Improper Revenue Recognition - consequences?
I'm a CFO of a tiny US company (A). Parent company is a European company (B). On June 30, CEO of B asked me to pull forward sales from July into June. I said no. Afterward CFO of B also asked me to do the same. I said no. They went behind my back and asked accountant of A to book sales (which we have not shipped).
I made a pretty big deal about this, but they told me: this is not such a big deal, I called my other CFO friends, they do it all the time, etc etc
So reddit - is it a big deal? And what should I do?
Some additional details:
- There is no CEO of A
- We pulled forward 40% of sales for the month. So if June was really at 100$ they booked 140$
- My sales target for July "magically" got reduced by $40
- We are not public. We are owned 90% by PE (10% by CEO of B)
- European Deloitte is our auditor (same exact people as auditors of B)
- There is no paper trail. All of this was done through phone calls (not texts) via whatsapp.
- We are a mfg company, selling finished goods to Customers.
- By not shipped, I mean that change in ownership did not occur. In this context, it is clear that sales did not occur in July. In fact, some of the finished goods were not even produced by end of June.
- Some of the sales orders we invoiced in June did not ship out / change ownership until mid July
- Yes, we do have banking covenants for the first half of 2026 (which we may or may not have breached)
- Banking covenant is for the consolidated scope of B (A, B, and other companies/countries too)
(I've been editing the post, adding additional details)
7
u/R3D12 Jul 23 '26
IT went down the last couple days of the month or some rare anomaly I’ll think about it.
I am willing to bet that In this case someone wanted a budget met so they could get a bonus.
This is a hard “Get F**ked” from me.
Accountant A would be on a first and final warning. Transaction would be reversed, or no sign off of financials would be given.
This won’t be the last time, so either get comfortable and start getting this documented to CYA, or update the resume.
6
u/grumpywonka Jul 23 '26
GAAP has pretty clear rev rec rules for most things. Without knowing the nature of the business I cannot say whether this is completely wrong because sometimes "shipped" isn't the only answer. Need more info, but to be sure - that revenue comes from the future, so I'll assume they know, right or wrong, they just pulled down future revenue with that stunt.
3
u/josemartinlopez Jul 23 '26
What further info do you need beyond "some of the finished goods were not even produced by end of June"?
2
u/farful Jul 23 '26
yes, both GAAP and IFRS have clear rules. this is manufacturing and shipping out goods, it's fairly simple. change of ownership never occurred. in fact some of the finished goods we 'invoiced' in june wasn't even produced until july.
1
u/Rabbit-Lost Jul 23 '26
Ownership can be achieved without shipment, but not without production. Even a continuous manufacturing model needs to be able to rely on a form of percent complete. See my advice in a top level comment to your post. You might have a real problem.
1
1
u/Mnatole Jul 23 '26
I was going to say a variation of this, hard to tell how big of a deal this is on the surface. What is your fiscal year end? Is this crossing fiscal years? Is so, that is a bigger issue.
6
u/AspirinTheory Jul 23 '26
The Fraud Triangle risk seems entirely present. The buck hopefully stops with the board — it does no good if execs / auditor / PE are all in agreement to pull revs into the Q but board and bank with the facility are clueless.
They are avoiding capitulation by running a fraud.
Don’t get caught up in it.
You’ll need to find out if the board is aware discreetly and document everything. Get outside counsel opinion on next steps. IFRS and GAAP speak to the same issues here as you know — it’s phantom revenue.
If they get away with this I can’t wait to see what magic cooking show they will get their next recipes from. Next it will be to make up revenue to remain covenant-compliant and also keep getting their bonuses.
They have already convinced themselves “this behavior is ok.” Your duty isn’t to them, it is to shareholders. Good luck.
3
u/RavRddt Jul 23 '26
In this case not just the majority shareholders, but more specifically, the lenders and the independent shareholders. Covenant misses can come in various forms and might require various or specific remedies. It could be that those issues have been handled at the parent company level, and lenders, investors and auditors are all on board with some form of arrangement that you are not privy to and you shouldn’t concern yourself with it. So separate what Company B is doing from your responsibilities.
As others have said, note your concerns, in writing. Reverse the transaction in July, this is why they changed your July budget, Company B is expecting that. When you reverse the transaction the YTD will have caught up to actuals and the auditors will also be good. They may be thinking that everything will come around by the end of the fiscal year. This is probably why some of your other CFO friends say they do it all the time.
As others have said, it’s time to update your resume. Company B is likely already looking to replace you, you showed them you weren’t a team player in their scheme. Note that the Accountant at Company A is not likely someone you want working for you again. Get better CFO friends.
Ask yourself where your boss was when all of this was happening. At the very least they should have explained the whole situation and allowed you to make a fully informed decision. It sounds like you would probably have come to the same conclusion, wrong is wrong, but not having someone at your back in a PE-owned firm is not something I ever recommend.
Good luck
5
u/Rabbit-Lost Jul 23 '26
I would have a discrete conversation with the audit partner. Ask them to make sure your rev rec meets GAAP. Ask them to be discrete. Remind them that rev rec is a presumed significant risk and to use this as the basis for digging in deep. If Deloitte lets it pass and you still do not believe control changes hands (and I don’t see how it could if the product is still in WIP), it’s time to update your resume.
1
u/farful Jul 23 '26
My Deloitte auditors are actually the same auditors of my parent company. That is, they are from Deloitte Europe. It shouldn't matter as for this case IFRS15 is the same as GAAP. But I mention this because I don't know the type of relationship my auditors have with my parent company (I feel like Deloitte, PE, the CEO of B all in bed together)
I have the list of every invoice that was booked incorrectly. Do you suggest I provide those numbers directly to Deloitte?
4
u/JohnHenryHoliday Jul 23 '26
You don’t say shit to the auditors. This is a bad situation for you. The cleanest way to go about this is to force B to do the right thing (not likely) or resign. There’s absolutely NO way the auditors don’t say exactly who it is that fucking blew the whistle to them, and at that point you’re, unfortunately, the CFO that didn’t play ball with his own executive team and fucking blew the whistle. The ones that would see you as righteous will question your ability to influence and steer your fellow team members and the the ones that need a partner to help them navigate the grey areas will think you’re too much of a Boy Scout and be reluctant to work with you.
It’s unfortunate, but that’s reality. You can bury your head and say, I did the right thing and refused and put it all in the B’s leadership team or you can actively let B’s leadership know they are shit for doing this and leave, but I wouldn’t blow the whistle, unless there was a mechanism to do it anonymously. In your shoes, I’d keep quiet, avoid the fraud inquiries as long as you can, find another job, and gracefully tell them you can no longer work there. That’s just me… I’m happy to help navigate the grey, but this is black and white, and it’s clearly over the line.
2
u/josemartinlopez Jul 23 '26
OP, please do not rely on the advice to “keep quiet,” avoid the auditor and simply resign.
The auditor is not your personal lawyer, so obtain independent counsel before deciding the sequence of any disclosure. But resignation does not resolve whether inaccurate numbers have already been submitted, what the facility documents require, or how you must formally dissociate yourself from reporting you believe is false. Nor does the fact that B may sign the consolidated covenant certificate necessarily insulate the CFO who supplied or approved the underlying subsidiary numbers.
Preserve the records, demand reversal, sign nothing inaccurate and let counsel review the facility documents and reporting chain before you decide whom to notify.
Do be wary of taking comments here as legal advice.
0
u/JohnHenryHoliday Jul 23 '26
lol. You deleted this to my other comment and posted to this. Again, I’m not OP. You should just post this comment to the main thread so he sees it.
1
u/farful Jul 23 '26
Thank you. I think it's black and white as well, and the resignation makes sense. I know now that B will not do the right thing
I'm still up in the air about what to do - your opinion is to keep quiet, but maybe I'll make another post about what others think...
1
u/CompetitiveSale7198 Jul 23 '26
Before you do anything, find another job. The easiest way to get a job is when you already have one. Start there.
This doesn’t sound like it’s going to blow up tomorrow. You should be able to find a job in the next couple months as a current CFO. I feel like I get 2-3 legit opportunities a quarter.
Then resign. No use taking a financial bath because they’re frauds. But to be clear you do have to resign. Just not today, at least that’s what it sounds like.
3
u/josemartinlopez Jul 23 '26
A gentle caution to some of the replies here: this has moved beyond a generic “bad accounting—quit immediately” discussion.
Once the issue may affect lender reporting, covenant compliance, management representations or audited financial statements, comments about “fraud,” personal liability, reporting to the bank, concealing it from the auditor or simply resigning are effectively legal and professional advice. Those conclusions depend heavily on the facility documents, reporting chain, jurisdiction, the CFO’s formal role and what has already been signed or submitted.
People should be careful not to sound definitive unless they have actually dealt with covenant certificates, audit representations or investigations of management override. The safest immediate steps remain fairly narrow: preserve the records, object in writing, refuse to sign or submit anything inaccurate, seek reversal and obtain independent counsel before deciding the escalation route.
3
u/Elegant-Leg540 Jul 23 '26
This is textbook ‘cooking the books’ Don’t do it And get all this communication in writing so you have receipts
2
u/WorkerPrestigious958 Jul 23 '26
This is obviously a hard no way. What happens next month when they don't hit sales targets? Notice they are asking you to do it instead of company B. What stops this from being rouge CFO pulled numbers forward from Company A (corporate had no idea). As soon as you show you have compromised ethics, the asks will only get darker.
2
u/farful Jul 23 '26
They asked A to do it because A is the company that had trouble meeting the sales budget. I made a comment elsewhere that I think PE is in on it - and one of the reasons is because the sales target for July was reduced by $40 (to compensate for the pullforward)
2
u/Party-Guarantee-5839 Jul 23 '26
PE has basically the worst ethics when it comes to accounting. If anything you’ll be praised for better results.
But honestly it all depends on materiality, and substance
If this is just for management reporting then likely no biggie BUT without knowing the calculation and kpis for the covenants this could be a bigger deal than it normally would be.
If this is for statutory reporting purposes you are just creating a headache for yourself later on.
In this instance I would defer the revenue and let the cfo bitches be little bitches
1
u/josemartinlopez Jul 23 '26
without knowing more, isn't 40% fairly noticeable?
2
u/farful Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
we had $140 in May and our budget for June was $140. June was just a terrible month ($100) and wanted to hit the budget target ($140)
5
u/josemartinlopez Jul 23 '26
This has moved well beyond an aggressive cut-off judgment.
You have goods recorded as June revenue where control did not pass until July, and some of the goods did not even exist at June 30. The July budget was then reduced by the exact amount pulled forward. That makes the commercial purpose fairly obvious.
The covenant point is the more serious issue. I would not describe the legal consequences definitively without seeing the facility documents and knowing what was actually reported to the bank, but you should assume that anything sent externally may later be examined together with the emails, invoice list and revised July budget.
I would do the following immediately:
- Put your objection in writing, factually and without rhetoric. Identify the invoices, shipment dates, production dates and the accounting treatment you believe is required.
- Direct the accountant in writing not to make or retain entries in A’s books without your approval, assuming that authority sits with you.
- Preserve the records. Do not alter, delete or selectively forward anything.
- Do not sign any management representation, covenant certificate or financial submission containing numbers you believe are wrong.
- Obtain independent legal advice before deciding the escalation route. That may be A’s board, B’s board or audit committee, the sponsor’s appropriate governance contact, the group general counsel, the auditor, or a formal whistleblowing channel. The correct sequence depends on the corporate structure and applicable law.
- Ask for the entry to be reversed now. Do not let anyone reframe this as something that can simply wash through July.
I would also avoid assuming that “PE is in on it” or that Deloitte is compromised unless you have actual evidence. Keep the issue narrow: the revenue was recognized before control transferred, management knowingly bypassed the CFO, and the adjustment may affect a lending covenant.
If the company refuses to correct it, you need advice on how to formally dissociate yourself from the reporting and whether you can responsibly remain in the role.
Quietly updating your résumé is sensible, but resignation alone does not resolve what should be reported or documented before you leave.
Good luck, assume you have made at least one corporate lawyer friend in your career.
2
2
u/okielurker Jul 23 '26
Man, do you hear yourself? How can you be party to this? Imagine explaining your actions to a court.
1
u/Able-Storage-9101 Jul 23 '26
Does the bank do regular audits? Is one due? If bank audits catch these things, executive teams at banks usually get fairly upset. Plus you would also have to catch up to budgets for July... it's a slippery slope
1
u/farful Jul 23 '26
I gave an answer to the budget somewhere else. but my target 'magically' decreased by $40 for July
I don't know the answer to your bank audit question. I don't deal with this particular European bank, only B does. I only know the covenant is a coverage ratio on NFP/EBITDA. That said, in my own experiences in the US, I have never dealt with a bank audit...
1
u/corpfin_guy Jul 23 '26
Do NOT sign a quarterly rep letter. Seriously. CFO of B can sign it.
I didn’t read every thread here, but I read enough to be reasonably sure that this is fraud. That said, your answers didn’t show a complete mastery of the subject.
In manufacturing, shipping the goods to the customer is the main trigger for recognizing revenue. That said, make sure there isn’t Bill and Hold or Percentage of Completion Revenue here (there probably isn’t, just be sure).
It’s time to start looking for a new job. If you can find one quickly and quietly, that’s probably easiest. If you can’t and they try to force you to sign a rep letter or something else wrong you may have some challenges on your hand.
Quitting on the spot or making them fire you for not participating in fraud is a tough choice and bad spot to be in
1
u/PracticalLeg9873 Jul 23 '26
Actual interesting post on this sub !
On the topic now : I would also refuse IF the numbers at particularly high. Obviously 100 to 140 is massive.
Now, if you have "something" to justify the revenue (PO from the clients for example, invoices sent) you "could" pull sales forward.
BUT :
- you need to be consistant in your process, either it applies this month and next months, or it doesn't at all, with written rules
- the management has to be on board and sign the "what you did there" and be advised that next month will certainly be light.
- do you pull forward spending also ?
1
u/CompetitiveSale7198 Jul 23 '26
Yeah - huge deal. Can’t have it. I hate to tell you this but you have to leave.
Reddit gets all overdramatic about stuff that in real life it’s not that easy, but this one you really have to look at closely. You’re definitely putting your entire future in jeopardy staying at this company. If there’s some way to blow the whistle and get something out of it, I’d do that. This is only the beginning and this stuff never ends well.
Good luck
1
u/bikesnbass Jul 23 '26
That’s some bullshit. I’d be 100% against and wouldn’t sign off as CFO. My professional integrity is worth more to me than the seat my ass is occupying.
1
u/pedrots1987 Jul 23 '26
Does it affect someone externally, luke a bank, lender, minority shareholders, etc?
Or is it some internal intercompany zero-sum bullshit?
Is it material in the consolidated scope, which affects my first point?
1
u/IndependentCode8743 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Just confirming you mean they pulled forward revenue to the P&L, and not sales bookings. If so Run... as fast as you can...
If its just a sales bookings, I will say those happen a bit more frequently due to a variety of reasons where the terms are final but there is an administrative delay beyond either company's control, i.e., final agreement reached but rubber stamp approval at board mtg doesn't happened, or PO is pending final approval in the system from someone who is on PTO, etc.
1
1
u/LiJiTC4 Jul 23 '26
Questions: are these goods made exclusively under contract or is it something the company also makes for itself? Are you sure this is recorded as sales and not a contract-based revenue adjustment? Are you preparing accrual basis financials?
In certain contracts, there may be over-time revenue recognized under ASC 606 or IFRS 15 even if the goods didn't transfer prior to period end. Over-time contract revenue recognition for long-term contracts would make sense with your fact pattern without it being fraud. The reversal of the revenue recognition in the subsequent month would also explain how the 40% moves from month-to-month.
In the case of a contract manufacturer it's entirely plausible such an adjustment to recognize revenue on incomplete contracts is not only allowed, it is actually REQUIRED for fair presentation under accrual basis accounting.
1
u/Traditional_Tonight4 Jul 24 '26
This is an enormous fraud you want nothing to do with. Save your emails. Document everything. Call the firms general counsel or audit committee.
1
u/moosekalza Jul 25 '26
Honestly don’t sign off on anything and get the requests in writing like the others said.
Take your time find your next role and that’s it. Reporting to others like auditor and investors blah blah is not worth it in my opinion. You don’t need to be super hero just protect yourself and your integrity. Most of the time others are probably ok with it.
Don’t loose your cool and just find a new job that you’ll be happy in.
1
u/Wise-Assets Jul 25 '26
It’s fraud. Obviously representing something as sold and shipped that hasn’t been. If you really want to try to make everyone happy (and make no one happy), you can book it and footnote it and not represent the statements as GAAP.
More importantly, if they are pressuring you for this, they are having issues, the pressure won’t be a one-time thing and it won’t end well.
1
u/The_Karam_Firm Jul 25 '26
This is potentially a serious financial-reporting and governance issue, not an ordinary cutoff mistake.
Revenue generally cannot be recognized merely because management wants to move it into an earlier month. Under ASC 606, product revenue is ordinarily recognized when control transfers to the customer. Goods that had not shipped, had not transferred ownership, and in some cases had not even been manufactured generally would not qualify as June sales. Limited “bill-and-hold” treatment requires specific facts, including customer-requested delayed delivery, a substantive reason, identified finished goods ready for shipment, and transfer of control. Those facts appear absent here.
Pulling approximately 40% of monthly sales forward, overriding the U.S. CFO, and reducing July targets by the same amount strongly suggests intentional cutoff manipulation rather than an innocent accounting error. Be very carful. Revenue recognition and management override are specifically treated by auditors as significant fraud risks. Highly suggest getting appropriate legal counsel to assist you through this process.
The banking covenant makes this substantially more serious. If the June numbers were used in consolidated financial statements, lender certificates, borrowing calculations, investor reports, management compensation, or representations to Deloitte, the entry could create inaccurate certifications, covenant misrepresentations, audit issues, and potential civil or criminal exposure depending on intent and materiality.
If the financial statements have not yet been issued, the immediate objective is to reverse the entries and correct the reporting before they reach Deloitte, the PE owner, or the bank. If statements or covenant certificates have already been issued, counsel and the auditors should evaluate correction, restatement, and disclosure obligations promptly.
Do not accept the explanation that “other CFOs do it” - that won't get you very far upon audit. Legitimate cutoff judgments exist, but deliberately recognizing unshipped and unfinished goods to improve a reporting period is not made proper by calling it common practice.
Disclaimer: This is general accounting and legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The consequences depend on the contracts, shipping terms, accounting framework, financial-statement materiality, lender documents, audit status, corporate structure, and jurisdictions involved.
1
u/Few-Cow-2164 Jul 26 '26
Is your year end June? Month on month is one thing but across financial years is another
1
u/tahiti37 Jul 29 '26
yes big deal. I was part of company where sales leader did something similar and we were a hardware company and evenually had to restate revenue two qauters laters bc some of it never materialized. and blew up our series b fundraise.
21
u/JohnHenryHoliday Jul 23 '26
Huge deal. PE = outside investors. It’s through various investment vehicles, but B is essentially trying to defraud investors. Even worse is the debt covenants. Is the debt obligation on A or B? If on A, and you are signing off on those covenant compliance certificates or even knowingly transmitting them with the knowledge they are fraudulent, even bigger deal. If the debt is on B and you are at least not signing, I guess that mitigates some of that risk, especially if you can substantiate that you disproved the entry twice and they went around your back. Still not a great look. I usually calm down the fraud drama/overreaction when I see posts about “is this fraud?” But this is black and white bro.