Accounting Pronouncements Recently Issued

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

New Accounting Pronouncements or Change in Accounting Principle [Line Items]

New Accounting Pronouncements and Changes in Accounting Principles adopted

Accounting Standards Adopted in 2019In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases. The amendments included in this ASU create a new accounting model for both lessees and lessors. The new guidance requires lessees to recognize lease liabilities, initially measured as the present value of future lease payments, and corresponding right-of-use assets for all leases with lease terms greater than 12 months. The new lease model differs from the old lease accounting model, as the old model does not require such lease liabilities and corresponding right-of-use assets to be recorded for operating leases. The amendments in ASU 2016-02 must be adopted using the modified retrospective approach and will be effective for the first interim or annual period beginning after December 15, 2018. The FASB subsequently issued ASU 2018-11, which allows for an additional (optional) transition method. The Company adopted the new standard effective January 1, 2019 utilizing the transition method allowed under ASU 2018-11 and did not restate comparative periods. The Company elected the package of practical expedients permitted under the transition guidance, which allowed us to carryforward our historical lease classifications and our assessment on whether a contract is or contains a lease. We also elected to keep leases with an initial term of 12 months or less off the balance sheet. The adoption of the new standard resulted in an increase in other assets and an increase in other liabilities of $49.2 million and $48.2 million, respectively. The Company recognized a cumulative effect adjustment of $782 thousand to increase the beginning balance of retained earnings related to previous deferred gains on sale-leaseback transactions.

Accounting Pronouncements Recently Issued not yet adopted

Recently Issued Accounting Standards, Not Yet Adopted

In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-15, Customer’s Accounting for Implementation Costs Incurred in a Cloud Computing Arrangement That is a Service Contract. The amendments in this ASU align the requirements for capitalizing implementation costs incurred in a hosting arrangement that is a service contract with the requirements for capitalizing implementation costs incurred to develop or obtain internal-use software. The amendments also require the entity to expense the capitalized implementation costs of a hosting arrangement that is a service contract over the term of the hosting arrangement, including reasonably certain renewal periods. The amendments in ASU 2018-15 are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019 and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in any interim period. The Company is assessing the impact that this guidance will have on its Consolidated Financial Statements.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. The amendments included in this ASU require an entity to reflect its current estimate of all expected credit losses for assets held at an amortized cost basis. For available for sale debt securities, credit losses will be measured in a manner similar to current GAAP, however, this ASU will require that credit losses be presented as an allowance rather than as a write-down. The amendments in ASU 2016-13 are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years, and are required to be adopted through a modified retrospective approach, with a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the ASU is effective.

Currently, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the impact that adoption of ASU 2016-13 will have on its Consolidated Financial Statements; however, the impact may be significant. That assessment is based upon the fact that, unlike the incurred loss models in existing GAAP, the CECL model in ASU 2016-13 does not specify a threshold for the recognition of an impairment allowance. Rather, the Company will recognize an impairment allowance equal to its estimate of lifetime expected credit losses, adjusted for prepayments, for in-scope financial instruments as of the end of the reporting period. Accordingly, the impairment allowance measured under the CECL model could increase significantly from the impairment allowance measured under the Company’s existing incurred loss model. The Company has engaged a third-party vendor to assist in the CECL calculation and has developed an internal governance framework to oversee the CECL implementation. Other significant CECL implementation matters being addressed by the Company include selecting loss estimation methodologies, identifying, sourcing and storing data, addressing data gaps, defining a reasonable and supportable forecast period, selecting historical loss information, assessing the impact to internal controls over financial reporting, and capital planning.