Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@Kurry
Last active October 12, 2023 00:26
Show Gist options
  • Save Kurry/556787859326c291bb0ba8194ae2dc74 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save Kurry/556787859326c291bb0ba8194ae2dc74 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Newell Brands February 6th 2017 Earnings Call Risk Assessment

Here is my analysis of the potential accounting and financial risks based on the earnings call transcript:

Meta-data:
Industry: Consumer Goods
Company: Newell Brands
Call Date: February 7, 2017

Risk Score: 0.61 (Medium-High)

Confidence Scores:

  • Tone & Word Choices: High (0.75)
  • Related Party Transactions: Low (0.25)
  • Executive Incentives: Medium (0.5)
  • Corporate Governance: Low (0.25)
  • Data Consistency: Medium (0.5)
  • Internal Controls: Medium (0.5)

Detailed Analysis:

  • Tone & Word Choices (0.75): The transcript shows a high usage of terms like "normalized", "held for sale", and "excluding" when discussing results. This could indicate potential financial engineering to portray performance in a positive light. Expressions like "solid and in line with guidance" and "significant progress" also seem overly optimistic given the major declines in gross margin and increase in SG&A costs.

  • Related Party Transactions (0.25): No obvious issues found, but the massive scope of recent M&A provides opportunity for conflicts of interest in deals.

  • Executive Incentives (0.5): Management incentives include performance-based components like operating cash flow and cost savings goals, which could drive overly aggressive accounting maneuvers. However, some safeguards like leverage ratio targets are in place.

  • Corporate Governance (0.25): No major issues found, but the transcript does not provide enough information to fully assess governance risks.

  • Data Consistency (0.5): Core sales are increasing substantially in certain segments, but operating income and margins are declining. This discrepancy needs further investigation. Also, the one-time tax benefit in 2017 guidance seems aggressive.

  • Internal Controls (0.5): Management highlights progress in payables management, but also acknowledges more work needed on inventory controls and receivables collection. Unclear if these are risks or just improvement opportunities.

Evidence:

  • Normalized metrics used extensively
  • Businesses held for sale
  • Major one-time tax benefit in guidance for 2017
  • Core sales growing much faster than operating income
  • Declining margins
  • Mentions of cost savings incentives
  • Acknowledgement of working capital controls needing more work

Recommendations:

  • Review normalized adjustments for appropriateness
  • Scrutinize revenue recognition policies
  • Assess sustainability of 2017 tax guidance
  • Analyze core sales growth metrics for potential manipulation
  • Review executive compensation clawback provisions
  • Enhance inventory and receivables controls

Uncertainties:

  • Nature of related party transactions
  • Details on governance policies and auditor relationships
  • Specifics of internal control issues

Accounting Standards Violations:

  • Potential aggressive revenue recognition (ASC 606)
  • Misleading use of non-GAAP metrics (Reg G/ASC 280)

Overall
The transcript reveals several medium risk factors related to potential financial engineering, internal controls, and incentive structures. However, without more details on related party deals, governance, and internal controls, it is difficult to determine if there are major red flags. More investigation into normalized adjustments, tax guidance, sales growth, and working capital controls is merited along with a review of executive compensation plans.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment