 --> 00:20:18.799
So going back to the overall model, we mentioned you could either get a scope exception or you could determine that's not a VIE.
00:20:19.200 --> 00:20:25.359
If one of those two things happened, they sort of jump off our flow chart and you move to the voting model.
00:20:25.519 --> 00:20:26.079
Is that correct?
00:20:26.319 --> 00:20:26.640
That's right.
00:20:26.799 --> 00:20:30.480
So you're not completely off the consolidation flow chart, you're just off the VIE flow chart.
00:20:30.640 --> 00:20:30.880
Right.
00:20:31.039 --> 00:20:34.720
So the voting model, like, congratulations, it's a little bit easier.
00:20:34.799 --> 00:20:40.079
Um, so you don't have to understand all of the terminology that we're using, like PB and VI and all that stuff, right?
00:20:40.160 --> 00:20:44.319
So it's the model that's been around for uh 50, 60 years now, right?
00:20:44.400 --> 00:20:46.559
Longer than I have, according to Alexander.
00:20:46.799 --> 00:20:51.599
Um again, it's predicated on um having a majority of the voting rights.
00:20:51.680 --> 00:20:55.599
Um so when you have a majority of the voting rights, usually that comes with unilateral control.
00:20:56.160 --> 00:20:58.000
Um, that's not always the case.
00:20:58.079 --> 00:21:08.880
Um, but generally, if you have a majority of the voting rights, you're gonna be um you're gonna be the party with the controlling financial interest, but you're also gonna look to see who else is invested in the entity uh and what rights they might have.
00:21:08.960 --> 00:21:14.400
Um so a lot of times these are called minority rights or um or veto rights or blocking rights, right?
00:21:14.480 --> 00:21:26.480
So you're looking to see I might be a 60% owner of a legal entity, but the 40% owner has the ability to approve the annual budget or the ability to approve the appointment and compensation of senior management.
00:21:26.640 --> 00:21:33.359
And those might be significant blocking rights that would prevent the 60% majority owner from consolidating or from having control.
00:21:33.599 --> 00:21:42.400
Um so it's it's more straightforward, but you do have to do a little bit of work to understand who's involved with the entity in terms of a voting perspective and who's got what kind of consent rights.
00:21:42.559 --> 00:21:50.559
Um, another another situation in which maybe a majority of the voting interest wouldn't result in a controlling financial interest would be if the legal entity goes into bankruptcy.
00:21:50.799 --> 00:21:56.960
So that could happen where you have a parent who doesn't go into bankruptcy and a subsidiary that does, or both go into bankruptcy.
00:21:57.200 --> 00:21:59.839
Generally, at that point, you might still own a majority of the common shape.
00:22:00.160 --> 00:22:03.920
Shares, but the bankruptcy court takes control of the entity itself.
00:22:04.720 --> 00:22:12.079
So in those situations, you might end up having had a controlling financial interest and losing your controlling financial interest and deconsolidating at that point.
00:22:12.319 --> 00:22:15.759
So this is generally the model for corporations, for partnerships.
00:22:15.839 --> 00:22:17.359
It's a little bit more complicated.
00:22:17.839 --> 00:22:26.799
We're not going to go into a huge amount of detail, but generally, if most partnerships are going to end up being variable interest entities, and Alexander's going to explain why I think on the next episode.
00:22:27.279 --> 00:22:33.279
But if you end up in the voting model with a partnership, the general partner is never going to end up consolidating just because of the way the model works.
00:22:33.359 --> 00:22:39.920
And a limited partner would only consolidate if they hold unilateral kick out rights that are substantive and they can they can actually exercise them.
00:22:40.319 --> 00:22:45.119
So that's how it works for partnerships under the voting model, although I expect that to be, you know, very rare circumstances.
00:22:45.359 --> 00:22:51.680
All right, so cliffhanger that people have to tune in next time to hear how to account for partnerships under the VIE model.
00:22:51.920 --> 00:22:52.240
Correct.
00:22:52.400 --> 00:22:52.720
All right.
00:22:52.880 --> 00:23:07.039
So with all that said, I think anyone who's dealt with VIEs is probably sort of chomping at the bit to talk about scope and scope exceptions, because pretty much anyone who's dealt with VIEs is hoping they will fall out of scope or into one of the scope exceptions.
00:23:07.200 --> 00:23:09.519
So maybe, Alexander, you can walk us through those.
00:23:09.920 --> 00:23:10.079
Sure.
00:23:10.160 --> 00:23:12.640
And I'm going to start by being the wet blanket here.
00:23:13.279 --> 00:23:17.839
Generally speaking, you're not going to get out of the VIE model based on a scope exception, right?
00:23:17.920 --> 00:23:20.240
But we're going to talk about them because stranger things have happened.
00:23:20.480 --> 00:23:23.519
Yes, in the power and utilities industry, this could happen sometimes.
00:23:23.759 --> 00:23:25.440
Yes, it definitely does happen.
00:23:25.519 --> 00:23:26.720
Uh not as often as people want.
00:23:26.880 --> 00:23:28.720
Maybe you're that's that's a fair point.
00:23:28.960 --> 00:23:32.319
And I needed to mention the power and utilities industry as Matt knows.
00:23:32.480 --> 00:23:34.799
I can't have a podcast without at least mentioning every time.
00:23:34.960 --> 00:23:35.920
Every time it's funny.
00:23:36.079 --> 00:23:36.400
Yes.
00:23:36.640 --> 00:23:40.799
Um, so so the the scope exceptions, there's probably two categories of it.
00:23:40.880 --> 00:23:42.559
I think Matt had kind of alluded to it.
00:23:42.640 --> 00:23:46.960
So the the first one is if you have a scope exception from ASE 810 overall.
00:23:47.039 --> 00:23:51.119
Um the other one, there's some specific scope exceptions from the VIE model as well.
00:23:51.279 --> 00:23:52.079
So you have to look at that.
00:23:52.160 --> 00:23:56.000
And if you meet one of those, then you you get your get out of jail free card that Matt mentioned.
00:23:56.160 --> 00:24:01.200
Um, but first and foremost, right, you know, we'll we'll go through the ASE 810 scope exceptions.
00:24:01.279 --> 00:24:04.799
And our starting point is actually legal entities, right?
00:24:04.960 --> 00:24:07.359
So I'm using my air quotes here as well, right?
00:24:07.519 --> 00:24:12.480
ASC 810 only applies to legal entities, and that's a defined term, right?
00:24:12.559 --> 00:24:16.640
So it's it's a little bit weird because it's an accountant's definition of a legal entity.
00:24:16.720 --> 00:24:20.799
So, you know, kind of gives you swirly eyes, and I think it breaks a couple of laws of physics there.
00:24:20.880 --> 00:24:26.880
But so what I when I'm talking about an ASC 810 legal entity, I'm gonna call it an accounting legal entity, right?
00:24:26.960 --> 00:24:33.440
But the that definition of an accounting legal entity is any legal structure used to conduct activities or to hold assets, right?
00:24:33.599 --> 00:24:36.799
It's a very broad definition and intentionally so, right?
00:24:36.960 --> 00:24:46.640
Um, but a good rule of thumb is it if it's a true legal entity, so something like a corporation, partnership, LLCs, trusts, they're gonna meet the definition of an accounting legal entity, right?
00:24:46.720 --> 00:24:48.559
And most of the time it's pretty straightforward.
00:24:48.720 --> 00:24:58.079
The only time we really see this come up is when you have um activities that are conducted through a contract where they don't set up an actual legal entity or a true legal entity.
00:24:58.160 --> 00:25:06.400
So something like a collaborative arrangement where Matt and I go into business, we don't want to pay the money to establish an LLC, so we just have a contract between us.
00:25:06.559 --> 00:25:10.640
We don't have a legal entity for either legal purposes or accounting purposes.
00:25:10.799 --> 00:25:14.720
So there's no entity in ASC 810 for me to evaluate or consolidate.
00:25:14.880 --> 00:25:16.960
Instead, I would just apply a different model.
00:25:17.279 --> 00:25:17.920
Which model?
00:25:18.079 --> 00:25:19.599
Or is that too complicated?
00:25:19.839 --> 00:25:21.359
Uh so something like that.
00:25:21.440 --> 00:25:28.640
We have ASC 808, which applies to collaborative arrangements, and that typically will give you a direction, but then that becomes a little bit of a rat's nest as well.
00:25:28.720 --> 00:25:29.119
That I'm not sure.
00:25:29.279 --> 00:25:33.920
Okay, so another episode, but I had to at least ask the question because you kind of left it hanging there.
00:25:34.240 --> 00:25:52.799
Yeah, I mean, and just to follow up, the only other I think complication with legal entities could be if you're dealing with um entities that are created in foreign jurisdictions where maybe either uh the reporting entity or the reporting entity is legal counsel like doesn't have a really a good grasp as to how those regulations work or what type of entity that would be the equivalent to in the US.
00:25:53.039 --> 00:25:55.359
And that can make that assessment a little bit more difficult.
00:25:55.680 --> 00:26:02.880
All right, that's helpful because you're saying that the obviously it's US gap, so it is written from a sort of US legal entity perspective.
00:26:03.279 --> 00:26:03.519
That's right.
00:26:03.599 --> 00:26:03.759
Yep.
00:26:04.000 --> 00:26:04.319
All right.
00:26:04.559 --> 00:26:13.599
So then if we kind of get through all of that, then we'd say, okay, to the point you made earlier, most entities or arrangements are going to meet that.
00:26:13.759 --> 00:26:18.160
So then we would be looking to the 810 scope exceptions or these VIE scope exceptions.
00:26:18.240 --> 00:26:18.880
So what do we find?
00:26:19.200 --> 00:26:21.839
So for the 810 scope exceptions, we're talking about the consolidation model.
00:26:22.480 --> 00:26:22.960
Oh, overall.
00:26:23.119 --> 00:26:23.359
Okay.
00:26:23.440 --> 00:26:24.160
So let's start there.
00:26:24.319 --> 00:26:24.559
Yeah.
00:26:24.799 --> 00:26:25.440
So yeah.
00:26:25.599 --> 00:26:34.799
So for 810 scope exceptions, again, this is the one where these are probably the better scope exceptions or the more exciting scope exceptions because you do get to walk away from the consolidation model in general.
00:26:34.960 --> 00:26:37.359
You don't have to then go to the voting interest entity.
00:26:37.519 --> 00:26:44.799
Um, but these are very specific um scope exceptions, and they really only focus on situations where there's already other gap that applies.
00:26:44.880 --> 00:26:47.519
So it wouldn't make any sense to apply AAC A10.
00:26:47.680 --> 00:26:52.720
So those specific scope exceptions include employer-sponsored employee benefit plans.
00:26:52.799 --> 00:27:01.839
Um, those are covered under AAC 712 or 715 investment companies that are in the scope of ASC 946, so they have to meet the definition of an investment company.
00:27:02.000 --> 00:27:06.480
And generally, it's only their investments in the in the investee entities that are scoped out.
00:27:06.640 --> 00:27:14.000
So if you have situations like fund-to-funds or uh master feeder structures, you have to be a lot more careful because consolidation rules might might apply.
00:27:14.160 --> 00:27:15.680
Uh, and then government organizations.
00:27:15.759 --> 00:27:28.240
So if you're a reporting entity and you have an interest or an affiliation with a government entity or like a government financing entity, those are scoped out unless they're being used to circumvent the consolidation rules.
00:27:28.319 --> 00:27:35.920
So if you're doing some kind of highly structured transaction with a government financing entity in order to avoid consolidation, you're right back in.
00:27:36.079 --> 00:27:37.920
Um, so those are the specific ones.
00:27:38.000 --> 00:27:40.880
I think lastly, like registered money market funds also exempt.
00:27:40.960 --> 00:27:42.480
Um, so those are the specific ones.
00:27:42.799 --> 00:27:43.119
All right.
00:27:43.200 --> 00:27:50.400
So then if you get completely out of consolidation, then to your point, you don't apply either model, VOE or VIE.
00:27:50.640 --> 00:27:51.039
That's right.
00:27:51.200 --> 00:27:51.599
All right.
00:27:51.839 --> 00:27:54.799
So then let's assume you don't meet any of those.
00:27:54.880 --> 00:27:58.319
So then let's jump into the actual scope exceptions to the VIE.
00:27:58.400 --> 00:28:00.640
That will take you straight to the VOE.
00:28:00.720 --> 00:28:02.000
So Alexander, I'll go back to you.
00:28:02.319 --> 00:28:02.799
Yeah, sure.
00:28:02.960 --> 00:28:09.519
So um maybe I'll start again, similar to what Matt said, like there's not a lot of specific VIE scope exceptions either, right?
00:28:09.599 --> 00:28:10.720
So don't get too excited.
00:28:10.960 --> 00:28:15.119
But it it should make intuitive sense now that you have the history behind the standard, right?
00:28:15.200 --> 00:28:21.599
The whole reason for the VIE model was basically a net to try to catch these entities we're using a voting model won't work.
00:28:21.759 --> 00:28:25.599
So it really wouldn't make sense to then have a bunch of scope outs from the VIE guidance, right?
00:28:25.680 --> 00:28:26.799
But there are a couple, right?
00:28:26.960 --> 00:28:32.880
So there's industry-specific ones like not-for-profit entities under ASC 958 that I mentioned before.
00:28:32.960 --> 00:28:37.680
Um, then there's one for separate accounts of life insurance entities under ASC 944.
00:28:38.240 --> 00:28:44.720
And the one that I do want to talk about, because we do get questions on it, is the so-called business scope exception.
00:28:44.880 --> 00:28:45.200
Right.
00:28:45.279 --> 00:28:52.480
And so this exception was really included as a practical expedient for when you have an interest in a legal entity that meets the definition of a business.
00:28:52.640 --> 00:28:52.799
Right.
00:28:52.880 --> 00:28:57.519
And so, of course, people hear that and all of a sudden they're they're turning the volume up right now because they're getting pretty excited.
00:28:57.680 --> 00:28:59.039
Like, tell me more about this.
00:28:59.279 --> 00:29:01.440
The response is don't get too excited yet.
00:29:01.599 --> 00:29:01.839
Right.
00:29:01.920 --> 00:29:06.400
There's there's requirements that need to be met on top of just meeting the definition of a business.
00:29:06.559 --> 00:29:10.000
And most of the time when people are evaluating consolidation, they won't meet those.
00:29:10.079 --> 00:29:10.240
Right.
00:29:10.400 --> 00:29:11.200
So how does it work?
00:29:11.279 --> 00:29:14.079
It basically says you can apply the business scope exception.
00:29:14.240 --> 00:29:19.680
If the entity meets the definition of a business under ASC 805, I heard there's a really good podcast on that.
00:29:19.759 --> 00:29:21.519
If people need a refresher, right?
00:29:21.759 --> 00:29:24.240
And you don't meet several other conditions, right?
00:29:24.319 --> 00:29:26.559
If so, then you get to apply the scope exception.
00:29:26.640 --> 00:29:34.960
But people tend to forget that and part and they think, oh, if I have, if the entity meets a definition of a business, then I get to apply the business scope exception, and it's not that straightforward.
00:29:35.200 --> 00:29:43.759
So I have to admit, I'd like to jump in and say, well, I don't think it's quite as bad as you're making it out, but why don't you go through the ends and then I will evaluate if I would like to make that comment?
00:29:44.000 --> 00:29:44.400
Absolutely.
00:29:44.480 --> 00:29:49.279
And to be completely fair, this is like selection bias, because typically things that come to me are matte, right?
00:29:49.920 --> 00:29:50.400
Yeah, there are.
00:30:08.559 --> 00:30:09.119
Yeah, no, absolutely.
00:30:09.200 --> 00:30:15.680
And just to your point, right, the whole purpose of putting that scope exception there is for like the the no-duh answers that come up, right?
00:30:15.759 --> 00:30:23.279
If I buy one share in a Fortune 500 company and you know it's an existing operating entity, I'm probably not gonna why would I have to go through the VID model?
00:30:23.599 --> 00:30:32.319
Well, even if I buy the entire Fortune 500 company, likely I'm going to meet this exception, and I would think, but why don't you run through what these ends are?
00:30:32.720 --> 00:30:34.720
So the ands, there's four of them, right?
00:30:34.799 --> 00:31:00.079
And and they can get complicated and spiral out of control, but really in a nutshell, the guidance basically says if you or any of your related parties were either involved in designing or redesigning the entity or capitalizing the entity, or substantially all of the activities involve you, or they involve um highly structured arrangements like leasing arrangements or securitizations, then you can't apply this business scope exception, even if it is a business.
00:31:00.559 --> 00:31:02.640
This should make intuitive sense again, right?
00:31:02.720 --> 00:31:10.079
The the guidance is basically presuming look, if you had a hand in setting up the entity, right, or if it's highly structured, then you should be applying the VIE framework.
00:31:10.160 --> 00:31:11.200
That's what it was meant to do.
00:31:11.359 --> 00:31:11.599
Right.
00:31:11.759 --> 00:31:14.559
So, all in all, again, selection bias.
00:31:15.279 --> 00:31:20.000
I don't see this applied as often as sometimes people think it is when it comes across our desk.
00:31:20.319 --> 00:31:20.559
Right.
00:31:20.640 --> 00:31:28.960
But I think from the point of view, I mean, we talked about ASC 005 business combinations, like there are a lot of business combinations that involve a business.
00:31:29.119 --> 00:31:38.319
And so in which case, maybe you would be able to get out because it's a long, um, long-running, well-established business that you're involved with.
00:31:38.559 --> 00:31:45.200
And and whether you get out under the business scope exception or you actually quickly evaluate the five characteristics and conclude it's not a VIE, you end up in the same place.
00:31:45.440 --> 00:31:46.160
Oh, it doesn't really matter.
00:31:46.400 --> 00:31:47.680
That's a fair, really good point.
00:31:48.079 --> 00:31:48.240
Right.
00:31:48.319 --> 00:31:54.880
So, and and we do also often have to encourage or you know, kind of walk our clients and our teams through that, right?
00:31:55.039 --> 00:32:00.480
Holding their hand and saying, listen, just because you're doing the five characteristics in the evaluation, it's not always that hard.
00:32:00.799 --> 00:32:02.640
So you might not get the business scope exception, but guess what?
00:32:02.720 --> 00:32:05.680
Your VIE analysis is going to be super straightforward in certain cases.
00:32:06.000 --> 00:32:07.680
Oh, so that's actually really a fair point.
00:32:07.759 --> 00:32:09.680
That might be easier to just skip to that.
00:32:09.839 --> 00:32:12.400
So, okay, definitely a fair point to talk about.
00:32:12.559 --> 00:32:21.039
And then I definitely completely agree with you that as soon as someone says there's a legal entity, they think, oh, business exception, I have a legal entity, it must be a business.
00:32:21.200 --> 00:32:24.720
And that's clearly not the case, hence why you guys are emphasizing that.
00:32:24.960 --> 00:32:36.160
But I know you also mentioned, and I don't want to skip over this, going back to you, Matt, I think that there's a VI, there's an additional scope exception for the VIE model that private companies could take advantage of.
00:32:36.319 --> 00:32:38.799
And so what can you just highlight that as well?
00:32:39.039 --> 00:32:39.440
Yeah, sure.
00:32:39.519 --> 00:32:42.160
And this was one of those tweaks that happened subsequent to 2009.
00:32:42.240 --> 00:32:50.640
So it was one of the good changes, particularly if you're a private company, um, that introduced a little bit of ease to the consolidation model in the effort of simplification, right?
00:32:50.799 --> 00:32:59.200
So private companies are are not required to apply the VIE guidance for legal entities that are under common control as long as they meet certain requirements, right?
00:32:59.279 --> 00:33:04.480
So the the three requirements that you need to meet are number one, you have to have a common parent with the entity you're looking at.
00:33:04.559 --> 00:33:05.759
So that's common control.
00:33:06.079 --> 00:33:15.039
The way the guidance works in that area is it needs to be the reporting entity and the entity that we're we're evaluating or not evaluating for consolidation of the VIE model.
00:33:15.279 --> 00:33:19.839
They need to have a common parent, but only in in in terms of majority voting interest.
00:33:20.000 --> 00:33:27.599
And the reason I'm pointing that out is because it can get very confusing if you're saying, well, how do I determine if it's under common control if I have to use a VIE model to do it?
00:33:27.759 --> 00:33:31.119
And that gets very circular, and then you're stuck in like an inception model.
00:33:31.359 --> 00:33:32.720
Um and we don't want to be there, right?
00:33:32.799 --> 00:33:37.440
So they were they were very clear that said your common control definition is majority voting interest.
00:33:37.680 --> 00:33:45.680
Number two, um, the reporting entity, the the legal entity that you're evaluating for potential consolidation and the parent all have to be private companies.
00:33:45.759 --> 00:33:48.240
So none of them can be public business entities.
00:33:48.480 --> 00:33:57.200
Um number three is that the reporting entity that you're talking about can't itself own a majority of the voting interest of the entity that we're trying to get the scope exception for.
00:33:57.680 --> 00:34:04.000
It would seem like you should consolidate so and you would anyway, because even if you get out onto the private company scope exception, you got to go to the voting model.
00:34:04.240 --> 00:34:06.319
So it's only a scope exception for the VIE model.
00:34:06.480 --> 00:34:09.119
So either way, you'd you'd end up consolidating that.
00:34:09.360 --> 00:34:11.760
Um, this ends up being an accounting policy choice.
00:34:11.920 --> 00:34:16.880
So you don't get to cherry pick kind of which legal entities you want to apply the private company scope exception to.
00:34:16.960 --> 00:34:20.880
Uh, if you meet the criteria and you've decided to do it for one, you have to do it for all.
00:34:21.039 --> 00:34:24.800
Um, then the only other thing I'll mention is there are specific disclosures.
00:34:24.880 --> 00:34:32.320
So it's a it's a definitely a simpler way to um do your consolidation analysis if you're a private company, but it does come with a little bit more disclosure.
00:34:32.400 --> 00:34:34.000
So all right, that's definitely helpful.
00:34:34.079 --> 00:34:39.599
And so I'm just reflecting and picturing in my mind the list of scope exceptions in 810.
00:34:39.760 --> 00:34:48.800
I feel like it's longer than what we've talked about here, but is that the case that just from your experience you don't see those scope exceptions, other scope exceptions applied very often?
00:34:49.119 --> 00:34:58.400
Yeah, there might be two or three more, some of which have dated out already, um, because some of which were based on the effective dates of the of the guidance, one of which we used to call the information out.
00:34:58.559 --> 00:35:05.360
So if you couldn't get the information, um, we don't really I mean there could still be an entity that was subject to that exception.
00:35:05.599 --> 00:35:06.719
I definitely saw a lot of these.
00:35:09.679 --> 00:35:10.559
Sure, sure, sure.
00:35:10.719 --> 00:35:15.519
Um, so we yeah, I mean, I'd say that we probably don't get any questions.
00:35:15.599 --> 00:35:18.400
I want to say we get a couple, but I don't even think we do in some of those at all.
00:35:18.719 --> 00:35:25.599
So I mean, in theory, if someone was really focused on trying to get out, they could look at those other exceptions, but to your point, but I'm pretty on that.
00:35:25.840 --> 00:35:29.280
It's always a good reminder to people that we're doing a podcast at a high level, right?
00:35:29.440 --> 00:35:29.599
Yes.
00:35:29.840 --> 00:35:32.159
We have tons of guidance on this in our guide, right?
00:35:32.239 --> 00:35:38.000
In the consolidation guide or in the codification itself, um, where you can go look at the actual list of scope exceptions.
00:35:38.159 --> 00:35:40.079
Um, but it makes for boring podcasts.
00:35:40.320 --> 00:35:48.480
Well, also, I was just gonna say, hopefully, no matter how great a guest you guys are, hopefully no one is doing their actual accounting based on just listening to this podcast.
00:35:48.639 --> 00:35:49.760
It's just a teaser.
00:35:50.000 --> 00:35:51.840
Okay, Matt's making a faces at me.
00:35:52.239 --> 00:35:53.280
He's hoping that you are.
00:35:53.360 --> 00:35:54.400
No, I'm just kidding.
00:35:54.559 --> 00:35:56.400
So definitely read the guide as well.
00:35:56.639 --> 00:36:00.800
But I think so, maybe to just bring this all back together and get a little more serious.
00:36:01.039 --> 00:36:06.480
So, long story short, we have two models, VIE and VOE.
00:36:06.639 --> 00:36:14.800
You start with the VIE model, and the first step in that is to see if you qualify, if you're in scope or if you qualify for a scope exception.
00:36:14.880 --> 00:36:15.119
Fair?
00:36:15.360 --> 00:36:15.679
Correct.
00:36:16.000 --> 00:36:16.320
All right.
00:36:16.480 --> 00:36:24.559
So then once you've done that, then you go on to step two, which if I look quickly at my notes, is to determine whether or not the entity is a VIE.
00:36:24.719 --> 00:36:25.039
That's right.
00:36:25.280 --> 00:36:27.920
All right, so perfect place to stop for our next episode.
00:36:28.239 --> 00:36:28.639
I think so.
00:36:28.719 --> 00:36:28.960
Yes.
00:36:29.119 --> 00:36:30.719
All right, well, I always have one more question.
00:36:30.960 --> 00:36:34.000
So you can mentally prepare because I'll probably ask a similar one again.
00:36:34.159 --> 00:36:41.119
But if dealing with scope and scope exceptions, I feel like you've given probably your best advice in terms of be skeptical.
00:36:41.280 --> 00:36:49.519
But what other advice do you give to companies when they're sort of first approaching this guidance and in particular if they haven't dealt with the VIE model before?
00:36:49.679 --> 00:36:50.800
So, Matt, you first.
00:36:51.119 --> 00:36:57.119
Yeah, I mean, I I think the the part where Alexander was talking about that it only applies to legal entities, comes up more than you would think.
00:36:57.199 --> 00:37:05.039
Um, because I think folks are always thinking about relationships with partners or with large public companies, and like, do I have VIE considerations?
00:37:05.119 --> 00:37:06.480
And the answer is usually not, right?
00:37:06.719 --> 00:37:20.880
Usually, usually the answer is if you're dealing with a smaller entity, if you're dealing with a highly structured entity, if you're dealing with uh an investee of some kind, either through loans or through other financial interests, that's generally kind of the kind of legal entity we're talking about.
00:37:21.039 --> 00:37:34.320
But if you have a partnership like through contracts with a Fortune 500 company, generally not invoking the VIU model that you're not going to consolidate, you know, a company ABC that's listed on the on the I mean, it could happen, but generally that's not what we're talking about.
00:37:34.559 --> 00:37:37.679
Yeah, even maybe companies slightly smaller than the Fortune 500.
00:37:37.840 --> 00:37:40.320
So all right, and Alexander, how about from your point of view?
00:37:40.639 --> 00:37:41.760
Yeah, probably building on that.
00:37:41.840 --> 00:37:44.320
I mean, I think it's it's two extremes, right?
00:37:44.400 --> 00:37:50.239
Some people either come over prepared, maybe to Matt's point, where they're trying to boil the ocean and overthinking it, right?
00:37:50.320 --> 00:37:58.719
And it's really like, hey, step back if you understand the concepts of the model, that that should give you enough direction to know what the answer probably should be, right, within scope or not.
00:37:58.960 --> 00:38:03.599
And then there's the people that I want to give the caveat to where they underthink it, right?
00:38:03.679 --> 00:38:14.000
Where they just do a cursory look of the five bullets or you know, the things that we're talking about, but don't actually kind of read, oh, this exception only applies if X, or you know, you can only apply this if Y.
00:38:14.320 --> 00:38:19.360
And so that's where it's a trying to find that Goldilocks, the middle of the road to figure out scoping.
00:38:19.519 --> 00:38:19.599
Yeah.
00:38:20.000 --> 00:38:20.639
Can I do one more?
00:38:20.800 --> 00:38:21.039
Of course.
00:38:21.199 --> 00:38:34.639
I just want to remind the private companies that you have this scope exception because we get a lot of calls from private company teams or clients that are have already done the entire analysis and forgot that they can, you know, adopt an accounting policy where they didn't really have to do all that work.
00:38:34.800 --> 00:38:39.920
It's way simpler again to just make the disclosures if that, if that uh election is available to you.
00:38:40.159 --> 00:38:50.880
All right, definitely a great reminder and maybe something we should even put in the beginning or our introduction so people or you know, maybe they just want to learn about the whole history of VIE accounting, even if it's not applicable to them.
00:38:51.039 --> 00:38:53.679
So, all right, uh, maybe just one last question.
00:38:53.840 --> 00:38:57.039
If people do want to read more, uh, where should they go look?
00:38:57.280 --> 00:38:59.119
We have the best consolidation guide in the world.
00:38:59.280 --> 00:39:00.719
All right, very good.
00:39:00.880 --> 00:39:03.840
And with that, just want to thank you guys for joining me today.
00:39:03.920 --> 00:39:05.519
And it's always a pleasure to have you.
00:39:05.760 --> 00:39:06.079
Thanks.
00:39:06.239 --> 00:39:07.039
Thank you.
00:39:08.159 --> 00:39:10.079
That's our show for today.
00:39:10.320 --> 00:39:13.199
Tune in next week for more fresh episodes.
00:39:13.440 --> 00:39:15.920
So that you never miss any of our audio content.
00:39:16.079 --> 00:39:20.559
Follow the PWC Accounting Podcast wherever you listen to your podcasts.
00:39:20.719 --> 00:39:29.760
And to stay up to date on all our latest accounting and reporting news, sign up for our newsletter at viewpoint.pwc.com.
00:39:30.320 --> 00:39:34.320
From Thought Leadership at PWC, I'm Heather Horn.
00:39:34.639 --> 00:39:36.159
Thanks for tuning in.
00:39:41.519 --> 00:39:45.599
This podcast is brought to you by PWC, All Rights Reserved.
00:39:45.840 --> 00:39:47.599
PwC refers to the U.S.
00:39:47.760 --> 00:39:53.840
member firm or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates, and they sometimes refer to the PWC network.
00:39:54.079 --> 00:39:56.400
Each member firm is a separate legal entity.
00:39:56.559 --> 00:40:02.880
Please see www.pwc.com slash structure for further details.
00:40:03.119 --> 00:40:12.880
This podcast is for general information purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors, including accountants and lawyers.