A Dec. 3 proposal from FASB’s Accounting Standards Update (ASU) might provide some flexibility for private businesses and select nonprofits. “Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326)” looks at measuring credit losses for contract assets and accounts receivable for these entities.

When it comes to determining projected credit losses for current accounts receivables and current contract assets, businesses face immense resource needs and reporting requirements, including for assets acquired prior to the publication dates of financial statements.

With public comments being received through Jan. 17, 2025, industry professionals have reported that when it comes to gauging projected credit losses for current contract assets and current accounts receivable, there’s a massive undertaking and validation necessary for assets collected prior to financial statement issuance dates. Industry professionals argue that being able to factor in collections post-balance sheet date in calculating expected credit losses would reduce the complexity for preparers, whereas, for third parties, including investors and others who utilize financial statements, it would provide them with valuable data.

FASB proposed an amendment to ASC 326 207 to allow private companies and certain not-for-profit entities to employ a more flexible and efficient way to better gauge their projected credit losses for current contract assets and accounts receivable that originate from transaction accounts under ASC 606.

Working with the Private Company Council (PCC) to look at stakeholders’ concerns that estimating projected credit losses can be exorbitant and complicated for financial proceedings, FASB is soliciting comments on whether or not to expand the scope of entities included for ASU standards, along with different asset classes.

Current Criteria

According to ASC 326-20, when expected credit losses are estimated by entities, an entity must evaluate their ability to garner cash flows via the lens of contemporary economic circumstances, rational and documented projections, and past losses. Past losses may need to be fine-tuned to approximate project credit losses if past circumstances change from present conditions or from well-ground estimates and documented projections. Another consideration when formulating credit loss projections is that entities aren’t required to factor in collections obtained post-balance sheet date.  

Proposed Additions

When it comes to the proposed additions, FASB speaks to a practical expedient and an accounting policy election. The practical expedient concerns an entity’s well-grounded, data-dependent projections. If an entity chooses the practical expedient, it would be able to factor in collection activity beyond the balance sheet date when projecting expected credit losses.

Practical Expedient

To formulate projections that are rational and based on verified accounting details, this so-called practical expedient can be chosen by the entity that assumes its present balance sheet conditions will last for the entire projection time frame. Choosing a practical expedient also implies that an entity’s accounting policy will factor in collection activity past its balance sheet date when gauging expected credit losses. Specifically, under 326-20-30-10C for the practical expedient, during the projection time frame, an entity will maintain the exact circumstances of the balance sheet throughout the rational and data-based projection period.

If a business, for example, has determined a particular client is facing monetary challenges, it would account for its client’s financial issues through projections of estimated expected credit losses for said client, even though it has not impacted the business’ historical loss experience or if the business is up to date as of the balance sheet date.

Accounting Policy Election

Per 326-20-30-10E, when a practical expedient from 326-20-30-10C through 30-10D is chosen by entities for their accounting policy election when projecting credit losses, it signals that the entity factors in collection activity after the balance sheet date, but prior to the date of financial statement issuance. If an entity uses one or both of the practical expedient and/or accounting policy elections, disclosure is mandatory.

Conclusion

Lastly, such advice would be administered on a forward-looking basis, and both of these entities (PCC and FASB) will make the ultimate findings and guidelines of the implementation dates once industry professionals’ comments are considered. However, entities will likely be able to utilize these guidelines sooner.

For eligible companies, these standards could provide greater flexibility and the ability to divert resources to more productive allocations.

Also known as greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting, carbon accounting is a way for managers and analysts to measure a company’s total carbon emissions. 

It’s a comprehensive approach to analyze how a company uses energy for its buildings, offices, conveyances and production processes. Carbon accounting examines firsthand, secondhand and tertiary energy uses.

Environmental, Social & Governance

Looking at ESG standards (Environmental, Social & Governance), it’s not only becoming encouraged, it’s becoming required for businesses, especially for publicly traded businesses. Whether it’s the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or other governmental agencies in the global economy, these administrative organizations are mandating emission declarations for businesses to account for their carbon emissions. It’s also necessary for third parties (lenders, potential and current investors) to review and analyze a company’s current and past performance, along with industry comparisons.

It’s important to distinguish the differences between carbon and GHG accounting. Carbon accounting only looks at carbon dioxide emissions, while GHG looks at the broader category and illustrates why doing so is important. Businesses look at nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), for example, when accounting for GHGs. However, such measurement is based on the so-called carbon dioxide equivalent or C02e. This helps standardize GHGs into the C02e standard for carbon accounting, giving government and interested parties the ability to measure across a universal standard. Two common uses for this standard are for carbon offsets and credits.  

Calculating Emissions

1. Scope 1 factors in emissions from the company’s directly controlled or owned assets. Examples include factories, production, conveyances, etc.  

2. Scope 2 looks at what the business uses in regard to climate-controlled services for their factories, offices, etc. It also looks at the company’s contracts with power suppliers.

3. Scope 3 factors in indirect emissions the business may incur. This includes commercial commuting activities, investing, how assets are disposed of, etc.    

According to the SEC, Scope 3 emissions must include those “upstream and downstream activities in a company’s value chain” if they’re necessary for investor consideration or if the business has pledged to meet certain metrics for Scope 3 levels.

From there, a business’ activity metrics are calculated according to governmental and industry standards, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ISO Standard 14064, or The Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol, etc. Businesses’ results are presented against past results, where they discuss how they will improve their efficiency internally and work with their supply chain partners.

Compliance

While compliance is one important reason, third-party audiences, such as family offices, institutional money managers, lenders, etc., are equally as important. Asset managers and family offices, for example, look for ESG or environmentally friendly investments to attract retail or “smart-money” investors. Similarly, activist investors, especially those looking to make companies more environmentally friendly, can look at companies to see how their carbon emissions stack up against their industry and overall commercial peers.

Another consideration is that by meeting regulatory or industry requirements and meeting ESG standards, businesses could qualify for preferential or market rates for funding from the debt markets.

Conclusion

The more companies are well-versed in this type of accounting, the better they will meet government and investor expectations.

Looking at accounting and journal entry considerations, if accounts receivables are debited and revenue is credited, it can be interpreted as the business recognizing revenue without the customer paying. As such, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sees the potential for intentional manipulation of earnings. It is important to review this type of transaction to see how the U.S. government and accounting standards treat deviations from these activities.

Defining Bill-and-Hold Arrangements

This type of agreement permits sellers to recognize revenue before delivery is made. Instead of shipping the product first, the seller bills the customer first, and delivery is arranged for a future date.

Based upon Accounting Standards Codification (ASC 606-10-55-83) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for a customer to have obtained control of a product in a bill-and-hold arrangement, they must meet all of the following in order to move ownership of the product to the customer, with the seller still in custody of it.

• Customers have explicitly asked for such an arrangement. Purchasers have to demonstrate a material reason for buying the goods through this route.
• The goods must be sequestered explicitly for and attributed exclusively to the customer.
• Customers must be able to physically receive the goods.
• The separated goods are expressly prohibited from being used for any other purposes, including those of other customers.
• Purchasers assume all risk.
• There’s a written, fixed commitment to buy the goods.
• The ultimate delivery of goods must be done according to a set timeline that follows realistic commercial uses.
• The finished goods shall be 100 percent finished and be transit prepared.

Illustrating a Bill-and-Hold Arrangement

Companies in commodity-intensive establishments (miners, farmers, etc.) often use heavy equipment to recover and produce outputs. Since a mining or energy company is unsure of the profitability when recovering resources that are price-dependent on dynamic economic conditions, they often enter into a bill-and-hold arrangement with their supplier. Since the steel producer and the drilling company have an existing arrangement with standard terms, there’s an established history of bill-and-hold transactions. If machinery or drilling equipment is fully built for one of these companies, the equipment manufacturer will sequester the equipment and prohibit it from being shipped to any other buyer. Similarly, the invoice for the equipment must be satisfied by the customer in full within 30 days of the equipment being placed and waiting for the resource company buyers. The last step is for the buyer to arrange delivery in a reasonable manner.   

Based on this real-world example, revenue should be recognized once it’s set aside exclusively for a particular mining or natural resource extraction company.

Considerations Beyond the Goods Themselves

Goods producers also must determine if there’s a custodial component during a bill-and-hold arrangement. If a custodial arrangement exists, either part of the original cost of goods sold to the customer needs to be determined or a separate charge, and therefore, exclusive recognition of revenue for the custodial services provided should be addressed outside of the bill-and-hold arrangement.

When it comes to revenue recognition under certain circumstances, goods producers may be able to recognize revenue despite the traditional requirement that goods have left a business, and the seller has materially satisfied their traditional requirement for accounting standards.

With more than 14 million electric vehicle (EV) registrations in 2023 worldwide and 2023 seeing an increase in EV sales over 2022 by 35 percent, manufacturers are probably happy – but not those producing the traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. This is according to the International Energy Agency’s Global EV Outlook 2024: Trends in Electric Cars.

This statistic is important because it illustrates how assets can be rendered less useful and potentially turn into stranded assets. A stranded asset, defined, is an asset that’s no longer able to provide its owner the profitable payback they originally expected. The difference is based on shifts, primarily negative, that impact the asset’s expected productive performance.

How & Why Assets Become Stranded

When an asset loses its earning power, normally due to extraneous circumstances, like the invention of a more efficient battery, it can become stranded. For example, a machine that’s exclusively capable of making an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle can be considered stranded as the transition to electric vehicles (EV) is made. Since the machine is less valuable because it makes fewer and fewer ICE vehicles, it could be impaired or stranded.

This example illustrates that new technology, especially one that moves forward, can render equipment less useful than previously expected. Other ways assets can be stranded include administrative modifications, evolving societal conventions, etc.

Considerations for Stranded Assets by Testing an Asset for Impairment

The primary way to establish if an asset is stranded is to run an impairment test on it. Stranded assets impact the income statement via a non-cash loss, along with impacting the balance sheet by reducing asset value. Therefore, companies must report a loss on the income statement as it’s completely written off the balance sheet.

Whether it’s through the lens of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) or generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), whether an asset is intangible or tangible, when its value issue is less than book value or impaired, it must be written down.

GAAP Standard

The first step is to determine the carrying value. This is calculated by subtracting the accumulated depreciation from the asset’s original cost. From there, the asset’s projected undiscounted future cash flows (UFCF) are analyzed against the asset’s carrying value. If the total UFCF is less than the carrying value, an asset is considered impaired.

IFRS Standard

The first step also looks at an asset’s carrying value. From there, if either of the following two values is lower than the carrying value, it’s considered impaired:

• Present value of future cash flows generated by the asset (the so-called “fair value in use” consideration)
• Fair value less costs to sell the asset

Financial Statement Considerations

If an asset is impaired or stranded, whatever amount the asset drops by, it lowers the business’ asset’s value on the balance sheet. Looking at the income statement, it’s considered a loss. Additionally, since a devaluation is not considered a cash event, it doesn’t trigger any cash outflows. A real-world example can better illustrate this.

The following assumes a business reports its accounting under GAAP. It could be a company that produces fracking equipment to recover natural gas and crude oil. With the uncertainty of domestic fossil fuel policy, specifically where land can be explored, the threat of OPEC and/or Iran being able to determine their production, and the threat of increased government spending on green energy, fracking equipment has a current carrying value of $10 million. However, with increased competition from the three different factors, the same assets can produce an aggregate of $7.5 million in undiscounted future cash flows.

Based on GAAP, since the carrying value is $2.5 million more than the total undiscounted future cash flows, the business would need to record the same amount for an impairment loss. The journal entries would be:

Loss from Impairment Debit:. $2.5 million

Provision for Impairment Losses Credit:  $2.5 million

Conclusion

When it comes to accounting for stranded assets, it’s important to ensure guidelines are followed based on the type of accounting standards businesses must follow.

According to EY, the convertible debt market saw whipsaw action in issuances. Between 2015 and 2019, average issuance varied between $40 billion and $45 billion. However, it dropped to $22 billion in 2022 but re-accelerated to $52 billion in 2023. While the levels of issuance varied, the way this type of debt is accounted for has remained much calmer.

Defining a Convertible Bond

A convertible bond is a type of debt security that gives the investor the right to exchange the bond, at certain milestones, for a pre-determined percentage of equity in the issuing company. This investment vehicle has both equity and debt features.

Since this type of investment gives investors the potential for equity conversion into a company, the debt/bond side of it may present investors with a nominal coupon remittance or a potentially zero-coupon payment. However, there are important accounting considerations for this type of investment vehicle via generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

IFRS

When it comes to IFRS, convertible bonds are considered blended securities because they are partially debt and partially equity. The debt piece is accounted for by discounting the principal and interest paid out to the bondholder at the company’s cost of straight debt. The following example illustrates how it’s calculated:

The business presents a 10-year, $250 million convertible bond, providing investors with a 2.5 percent coupon rate and a 9.5 percent straight cost of debt. Based on discounting these variables, the present value of the principal and coupon payments is: $182,805,096 (assuming end-of-year, annual coupons). To determine the equity proportion, we must take $250 million and subtract $182,805,096, which equals $67,194,904.

Looking at the journal entry, we have the following breakdown:

Cash: Debit $250,000,000

Convertible Debt Component – Liability = $182,805,096

Equity Component – Shareholder’s Equity = $67,194,904

Looking at the interest expense this is calculated as follows:

The 9.5 percent (straight debt cost) is multiplied by the net present value of the beginning debt liability balance of the first year ($182,805,096), which is $17,366,484.12. Since there’s a coupon payment of (2.5 percent X $250,000,000 = $6,250,000), the difference between $17,366,484.12 and $6,250,000 = $11,116,484.12 should be “accreted” to the debt liability or the debt balance.

The journal entry would be as follows:

Debit: Interest Expense $17,366,484.12

Credit: Cash $6,250,000

Credit: Accretion of Debt Discount – Liability = $11,116,484.12

Now, if at the bond’s maturity, the investor is unable to convert the bond to equity according to the terms of the convertible note, the entire $250 million bond will be paid back to the investor. The journal entry will be as follows:

Debit: Convertible Debt $250,000,000

Credit: Cash $250,000,000

If, however, the investor of the convertible bond is favorable to it being exchanged, the journal entry will be as follows:

Debit: Convertible Debt $250,000,000

Credit: Share Capital – Shareholder’s Equity = $250,000,000

This explanation assumes that convertible bonds are only able to be converted into company equity. However, if the bond is cash-settled, there are alternate considerations. It’s also assumed that the bond is issued at year’s end and makes its coupon payments once a year.

GAAP

Under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), present standards treat it as straight debt. This accounting practice changed from GAAP’s previous treatment of bifurcating it, similar to IFRS’ current treatment.

At issuance, the journal entries are as follows:

Debit: Cash $250,000,000

Credit: Convertible Debt $250,000,000

With this accounting treatment, it’s recognized as an interest expense. Since this contrasts with IFRS, no accretion is required under GAAP. This assumes there are no additional debt issuance costs when calculating interest expenses. Therefore, assuming the same initial debt amount at par and the coupon rate for year one, it’s the rate for the debt issuance multiplied by the full debt amount ($250,000,000).

The journal entry is as follows:

Debit: Interest Expense $6,250,000

Credit: Cash $6,250,000

If the convertible debt doesn’t present a good opportunity for the investor, they’ll receive the principal back. The journal entry is as follows:

Debit: Convertible Debt $250,000,000

Credit: Cash $250,000,000

If, however, the convertible debt presents the investor with an opportunity to convert to equity, and it’s exercised, the journal entry is presented as follows:

 Debit: Convertible Debt $250,000,000

 Credit: Share Capital – Shareholder’s Equity $250,000,000

Conclusion

While these examples do not explore all the potential scenarios when accounting for convertible debt, they show what considerations accountants must keep in mind when analyzing a transaction.

Comprehensive income (CI), which is defined as the sum of net income (NI) and other comprehensive income (OCI), gives both the internal and external audiences a 30,000-foot perspective of a company’s valuation. Understanding how it’s broken down, how it’s accounted for, and how it’s interpreted by different audiences is essential to making favorable impressions.

In the banking industry, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found 2,705 material restatements occurred between the beginning of January 1997 and the first half of 2006. Businesses that fail to report financial information accurately the first time are not uncommon – but this can have harmful effects on their bottom line.

Comprehensive Income Components Defined

Net income, which is the first component of comprehensive income, is the difference between a company’s total revenue and the taxes, interest, and expenses. This shows how profitable a company is during a certain accounting time frame. It’s important to keep in mind that net income, along with all of the deductions taken from the total revenue, are reflected on the income statement because this financial document recognizes only incurred expenses and earned income during a set accounting period. 

Other comprehensive income (OCI), the second half of CI, is a way to account for and analyze unrealized or not yet booked gains or losses. This can include investing ventures, cash flow hedges, debt securities, foreign currency exchange rate adjustments, pension obligations, etc. It’s important to keep in mind that along with being reported on the company’s balance sheet, it may also be reported on a separate statement of comprehensive financial statement.  

Further Financial Statement Reporting Considerations

On June 17, 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued an Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2011-05, Comprehensive Income – Topic 220: Presentation of Comprehensive Income.

One of the original three ways that was in effect but has been repealed with this modification from FASB was to report elements of other comprehensive income (OCI) as a portion of the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity. However, many professionals argued that this change simplified the reading and analysis of how OCI impacts a business’ total operations.

Based on FASB’s Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 220-10-45-1, comprehensive income can be presented in either one statement or two discrete, successive statements.  

#1: Single, Successive Statement Option

Based on ASC 220-10-45-1A, the following figures are required to be reported:

Components of net income

Total net income

Components of other comprehensive income

Total for other comprehensive income

Total for comprehensive income

#2: Two Discrete, Successive Statements

Based on ASC 220-10-45-1B, the following two figures are required:

1. Statement of net income

2. Statement of other comprehensive income

The following data for each respective successive financial statement should be included:

1a. Components of net income

b. Total net income

2a. Components of other comprehensive income

b. Total for other comprehensive income

c. Total for comprehensive income

Conclusion

While each business has its own challenges and opportunities, when it comes to preparing financial statements it’s essential to prepare financial statements that are transparent and follow FASB reporting requirements to maintain attractiveness to internal and external stakeholders.

When a business is looking for a valuation, it needs to decide whether to use the calculation of value approach versus the conclusion of value option.

The conclusion of value calculation is a more rigorous and resource-intensive calculation of value. Both approaches are similarly dependable, and despite the calculation of value’s less in-depth approach, business owners can still benefit from this knowledge for their short- and long-term projection needs. However, there are some distinctions between the two approaches. 

Calculation of Value

This method can be conducted annually or once every 24 months. It’s often applied for internal needs, such as the owner looking to retire, selling the business or for critical strategy development. Calculation of value also can be used for planning purposes, such as the settlement stage of a divorce. However, since it’s not an opinion of value, it’s not seen during litigation. 

Calculation of value aims to get the company’s fair market value via comparable companies. It is an approximate value, calculated through either a single figure or a range.

Conclusion of Value

This is more comprehensive and has stricter standards that can meet those required by the IRS, lawsuits, the Department of Labor, potential business buyers, M&A activity, etc. Conclusion of value can take as long as six weeks to complete due to stricter reporting standards.  

It’s up to the discretion of the analyst, and the results can be a single figure or a range. There are three accepted forms of valuation: market, income and asset-based, necessitating additional time. These three approaches are defined further below.

Market-Based Valuation

This looks at charted data of transaction values to calculate a business’ financial worth. This works similar to how those in the real estate industry determine comparable business’ worth, which is based on substantially similar conditions.

Regardless of the type of business, it looks at financial metrics such as the client service model, business location, profitability, percentage of periodic revenue projections, overall revenue, growth rates, mean account sizes, etc.  

Income-Based Valuation

This type of analysis establishes fair value by looking at historical, present and projected future cash flows. It also looks at reasonable projected returns on future investments.  

Valuing investments via the discounted cash flow method (DCF) involves looking at after-tax, discretionary, and/or operating cash flow types. This approach is often utilized with businesses that have no to limited earning growth projections.

The Capitalization of Earnings/Cash Flow Method

This begins with determining the cash flow for a discrete period. Then, the cash flow is divided by the capitalization rate over the same period. The capitalization rate is determined by taking a property’s net operating income and dividing it by the present market value. Looking through a real estate lens, it’s interpreted as the percentage of return an investor is likely to obtain from an investment. It’s often calculated for mature/established businesses that grow at a reasonable/predictable rate.

Excess Earnings Valuation Methodology

This can be defined as looking at how much tangible and intangible assets earn for a company over a discrete period of time. 

Asset-Based Valuation

This values a company by looking at the net value of assets within a company or the post-liability deduction of the fair market value of the company’s total assets. It’s one way to determine how much a company would cost to re-create. 

While each business has its own needs for valuation, be it for internal or external audiences, understanding how to accomplish them and when to use each type is extremely helpful for overall operations.

Whether it’s a company firing on all cylinders or a company on the verge of liquidation, determining correct valuations is not a cut-and-dry process. Understanding the importance of going-concern values and liquidation values is essential when determining a business’ worth.

Quantifying Going-Concern Value

When it comes to defining this type of value, it factors in the likelihood of a business operating indefinitely with continued profitability. With a company’s demonstrated ability to maintain profitability comes inherent value, reducing the likelihood of a business going bankrupt. 

In contrast to a business’ liquidation value basis, which might only be $20 million due to unsold goods, real property and associated physical assets, the going-concern value might be worth $120 million. The difference and increase in value are due to the additional equity embedded in its competitive position in its industry, its projected future cash flows, goodwill, etc. Goodwill consists of the company’s name, its intellectual property (IP) patent, trademarks, customer loyalty, etc.

When one company looks to acquire another, the company bases its valuation on the calculated going-concern value of the acquiree. When formulating its offer to purchase the other, it will factor in its future profitability, intangible assets, customer loyalty, and goodwill.

Liquidation Value Defined

Liquidation value is determined by establishing the net value of a company’s physical or tangible assets if they were to go out of business. It’s important to distinguish that intangible assets (intellectual property, brand significance, and goodwill) are not included in liquidation sales. Assets are often sold at a loss because the seller must turn the assets into cash quickly. Generally, liquidation valuation is higher than salvage value but less than book value. Though, to contrast with a traditional, non-acquisition sale, intangible assets are considered part of the sale/offer price.

One important concept for determining liquidation value is the recovery rate. Cash is naturally the highest level, usually at 100 percent. From there, assets such as accounts receivable (AR), inventory, property, plant, and equipment (PPE) have progressively lower recovery values. Determining these values will accordingly govern the success of a liquidation sale.

Comparing Values: Market vs. Book vs. Liquidation vs. Salvage

It’s important to highlight the hierarchy of values to illustrate why these types of valuations differ so much. Market value is the highest, though market conditions can temporarily lower them below normal valuations. Book value is the second highest, also known as historical, and it is what’s listed on the company’s balance sheet. Book values must be looked at through the lens of history and relative to inflation, etc. Salvage value is the second lowest valuation, which is also referred to as scrap value, or when an item is “at the end of its useful life.” Liquidation is the lowest value because tangible assets must be sold quickly, lessening the chance to find a buyer at a fair price.

How Liquidation Works

Liquidation is the difference between a company’s tangible asset value and liabilities. For example:

  1. Liabilities of a business are $750,000

  2. Balance sheet assets show a book value of $1.5 million

  3. Salvage value of assets is $250,000

  4. Auction sale estimate value is $1.2 million, or 80 percent

Liquidation Value = Auction Value – Liabilities ($1.2 million – $750,000 = $450,000)

Many variables must be studied to effectively determine a company’s value, regardless of what spectrum is being evaluated. Employees and consultants who have a better grasp of these methods will provide everyone involved with a fair assessment.

The accounting term working capital is essential knowledge for all business owners. Basically, it is the ability of a business to meet its ongoing obligations. Learning about some of the different aspects of working capital is vital for any successful business owner.

Net operating working capital (NOWC) is the gap between a business’ current assets (accounts receivable, inventories, cash, though excluding marketable securities) and its non-interest-bearing liabilities (which are financial obligations a business must meet, except those not subject to interest payments).

This calculation looks at a business’ cash flow availability and determines available current assets able to be liquidated inside a calendar year.

The formula is as follows:

NOWC = Current Assets – Non-Interest-Bearing Liabilities

Operating Working Capital (OWC)

OWC measures a business’ current assets and calculates how much the company’s day-to-day operations cost. This includes meeting supplier invoices, turning accounts receivable (AR) into cash, obtaining inventory, and making sales on inventory and/or services.

The higher the OWC, the easier it is for a business to pay supplier invoices, leverage pre-pay or early pay discounts, maintain healthy inventory stocks, and offer customers favorable terms to grow sales further.

OWC is calculated as follows:

OWC = Current Assets – Non-Operating Current Assets

It’s important to remember that cash isn’t included because this asset is considered a non-operating asset. While cash isn’t immediately connected to operations, it can be re-considered an operating asset once supplies and related items are obtained with it.

Operating Working Capital Considerations

The OWC calculation determines how proficient the business is with its finances. Since it immediately reveals the amount of funds a business has, the larger the resulting figure, the lower the funds a company has available to complete its rotation.

Companies can lower their results by increasing the rate of inventory turnover, increasing the percentage of customer payment collection, and working with vendors for better provider terms. As a business improves this metric, it can free up funds to reduce its loans, pay dividends, and/or build out new or existing revenue streams. 

Net Working Capital (NWC)

Also referred to as working capital, NWC is defined as the difference between total current assets held by a business and its liabilities. It shows a business’ level of liquidity. This looks at how capable a company is in generating profits, chiefly when it comes to near-term financial obligations (paying wages, electric bills, leases, etc.). It also tells a business if and how much it’s able to re-invest to grow profits and increase product or service capabilities.

It’s calculated as follows:

NWC = Total Current Assets – Total Current Liabilities

Total Current Assets = Cash Assets + AR + Inventory  

Current liabilities are short-term financial obligations due within 12 months, including accounts payable (AP) and accrued expenses.

Considerations

Positive net working capital implies a business can meet current financial obligations and invest in other operational needs. If the NWC is too high, the business isn’t using its short-term assets efficiently. Since some current assets can’t be converted to cash easily, NWC isn’t always the best measure of liquidity. It can similarly signify underused resources.

While there are unique considerations for every business, the more business owners and management are versed in these concepts, the more likely they are to increase their chances of surviving and thriving.

A trial balance is an accounting tool that helps businesses determine if the double entry accounting system has any mathematical errors. Once the trial balance is worked through, and the total debits and total credits equal each other, we know there are no mathematical errors – but that doesn’t mean it is error free. It is important to determine how it is constructed and the considerations for each step in the process.

Raw Trial Balance

The first is the unadjusted trial balance. This looks at all the double entry bookkeeping journal entries, which records the business’ day-to-day transactions. When beginning to prepare for the adjusted trial balance, the eventual adjusted trial balance will have three column headers: 1. Account 2. Debit 3. Credit.

It should list all sub-ledger account balance totals, the account description and number, along with the final debit/credit balance. It also should document the accounting period, including the starting and final dates.

The next step is to address balancing for each sub-ledger. Sub-ledgers, such as Cash, Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable, are balanced from the sub-ledgers’ “T” account; the resulting credit or debit balance must be noted. Depending on the resulting credit or debit balance, it must be put in the right “Debit” or “Credit” column. If there is a mathematical error, it means the previous steps in the accounting cycle might have errors in them.

Adjusted Trial Balance

Along with the trial balance having the credits and debits entered from each respective sub-ledger, the first thing to check is if the credit and debit balances line up. Then, the next step is to determine if other mistakes may exist. Examples of non-mathematical mistakes include:

• Original entry errors or double entry transactions that contain mistakes on both ends.
• Omission errors or errors that result from not being put into the accounting ledger.
• An error of reversal is an error with double-entry transactions that has the correct numbers but transposes credits and debits.
• A principal error is a transaction that correctly records the transaction, the figures, the right side (debit v. credit), but attributes it to the incorrect account.

Along with these potential mistakes, a business can identify and take corrective action when reviewing its transactions on specific accounts and when aggregating sub-ledgers into their trial balance. Examples of corrective action include tax adjustments, such as ensuring any tax deductions that were missed are then added.

If business transactions were made on a personal credit card, they need to be adjusted accordingly. When it comes to accrual considerations, if a payment is owed but not made during an accounting period, it must be adjusted to reflect the correct accounting period. Another consideration is for payments received, which is often referred to as a deferral. Past due payments that are applied to a later accounting period but were for a previous accounting period must be adjusted accordingly.

Conclusion

The last step is to prepare the post-closing trial balance. Once the closing entries have been finished, it can help a company use it as a starting point when they need to do it again for the next accounting cycle.

While trial balances are only a part of the bookkeeping and accounting process, taking steps to reduce errors can make the accounting process a more insightful business function.