referencelibrarybanner
Nasdaq Direct Listings Banner
Reference Library - Advanced Search
Find
 


Library 




 
Timeframe
Category
 
Sub-Category
** To make multiple selections, select the first criterion and then press and hold the Ctrl Key **
 
1- 10 of 10 Search Results for:
Libraries:   Governance Clearinghouse
Filters:   Within Last 60 days; All;
 
Search   Clear


Collapse All
Printer Friendly View
Mailto Link 
Page: 1 of 1
Frequently Asked Questions
  Nasdaq Responds to ISS' 2019 Benchmark Policy Survey
Identification Number 1713
Nasdaq Responds to ISS' 2019 Benchmark Policy Survey
Publication Date: August 12, 2019 

In its response to the 2019 Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) Benchmark Policy Survey, Nasdaq reiterated many points from its "Blueprint to Revitalize Capital Markets." Nasdaq expressed its continued support for companies with fully transparent differential class structures and reiterated its concerns about conflicts of interest at proxy advisory firms.  Nasdaq also urged ISS to avoid “one-size-fits-all” approaches in developing its policies, particularly with respect to board gender diversity and director overboarding.


Publication Date*: 8/12/2019 Mailto Link Identification Number: 1713
Frequently Asked Questions
  Nasdaq Comments on Two SEC Proposals That Will Reduce Compliance Burdens for Public Companies
Identification Number 1712
Nasdaq Comments on Two SEC Proposals That Will Reduce Compliance Burdens for Public Companies
Publication Date: July 31, 2019 

On July 29, 2019, Nasdaq submitted two comment letters commending the SEC for considering ways to reduce compliance burdens for public companies while maintaining important investor protections.

The first comment letter relates to an SEC proposal that will reduce compliance costs and maintain uniformity across rules by excluding certain smaller reporting companies from the definitions of accelerated and large accelerated filers. The primary result of this change would be to relieve eligible companies from the SOX 404(b) requirement to obtain an independent auditor’s attestation of management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Nasdaq estimates that at least 399 Nasdaq-listed companies may be affected by the proposed amendments.

The second comment letter relates to an SEC proposal to improve the disclosure requirements for financial statements relating to acquisitions and dispositions of businesses.  Nasdaq’s comment letter addresses parts of the proposal that it believes will positively impact IPO companies or simplify the disclosure framework for issuers that have engaged in acquisitions and dispositions.  Nasdaq also echoes other commenters in urging the SEC to reconsider the proposal to mandate synergy disclosures in pro forma financial information.

Nasdaq applauds the SEC for its continued consideration of ways to improve the regulatory environment for public companies and believes the proposed changes are in line with other reforms the SEC is considering, such as improvements to the quarterly reporting framework. On July 18, 2019, John Zecca, Senior Vice President, General Counsel North America, and Chief Regulatory Officer of Nasdaq Regulation for U.S. Markets, participated in the SEC's Roundtable on the Short-Term/Long-Term Management of Public Companies, our Periodic Reporting System and Regulatory Requirements. Prior to his appearance at the Roundtable, Mr. Zecca submitted a comment letter to the SEC urging the SEC to consider increasing the flexibility of reporting obligations, enhancing transparency around proxy advisors and activist investing, recognizing the value of dual class structures, imposing short interest transparency, and preserving optionality in capital management.

Proposed Amendments to the Accelerated Filer and Large Accelerated Filer Definitions

View Nasdaq’s comment letter here >>

View the SEC’s proposed amendments here >>

Proposed Amendments to Financial Disclosures about Acquired and Disposed Businesses

View Nasdaq’s comment letter here >>

View the SEC’s proposed amendments here >>

SEC's Roundtable on the Short-Term/Long-Term Management of Public Companies

View Nasdaq’s comment letter here >>  

View Chairman Clayton’s Statement at the SEC Staff Roundtable here >> 
Publication Date*: 7/31/2019 Mailto Link Identification Number: 1712
Frequently Asked Questions
  Weinberg Center to Co-host 1st Annual ISG/Corporate Issuers Conference in September
Identification Number 1705
Weinberg Center to Co-host 1st Annual ISG/Corporate Issuers Conference in September
Publication Date: July 30, 2019 

The John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware is hosting the inaugural ISG/Corporate Issuers Conference on September 13, 2019.  This conference is designed to provide an opportunity for investors and issuers to learn more about the Investor Stewardship Group (ISG) Framework for U.S. Stewardship and Governance.  Martin Lipton of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz will provide a keynote address.

For information, click here.  

Publication Date*: 7/30/2019 Mailto Link Identification Number: 1705
Frequently Asked Questions
  California's Board Gender Diversity Mandate: Are Companies Making Tangible Progress?
Identification Number 1704
Clearhouse
California's Board Gender Diversity Mandate: Are Companies Making Tangible Progress?
Publication Date: July 29, 2019 

Coco Brown is founder and CEO of The Athena Alliance, a non-profit organization dedicated to building the modern boardroom and advancing women in the top ranks of leadership.

It’s now been approximately 9 months since California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB-826, which requires public companies with headquarters in California to have at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of this year. At the time of signing, 94 of the 722 companies affected by this new law were given notice that they are immediately affected due to having zero women on their boards. 

A progress report on the original 94 companies affected by the California mandate.

Athena Alliance pulled data on the 94 original companies in an effort to gauge progress. The data shows that 9 months later, 36 percent (34 companies) still have no women on their boards.

Getting 34 companies to bring one woman onto their boards doesn’t seem like it should be too difficult. However, the timeline to date seems to indicate those companies believe it is. As an additional data point, earlier this month, the California Secretary of State released its Women on Boards report, which lists the companies that have or have not reported their compliance with the law as applied by 2021. Just 184 companies out of 722 have reported where they are with respect to their compliance (25 percent).

The bill states: “More women directors serving on boards of directors of publicly held corporations will boost the California economy, improve opportunities for women in the workplace, and protect California taxpayers, shareholders, and retirees, including retired California state employees and teachers whose pensions are managed by CalPERS and CalSTRS. Yet studies predict that it will take 40 or 50 years to achieve gender parity, if something is not done proactively.”

My hope is that companies would jump at the opportunity to modernize their boards and create a competitive advantage, especially when there are many organizations standing by to help, such as The Athena Alliance, HimforHer and Equilar’s Diversity Network, just to name a few.

Let’s remember why this bill came to be.

When this bill was on the table, I had many candid discussions with my peers, with my board, with Athena Alliance members, all incredibly experienced and insightful corporate executives, many of whom are board members. I heard the full spectrum of emotion and debate on this issue; I even felt conflicted myself. Change needs to occur, but most of the powerful female leaders I know want to achieve a board seat on their own merit. Not to check a box.

Yet, throughout the ages, change has had to be forced upon society, often successfully. From voting rights to gender inequality, it’s often been policy – not society – that has been the catalyst for transformational, profound progress. Achieving gender parity at the highest realms of leadership is no different, with other countries trailblazing efforts of their own. For example, Germany mandates that 30 percent of public company board director seats are held by women. For Norway, it’s 40 percent.

Additionally, studies have shown that mandates such as California’s aren’t just good for women, it’s good for business. A study conducted by Credit Suisse over a six-year period found that women on boards resulted in positive metrics across the business, including improved stock performance, less debt, double digit income growth, and more.

If we need even more validation, just look to Larry Fink and the asset managers who hold $40 trillion in the markets on our behalf. They are demanding that boards bring on more contemporary experience, with directors who hold a wider range of skills. This is required to steward long-term value in today’s modern, digital world, where businesses are vulnerable to new threats and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) matters take precedence.

Where are we today?

As the California Secretary of State’s report highlights, there are many companies that need to put in a lot of work to meet the mandate. At a glance, the numbers are cringeworthy, painful. But what I’m hearing on the ground in California, as the leader of an organization dedicated to helping companies find their perfect board candidate (and who just happens to be a woman), here’s what I know: The greatest energy for change is not coming from the public companies that are significantly behind in meeting the California mandate. It’s coming from venture-funded expansion stage, late stage private companies, and from progressive public companies outside California.

Here’s the good news: Many CEOs are beginning to embrace change and warm to the concept that they need to make some sweeping changes in their boardrooms. The most progressive of them are taking a proactive approach by having the conversation (the tough conversations) that they need to have, early on. They understand that the best business decision involves a board refresh or active expansion. For example, earlier this month, I spoke with Brian Moynihan, Chairman and CEO of Bank of America, at an intimate gathering of CEOs and board directors. We discussed the need for transitions at the highest levels of leadership. Our conversation was followed by fireside chats with the CEOs of iRobot (Nasdaq: IRBT) and Forrester (Nasdaq: FORR), two organizations that took the brave path to a board refresh.

There are several companies leading the pack in making changes to their boards to immediately meet the 2019 requirements, such as Acacia Research Corporation (Nasdaq: ACTG), DURECT Corporation (Nasdaq: DRRX), CareTrust REIT, Inc. (Nasdaq: CTRE), and many more.

And, there are many successes emerging from the changes happening in California. Take corporations like Autodesk (Nasdaq: ADSK), for example, who is partnering with Athena Alliance to send their top women through our high-touch executive development program. Autodesk is going one step further than simply meeting compliance with the California mandate; they are making the critical investment in their bench strength of leadership by connecting and nurturing the leaders of tomorrow.

Build the right board construct, and the women will come.

For so many progressive CEOs and boards I talk to, the biggest challenge is not knowing where to start. For decades, these male leaders have relied on their networks. They’ve hired who they know. They’ve gotten referrals from who they know. It’s always worked for them. Men, referring men. A strategy that has worked throughout time.

Until now.

For male CEOs in California who still need to take the next step to meet compliance for women on boards, I urge a “build it, they will come,” approach. Begin by recrafting your board construct – design the board that will propel your company to the next level – and very likely you will see that the people you currently have on your board are not the ones who can get you there.

What markets do you need to tap into? Who are the stakeholders that you need a deeper connection to? What is your brand reputation doing for you in today’s digital world? How are you driving efficiency across technology, operations, with employees?

Look to where you need to go. Then think about what perspectives and expertise is required to guide you there. There are many qualified women who are prepared and willing to serve on your board, especially if you can look past the “traditional” board director persona of a former CEO or CFO.

It’s worth the effort to get to the other side.

For the companies that can put in the effort to recruit women board directors, the payoff will be immense. They’ll see it in their revenues. They’ll have a deeper connection to their communities, to their employees, to their customers. They’ll see the payoff in positive brand reputation. They’ll steer their companies into the modern age of business with broader perspectives, fresh ideas, and innovation.

Each, a competitive advantage. Each, one more investment closer to securing the company’s relevance and place in the future. Now, that’s good business.

For more insights from Coco Brown, read It's Never Been a Better Time to Open Up the Boardroom: Here's Why>>

***

Coco Brown is founder and CEO of Athena Alliance, an organization dedicated to revolutionizing leadership from senior management to the boardroom. Athena Alliance enables businesses to take on today’s greatest threats and to conquer their most pressing imperatives. It empowers women to own their value and to step into their most ambitious leadership role yet: in the boardroom, in the C-suite, as a founder, or as an investor. At the heart of Athena’s mission: coaching remarkable senior women leaders to fully own their value and to step into bigger roles. Athena also guides CEOs, venture firms and corporations to evolve their approach to senior leadership development, to strengthen their boards, and to facilitate curated connections to remarkable female leaders. Learn more at AthenaAlliance.org.

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the authors at the time of publication and may not be updated. They do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc. The content does not attempt to examine all the facts and circumstances which may be relevant to any particular company, industry or security mentioned herein and nothing contained herein should be construed as legal or investment advice. 
Publication Date*: 7/26/2019 Mailto Link Identification Number: 1704
Frequently Asked Questions
  ISS Opens Global Policy Survey for 2020
Identification Number 1703
ISS Opens Global Policy Survey for 2020
Publication Date: July 23, 2019 

ISS launched its Annual Policy Survey and invites institutional investors, companies, corporate directors, and all other market constituents to respond to the survey, which is a component of ISS’ annual benchmark policy development process. ISS describes the survey as the first step in their annual review and has stated that they will seek comment on specific proposed changes to its policies later in the year.

Topics in the survey cover a broad range of issues, including: board gender diversity, director over-boarding, and director accountability relating to climate change risk, globally; combined chairman and CEO posts; the sun-setting of multi-class capital structures in the U.S.; and the use of Economic Value Added (EVA) in ISS’ quantitative pay-for-performance, financial-performance-analysis secondary screen for companies. The survey closes on August 9, 2019, at 5pm ET.

Publication Date*: 7/23/2019 Mailto Link Identification Number: 1703
Frequently Asked Questions
  Lessons in Leadership and Branding: Q&A with Governance Expert Betsy Atkins
Identification Number 1702
Clearhouse
Lessons in Leadership and Branding: Q&A with Governance Expert Betsy Atkins
Publication Date: July 17, 2019 

What common mistakes do board candidates make?  Who are the corporate leaders that board members look to as role models? Is a nonprofit board seat a viable stepping-stone to public board service?

Veteran board member and entrepreneur Betsy Atkins was asked so many follow-up questions during a recent webinar interview hosted by Nasdaq, that time ran out before she could respond to them all.  As promised, we followed up with Betsy to get answers to those audience questions, which are listed below. 

If you missed the webinar, Betsy shared some fascinating personal anecdotes from her experiences as a serial entrepreneur and board member, so the replay is worth a listen: Lessons in Leadership and Branding.

Q: What corporate leaders are most inspirational to you and why?

Betsy Atkins: Jeff Bezos is really inspirational to me because for such a large-scale company Amazon (Nasdaq: AMZN) still innovates and is very decisive.  The fact that a company the size of Amazon continues to grow and innovate is fabulous.

The other person who is really inspires me is Hubert Joly, former CEO of Best Buy.  He’s now the executive chairman of that company.  He did something almost nobody has been able to do, which is take a company that has basically flat-lined and bring it back to life.  The Circuit City brand (which was for years Best Buy’s closest competitor) went out of business while Best Buy, under Joly’s leadership, went from diminishing growth back to growth.

I’ve seen estimates that only four percent of companies go back to growing after they flat line.  That's why we're all so excited about Satya Nadella's success in repositioning Microsoft - it’s rare to successfully take a company that is not growing, and hasn't grown for multiple years, and find a way to bring it back to growth.  I think it’s amazing when that happens. 

Q: Is there a board out there you aspire to join and, if so, what makes that board fascinating to you? 

BA: I definitely would join Amazon if they invited me.  I think Novartis is a fascinating board and so is Gilead Sciences. Novartis at its scale as a pharma company has done an incredible job on product development, on distribution, and on successfully integrating a big merger.  Gilead is way out front of everybody else on solving the issues associated with viruses—I believe they do the most innovative work on viruses on the planet. 

Q:  What is the most common mistake you see made in the boardroom?

BA: Poor emotional intelligence (EQ). Everybody who gets to the board room normally has high IQ but doesn’t always have great EQ or people skills. Poor EQ can materially impact the working relationships and effectiveness of a board. 

If you become a board member, learn to read the room. If you pay close attention, body language from your fellow board members will tell you whether you’re chiming in too frequently or talking too much or if your comments are resonating.

Q: If your goal is to join a corporate board, is joining a nonprofit board a good first step?

BA:  It depends on the board.  There's a range of nonprofit boards.  If it's a big university board where all they want from you is fundraising connections and your checkbook, I don't know that you're going to learn a lot there. 

Now, if it's a smaller board that wants your help and expertise to execute the substance of the mission and to help craft and execute strategy, that kind of experience is very relevant to future corporate board service.  For example, let's say you're serving with a regional Big Brother Big Sister organization in your town and you're helping with program development and strategies like building the pool of people who come in to do the mentoring of boys and girls or building relationships to identify a pool of at-risk children to be mentored—those experiences are relevant to public board service.

Be mindful when you pick a nonprofit that you're learning portable, transferable skills that you can articulate (other than just fundraising), that you are learning to support and guide how the operation works, how it grows, how it progresses, and how it handles problems.  Those skills would all apply.

Q: What are your thoughts on serving on advisory boards?

BA: I think advisory boards are outstanding—if they are engaged. A good advisory board can add a ton of value and really help move a company forward, so serving on one can teach you a lot.  Additionally, an advisory board can become a feeder for the board room if you make good connections.

Q: Are there common mistakes board candidates make that eliminate them from contention early on?

BA:  There are two that come to mind.  First, remember that subconsciously people want to know whether a candidate is a culture fit, which means appearance is important. A candidate should try to mirror the style and appearance of the company’s leaders. If company culture has executives buttoned up and wearing jackets and ties, then don’t come to a board interview in jeans. If company leaders wear hoodies and sweats, don’t show up for a board interview in a stuffy suit.

Second, don’t talk too much about yourself.  If you don’t ask questions and listen carefully to the answers, not only will you turn off your interviewer, but you won’t learn much about the board you seek to serve on. The ideal ratio is 65% listening and 35% percent talking.

Q: Did you have a mentor in your career and if so, how did this relationship change you?

BA: My greatest mentor was my mother. She always pushed me to believe anything is possible and to dream big.  She helped me reinforce that attitude with a “never quit trying” work ethic that has served me very well during my career.

Q: What is the best way to close the loop after you apply something you learned from a mentor?

BA: I think it is incredibly important to either call or write to your mentor and let them know that you have applied their insights and how it has been valuable. Mentors want to know that they added value to your career and that the time they spent with you brought meaningful results.

Q: A lot of boards seek millennials now for board positions, feeling they have more relevant expertise. There are a lot of talented, experienced women in technology who are not millennials who are being overlooked.  Do you have any advice for women in technology to get noticed?

BA: I think the most effective way to be noticed is to go out of your way to build a network by helping others and doing favors for people. I think if you extend yourself in multiple acts of unsolicited assistance, you build up the good will to go back to the network and ask them for an introduction or advice. It’s like a bank. You can’t withdraw unless you’ve already deposited.

To listen to a replay of the webinar, visit Lessons in Leadership and Branding>>

For more advice on board readiness, read Get Board Ready with Veteran Corporate Director Betsy Atkins>>

***

Betsy Atkins serves as President and Chief Executive Officer at Baja Corp, a venture capital firm. She is currently on the board of directors of Covetrus (Nasdaq: CVET), Wynn Resorts (Nasdaq: WYNN), and SL Green Realty. Betsy is also the author of Be Board Ready: The Secrets to Landing a Board Seat and Being a Great Director and Behind Boardroom Doors.

 

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the authors at the time of publication and may not be updated. They do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc. The content does not attempt to examine all the facts and circumstances which may be relevant to any particular company, industry or security mentioned herein and nothing contained herein should be construed as legal or investment advice.  
Publication Date*: 7/17/2019 Mailto Link Identification Number: 1702
Frequently Asked Questions
  Resources for Investors and Audit Committees on Critical Audit Matters
Identification Number 1701
Resources for Investors and Audit Committees on Critical Audit Matters
Publication Date: July 15, 2019

On July 11, 2019, the PCAOB released two new resources on critical audit matters (CAMs), one specifically for investors and the other for audit committees.

Publication Date*: 7/15/2019 Mailto Link Identification Number: 1701
Frequently Asked Questions
  SEC Approves Changes to Nasdaq Liquidity Standards for Initial Listing
Identification Number 1699
SEC Approves Changes to Nasdaq Liquidity Standards for Initial Listing
Publication Date: July 10, 2019

On July 5, 2019, the SEC approved changes to Nasdaq’s initial listing standards. Under the revised standards, Nasdaq will: (1) exclude restricted securities from calculations of a company’s public float, market value of public float and round lot holders; (2) require that at least 50% of a company's round lot holders hold unrestricted securities with a market value of at least $2,500; and (3) require a minimum average daily trading volume for securities trading over-the-counter of at least 2,000 shares over the 30 day period prior to listing (with trading occurring on more than half of those 30 days). 

The changes are operative August 5, 2019. Companies that list prior to August 5, 2019 may qualify under our previous listing standards.

View Nasdaq’s rule filing here >>

View the SEC’s approval order here >>

Publication Date*: 7/10/2019 Mailto Link Identification Number: 1699
Frequently Asked Questions
  Allison Herren Lee Sworn In as SEC Commissioner
Identification Number 1700
Allison Herren Lee Sworn In as SEC Commissioner
Publication Date: July 10, 2019 

On July 8, Allison Herren Lee was sworn into office as a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner. Lee, who returns to SEC after serving from 2005 to 2018, was nominated by President Donald J. Trump and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate. She is filling the open Democratic spot on the commission, previously held by Kara Stein, and brings the SEC back up to five commissioners.

Read More >>

Publication Date*: 7/10/2019 Mailto Link Identification Number: 1700
Frequently Asked Questions
  Communicating Critical Audit Matter Disclosures to Investors
Identification Number 1698
Clearhouse
Communicating Critical Audit Matter Disclosures to Investors
Publication Date: July 09, 2019 

Julie Bell Lindsay is the Executive Director of the Center for Audit Quality (CAQ).

Starting this summer, auditors of large public companies will be required to communicate critical audit matters (CAMs) in their auditor’s reports. Investors with questions about CAMs may turn to a company’s investor relations (IR) group for answers.

To help inform IR professionals as they prepare for those conversations, the CAQ has developed this list of frequently asked questions about CAMs. While this list is not intended to be exhaustive, it may be especially helpful during the initial phase of CAM reporting. 

What is a CAM?

A CAM is any matter arising from the audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee. According to the applicable auditing standard, the matter must also be one that (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements, and (2) involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment.

Where will CAMs be communicated?

Auditors are required to communicate CAMs. Thus, CAMs will be communicated in the auditor’s report on the company’s audited financial statements. There is no prescriptive way to order the CAM communications within the CAM section of the auditor’s report; CAMs could be presented to align with the order of the financial statement presentation, the order of relative importance, or some other way.

Do CAMs reflect something positive or negative?

CAMs are additional information about the specific audit and are neither inherently positive nor negative. Investors should evaluate information communicated in CAMs in light of all information available from the company regarding the company's business and should keep in mind that CAMs are reported in the context of the auditor’s overall opinion on the current-year financial statements. The communication of CAMs does not alter in any way the auditor’s opinion on the consolidated financial statements, taken as a whole. Likewise, the auditor is not, by communicating the CAMs, providing separate opinions on the CAMs or on the accounts or disclosures to which they relate.

Will CAMs be consistent from company to company?

Not necessarily, for several reasons:

  • The requirements for determining CAMs are principles based, not prescriptive. Thus, the requirements will be applied in the context of the facts and circumstances of each specific audit.
  • The auditor’s judgment and the extent of audit procedures performed in each specific audit will influence the determination of CAMs.
  • The determination of CAMs is made each year in connection with the current-period audit. Some CAMs may occur annually, while others may appear in a single period or intermittently.

Because each audit is unique, variation may occur in the matters that are CAMs at companies within and across industries and year to year. Thus, it is inadvisable for investors or others to make assumptions as to why a company has a different number and/or type of CAM than another company.

How many matters likely will be CAMs?

The number of matters that are communicated as CAMs will depend on factors such as the complexity of the company’s financial reporting and the company’s business activities. While the standard contemplates circumstances in which the auditor may not identify any CAMs, it is expected that, in most audits, the auditor would determine at least one matter is a CAM.

Will there be a CAM for every critical accounting estimate disclosed by management?

This will depend on the facts and circumstances of each audit. Not every critical accounting estimate necessarily involves especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment. The source of CAMs is also broader than just critical accounting estimates; therefore, the auditor may identify CAMs in areas that are not disclosed by management as critical accounting estimates. For example, significant or nonrecurring transactions may often be CAMs.

What types of matters likely will be CAMs?

The more common CAMs likely will be in those areas involving high degrees of estimation uncertainty and that require significant management judgment. Such matters, in turn, usually involve especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment. Examples of the latter include auditing the following:

  • Goodwill impairment
  • Intangible asset impairment
  • Business combinations
  • Aspects of revenue recognition
  • Income taxes
  • Legal contingencies
  • Hard-to-fair-value financial instruments

How will investors use CAMs?

CAMs represent an opportunity for investors to gain insights about areas of the audit that involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment. As the PCAOB has stated, “In the view of some investors, CAMs will add to the total mix of information, providing insights relevant in analyzing and pricing risks in capital valuation and allocation, and contributing to their ability to make investment decisions.”

What other steps should I, as an IR professional, be taking on CAMs?

Communication is the key to preparing for the communication of CAMs in auditor’s reports. Coordinate early and often internally within your company—and externally with your auditors—to understand the matters that may be CAMs, the reason such matters may be CAMs, and how CAMs are addressed in the audit. Understanding the CAMs requirements and undertaking close coordination should help prepare you for potential questions from investors.

Where can I find more information?

Please refer to the Center for Audit Quality’s collection of resources for more information on CAMs. Additionally, see the PCAOB’s new auditor’s report implementation page for resources on CAM requirements.

The Center for Audit Quality (CAQ) is an autonomous public policy organization dedicated to enhancing investor confidence and public trust in the global capital markets. The CAQ fosters high-quality performance by public company auditors; convenes and collaborates with other stakeholders to advance the discussion of critical issues that require action and intervention; and advocates policies and standards that promote public company auditors’ objectivity, effectiveness, and responsiveness to dynamic market conditions. Based in Washington, DC, the CAQ is affiliated with the American Institute of CPAs.

***

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the authors at the time of publication and may not be updated. They do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc. The content does not attempt to examine all the facts and circumstances which may be relevant to any particular company, industry or security mentioned herein and nothing contained herein should be construed as legal or investment advice. 
Publication Date*: 7/9/2019 Mailto Link Identification Number: 1698
material_search_footer*The Publication Date reflects the date of first inclusion in the Reference Library, which was launched on July 31, 2012, or a subsequent update to the material. Material may have been previously available on a different Nasdaq web site.
Page: 1 of 1
home_footer_links
Copyright_statement
App Store       Google Play       Listing Center Content RSS Feed
The Nasdaq Stock Market, Nasdaq, The Nasdaq Global Select Market, The Nasdaq Global Market, The Nasdaq Capital Market, ExACT and Exchange Analysis and Compliance Tracking system are trademarks of Nasdaq, Inc.
FINRA® and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.® are registered trademarks of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. OTCBBTM and OTC Bulletin BoardTM are trademarks of FINRA