WEBVTT
00:00:00.479 -->
00:00:04.719Thought leadership from PWC's National Office.
00:00:06.879 -->
00:00:10.800Hello, and welcome back to PWC's Accounting Podcast.
00:00:10.960 -->
00:00:12.320I'm Heather Horn.
00:00:12.800 -->
00:00:25.760Today we're continuing our back to basic series on consolidation accounting with Matt Sabatini, a deputy chief accountant in PWC's national office and Alexander Martin, a partner in PWC's Deals Practice.
00:00:26.000 -->
00:00:31.839In the first episode, we introduced the consolidation framework and the two consolidation models under US Gap.
00:00:32.320 -->
00:00:39.600Then in our second episode, we took a closer look at how to determine whether an entity is a variable interest entity or VIE.
00:00:40.000 -->
00:00:42.320Now we're ready for the next question.
00:00:42.560 -->
00:00:46.960If you have a VIE, who, if anyone, actually consolidates it?
00:00:47.119 -->
00:00:50.560That means you need to identify the primary beneficiary.
00:00:53.759 -->
00:01:06.799In today's episode, Matt and Alexander walk through the analysis, including some of the judgments that can come with assessing the power, how the economics criterion works, and a few additional considerations that can affect the conclusion.
00:01:07.280 -->
00:01:14.560They also discuss why this isn't necessarily a one-and-done assessment and when companies may need to revisit their conclusions.
00:01:14.959 -->
00:01:20.560And as I said at the introduction to the first episode, these are some of my favorite episodes we recorded.
00:01:20.640 -->
00:01:22.239So I'm so glad you're with us today.
00:01:22.719 -->
00:01:26.400With that, let's listen to my conversation with Matt and Alexander.
00:01:27.439 -->
00:01:33.760Matt and Alexander, welcome back for part three of our extremely exciting podcast series about consolidations.
00:01:33.920 -->
00:01:40.959And I know people often may think exciting and consolidations don't go together, but clearly the two of you approved that those two words do.
00:01:41.200 -->
00:01:45.680So for this final episode, we ended with a cliffhanger last time.
00:01:45.840 -->
00:01:51.680We got all the way through the model, except we had to not figure out who was going to consolidate the VIE.
00:01:51.760 -->
00:01:54.640So that's what we're going to talk about today, correct, Alexander?
00:01:54.879 -->
00:01:55.920Yeah, exactly.
00:01:56.079 -->
00:01:59.040And you know, we we we got here by going through a couple of steps.
00:01:59.120 -->
00:02:07.519We first made sure we were in the scope, then we at length went through each of the five characteristics to make sure that we met one of them to make sure we were a VIE.
00:02:07.680 -->
00:02:10.240So now we're at kind of what we dubbed step three.
00:02:10.479 -->
00:02:15.919And when you really think about it and step back, uh we're actually now just starting the VIE model, right?
00:02:16.000 -->
00:02:19.039Everything we've done up until now was just scoping and making sure.
00:02:19.120 -->
00:02:21.759Otherwise, you know, we would have been in the voting model.
00:02:22.080 -->
00:02:28.960But there's one point that I wanted to make sure that was clear because it used to confuse me when I first started uh consolidation as a WELAD.
00:02:29.360 -->
00:02:31.360We have two models under GAAPs.
00:02:31.520 -->
00:02:35.759We have the voting model and the VIE model, but you only apply one, right?
00:02:35.840 -->
00:02:46.560So once you've determined that you're in the VIE model, then you go through and if you get to a non-consolidation answer under the VIE model, you don't then have to go circle back and check under the voting model.
00:02:46.719 -->
00:02:50.159Um so there's no concept of double jeopardy in US GAAP, thankfully.
00:02:50.400 -->
00:02:51.199All right, that's helpful.
00:02:51.280 -->
00:02:56.800And I do think I got somewhat distracted there because you mentioned step three of the VIE model.
00:02:56.879 -->
00:02:59.199And in fact, it's actually step like 23.
00:02:59.520 -->
00:03:04.240I think if we count all the real steps, but we can go with step three if it makes you guys feel better.
00:03:04.479 -->
00:03:13.680So, all right, with that then, I think it's an important point that you mentioned about not going back, but let's assume you are a VIE.
00:03:13.840 -->
00:03:19.280So now let's talk about what criteria you need to think about in order to consolidate the entity.
00:03:19.599 -->
00:03:19.840Yep.
00:03:19.919 -->
00:03:26.719So the person that consolidates or the entity that consolidates a VIE is called the primary beneficiary or the PB, as we say for short.
00:03:26.879 -->
00:03:30.800So in order to be the PB, you have two criteria that you have to meet.
00:03:31.360 -->
00:03:34.240First one is what's referred to as the power criterion.
00:03:34.319 -->
00:03:37.680So you have to have the power to direct the VIE's most significant activities.
00:03:37.840 -->
00:03:39.439Remember, we said that would come back later.
00:03:39.520 -->
00:03:40.560This is where it comes in.
00:03:40.800 -->
00:03:43.840The second one is referred to as the economics criterion.
00:03:44.000 -->
00:03:50.319So that you have to be exposed to more than an insignificant amount of the entity's economics, either it's upside or it's downside.
00:03:50.479 -->
00:03:56.159If you have both of those characteristics, power and economics, you're the primary beneficiary, so you get to consolidate.
00:03:56.319 -->
00:04:02.159So we're going to go through each of those criteria and break it down, but a couple more things to clarify before we get into it.
00:04:02.400 -->
00:04:08.960First and foremost, and this is probably more for some of the older school folks, the the analysis nowadays is more qualitative.
00:04:09.199 -->
00:04:15.919Some people and Matt mentioned it, I think, in the last episode, that analysis used to be a complex quantitative analysis.
00:04:16.079 -->
00:04:17.279We don't do that anymore.
00:04:17.600 -->
00:04:25.519Second one, and most important, I think, is Highlander rules apply to the PB analysis, meaning there can be only one primary beneficiary.
00:04:25.680 -->
00:04:27.519This one's explicit in the guidance.
00:04:27.920 -->
00:04:29.439You can't have more than one PB.
00:04:29.680 -->
00:04:37.519Um, but it actually leads me to my last point here, which is that while there can't be more than one PB, that doesn't mean there has to be one, right?
00:04:37.600 -->
00:04:41.279So you can have instances where there's no PB and nobody would consolidate.
00:04:41.519 -->
00:04:45.360That said, in my experience, there typically is one, but it does happen.
00:04:45.439 -->
00:04:48.959And when that happens, it does get met with a little bit of additional scrutiny.
00:04:49.040 -->
00:04:52.560So if you're starting to get to an answer like that, you probably want to double check your math.
00:04:52.959 -->
00:05:02.240So I of course have to ask a question here, because you said there can only be one, but obviously there's multiple independent parties involved in this analysis.
00:05:02.480 -->
00:05:12.160And so I think I'm well, I know my own answer, but do you see instances where more than one party concludes they're the primary beneficiary?
00:05:12.560 -->
00:05:13.839Conceptually, no, right?
00:05:13.920 -->
00:05:18.240It's explicit in the guidance that you can't have more than one primary beneficiary.
00:05:18.399 -->
00:05:22.319But when you're doing the analysis, you're doing it from your perspective, technically.
00:05:22.480 -->
00:05:28.480So you're making your own judgments based on your understanding of the entity purpose, design, power, most significant decisions.
00:05:28.720 -->
00:05:32.240Another investor in that same entity may come to a different conclusion.
00:05:32.560 -->
00:05:36.240And while generally speaking, you're hoping you're going to get to a similar answer.
00:05:36.319 -->
00:05:37.279That doesn't mean you have to.
00:05:37.360 -->
00:05:40.800So you could have two entities coming to a different view and then both consolidating.
00:05:41.120 -->
00:05:41.279All right.
00:05:41.360 -->
00:05:51.759So that's probably another place, just like the case where no one concludes that the primary beneficiary, if there's more than one, also may want to check your math, but or not math, but qualitative analysis.
00:05:52.240 -->
00:05:52.639Check your memo.
00:05:53.279 -->
00:05:54.639Check your memo in this case.
00:05:54.800 -->
00:05:54.959All right.
00:05:55.040 -->
00:05:56.959So that's extremely helpful and I think important.
00:05:57.120 -->
00:06:03.839So now let's get into what I think is one of the most interesting parts of talking about VIEs, and that's looking at power and economics.
00:06:03.920 -->
00:06:06.800So obviously, sort of the underlying of all these entities.
00:06:07.040 -->
00:06:12.560And Matt, maybe starting with the power criterion, I know this can get quite involved.
00:06:12.959 -->
00:06:13.360It can.
00:06:13.439 -->
00:06:19.519But before I get started, I just can't believe you would let Alexander get away with a Highlander reference without talking more about it.
00:06:19.680 -->
00:06:22.959I have to admit, I just did not want to go there.
00:06:23.279 -->
00:06:23.519Yeah.
00:06:23.600 -->
00:06:28.160So it's an obscure 1980s movie with Sean Connery, which didn't really age that well.
00:06:28.240 -->
00:06:29.519The soundtrack is awesome though.
00:06:29.680 -->
00:06:30.319So let's go.
00:06:30.560 -->
00:06:30.879All right.
00:06:31.040 -->
00:06:31.360Power.
00:06:31.680 -->
00:06:31.920Right.
00:06:32.079 -->
00:06:35.519So I think we're going to spend most of our time in the PB test talking about power.
00:06:35.680 -->
00:06:39.360That's where we spend most of our time and where we get the most questions.
00:06:39.680 -->
00:06:42.879Typically, the economics criterion that's met by several parties, right?
00:06:42.959 -->
00:06:45.360Lots of people can have an economic interest in a single entity.
00:06:45.439 -->
00:06:49.120But um generally, like Alexander said, only one party will have power.
00:06:49.360 -->
00:06:51.439So it is an area of significant judgment.
00:06:51.600 -->
00:06:54.639If it wasn't, I don't think we would be doing a podcast on it.
00:06:54.800 -->
00:06:58.879Um but what we've tried to do is we've tried to break the analysis down into two steps.
00:06:58.959 -->
00:07:00.240You know how we like to break things down into two steps.
00:07:00.480 -->
00:07:02.480So now we're up to like step 30, but okay.
00:07:02.800 -->
00:07:03.759But step one of this part.
00:07:04.160 -->
00:07:04.959Okay, fair, fair.
00:07:05.279 -->
00:07:09.519The first is we try to identify what the VIE's most significant activities are.
00:07:09.680 -->
00:07:16.560Then number two, we we look at those activities and we try to decide or assess how decisions around those activities are made and who makes them.
00:07:16.720 -->
00:07:17.920So those are the the two steps.
00:07:18.000 -->
00:07:22.959And if you break it up like that, it maybe maybe helps simplify or get your head around what can be a very judgmental area.
00:07:23.279 -->
00:07:26.240So step number one, identifying the most significant activities.
00:07:26.480 -->
00:07:33.279When we think about this, we're trying to think about what are the activities that most significantly affect the economic performance of a VIE.
00:07:33.519 -->
00:07:43.839So, you know, what are the what are the decisions or the activities that most meaningfully impact cash flows, um, key operating metrics, business strategy, that kind of thing.
00:07:44.000 -->
00:07:49.439So it's basically things that would have the most impact over the fair value or the future cash flows of an entity.
00:07:49.600 -->
00:07:58.160So when we're thinking about decisions that are more administrative or back office, those probably wouldn't be the most important uh activities of a VIE.
00:07:58.399 -->
00:08:08.079Contrast that with entering into new lines of business, uh selecting management teams, setting compensation, negotiating larger transactions like acquisitions or divestitures.
00:08:08.240 -->
00:08:10.480Those generally are considered significant.
00:08:10.959 -->
00:08:18.959So, Matt, I think it's always helpful if as we're thinking through this to actually give some examples of what this means in practice.
00:08:19.120 -->
00:08:24.480So I'm guessing from all your vast experience, you could throw a few off the top of your head.
00:08:24.800 -->
00:08:25.279Uh yeah.
00:08:25.439 -->
00:08:32.879So yeah, I mean, again, it is it is pretty industry specific because you really are trying to use judgment based on the the entity itself, right?
00:08:33.039 -->
00:08:37.519So your different analyses aren't necessarily going to be able to rely on other ones if they're in different industries.
00:08:37.679 -->
00:08:39.919So good example would be asset management, right?
00:08:40.000 -->
00:08:58.559So when we're thinking about what are the most important decisions that drive the success of an asset management company or a fund, generally I would think about establishing the investment strategy for the fund, um, deciding which investments to acquire for how much, uh, and then when to sell those investments and for how much, right?
00:08:58.720 -->
00:09:03.279So those are some of the activities that really drive whether or not a fund is going to be successful or an asset manager.
00:09:03.440 -->
00:09:06.639Um compare that to like a real estate lessor entity.
00:09:06.799 -->
00:09:10.960Uh what I would think about there is all right, who are who are the tenants going to be?
00:09:11.039 -->
00:09:17.200So selecting tenants, making sure they're credit worthy, making sure that we have the right terms, right, uh, for the lease of those tenants.
00:09:17.279 -->
00:09:22.000So the lease rates and the renewal options and everything that goes along with with lease terms.
00:09:22.080 -->
00:09:26.000Um, and then maybe deciding what to do with the property at the end of the lease, so the residual value.
00:09:26.080 -->
00:09:31.840Um, those are probably what's gonna drive whether or not a less orientity is successful in terms of its cash flows and its fair value.
00:09:32.000 -->
00:09:35.039Um so you can see how they're very different in different different industries.
00:09:35.360 -->
00:09:36.559Yes, how about power plants?
00:09:36.720 -->
00:09:38.720I thought I was sure you were gonna talk about that.
00:09:39.360 -->
00:09:39.679Yes.
00:09:40.399 -->
00:09:41.919We don't need to talk about them today.
00:09:42.000 -->
00:09:42.399It's okay.
00:09:42.639 -->
00:09:43.679Okay, I was gonna ask you.
00:09:44.000 -->
00:09:44.799Oh, I can tell you.
00:09:44.960 -->
00:09:54.080So for a power plant, definitely the things that you would think about is who's dispatching the power, who's deciding you know, when to operate the plant, when they're doing major maintenance.
00:09:54.240 -->
00:09:58.480Um and in fact, if you would like to know more about power plants, you can look in the power utilities guide for that.
00:09:58.559 -->
00:10:04.320So Yeah, we also we also include in the consolidation guide itself uh a list of important activities by by area.
00:10:04.559 -->
00:10:25.039Yeah, and actually I do think that's an important point in seriousness that if a company is trying to evaluate one of these VIEs, particularly if you're relatively new to it, but even if you've done it before, going and looking at some of those types of lists really does help your brain start to think about how, what types of decisions you know you should be focused on.
00:10:25.120 -->
00:10:31.039So it is very helpful to look at those lists, even if it may not be exactly what you're looking for for your specific entity.
00:10:31.440 -->
00:10:31.759Agreed.
00:10:31.919 -->
00:10:32.240Agreed.
00:10:32.480 -->
00:10:32.720All right.
00:10:32.799 -->
00:10:37.039So now we've identified those activities, hopefully without too much difficulty, what next?
00:10:37.279 -->
00:10:37.440Right.
00:10:37.519 -->
00:10:43.279So now we're into like step two of this, which is determining how those decisions around those activities are made, right?
00:10:43.360 -->
00:10:46.159What's the what's the form in which those decisions get made?
00:10:46.240 -->
00:10:47.919How does power manifest itself?
00:10:48.240 -->
00:10:49.919So maybe number one, right?
00:10:50.000 -->
00:10:51.679Where where does that power actually reside?
00:10:51.919 -->
00:10:53.679So a lot of times it could be straightforward.
00:10:53.759 -->
00:11:00.000Even in a VIE, the power could reside within the governing documents, in which case, you know, shareholders and boards make decisions.
00:11:00.240 -->
00:11:01.360That does happen, right?
00:11:01.519 -->
00:11:02.799Those are the easy ones, right?
00:11:02.879 -->
00:11:05.759Because, well, easier, I'll say never quite easy.
00:11:06.080 -->
00:11:09.600So um oftentimes with VIEs, though, power might reside elsewhere, right?
00:11:09.679 -->
00:11:14.000They might reside in a contractual arrangement, um, either explicitly or implicitly.
00:11:14.080 -->
00:11:17.279So you got to look more broadly around where does that power sit.
00:11:17.440 -->
00:11:22.639And once you know where the power sits, you look at how decisions are made within that power construct, right?
00:11:22.799 -->
00:11:26.080So again, a lot of times on a board, you're looking at, well, is it simple majority?
00:11:26.240 -->
00:11:27.039Is it super majority?
00:11:27.200 -->
00:11:31.759Is it unanimous vote to understand does one party control or is it is it really split?
00:11:31.919 -->
00:11:37.840Um, but again, if it's outside of a board context or equity context, how decisions are made could be way more complicated, right?
00:11:37.919 -->
00:11:42.799Because you could have multiple decision makers who are directing different activities over the same entity.
00:11:43.039 -->
00:12:05.279Well, and I think, Matt, this is where it's really important to kind of loop all the way back to the beginning to when Alexander talked about the history of the VIE model and how this grew up, and that's why it's so important to look more holistically at all the agreements and arrangements governing the decision making for particular entities because of some of the abuse and otherwise that we saw when this before this model got set up.
00:12:05.440 -->
00:12:06.240Yeah, 100%, right?
00:12:06.320 -->
00:12:09.200Because if we were going to just look at the equity vote and the board, why would we need a VIP?
00:12:09.360 -->
00:12:09.519Exactly.
00:12:10.000 -->
00:12:10.879We would just be in the voting model.
00:12:11.120 -->
00:12:11.279Exactly.
00:12:11.759 -->
00:12:12.559That makes a lot of sense.
00:12:12.720 -->
00:12:19.360Um, so so once you've done these, right, you've identified which are the which are the decisions that are most important and how those decisions are made.
00:12:19.600 -->
00:12:23.759We're essentially, and I I like to use Alexander's analogy here, which which he taught me, right?
00:12:23.840 -->
00:12:29.919You're you're essentially putting all of those decisions on a scale and you're weighing, you know, where which decisions have the most weight.
00:12:30.080 -->
00:12:37.279So it's not necessarily a matter of saying, you know, Alexander controls two decisions and Heather controls three, Heather consolidates, right?
00:12:37.360 -->
00:12:39.440Because she's got three and Alexander has two, right?
00:12:39.600 -->
00:12:42.080You actually have to put some weight on on those decisions.
00:12:42.159 -->
00:12:48.159So you the way a scale works, right, is it's not based on the number of marbles you put on the scale, it's based on how much how much heft they have.
00:12:48.480 -->
00:12:49.759Ah, very good analogy there.
00:12:50.000 -->
00:12:50.159Right.
00:12:50.320 -->
00:12:59.279So so it's important to consider, you know, all of these things in terms of of weight and and importance on these decisions to really pick who the primary beneficiary is.
00:12:59.600 -->
00:12:59.759Yeah.
00:12:59.840 -->
00:13:08.000And I think, Matt, you made a really good point there that often these decisions are split among multiple parties, hence why this is can be very difficult.
00:13:08.159 -->
00:13:10.480And I do like, as I said, that scale analogy.
00:13:11.039 -->
00:13:14.080But I think there's I see two potential issues with it.
00:13:14.320 -->
00:13:17.919One is that sometimes it's hard to tell the scale looks pretty even.
00:13:18.080 -->
00:13:20.480Maybe there's a slight, you know, to one or the other.
00:13:20.639 -->
00:13:24.639And obviously, this weighting of the decisions is not an exact science.
00:13:24.799 -->
00:13:26.159So, I mean, you made a point.
00:13:26.320 -->
00:13:33.039This is a qualitative analysis, so it's not like you're doing some big numerical analysis to figure out which decision is more important.
00:13:33.200 -->
00:13:35.759So if that's the case, Alexander, what do you do?
00:13:36.159 -->
00:13:39.919Yeah, and and yeah, to your point, sometimes it's it's readily apparent, right?
00:13:40.000 -->
00:13:40.720It's it's easy.
00:13:40.879 -->
00:13:44.399Okay, this person controls and then you go through the the remainder of the steps.
00:13:44.480 -->
00:13:54.960And then other times, most times, again, selection bias, when we see it, it's because the scale keeps teetering close to close to even in an event where that happens.
00:13:55.039 -->
00:13:58.320Because there are there are instances where power would be shared.
00:13:58.480 -->
00:14:02.720So that that does happen, but as I meant, it gets uh met with a little bit of additional scrutiny, right?
00:14:02.799 -->
00:14:07.039And it's hey, make sure you put everything on the scale and did you know calibrate it correctly.
00:14:07.200 -->
00:14:16.720But maybe I can talk about a couple of scenarios to kind of illustrate the point on when it would make sense that power is shared, meaning nobody controls versus other ones where the scale's gonna tip one way or another.
00:14:17.039 -->
00:14:21.840Maybe back to Matt's asset management venture that that now we're both in together.
00:14:22.000 -->
00:14:26.399Um, so let's just boil it down and say we have two significant decisions.
00:14:26.559 -->
00:14:31.039We're deciding which investments to get into and then when to sell them.
00:14:31.360 -->
00:14:38.799If in maybe construct A, we say that both of us have to agree on both of those decisions, then we'd say, well, power is shared.
00:14:38.879 -->
00:14:40.960Neither one of us can control, right?
00:14:41.120 -->
00:14:44.159Therefore, neither one of us have power over the entity itself.
00:14:44.399 -->
00:14:52.399But now maybe let's switch it a little bit and say, well, Matt controls the decision of which investments to get into, and I control the decision of when we sell them.
00:14:52.639 -->
00:14:54.559Now it gets a little bit harder to your point, right?
00:14:54.720 -->
00:14:57.200It's like, okay, well, which one's more important, right?
00:14:57.440 -->
00:15:02.320Because you might have one person look at it and say, well, hey, they're both equally important.
00:15:02.559 -->
00:15:05.279You can have another person say, well, no, Matt's are more important.
00:15:05.440 -->
00:15:07.519I could look at it and say, well, mine are more important.
00:15:07.840 -->
00:15:20.960In in scenarios like that where we're controlling different decisions, there is some practice literature and some speeches which basically say, hey, we know it's hard, but in those types of scenarios, one is going to be a little bit more important than the other.
00:15:21.120 -->
00:15:25.679So you've got to make a call because the scale's not going to come up even when they're different decisions.
00:15:26.000 -->
00:15:26.320Agreed.
00:15:26.480 -->
00:15:28.960It can be very complicated and very judgmental, right?
00:15:29.120 -->
00:15:31.919So, and it's not just the areas that Alexander pointed out.
00:15:32.000 -->
00:15:36.639There are some other key areas of judgment that we are faced with in this part of the analysis.
00:15:36.799 -->
00:15:47.120Um, there are a couple of paragraphs in um, we call them 38F and 38G, and they deal with the notion of sponsorship and the notion of disproportionate economics, right?
00:15:47.279 -->
00:16:00.399And they they really are trying to put a substance overlay over your primary beneficiary analysis, like situations where the economics are so disproportionate to one of the investors, you would expect that investor to want power.
00:16:00.639 -->
00:16:01.360Makes sense, right?
00:16:01.440 -->
00:16:05.840You want to control uh the decisions that affect your return because you're so disproportionately high.
00:16:06.080 -->
00:16:11.440So where legal agreements or stated powers are different uh from what you would expect in those situations.
00:16:11.519 -->
00:16:13.919You might want to approach it with increased skepticism.
00:16:14.000 -->
00:16:20.320And the sponsorship notion is when all of the decisions are made up front, or almost all of them are made up front, so you have a real like special purpose entity.
00:16:20.480 -->
00:16:23.919Sometimes you you would weigh those more heavily if there are very few ongoing decisions.
00:16:24.000 -->
00:16:28.480So you might have an ongoing decision which is more administrative and try to argue that party has power.
00:16:28.639 -->
00:16:33.600But in those situations, you may want to put more weight on the decisions that were made up front as part of the purpose and design of the entity.
00:16:33.919 -->
00:16:34.559So that's one area.
00:16:34.720 -->
00:16:40.799The other area that comes up, and we don't have to go into a ton of detail because this will be in part seven of our podcast, is uh kick out rights.
00:16:40.960 -->
00:16:51.120Um, so if if removal rights or kick out rights are held by one party um that's involved with the entity, generally that's enough to overcome uh a power, power held by another party, right?
00:16:51.279 -->
00:17:00.960But again, that has to be a unilateral kick out right held by one party, and it needs to be substantive, meaning there can't be any um significant barriers for that party to exercise the kick out rights.
00:17:01.279 -->
00:17:01.519All right.
00:17:01.679 -->
00:17:24.240But I think the key to all of this, because a lot of detail we just ran through, it really loops all the way back to understanding all the agreements with these entities and then really thinking about what are these significant decisions, laying that all out, and then walking through this because without that, it's gonna be really easy to make honestly a wrong decision about which party is the primary beneficiary here.
00:17:24.480 -->
00:17:24.720Exactly.
00:17:24.960 -->
00:17:26.079Okay, so let's keep going then.
00:17:26.160 -->
00:17:27.119So we talked about power.
00:17:27.200 -->
00:17:32.319I know that in and of itself could have been like a three-part podcast, but guys did a good job keeping it pretty short.
00:17:32.480 -->
00:17:34.720But so now let's think then about economics.
00:17:34.880 -->
00:17:37.839So we've identified the party who has the power.
00:17:38.079 -->
00:17:42.160So now we have to consider where the economics lie.
00:17:42.480 -->
00:17:42.720Right.
00:17:42.960 -->
00:17:46.079And and this part's gonna be a little bit more straightforward than the power part.
00:17:46.160 -->
00:17:50.400Like I mentioned earlier, multiple parties can have an economic interest in an entity, right?
00:17:50.480 -->
00:17:52.079So you don't have to just find one.
00:17:52.240 -->
00:18:03.200What you're really looking for is um you as a variable interest holder, do you have an interest that exposes you to potentially significant economic upside or economic downside?
00:18:03.519 -->
00:18:04.799That's the economics test.
00:18:05.119 -->
00:18:07.839So I did throw a couple of buzzwords in there, right?
00:18:08.000 -->
00:18:10.000So one being significant.
00:18:10.240 -->
00:18:11.359So what does that mean?
00:18:11.599 -->
00:18:13.839And I'm not gonna tell you what that means, like others.
00:18:14.319 -->
00:18:14.720Of course not.
00:18:14.799 -->
00:18:18.640Um but I am gonna tell you, right, there are places in GAAP that that use the word significant.
00:18:18.880 -->
00:18:22.400Practice has evolved um when we're trying to assess what is significant.
00:18:22.559 -->
00:18:29.680I'd say generally speaking, if you're over 10% in terms of potential exposure on the downside or the upside, we would call that significant.
00:18:29.759 -->
00:18:34.960Um, if you're below 10% but close to 10%, you know, there's gonna be some significant judgment involved.
00:18:35.119 -->
00:18:40.880Um, but once you get further, further enough below 10%, I think most people conclude that's not it's not significant enough.
00:18:40.960 -->
00:18:43.200So we're when you're at 9.9, right?
00:18:43.359 -->
00:18:44.799Generally, you're round to 10?
00:18:45.119 -->
00:18:45.359Sure.
00:18:45.519 -->
00:18:46.880But you know, where does the line?
00:18:46.960 -->
00:18:52.319Um, and even so, I mean, again, these are estimates that we're talking about are projected amounts.
00:18:52.480 -->
00:18:59.200So there has to be some gray anyway, because it's gonna depend on the accuracy of these projections you're looking at, right?
00:18:59.519 -->
00:18:59.839Correct.
00:19:00.079 -->
00:19:05.039So the other uh word I threw in the in the initial description, I think, was potentially exposed to.
00:19:05.200 -->
00:19:10.079So um, the reason we throw that in is because you don't get to include probability in this part of the analysis.
00:19:10.240 -->
00:19:16.000So it doesn't matter kind of how senior or subordinate you are in the capital structure, if you have a capital investment as your variable interest.
00:19:16.160 -->
00:19:22.079What matters is that you could be exposed um to a significant amount of upside or downside on the entity.
00:19:22.319 -->
00:19:28.160So I I think that's interesting because it does cast a little bit of a wider net in terms of who might have potentially significant economics.
00:19:28.480 -->
00:19:30.559So can you give an example of that, Matt?
00:19:30.880 -->
00:19:31.039Yeah.
00:19:31.200 -->
00:19:38.720So um you you might think like back to the old days where we were doing expected losses, it really mattered how senior in your in the capital structure you were.
00:19:38.799 -->
00:19:44.240So subordinate equity interest um would have way more exposure to expected losses the way it's defined in the model.
00:19:44.480 -->
00:19:51.200But the way we define it here in the PPA test is even if you have a 10% um tranche of the capital structure, but it's the most senior.
00:19:51.279 -->
00:19:54.799So you've you're a senior lender and it's collateralized by the assets of the entity.
00:19:54.880 -->
00:19:58.079So your chances of losing on your loan are very, very small.
00:19:58.240 -->
00:19:59.440You still could, right?
00:19:59.519 -->
00:20:05.039So if you're 10% of the total capital structure in the most senior position, you you'd still have potentially significant economics.
00:20:05.519 -->
00:20:12.880So again, just to reiterate there, it doesn't matter that that 10% is multiplied by like a 0.01% probability.
00:20:13.039 -->
00:20:13.119Right.
00:20:13.440 -->
00:20:14.720You just say it's 10%.
00:20:15.359 -->
00:20:18.480So they have a significant economic sponsor.
00:20:18.960 -->
00:20:27.279And the reason why that's not overly punitive in this model is because the chances of you having a 10% slice of the most senior interest and also having power are very small, right?
00:20:27.440 -->
00:20:33.119Because generally power goes to the more residual or the more um exposed tranches of of an investment.
00:20:33.359 -->
00:20:38.720So yes, you might have significant economics, but you won't meet both criteria to be the primary beneficiary in most cases.
00:20:38.799 -->
00:20:45.039Aaron Powell And then, Matt, as you're thinking about this, whose perspective am I taking when I'm thinking about how significant it is?
00:20:45.440 -->
00:20:45.519Right.
00:20:45.599 -->
00:20:49.119So you're always going to be taking the perspective of of the VIE, right?
00:20:49.279 -->
00:20:57.119So you're you're an investor in the VIE, and are the is your exposure to upside or downside significant relative to the VIE's size, not your size.
00:20:57.359 -->
00:21:03.519So you could be the largest entity in the world and try to argue I don't have any any chance of consolidating a VIE because I'm so big.
00:21:03.680 -->
00:21:04.799Uh but that's not how it works.
00:21:04.880 -->
00:21:06.559It's it's relative to the size of the VIE.
00:21:06.880 -->
00:21:07.119All right.
00:21:07.200 -->
00:21:07.920That's helpful.
00:21:08.160 -->
00:21:10.720So then now let's say I've gone through that.
00:21:10.880 -->
00:21:15.519So let's assume I've met both power and the economics criteria.
00:21:15.680 -->
00:21:17.839Great, then I'm the primary beneficiary.
00:21:18.079 -->
00:21:25.359But what if I go through this assessment and I determine that I don't meet both conditions, then my uh so you're not done.
00:21:25.519 -->
00:21:27.599There actually is one last step.
00:21:27.759 -->
00:21:37.279I'll almost call it like a hidden or forgotten step, because this is one where I think people I've seen it where people just stop and erroneously maybe, you know, end the game too early.
00:21:37.440 -->
00:21:44.319Um, but if no single party meets both characteristics, you have to then consider the impact of any related parties.
00:21:44.400 -->
00:21:51.039So you have to look at the investor group and determine whether they meet a related party group using the definition in ASC 850.
00:21:51.119 -->
00:21:56.160And you would also lump in this concept of de facto agents, which is defined in ASC 810.
00:21:56.240 -->
00:22:04.240So things like employees, officers, board members of the Entity or a party that got its interest as a loan or a contribution from the entity.
00:22:04.319 -->
00:22:12.480So you're basically looking at the investor group and saying, hey, I get that no single party meets it, but when we lump them all together, do they meet both characteristics?
00:22:12.720 -->
00:22:17.039If so, there's this whole separate framework, which I don't think we'll get into.
00:22:17.119 -->
00:22:26.319Again, we'll save that for part seven, but there's a separate framework which basically could yield a result to say, well, one of the members of the related party group has to consolidate the entity.
00:22:26.480 -->
00:22:31.359Um, this is really meant to, again, back to both of your points, is zooming out, right?
00:22:31.440 -->
00:22:34.880And saying, okay, well, I can't get too myopic on my analysis, right?
00:22:34.960 -->
00:22:36.319I need to look at the big picture.
00:22:36.480 -->
00:22:41.519And it's kind of meant to capture structuring, but it also is just as making sure we're getting the right answer.
00:22:41.599 -->
00:22:46.880And sometimes you get to an interesting answer that you wouldn't know you got to if you didn't know to do this last step.
00:22:47.200 -->
00:22:56.160So basically then, if I'm setting up an entity, I can't split all my rights into separate subsidiaries and say, oh, none of them control the entity.
00:22:56.480 -->
00:22:56.799Exactly.
00:22:56.960 -->
00:23:07.599And and the reason, the reason I don't want to get into this whole cobweb, if you will, of analysis is because it is different depending on how the entity's governed.
00:23:07.680 -->
00:23:14.319And then there's a lot of incremental rules because there's been standard setting that's happened over the past couple of years and they kind of changed how to do it.
00:23:14.480 -->
00:23:16.720And so there's there's just a lot to go through.
00:23:16.880 -->
00:23:23.039But at the end of the day, yeah, I think when you step back, it's hey, are things separated such that we're getting to basically a wrong answer?
00:23:23.279 -->
00:23:24.160All right, that's helpful.
00:23:24.240 -->
00:23:34.480And so then let's assume now I don't have both power and economics, and I don't have, I don't fall into this I'll call it related party trap, then I don't consolidate, correct?
00:23:34.799 -->
00:23:35.440Yes, that's right.
00:23:35.599 -->
00:23:44.400So we wouldn't have to consolidate, but uh there are still specific disclosures that we have to make because we have a variable interest in an unconsolidated VIE.
00:23:44.799 -->
00:23:48.880There's also, if you do consolidate, there's incremental disclosures on top of that.
00:23:49.039 -->
00:23:58.960And these are mostly qualitative and and some quantitative stuff, but it's really trying to get at you disclosing what your involvement is in the VIE, even if you don't uh consolidate it.
00:23:59.200 -->
00:24:02.160Also, last point is that there are some specific rules.
00:24:02.240 -->
00:24:09.359If you are the primary beneficiary and you're consolidating, there's rules around the initial consolidation of an entity that is a VIE.
00:24:09.759 -->
00:24:13.279So if the entity, it it depends on if it's a business or not.
00:24:13.359 -->
00:24:20.559So if the VIE meets the definition of a business, you're generally just going to apply the business combinations guidance and ASC 805.
00:24:21.039 -->
00:24:30.160But if the VIE is an asset, you know, it's and it's deemed to be a VIE asset acquisition, then it's actually a really weird hybrid model.
00:24:30.240 -->
00:24:38.480So it's not exactly business combinations guidance and it's not exactly the asset acquisition model that we talked about uh a while back on the podcast.
00:24:38.720 -->
00:24:42.720It's some hybrid where you're taking some elements of one and some elements of another.
00:24:42.880 -->
00:24:53.119Um but the interesting part is since you're you don't recognize goodwill, but you may have a gain running through the PL, which is just not very intuitive if if you haven't done the model before.
00:24:53.440 -->
00:24:54.000Definitely not.
00:24:54.160 -->
00:24:57.119So actually, then maybe follow-up question on that.
00:24:57.359 -->
00:25:10.960Once you get through the first year of the consolidation or the initial consolidation, then are there significant differences between consolidating under a VIE model versus under a voting interest model or not?
00:25:11.440 -->
00:25:11.759Not really.
00:25:11.839 -->
00:25:14.640It's it's not, it's not my my favorite word is wonky, right?
00:25:14.720 -->
00:25:17.359But it's not wonky like an equity method investment or something like that.
00:25:17.440 -->
00:25:19.359It's really more the initial consolidation.
00:25:19.599 -->
00:25:25.839But based on how you've done, if you have like non-controlling interests and things like that, sometimes a measurement, you'll still have to do that.
00:25:25.920 -->
00:25:28.559But it'll be a little bit closer to the business combinations guidance.
00:25:28.880 -->
00:25:28.960Yeah.
00:25:29.039 -->
00:25:39.920And I also think there is this element for a company, if they don't hold equity interests and they wind up consolidating, that also is sort of like a mind game, just to kind of think through what that looks like.
00:25:40.079 -->
00:25:49.759And then I think that goes back to the point you made, or we should at least talk about that there are incremental disclosures, which can sometimes help fill in some of those gaps there.
00:25:50.079 -->
00:25:50.559All right.
00:25:50.799 -->
00:26:01.920So now that we've kind of gone through the whole model after step 53, um, is there anything else then that our listeners should be thinking about before we wrap up this series?
00:26:02.240 -->
00:26:07.440Yeah, maybe one last reminder that the VIE model is not a set it and forget it type model.
00:26:07.680 -->
00:26:11.440Um, so for the primary beneficiary assessment, that's continual.
00:26:11.599 -->
00:26:17.359So um, you may have concluded that you have a variable interest in a VIE and that you were not the primary beneficiary.
00:26:17.519 -->
00:26:22.880You should reassess every reporting period whether anything's changed such that you are now the primary beneficiary.
00:26:23.039 -->
00:26:24.240Same with the opposite.
00:26:24.400 -->
00:26:30.000If you were the primary beneficiary in your initial analysis, you should reassess every reporting period to make sure nothing's changed.
00:26:30.079 -->
00:26:31.119That would change the answer.
00:26:31.440 -->
00:26:36.960As for whether or not the entity you're involved with is a VIE, those have to be reconsidered, but that's more trigger-based.
00:26:37.119 -->
00:26:41.200So you actually have to find an event that that is defined in the guidance, right?
00:26:41.440 -->
00:26:49.039You would have to find a change to the purpose and design of the VIE that would necessitate a reassessment of whether or not it is a variable intersanity.
00:26:49.359 -->
00:27:00.960So, Matt, from your experience or Alexander, you as well, have do you often see where this reconsideration that you need to do each period does result in a change in the primary beneficiary?
00:27:01.200 -->
00:27:07.119Or even in that case, is it more because there's been some change in the underlying structure or otherwise?
00:27:07.519 -->
00:27:15.200Yeah, I I mean, for the most part, I think you'd have to see a change in the underlying structure or change in the in the entity itself to really change who's going to consolidate it.
00:27:15.359 -->
00:27:16.480But it does come up, right?
00:27:16.559 -->
00:27:21.599So you could see a situation where contractual rights have a life and they lapse.
00:27:21.759 -->
00:27:27.759Um so that could be something where nothing changed in the contract because it was set up front, but now you're all of a sudden you have power.
00:27:28.000 -->
00:27:28.160Right.
00:27:28.240 -->
00:27:30.240Or something could get triggered, I guess, in a contract.
00:27:30.559 -->
00:27:32.319But that could change things to exactly.
00:27:32.400 -->
00:27:40.079There could have been a contingency built in up front to your decision-making rights or to a kick out right that now has lapsed or has been achieved, and that could change the answer.
00:27:40.319 -->
00:27:40.559Yeah.
00:27:40.799 -->
00:27:43.359And or if you were building an asset that went into operation.
00:27:43.440 -->
00:27:45.759So now I'm actually thinking of many different things.
00:27:45.920 -->
00:27:47.680So maybe that wasn't the best question.
00:27:47.759 -->
00:27:52.000But I do think it's an important point that you want to make sure you have the controls in place to do that.
00:27:52.319 -->
00:27:52.880That's right.
00:27:53.200 -->
00:27:59.519So, of course, I think we're close to the end, but I I can't end things without asking for some final words of wisdom.
00:27:59.680 -->
00:28:11.839So I think I've asked this every episode of this series, but just from your perspective and maybe honing in in particular on this step, any final thoughts or words of wisdom for people who are trying to deal with this?
00:28:11.920 -->
00:28:13.599And Alexander, I can start with you.
00:28:13.920 -->
00:28:18.880Yeah, I'd say probably tying it all together even with the other episodes, and you'd mentioned it several times.
00:28:19.039 -->
00:28:28.319It is a little bit of a pain to kind of do that upfront homework or it feels that way, but it it really does help streamline things across the whole analysis.
00:28:28.480 -->
00:28:39.359And it it it kind of protects you from maybe getting to an incorrect answer because as we kind of talked about the scale analogy, especially when things are getting close, you need to make sure that you have everything on there, right?
00:28:39.440 -->
00:28:41.839So I'd say just don't forget doing the upfront homework.
00:28:41.920 -->
00:28:47.119And you'll many times when you do that, the answer kind of becomes more readily apparent.
00:28:47.359 -->
00:28:59.279Yeah, I I think that oftentimes when people are approaching their consolidation analysis, they forget about the history lesson that I think we went into in the first episode as to why the VIE model exists and the type of entities it was really meant to address.
00:28:59.599 -->
00:29:03.680And I think that's important to think about while you're evaluating an entity for consolidation.
00:29:03.839 -->
00:29:05.920Think about the purpose and design of the entity.
00:29:06.000 -->
00:29:12.000Think about all the substantive terms and features and don't let non-substantive uh terms really get in the way of your analysis.
00:29:12.079 -->
00:29:19.920And it's really less about legal form and more about substance of rights, economics, and decision making that you should let drive your analysis.
00:29:20.240 -->
00:29:20.319Yeah.
00:29:20.400 -->
00:29:34.799And actually, if I put those two things together, then if I take a step back and think about it, if I make sure I fully understand the purpose and all of the various aspects of my entity, and then I understand the rights and powers and everything else.
00:29:34.960 -->
00:29:44.720If I do all of that before I start trying to go through the steps of this, it actually will be a much easier thing versus to have to keep circling back and realizing that something got missed.
00:29:44.880 -->
00:29:48.000So for the two of you together, that's excellent advice.
00:29:48.160 -->
00:29:49.039Individually as well.
00:29:49.200 -->
00:29:53.920So, anyway, as always, so nice to have you guys on, and thanks so much for joining me today.
00:29:54.480 -->
00:29:55.119Thanks.
00:29:56.160 -->
00:29:58.079That's our show for today.
00:29:58.319 -->
00:30:01.200Tune in next week for more fresh episodes.
00:30:01.359 -->
00:30:03.920So that you never miss any of our audio content.
00:30:04.079 -->
00:30:08.559Follow the PWC Accounting Podcast wherever you listen to your podcasts.
00:30:08.720 -->
00:30:17.599And to stay up to date on all our latest accounting and reporting news, sign up for our newsletter at viewpoint.pwc.com.
00:30:18.319 -->
00:30:22.319From Thought Leadership at PwC, I'm Heather Horn.
00:30:22.640 -->
00:30:24.160Thanks for tuning in.
00:30:29.519 -->
00:30:33.599This podcast is brought to you by PwC, All Rights Reserved.
00:30:33.839 -->
00:30:35.599PwC refers to the U.S.
00:30:35.759 -->
00:30:41.839member firm or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates, and they sometimes refer to the PWC network.
00:30:42.000 -->
00:30:44.400Each member firm is a separate legal entity.
00:30:44.559 -->
00:30:50.880Please see www.pwc.com slash structure for further details.
00:30:51.119 -->
00:31:00.799This podcast is for general information purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors, including accountants and lawyers.
