MBA project

Watch Out for Pro Forma

Pro forma reporting, in which companies provide investors a choice in reported income numbers, is popular among companies in the S&P 500. For example, in 2008–2009, in addition to income measured according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), nearly 50 percent of S&P 500 companies also reported an income measure that is adjusted for certain items. Companies make these adjustments because they believe the items are not representative of operating results. How do these pro forma numbers compare to GAAP? As shown in the chart below, ap-proximately 30 percent of the S&P 500 companies report pro forma income in excess of operating income in the third quarter of 2009. In general, pro forma profits were 18 percent higher than operating earnings.

Characteristic of pro forma reporting practices is Amazon.com. It has adjusted for items such as stock-based compensation, amortization of goodwill and intangibles, impairment charges, and equity in losses of investees. All of these adjustments make pro forma earnings higher than GAAP income. In its earnings announcement, Amazon defended its pro forma reporting, saying that it gives better insight into the fundamental operations of the business.

Some raise concerns that companies use pro forma reporting to deflect investor attention from bad news. Skeptics of these practices often note that these adjustments generally lead to higher adjusted net income and, as a result, often report earnings before bad stuff (EBS). In addition, they note that it is difficult to compare these adjusted or pro forma numbers because companies have different views as to what is fundamental to their business.

In many ways, the pro forma reporting practices by companies like Amazon represent implied criticisms of certain financial reporting standards, including how the information is presented on the income statement. In response, the SEC issued Regulation G, which requires companies to reconcile non-GAAP financial measures to GAAP. This regulation provides investors with a roadmap to analyze adjustments companies make to their GAAP numbers to arrive at pro forma results. Regulation G helps investors compare one company's pro forma measures with results reported by another company.

The FASB (and IASB) are working on a joint project on financial statement presentation to address users' concerns about these practices. Users believe too many alternatives exist for classifying and reporting income statement information. They note that information is often highly aggregated and inconsistently presented. As a result, it is difficult to assess the financial performance of the company and compare its results with other companies. This trend toward more transparent income reporting is encouraging, but managers still like pro forma reporting, as indicated by a recent survey in response to the FASB financial statement presentation project. Over 55 percent polled indicated they would continue to practice pro forma reporting, even with a revised income statement format.

Source: A. Stuart, “A New Vision for Accounting: Robert Herz and FASB Are Preparing a Radical New Format for Financial Statements,” CFO Magazine (February 2008), pp. 49–53. See also SEC Regulation G, “Conditions for Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures,” Release No. 33-8176 (March 28, 2003) and Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations: Non-GAAP Financial Measures (January 15, 2010), available at www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/nongaapinterp.htm.