XML 37 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.8.0.1
Basis of Presentation Basis of Presentation (Policies)
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Accounting Policies [Abstract]  
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
Lease Accounting
In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued Accounting Standards Update, or ASU, No. 2016-02, "Leases." From the lessee's perspective, the new standard establishes a right-of-use, or ROU, model that requires a lessee to record a ROU asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than 12 months. Leases will be classified as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the income statement for a lessee. From the lessor's perspective, the new standard requires a lessor to classify leases as either sales-type, finance or operating. A lease will be treated as a sale if it transfers all of the risks and rewards, as well as control of the underlying asset, to the lessee. If risks and rewards are conveyed without the transfer of control, the lease is treated as a financing lease. If the lessor doesn’t convey risks and rewards or control, an operating lease results.
The ASU is effective no later than January 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted. The ASU requires the identification of lease and non-lease components of a lease agreement. This ASU will govern the recognition of revenue for lease components. Revenue related to non-lease components under our lease agreements will be subject to the new revenue recognition standard effective upon adoption of the new lease accounting standard. The Company is currently in the process of evaluating the impact of the adoption of this ASU on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
Newly Adopted Accounting Pronouncements
Postretirement Benefits
In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-07 "Compensation - Retirement Benefits (Topic 715)", which requires employers who offer defined benefit pension plans or other post-retirement benefit plans to report the service cost component within the same income statement caption as other compensation costs arising from services rendered by employees during the period. The ASU also requires the other components of net periodic benefit cost to be presented separately from the service cost component, in a caption outside of a subtotal of income from operations. Additionally, the ASU provides that only the service cost component is eligible for capitalization. As a result of the adoption, the Company reclassified $194,000 from Corporate expenses to Other income, net for the three months ended March 31, 2017.
Other Income
In February 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-05 "Other Income-Gains and Losses from the Derecognition of Nonfinancial Assets (Subtopic 610-20)", effective for the annual reporting period beginning after the December 15, 2017, including the interim reporting period within that period. This update provides guidance on the recognition of gains and losses on transfers of nonfinancial assets and in substance nonfinancial assets to counterparties that are not customers.
As of January 1, 2018, the Company began accounting for the sale of real estate properties under Subtopic 610-20 which provides for revenue recognition based on transfer of ownership.
The new standard may be applied retrospectively to each prior period presented or prospectively with the cumulative effect, if any, recognized as of the date of adoption. The Company selected the modified retrospective transition method. The adoption of the standard did not result in a cumulative adjustment recognized as of January 1, 2018 and the standard did not have any impact on the Company’s prior period financial statements. During the quarter ended March 31, 2018, the Company had no sales or transfers of nonfinancial assets to customers.
Financial Instruments
In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, "Financial Statements - Overall (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities," which requires equity investments in unconsolidated entities (other than those accounted for using the equity method of accounting) to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income. There will no longer be an available-for-sale classification for equity securities with readily determinable fair values.
We adopted the new ASU during the first quarter of 2018. The ASU requires the use of the modified retrospective transition method, under which cumulative unrealized gains and losses related to equity investments with readily determinable fair values will be reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income to retained earnings on January 1, 2018 upon adoption of this ASU. The guidance related to equity investments without readily determinable fair values will be applied prospectively to all investments that exist as of the date of adoption. The adoption of this new ASU did not impact the Company's investment portfolio as it is comprised of fixed income investments and not equity investments.
Revenue Recognition
In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)." ASU 2014-09 supersedes the current revenue recognition guidance, including industry-specific guidance. The guidance introduces a five-step model to achieve its core principal of the entity recognizing revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers at an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The five-step model requires that we (i) identify the contract with the customer, (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract, (iii) determine the transaction price, including variable consideration to the extent that it is probable that a significant future reversal will not occur, (iv) allocate the transaction price to the respective performance obligations in the contract, and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) we satisfy the performance obligation.
In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net)." ASU 2016-08 provides specific guidance to determine whether an entity is providing a specified good or service itself or is arranging for the good or service to be provided by another party.
Entities can use either a full retrospective or modified retrospective method to adopt this ASU. Under the full retrospective method, all periods presented will be restated upon adoption to conform to the new standard and a cumulative adjustment for effects on periods prior to 2016 will be recorded to retained earnings as of January 1, 2016. Under the modified retrospective approach, prior periods are not restated to conform to the new standard. Instead, a cumulative adjustment for effects of applying the new standard to periods prior to 2018 is recorded to retained earnings as of January 1, 2018. Additionally, incremental footnote disclosures are required to present the 2018 revenues under the prior standard. Under the modified retrospective method, an entity may also elect to apply the standard to either (i) all contracts as of January 1, 2018, or (ii) only to contracts that are not completed as of January 1, 2018. During the first quarter of 2018, we adopted the revenue recognition ASU using the full retrospective method.
Based on our evaluation of all contracts within scope, under previous accounting standards, and under the new revenue recognition ASU, we noted no significant differences in the amounts recognized or the pattern of recognition. Management however noted that the application of Topic 606 impacts the accounting for land sales where the Company has continued involvement or performance obligations that are essential to the land sale. Previous guidance required the Company to recognize revenue from land sales with continued involvement using a percentage completion method based on the total cost of the performance obligations. After adopting Topic 606, the Company was required to allocate the transaction price, on land sales with multiple performance obligations, to the performance obligations in proportion to their standalone selling prices (i.e., on a relative standalone selling price basis) and not total costs.
During 2016, the Company sold a land parcel to a third party. Under the terms of the purchase and sale agreement, the Company was obligated to complete specific infrastructure and landscaping adjacent to the land parcel that were deemed essential to the third party. When applying the guidance under Topic 606, the purchase price allocated to the multiple performance obligations yielded a different result than when applying the current guidance.
Under the previous guidance, during the second quarter of 2017, the Company recognized $475,000 and $411,000 of revenues and profit from sale of land, respectively. Under Topic 606, the Company, during the second quarter, will recognize $73,000 and $9,000 of revenues and profit from sale of land, respectively.
No other differences were noted during our evaluation.