Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

COVID-
19 and fraud―a security measures refresher

04.10.20

Read this if you would like a refresher of common-sense approaches to protect against fraud while working remotely.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) has imposed many challenges upon us physically, mentally, and financially. Directly or indirectly, we all are affected by the outbreak of this life-threatening disease. Anxious times like this provide perfect opportunities for fraudsters. The fraud triangle is a model commonly used to explain the three components that may cause someone to commit fraud when they occur together:

  1. Financial pressure/motivation 
    In March 2020, the unemployment rate increased by 0.9 percent to 4.4 percent, and the number of unemployed persons rose by 1.4 million to 7.1 million.
  2. Perceived opportunity to commit fraud 
    Many people are online all day, providing more opportunities for internet crime. People are also desperate for something, from masks and hand sanitizers to coronavirus immunization and cures, which do not yet exist. 
  3. Rationalization 
    People use their physical, mental, or financial hardship to justify their unethical behaviors.

To combat the increasing coronavirus-related fraud and crime, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched a national coronavirus fraud task force on March 23, 2020. It focuses on the detection, investigation, and prosecution of fraudulent activity, hoarding, and price gouging related to medical resources needed to respond to the coronavirus. US attorney’s offices are also forming local task forces where federal, state, and local law enforcement work together to combat the coronavirus related crimes. Things are changing fast, and the DOJ has daily updates on the task force activities. 

Increased awareness for increased threats

Given the increase in fraudulent activity during the COVID-19 outbreak, it’s important for employees now working from home to be aware of ways to protect themselves and their companies and prevent the spread of fraud. Here are some of the top COVID-19-related fraud schemes to be aware of. 

  • Phishing emails regarding virus information, general financial relief, stimulus payments, and airline carrier refunds
  • Fake charities requesting donations for illegitimate or non-existent organizations 
  • Supply scams including fake shops, websites, social media accounts, and email addresses claiming to sell supplies in high demand but then never providing the supplies and keeping the money 
  • Website and app scams that share COVID-19 related information and then insert malware that could compromise the device and your personal information
  • Price gouging and hoarding of scarce products
  • Robocalls or scammers asking for personal information or selling of testing, cures, and essential equipment
  • Zoom bombing and teleconference hacking

If you have encountered suspicious activity listed above, please report it to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center.

Staying vigilant

To protect yourself from these threats, remember to use proper security measures and follow these tips provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and DOJ:

  • Verify the identity of the company, charity, or individual that attempts to contact you in regards to COVID-19.
  • Do not send money to any business, charity, or individual requesting payments or donations in cash, by wire transfer, gift card, or through the mail. 
  • Understand the features of your teleconference platform and utilize private meetings with a unique code or password that is not shared publicly.
  • Do not open attachments or click links within emails from senders you do not recognize.
  • Do not provide your username, password, date of birth, social security number, insurance information, financial data, or other personal information in response to an email or robocall.
  • Always verify the web address of legitimate websites and manually type them into your browser.
  • Check for misspellings or wrong domains within a link (for example, an address that should end in a ".gov" ends in .com" instead).

Stay aware, and stay informed. If you have specific concerns or questions, or would like more information, please contact our team. We’re here to help.
 

Related Professionals

Principals

Read this if your organization offers health insurance through a health insurance exchange.

When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010, it contained a known gap which made healthcare premiums unaffordable for some families covered under Medicare or employer-sponsored health insurance plans. The gap in the law, commonly referred to as the family glitch, was formalized in 2013 as the result of a Final Rule issued by the IRS. 

The “family glitch” calculates the affordability of an employer-sponsored health insurance plan based on the cost for the employee, not additional family members. An article published in April 2022 on healthinsurance.org estimated that the cost of health insurance for a family covered by an employer-sponsored plan could end up being 25% or more of the household’s income, even if the plan was considered affordable (less than 9.61% of the household’s income) for the employee alone. Almost half of the people impacted by the family glitch are children.

The family glitch was allowed to stand in 2013 partly because of concerns that resolving the issue could push more people off employer-sponsored plans and onto marketplace qualified health plans, ultimately raising the cost of subsidies. Since then, several attempts have been made to fix the issue, which affects around five million Americans. The most recent attempt was an executive order issued by President Biden soon after taking office in January 2021. The Office of Management and Budget has been reviewing regulatory changes proposed by the Treasury Department and IRS, details of which were published in April 2022. 

These regulatory changes would alter the way health insurance exchanges calculate a family’s eligibility for subsidies when the family has access to an employer-sponsored health insurance plan. If the changes go into effect in 2023 as proposed, audits of the 2023 fiscal year will need to account for the new regulations and potentially conduct different testing protocols for different parts of the year. 

Our team is closely following these proposed changes to help ensure our clients are prepared to follow the new regulations. Earlier this week, we attended a public hearing held by the Treasury Department, where representatives of various groups spoke in support of, or in opposition to the proposed regulatory change. Supporters noted that families with plans that offer expensive coverage for dependents would benefit from this change through reduced costs and more coverage options, including provider networks that may more closely align with the family members’ needs. Those in favor of the change anticipate that families with children would see the most benefit. 

Those opposed to the change expressed that due to the way the law is currently written, they do not see the regulatory flexibility for the administration to make this change through administrative action. Additionally, concerns were raised that families covered by multiple health insurance plans could be faced with higher out-of-pocket-costs due to having separate deductibles that must be met on an annual basis. Lastly, not all families that have unaffordable insurance would see financial relief under this proposal. 

The Treasury Department is expected to announce its decision in time for open enrollment for plan year 2023 which is scheduled to begin on November 1, 2022. Our team will continue to monitor the situation closely and provide updates on how the changes may impact our clients. 

For more information

If you have more questions or have a specific question about your situation, please reach out to us. There is more information to consider when evaluating the effects these changes will have on the landscape of healthcare access and affordability, and we’re here to help.

Article
Fixing the "family glitch": How a proposed change to the ACA will affect healthcare subsidies 

Read this if you are at a state Medicaid agency.

The Covid-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) placed US state and territory Medicaid programs on the front line of reorganizing what healthcare looks like for millions of Medicaid enrollees. Each Medicaid program shifted automation and manual procedures in order to comply with and benefit from the increased federal funding in early 2020. With the PHE winding down, every Medicaid program must look at how to return to regular operations and unwind, or undo, the continuous coverage requirement temporarily put in place by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS). BerryDunn has collaborated with Medicaid programs to identify best practices and consider new opportunities to implement rollback methods in an effort to lower risk during the unwinding period and beyond. 

New learning programs considered

Administrators who have been assessing their staff and operational readiness to support the expected influx of renewals, policy changes, and staffing changes are considering launching learning programs ahead of the unwinding efforts. Using this time to engage with staff has uncovered the need to redeploy fundamental learning programs to prepare for the anticipated high volume of two-years of renewals. Administrators have also begun to engage with community leaders and health plan organizations in ways that provide coordinated and complete communication to beneficiaries. Many programs have looked at expanding benefits within the guidelines of CMS, such as extending post-partum coverage to a full 12 months and increasing reasonable compatibility to a larger percentage, recognizing the economy has evolved since 2020.

Other outreach efforts

During the pandemic, many beneficiaries moved without notifying the Medicaid program of the address change. Proactive Medicaid programs are working directly with health programs and medical facilities to ensure the most updated addresses are captured, and are using public transportation advertisements, online website reminders, and email notifications to encourage beneficiaries to update addresses.

In other locations with a high rate of unemployment in specific industries, Medicaid programs are working with identified outreach partners like unions and industry associations to communicate messaging of Medicaid benefits. Thousands of employees may have lost full-time employment during the pandemic and have returned to work with reduced hours and less benefits. As a sign of changing times, some programs are employing social media campaigns to connect with existing and new enrollees. 

Medicaid programs across the states and territories are finding creative ways to reach impacted communities. Program administrators are organizing staff and systems to be well positioned to undo the effects of the temporary policies. The dismantling of the two-plus years of PHE is expected to be performed within a 12-month period. As administrators eagerly anticipate the announcement of an extension or the pending PHE unwinding start date, one thing is certain: US states and territories are preparing to support an extensive population of Medicaid beneficiaries post pandemic.

BerryDunn is partnering with many states and territories to help ensure a successful unwind of temporary services and return to normal operations. If you would like to discuss how BerryDunn can support your needs, contact the Medicaid consulting team.
 

Article
How Medicaid programs are preparing for the operational challenges of the PHE unwinding

Read this if you are a financial institution.

Choosing a method for estimating lifetime expected losses is a commitment. A commitment that signals, in spite of any other option, you’re certain this method is the right one for you—your segment, portfolio, and institution. While you might be able to support a change in method later, it is much more likely you’ll be living with this decision a good long while. So, how exactly does one know which method is the right one? Let’s take a few minutes to answer some frequently asked questions about selecting methods for CECL.

How many CECL methods are there?

This depends on who you ask. Section 326-20-30-3 of the standard names five (5) categories: discounted cash flow, loss-rate, roll-rate, probability of default, and aging schedule. Some categories, like loss-rate, have several methods. Additionally, some methods seem to be referred to by different names, giving people the impression that there are exponentially more options out there than there really are. With this in mind, I tend to think of two (2) broad categories, and seven (7) unique methods:  

  • Loss-rate methods
    • Snapshot (open pool, static pool, cumulative loss rate)
    • Remaining Life and Weighted Average Remaining Maturity (WARM)
    • Vintage
       
  • Other methods
    • Scaled CECL Allowance for Losses Estimator (SCALE) (option for banks with assets <$1 billion)
    • Discounted Cash Flow (DCF)
    • Probability of default 
    • Migration (roll rate, aging schedule)  

What’s the difference?

The loss-rate methods use actual historical net charge-off information in different ways to derive a loss rate that can then be used to calculate expected losses over the remaining life of a pool. In general, they do this by holding the mix of a group of loans constant (e.g., by year of origination) and then tracking net losses tied to that grouping over time. The “other” methods employ a variety of mathematical techniques and/or credit quality information to estimate expected lifetime losses. For a quick overview of each method and corresponding resources, access our CECL methodologies guide here.

How do I know which to use?

This is the CECL equivalent of the proverbial million-dollar question. Technically, any institution could use any one, or all of these methods. But there are considerations that make some of them a more or less likely fit. For example, if your institution has >$1 billion in assets, SCALE is not even an option for you, and you can cross it off the list. If you are not in a position to afford software, or lack the internal expertise to build a similar model internally, then discounted cash flow and probability of default methods would likely be extremely burdensome in the normal course of business. For that reason, you may need to cross those off your list. If you lack large pools with consistently diverse performance over time, then migration methods will be difficult to support. If you have a relatively stable loan mix, consistent credit culture, and a lot of reliable historical loss data—especially through multiple economic cycles—the loss-rate methods may be a good fit, with or without software. If your portfolio has undergone a lot of changes—products, underwriting standards, merger and acquisition activity—and/or there are significant gaps in key data that cannot be restored, then you might want to re-consider software and one of the “other” methods. 

What are the pros and cons of the various methods?

One pro of the loss-rate and SCALE methods is they have been shown to be manageable without software. Examples of all of these methods have been illustrated using Excel spreadsheets. The use of Excel is also potentially a con, given that more spreadsheets and, maybe more people, are likely going to be involved in computing the Allowance for Credit Losses (ACL). As a result, version control as well as validation of spreadsheet macros, inputs, formulas, math, and risk of accidentally overwriting or deleting values should be addressed. One pro of the discounted cash flow method is that it is a bottom-up approach, meaning each loan’s discounted cash flow (DCF) is computed and then rolled up to the segment level. Because of this, DCF can more easily handle mixed pools, e.g., loans of all vintages, sizes, terms, payment and amortization schedules, etc. A potential con of DCF is that it really requires software, staff trained to use the software appropriately, and an understanding of the vast array of choices, levers, and decisions that come with it.     

Does my choice of method affect my qualitative adjustment options?

How’s this for commitment: maybe. In general, I think it’s safe to say that CECL requires additional thought be given to the nature and degree of adjustments. This is especially true when you look at the combination of potential segmentation changes, new elements of the calculation, and the variety of methods now available. Consider the example of a bank using a loss-rate method and facing a potential economic downturn. If that bank has sufficient history and a relatively stable portfolio mix, credit culture, and geography, then it might elect to use a different time period—say, historical loss-rates observed from the last recession—rather than those more recently computed. In this case, the loss-rate method would already be using a recessionary experience. 

How then, would the bank approach additional qualitative adjustments for changing economic outlooks to ensure it is not layering (or double counting) reserve? Going back to the original “maybe” response, perhaps the answer is less about inherent conflicts between methods and qualitative adjustments. Rather, it’s about understanding that given your chosen method, you may be faced with even more decisions about if, where, and how much adjusting you are doing.

CECL adoption is required. Struggling to adopt isn’t. We can help.

No matter what stage of CECL readiness you are in, we can help you navigate the requirements as efficiently and effectively as possible. For more information, visit the CECL page on our website. If you would like specific answers to questions about your CECL implementation, please visit our Ask the Advisor page to submit your questions.

For more tips on documenting your CECL adoption, stay tuned for our next article in the series. You can also follow Susan Weber on LinkedIn.

Article
Questions to ask when deciding your CECL Method

Read this if you are a financial institution.

As you know by now, ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326), better known as the CECL standard, has already been implemented for some and will soon be implemented for all others (fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022 to be exact). During your implementation process, the focus has likely been on your loan portfolio, and rightfully so, as CECL overhauls 40+ years of loan loss reserve practices. But, recall that the CECL standard applies to all financial instruments carried at amortized cost. So, it therefore includes held-to-maturity (HTM) debt securities. And, although not carried at amortized cost, the CECL standard also makes targeted enhancements to available-for-sale (AFS) debt securities. As if re-hauling your entire allowance methodology wasn’t enough! Before tearing out your hair because of another CECL-related change, let’s quickly review what is currently required for securities, and then focus on how this will change when you implement CECL.

Current US GAAP

Under current US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), direct write-downs on HTM and AFS debt securities are recorded when (1) a security’s fair value has declined below its amortized cost basis and (2) the impairment is deemed other-than-temporary. This assessment must be completed on an individual debt security basis. Providing a general allowance for unidentified impairment in a portfolio of securities is not appropriate. The previous amortized cost basis less the other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) recognized in earnings becomes the new amortized cost basis and subsequent recoveries of OTTI may not be directly reversed into interest income. Rather, subsequent recoveries of credit losses must be accreted into interest income.

CECL: Held-to-maturity securities

Then comes along CECL  and changes everything. Once the CECL standard is implemented, expected losses on HTM debt securities will be recorded immediately through an allowance for credit loss (ACL) account, rather than as a direct write-down of the security’s cost basis. These securities should be evaluated for risk of loss over the life of the securities. Another key difference from current GAAP is that securities with similar risk characteristics will need to be assessed for credit losses collectively, or on a pool basis, not on an individual basis as currently prescribed. Also, contrary to current GAAP, since expected losses will be recorded through an ACL account, subsequent improvements in cash flow expectations will be immediately recognized through earnings via a reduction in the ACL account. CECL effectively eliminates the direct write-down method, with write-offs only occurring when the security, or a portion thereof, is deemed to be uncollectible. 

In practice, there may be some types of HTM debt securities that your institution believes have no risk of nonpayment and thus risk of loss is zero. An example may be a US Treasury debt security or possibly a debt security guaranteed by a government-sponsored enterprise, such as Ginnie Mae or Freddie Mac. In these instances, it is acceptable to conclude that no allowance on such securities is necessary. However, such determination should be documented and changes to the credit situation of these securities should be closely monitored.

Financial institutions that have already implemented CECL have appreciated its flexibility; however, just like anything else, there are challenges. One of the biggest questions that has risen is related to complexity, specifically from financial statement users in regards to the macroeconomic assumptions used in models. Another common challenge is comparability to competitors’ models and estimates. Each financial institution will likely have a different methodology when recording expected losses on HTM debt securities due to the judgment involved. These concerns are not unique to the ACL on HTM debt securities but are nonetheless concerns that will need to be addressed. A description of the methodology used to estimate the ACL, as well as a discussion of the factors that influenced management’s current estimate of expected losses must be disclosed in the financial statements. Therefore, management should ensure adequate information is provided to address financial statement users’ concerns.  

CECL: Available-for-sale securities

Upon CECL adoption, you are also expected to implement enhancements to existing practices related to AFS debt securities. Recall that AFS debt securities are recorded at fair value through accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI). This will not change after adoption of the CECL standard. However, the concept of OTTI will no longer exist. Rather, if an AFS debt security’s fair value is lower than its amortized cost basis, any credit related loss will be recorded through an ACL account, rather than as a direct write-down to the security. This ACL account will be limited to the amount by which fair value is below the amortized cost basis of the security. Credit losses will be determined by comparing the present value of cash flows expected to be collected from the security with its amortized cost basis. Non-credit related changes in fair value will continue to be recorded through an investment contra account and other comprehensive income. So, on the balance sheet, AFS debt securities could have an ACL account and an unrealized gain/loss contra account. The financial institution will be responsible for determining if the decline in the value below amortized cost is the result of credit factors or other macroeconomic factors. In practice, the following flowchart may be helpful:

Although changes to debt securities may not be top of mind when working through CECL implementation, ensuring you reserve time to understand and assess the impact of these changes is important. Depending on the significance and composition of your institution’s debt security portfolio, these changes may have a significant impact on your financial institution’s financial statements from CECL adoption forward. For more information, visit the CECL page on our website. If you would like specific answers to questions about your CECL implementation, please visit our Ask the Advisor page to submit your questions.

Article
Don't forget about me! Changes in debt security accounting resulting from CECL 

Read this if you are at a state Medicaid agency. 

As the end of the Public Health Emergency becomes more likely, much attention has been paid to the looming coverage cliff as state Medicaid agencies re-determine eligibility for their programs. The impacts can be mitigated in part by planning and taking proactive steps.

In the unsettling initial days of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS) temporarily increased federal matching funds for state Medicaid programs. In exchange, states would suspend redeterminations of enrollees’ eligibility for the duration of the PHE. 

For Medicaid, states were in effect prohibited from disenrolling an individual from Medicaid programs. The result, according to CMS data, is 14.8 million more people were enrolled in Medicaid as of late 2021 than before the pandemic, reaching a total of nearly 79 million Medicaid enrollees.  According to one estimate, the end of the PHE could bring a decline in the number of Medicaid enrollees by as many as 15 million. This number includes an estimated 8.7 million adults and 5.9 million children. 

Local and state government eligibility staff will need to review the submitted documents and determine if these members qualify for continued Medicaid coverage. The potential exists for members to lose coverage, due to factors such as having moved, not realizing their circumstances have otherwise changed, or being unable or unaware to return the required paperwork within appropriate timeframes.

State Medicaid agencies strive to maintain an equitable program while remaining trusted stewards of public funds. With a large base of beneficiaries, this change is expected to impact the community and the healthcare market, with broad implications for public health. Similarly, the federal requirement for continuous health coverage has also helped state Medicaid agencies by easing the strain on organizations during pandemic-related disruptions. 

For these reasons state Medicaid agencies may search for routes to limit the loss of coverage. This can be accomplished through finding policy levers to retain members, establishing routes to alternative forms of insurance, and mitigating the risk of coverage loss for members. 

Mitigating the likelihood of becoming uninsured

State Medicaid agencies can reduce the risk that members lose their coverage and become uninsured through a number of steps. 

  • Designing comprehensive, multi-pronged, and targeted communication strategies. States can help Medicaid members understand the requirements and timelines required to maintain their coverage.
  • Updating systems to automate and reduce administrative burden. Maximizing ex parte renewals through the use of existing data that is stored in integrated systems.
  • Making key decisions early. States can minimize coverage loss by carefully planning the unwinding process and their approach to resuming Medicaid eligibility renewals.
  • Coordinating with other forms of coverage. Confirm or design user-friendly pathways by which a member is transferred or referred to other alternatives like the Marketplace or CHIP.
  • Leveraging their health plans. Particularly when it comes to coordinating outreach and updating member information. Managed care plans are also able to refer members who are losing coverage to other qualified health plans.

Policy levers for retaining members

States may consider reviewing emergency state plan amendments and appendix k amendments completed during the PHE to determine what flexibilities are possible to continue under existing authorities. At the same time, states should consider what other policy options may help retain coverage for existing members- for example:

  • Adopt 12 months continuous eligibility. This can be done for children via a State Plan Amendment (SPA), for adults through an 1115 waiver, and for individuals enrolled in BHP (via BHP Blueprint revision) 
  • Establish 12 months of postpartum coverage. This can be done through several paths, including SPAs 
  • Review operational policy for efficiencies. For example, a State could consider modifying the frequency of periodic data matching 

Next steps

The US Department of Health and Human Service has previously indicated its intention to provide notification to states of the end of the PHE 60 days before its scheduled end. The PHE was renewed in April 2022, and as of this writing will last until mid-July, meaning enrollees could lose Medicaid coverage as soon as August 1. The enhanced FMAP and the Maintenance of Eligibility (MOE) requirements are in place until the end of the quarter in which the PHE ends. In the case of a July 2022 end date to the PHE, the enhanced FMAP would last through September 30, 2022. 

Regardless, Medicaid agencies will need to begin reviewing all enrollees’ eligibility, performing outreach, and designing system updates this summer. In terms of next steps, states should consider the following:

  • Evaluate your program and identify initiatives to prioritize in the coming year. Ask your CMS contact about the latest applicable guidance. 
  • Develop Advanced Planning Documents (APDs) to help fund technology needs for initiatives, along with training your SMA team and providers. 
  • Implement a communications management approach to engage stakeholders, and inform affected Medicaid members.
  • Marshal project management resources and develop a realistic and achievable roadmap to success.  
  • Explore agency contracting vehicles, cooperative contracts, and other procurements tools. 

We’re here to help. If you have more questions or want to have an in-depth conversation about your specific situation, please contact the Medicaid consulting team.

Article
Medicaid coverage gap: Tools and strategies for Medicaid agencies to help retain members

Read this if you are at a financial institution.

While documentation of your CECL implementation and ongoing practices is essential to a successful outcome, it can sometimes feel like a very tall order when you are building a new methodology from the ground up. It may help to think of your CECL documentation as your methodology blueprint. While others will want to see it, you really need it to ensure that what you are building is well-designed, structurally sound, appropriately supported, and will hold up to subsequent “renovations” (model changes or tweaks). To help you focus on what’s essential, consider these documentation tips:

Getting started

Like any good architect, you need to understand the expectations for your design—what auditors and regulators want to see in your documentation. Two resources that can really help are the AICPA Practice Aid: Allowance for credit losses-audit considerations1, and the Interagency Supervisory Guidance on Model Risk Management2. One way to actively use these guides is to take note of the various section/subject headers and the key points, ideas, and questions highlighted within each, and turn that into your documentation checklist. You’ll also want to think strategically about where to keep the working document, who needs access to it, and how to maintain version control. It is also a good idea to decide up-front how you will reference, catalog, and store the materials (e.g., data files, test results, analyses, committee minutes, presentations, approvals, etc.) that helped you make and capture final decisions. You can download our CECL Documentation checklist now.   

What to watch out for

What’s new under CECL are areas requiring documentation (e.g., broader scope of “financial assets,” prepayments, forecasts, reversion, etc.). But watch out for elements that seem familiar—they may now have a new twist (e.g., segmentation, external data, Q factors, etc.). It’s a good idea to challenge any documentation from the past that you feel could be re-purposed or “rolled into” your CECL documentation. Be prepared also to spend time explaining or customizing vendor-provided documents (e.g., model design and development, data analysis memos, software procedures, etc.). 

While this material can give you a running start, they will not on their own satisfy auditor and regulator expectations. Ultimately, your documentation will need to reflect your own understanding and conclusions: how you considered, challenged, and got comfortable with the vendor’s work; what validations and testing you did over that work, and how you’ve translated this into policies and procedures appropriate for your institution’s operations, workflows, governance, and controls. For more information on making the vendor decision, and for suggestions of vendor selection criteria, read our previous article “CECL Readiness: Vendor or no vendor?” 

Point of view

It is human nature, especially whenever entering new territory, to want to know how others are approaching the task at hand. Related to CECL, networking, joining peer discussion groups, researching what and how those who have already adopted CECL are disclosing, are all great ways to see possibilities, learn, and gain perspective. When it comes to CECL documentation, however, the most important point of view to communicate is that of your institution’s management. Consider the difference in these two documentation approaches: (a) we looked at what others are doing, this is what most of them seem to be doing, so we are too; or (b) this is what we did and why we feel this decision is the best for our portfolio/risk profile; as part of our decision-making process, we did this type of benchmarking and discovered this. Example b is stronger documentation: your point of view is the primary focus, making it clear you reached your own conclusions. 

Other elements for CECL documentation

Documenting your CECL implementation, methodology, and model details is critical, but not the only documentation expected as you transition to CECL. It has been said that CECL is a much more enterprise-wide methodology, meaning that some of the model decisions or inputs may require you use data and assumptions traditionally controlled in other departments and for other purposes. One common example of this is prepayments. Up to this point, prepayment data may have been something between management and a vendor and used for management discussion and planning, but not necessarily validated, tested, or controlled for in the same way as your loss model calculations. Under CECL, this changes specifically because it is now an input into the loss estimate that lands in your financial statements. As a result, prepayments would be subject to, for example, “accuracy and completeness” considerations, among others (for more information on these expectations, refer to our earlier articles on data and segmentation). Prepayments is just one example, but does illustrate how CECL adoption will likely trigger updates to policies, procedures, governance, and controls across multiple areas of the organization.    

One final note: There are some new financial statement disclosures required with CECL adoption. Beyond those, there may be other CECL-related information either you want to share, or your audit/tax firm recommends be disclosed. Consulting with your auditor at least a quarter prior to adoption will help make sure you aren’t scrambling last minute to draft new language or tables.  

Struggling with CECL documentation or other elements of CECL? 

No matter what stage of CECL readiness you are in, we can help you navigate the requirements as efficiently and effectively as possible. For more information, visit the CECL page on our website. If you would like specific answers to questions about your CECL implementation, please visit our Ask the Advisor page to submit your questions.

For more tips on documenting your CECL adoption, stay tuned for our next article in the series. You can also follow Susan Weber on LinkedIn.

1You can find the AICPA Practice Aid here.
2The interagency guidance was released as OCC Bulletin 2011-12, FRB SR 11-7, and as FDIC FIL 22-2017

 

Article
CECL documentation: Your methodology blueprint

Read this if you are a not-for-profit organization.

With springtime upon us, it may be difficult to start thinking about this upcoming fall, but that is exactly what many folks in the nonprofit sector are starting to do. The reason for this? It’s because 2022 brings with it the mid-term election cycle. While technically an off-year election, many congressional and gubernatorial races are being contested, in addition to a myriad of questions that will appear on ballots across the country. It is around this time of year we start to see many questions from clients in the nonprofit sector in the area of political campaign activities, lobbying (both direct and grassroots), and education/advocacy.

This article will discuss the three major types of activities nonprofit organizations may or may not undertake in this arena and will offer guidance to give organizations the vote of confidence they need to not run afoul of the potential pitfalls when it comes to undertaking these activities.

Political campaign activity

Political campaign activities include participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office, be it at the federal, state, or local level. Examples of such activities include contributions to political campaigns as well as making public statements in favor of or in opposition to any candidate. The IRS explicitly prohibits section 501(c)(3) organizations from conducting political campaign activities, the consequence of doing so being loss of exempt status. However, other types of exempt organizations (such as 501(c)(4) organizations) are allowed to engage in such activities, so long as those activities are not the organization’s primary activity. Only Section 527 organizations may engage in political campaign activities as their primary purpose. 

Direct lobbying

Direct lobbing activities attempt to influence legislation by directly communicating with legislative members regarding specific legislation. Examples of direct lobbying include contacting members of Congress and asking them to vote for or against a specific piece of legislation.

Grassroots lobbying

Grassroots lobbying, on the other hand, attempts to influence legislation by affecting the opinions of the general public and include a call to action. Examples of grassroots lobbying include requesting members of the general public to contact their representatives to urge them to vote for or against specific legislation.  

A quick way to remember the difference:
Political = think “P” for People – advocating for or against a specific candidate 
Lobbying = think “L” for Legislation – advocating for or against a specific bill

Education/advocacy

Organizations may engage in activities designed to educate or advocate for a particular cause so long as it does not take a specific position. For example, telling members of Congress how grants helped constituents would be considered an educational activity. However, attempting to get a member of Congress to vote for or against specific piece of legislation that would affect grant funding would be considered lobbying. Another example would be educating or informing the general public about a specific piece of legislation. Organizations need to be mindful here as taking a specific position one way or the other would lend itself to the activity being deemed to be lobbying, and not merely education of the general public. There is no limit on how much education/advocacy activity a nonprofit organization may conduct.

Why does this matter?

As you can see, there is a very fine line between lobbying and education, so it is important to understand the differences so that an organization conducting educational activities does not inadvertently end up conducting lobbying activities.

Organizations exempt under Code Section 501(c)(3) can conduct only lobbying activities that are not substantial to its overall activities. A 501(c)(3) organization may risk losing its exempt status and may face excise taxes on the lobbying expenditures if it is deemed to be conducting excess lobbying, whereas section 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations may engage in an unlimited amount of lobbying activity.

What is substantial?

Unfortunately, there is no bright line test for determining what is considered substantial versus insubstantial. As an industry standard, many practitioners have taken a position that insubstantial means five percent or less of total expenditures, but that position is not codified and could be challenged by the IRS. 

Section 501(c)(3) organizations that intend to conduct lobbying activities on a regular basis may want to consider making an election under Code Section 501(h). This election is only applicable to 501(c)(3) organizations and provides a defined amount of lobbying activity an organization may conduct without jeopardizing its exempt status or becoming subject to excise tax. The 501(h) election limit is based on total organization expenditures with a maximum allowance of $1 million for “large organizations” (defined as an organization with total expenditures over $17,000,000). 

While the 501(h) election provides some clarity as to how much lobbying activity can be conducted, it may be prohibitive for some organizations whose total expenditures greatly exceed the $17,000,000 threshold. Another item to be aware of is that the lobbying threshold applies to all members of an affiliated group combined, which means the entire group shares the maximum threshold allowed. 

Another option for those engaging in lobbying is to create a separate entity (such as a 501(c)(4) organization) which conducts all lobbying activities, insulating the 501(c)(3) organization from these activities. As previously mentioned, organizations exempt under Code Section 501(c)(4) can conduct an unlimited amount of lobbying activities but can only conduct limited political campaign activities.

What about political campaign activities?

Section 527 organizations, known as political action committees, are exempt organizations dedicated specifically to conducting political campaign activities. If a 501(c)(4), (c)(5), or (c)(6) organization makes a contribution to a 527 organization, it may be required to file a Form 1120-POL and be subject to tax at the corporate tax rate (currently a flat 21%) based on the lesser of the political campaign expenditures or the organization’s net investment income. State income taxes may also be applicable. Section 501(c)(3) organizations may not make contributions to 527 organizations. 

If your organization is considering participation in any of the above activities, we would recommend you reach out to your not-for-profit tax team for additional information. We’re here to help!

Article
Lobbying and politics and education, oh my!