Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2019
|Accounting Policies [Abstract]|
|Summary of Significant Accounting Policies||
NOTE 2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Except for our accounting policies for leases a result of adopting ASC 842, there have been no changes to our significant accounting policies described in Note 2 to our Annual Report on Form
10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2018, filed with the SEC on March 12, 2019, that have had a material impact on our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes.
We adopted ASC 842 on January 1, 2019 using the modified retrospective basis and did not restate comparative periods as permitted under Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”)
2018-11.ASC 842 supersedes nearly all existing lease accounting guidance under GAAP issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) including ASC Topic 840, Leases. ASC 842 requires that lessees recognize ROU assets and lease liabilities calculated based on the present value of lease payments for all lease agreements with terms that are greater than twelve months. ASC 842 distinguishes leases as either a finance lease or an operating lease that affects how the leases are measured and presented in the statement of operations and statement of cash flows.
For operating leases, we calculated ROU assets and lease liabilities based on the present value of the remaining lease payments as of the date of adoption using the IBR as of that date. There were no changes in our capital lease portfolio, which are now titled “finance leases” under ASC 842, other than the reclassification of the assets acquired under capital leases from their respective property and equipment category and long-term debt to ROU assets and lease liabilities.
The adoption of ASC 842 resulted in recording a
non-cashtransitional adjustment to operating lease ROU assets and operating lease liabilities of $65.0 million and $74.4 million, respectively. The difference between the operating lease ROU assets and operating lease liabilities at transition represented existing deferred rent expense and prepaid rent that was derecognized. The adoption of ASC 842 did not materially impact our results of operations, cash flows, or presentation thereof. Refer to Note 8 for more information.
The FASB issued practical expedients and accounting policy elections that we have applied as described below.
ASC 842 provides a package of three practical expedients that must be adopted together and applied to all lease agreements. We elected the package of practical expedients as follows for all leases:
Whether expired or existing contracts contain leases under the new definition of a lease.
Because the accounting for operating leases and service contracts was similar under ASC 840, there was no accounting reason to separate lease agreements from service contracts in order to account for them correctly. We reviewed existing service contracts to determine if the agreement contained an embedded lease to be accounted for on the balance sheet under ASC 842.
Lease classification for expired or existing leases.
Leases that were capital leases under ASC 840 are accounted for as financing leases under ASC 842 while leases that were operating leases under ASC 840 are accounted for as operating leases under ASC 842.
Whether previously capitalized initial direct costs would meet the definition of initial direct costs under the new standard guidance.
The definition of initial direct costs is more restrictive under ASC 842 than under ASC 840. Entities that do not elect the practical expedient are required to reassess capitalized initial direct costs under ASC 840 and record an equity adjustment for those that are not capitalizable under ASC 842.
Land Easement Practical Expedient
We elected the practical expedient that permits us to continue applying our current policy of accounting for land easements that existed as of, or expired before, the effective date of ASC 842. We have applied this policy to all of our existing land easements that were not previously accounted for under ASC 840.
Accounting Policy Elections
We calculate the term for each lease agreement to include the noncancellable period specified in the agreement together with (1) the periods covered by options to extend the lease if we are reasonably certain to exercise that option, (2) periods covered by an option to terminate if we are reasonably certain not to exercise that option and (3) period covered by an option to extend (or not terminate) if controlled by the lessor.
The assessment of whether we are reasonably certain to exercise an option to extend a lease requires significant judgement surrounding contract-based factors, asset-based factors, entity-based factors and market-based factors. These factors are described in our Critical Accounting Policies, Judgments and Estimates in Item 2 in this quarterly report on Form
Lease payments consist of the following payments (as applicable) related to the use of the underlying asset during the lease term:
Short-Term Lease Exemption
We elected to exclude short-term leases, or leases with a term of twelve months or less that do not contain a purchase option that we are reasonably certain to exercise, from our ROU asset and lease liability calculations.
We considered the applicability of the short-term exception on
leases with perpetual or rolling renewals as we are “reasonably certain” to continue the lease. For example, we lease various storage facilities under agreements with
terms that have continued over several years. The standard terms and conditions for a majority of these agreements allow either party to terminate within a notice period ranging from 10 to 30 days. There are no cancellation penalties other than the potential loss of a
one-monthrent or a security deposit if the termination terms are not adhered to.
We believe that these
leases qualify for the short-term exception to ASC 842 because either party can terminate the agreement without permission from the other party with no more than an insignificant penalty, therefore, the arrangements do not create enforceable rights and obligations. Additionally, the cost to move to a new location or find comparable facilities is low as there are no unique features of the storage facilities that impact our business or operations. We considered termination clauses, costs associated with moving and costs associated with finding alternative facilities to exclude
leases that have perpetually renewed.
Service Agreements with an Embedded Lease Component
We elected to exclude certain service agreements that contain embedded leases for equipment based on the immaterial impact of these agreements. Our analysis included cable and satellite television service agreements for which our monthly payment may include equipment rentals, coffee and water service at certain facilities that may include equipment rentals (we often meet minimum requirements and just pay for product used), security services that include a monthly fee for cameras or equipment, and other similar arrangements. Based on the insignificant amount of the monthly lease costs, we elected to exclude these agreements from our ROU asset and liability calculations due to the immaterial impact to our financial statements.
Index or Rate Applicable to Operating Lease Liabilities
We elected to measure lease liabilities for variable lease payments using the current rate or index in effect at the time of transition on January 1, 2019. Using the current index or rate is consistent with how we calculated and presented future minimum lease payments under ASC 840. Therefore, there is no change in accounting policy applicable to this election.
Incremental Borrowing Rate
The ROU asset and related lease liabilities recorded under ASC 842 are calculated based on the present value of the lease payments using (1) the rate implicit in the lease or (2) the lessee’s IBR, defined as the rate of interest that a lessee would have to pay to borrow on a collateralized basis over a similar term an amount equal to the lease payments in a similar economic environment. We performed an analysis as of January 1, 2019 to estimate the IBR applicable to Salem upon transition to ASC 842. Our analysis required the use of significant judgement and estimates, including the estimated value of the underlying leased asset, as described in are described in our Critical Accounting Policies, Judgments and Estimates in Item 2 in this quarterly report on Form
We elected to use a portfolio approach by applying a single IBR to leases with reasonably similar characteristics, including the remaining lease term, the underlying assets and the economic environment. We believe that applying the portfolio approach is acceptable because the results do not materially differ from the application of the leases model to the individual leases in that portfolio.
Sales Taxes and Other Similar Taxes
We elected not to evaluate whether sales taxes or other similar taxes imposed by a governmental authority on a specific lease revenue-producing transaction that are collected by the lessor from the lessee are the primary obligation of the lessor as owner of the underlying leased asset. A lessor that makes this election will exclude these taxes from the measurement of lease revenue and the associated expense. Taxes assessed on a lessor’s total gross receipts or on the lessor as owner of the underlying asset (e.g., property taxes) are excluded from the scope of the policy election. A lessor must apply the election to all taxes in the scope of the policy election and would provide certain disclosures.
Separating Consideration between Lease and
We elected to include the lease and
non-leasecomponents (or the fixed and variable consideration) as a single component accounted for as a lease. This practical expedient is elected by class of underlying assets as an accounting policy election, and applies to all arrangements in that class of underlying assets that qualify for the expedient. ASC 842 provides this expedient to alleviate concerns that the costs and administrative burden of allocating consideration to the separate lease and
non-leasecomponents may not justify the benefit of more precisely reflecting the ROU asset and the lease liability.
Contracts that include lease and
non-leasecomponents that are accounted for under the election not to separate require that all components that qualify for the practical expedient be combined. The components that do not qualify, such as those for which the timing and pattern of transfer of the lease and associated
non-leasecomponents are not the same, are accounted for separately.
Accounting for a lease component of a contract and its associated
non-leasecomponents as a single lease component results in an allocation of the total contract consideration to the lease component. Therefore, the initial and subsequent measurement of the lease liability and ROU asset is greater than if the policy election was not applied. The greater ROU asset value is considered in our impairment analysis.
Impairment of ROU Assets
ROU assets are reviewed for impairment when indicators of impairment are present. ROU assets from operating and finance leases are subject to the impairment guidance in ASC 360, Property, Plant, and Equipment, as ROU assets are long-lived nonfinancial assets.
ROU assets are tested for impairment individually or as part of an asset group if the cash flows related to the ROU asset are not independent from the cash flows of other assets and liabilities. An asset group is the unit of accounting for long-lived assets to be held and used, which represents the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other groups of assets and liabilities.
After a careful analysis of the guidance, we concluded that the appropriate unit of accounting for testing ROU assets for impairment is the broadcast market cluster level for radio station operations and the entity or division level for digital media entities, publishing entities and networks. Corporate ROU assets are tested on a consolidated level with consideration given to all cash flows of the company as corporate functions do not generate cash flows and are funded by revenue-producing activities at lower levels of the entity.
ASC 360 requires three steps to identify, recognize and measure the impairment of a long-lived asset (asset group) to be held and used:
Step 1 – Consider whether Indicators of Impairment are Present
As detailed in ASC
the following are examples of impairment indicators:
Other indicators should be considered if we believes that the carrying amount of an asset (asset group) may not be recoverable.
Step 2 – Test for Recoverability
If indicators of impairment are present, we are required to perform a recoverability test comparing the sum of the estimated undiscounted cash flows attributable to the long-lived asset or asset group in question to the carrying amount of the long-lived asset or asset group.
ASC 360 does not specifically address how operating lease liabilities and future cash outflows for lease payments should be considered in the recoverability test. Under ASC 360, financial liabilities, or long-term debt, generally are excluded from an asset group while operating liabilities, such as accounts payable, generally are included. ASC 842 characterizes operating lease liabilities as operating liabilities. Because operating lease liabilities may be viewed as having attributes of finance liabilities as well as operating liabilities, it is generally acceptable for a lessee to either include or exclude operating lease liabilities from an asset group when testing whether the carrying amount of an asset group is recoverable provided the approach is applied consistently for all operating leases and when performing Steps 2 and 3 of the impairment model in ASC 360.
In cases where we have received lease incentives, including operating lease liabilities in an asset group may result in the long-lived asset or asset group having a zero or negative carrying amount because the incentives reduce our ROU assets. We elected to exclude operating lease liabilities from the carrying amount of the asset group such that we test ROU assets for operating leases in the same manner that we test ROU assets for financing leases.
Undiscounted Future Cash Flows
The undiscounted future cash flows in Step 2 are based on our own assumptions rather than a market participant. If an election is made to exclude operating lease liabilities from the asset or asset group, all future cash lease payments for the lease should also be excluded. The standard requires lessees to exclude certain variable lease payments from lease payments and, therefore, from the measurement of a lessee’s lease liabilities. Because these variable payments do not reduce the lease liability, we include the variable payments we expect to make in our estimate of the undiscounted cash flows in the recoverability test (Step 2) using a probability-weighted approach.
Step 3 – Measurement of an Impairment Loss
If the undiscounted cash flows used in the recoverability test are less than the carrying amount of the long-lived asset (asset group), we are required to estimate the fair value of the long-lived asset or asset group and recognize an impairment loss when the carrying amount of the long-lived asset or asset group exceeds the estimated fair value. We elected to exclude operating lease liabilities from the estimated fair value, consistent with the recoverability test. Any impairment loss for an asset group must reduce only the carrying amounts of a long-lived asset or assets of the group, including the ROU assets. The loss must be allocated to the long-lived assets of the group on a pro rata basis using the relative carrying amounts of those assets, except that the loss allocated to an individual long-lived asset of the group must not reduce the carrying amount of that asset below its fair value whenever the fair value is determinable without undue cost and effort. ASC 360 prohibits the subsequent reversal of an impairment loss for an asset held and used.
Fair Value Considerations
When determining the fair value of a ROU asset, we must estimate what market participants would pay to lease the asset or what a market participant would pay up front in one payment for the ROU asset, assuming no additional lease payments would be due. The ROU asset must be valued assuming its highest and best use, in its current form, even if that use differs from the current or intended use. If no market exists for an asset in its current form, but there is a market for a transformed asset, the costs to transform the asset are considered in the fair value estimate. Refer to Note 15, Fair Value Measurements.
There were no indications of impairment during the period ended June 30, 2019.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
Changes to accounting principles are established by the FASB in the form of ASUs to the FASB’s Codification. We consider the applicability and impact of all ASUs on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or presentation thereof. Described below are ASUs that are not yet effective, but may be applicable to our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or presentation thereof. ASUs not listed below were assessed and determined to not be applicable to our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or presentation thereof.
In November 2018, the FASB issued ASU
, Collaborative Arrangements (Tope 818): Clarifying the Interaction Between Topic 808 and Topic 606, which clarifies when transactions between participants in a collaborative arrangement are within the scope of the FASB’s revenue standard, Topic 606. The standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019 and interim periods within those fiscal years, with early adoption permitted. We will adopt this standard on its effective date of January 1, 2020. We do not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or presentation thereof.
In October 2018, the FASB issued ASU
Targeted Improvements to Related Party Guidance for Variable Interest Entities, that changes the guidance for determining whether a decision-making fee paid to a decision makers and service providers are variable interests. The guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019 and interim periods within those fiscal years, with early adoption permitted. We will adopt this standard on its effective date of January 1, 2020. We do not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or presentation thereof.
In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU
350-40):Customer’s Accounting for Implementation Costs Incurred in a Cloud Computing Arrangement That is a Service Contract.
2018-15aligns the requirements for capitalizing implementation costs incurred in a hosting arrangement that is a service contract with the requirements for capitalizing implementation costs incurred to develop or obtain
internal-usesoftware. The standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years, with early adoption permitted. We will adopt this standard on its effective date of January 1, 2020. We are currently evaluating the impact of this ASU on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or presentation thereof.
In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU
Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Disclosure Framework-Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement.ASU
2018-13removes or modifies certain disclosures and in certain instances requires additional disclosures. The standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years, with early adoption permitted. We will adopt this standard on its effective date of January 1, 2020. We do not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or presentation thereof.
In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU
Codification Improvements. ASU
2018-09provides minor corrections and clarifications that affect a variety of topics in the Codification. Several updates are effective upon issuance of the update while others have transition guidance for effective dates in the future. We do not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or presentation thereof.
In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU
Financial Instruments-Credit Losses,which changes the impairment model for most financial assets and certain other instruments. For trade and other receivables,
debt securities, loans and other instruments, entities will be required to use a new forward-looking “expected loss” model that will replace today’s “incurred loss” model and generally will result in the earlier recognition of allowances for losses. For
debt securities with unrealized losses, entities will measure credit losses in a manner similar to current practice, except that the losses will be recognized as an allowance. Subsequent to issuing ASU
2016-13,the FASB issued ASU
Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses, for the purpose of clarifying certain aspects of ASU
2018-19has the same effective date and transition requirements as ASU
2016-13.In April 2019, the FASB issued ASU
Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses, Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and Topic 825, Financial Instruments, which is effective with the adoption of ASU
2016-13.In May 2019, the FASB issued ASU
Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326), which is also effective with the adoption of ASU
2016-13.We plan to adopt this ASU on its effective date of January 1, 2020. We do not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, or presentation thereof.
The entire disclosure for all significant accounting policies of the reporting entity.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef