More from the Author

• Case | HBS Case Collection | June 2020 (Revised July 2020)

  Accounting for Leases at American Airlines (A)

  Jonas Heese, Gerardo Pérez Cavazos and Julia Kelley

  In March 2020, as coronavirus reduced demand for air travel, an analyst was forecasting American Airlines’ (American’s) first quarter financial results. To develop a forecast, she needed to familiarize herself with Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842),” passed four years earlier by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. ASU 2016-02 required companies to disclose all leases on their balance sheets, but it made an exception for leases with variable payments, allowing companies to leave such leases off-balance sheet. The Wall Street Journal estimated that more than 50% of American’s leases remained off-balance sheet due to the exclusion of variable leases. Should American and other companies be allowed to leave variable lease payments off-balance sheet? How did the decision to leave these payments off-balance sheet affect companies’ risk profiles and valuations?

  Keywords: Accounting; Financial Reporting; Financial Statements; Finance; Governance; Corporate Accountability; Corporate Governance; Governing Rules, Regulations, and Reforms; Governing and Advisory Boards; Leasing; Accounting Industry; Air Transportation Industry; North and Central America; United States;

  Citation:

  Heese, Jonas, Gerardo Pérez Cavazos, and Julia Kelley. "Accounting for Leases at American Airlines (A)." Harvard Business School Case 120-069, June 2020. (Revised July 2020.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related

• Editorial | Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung | July 3, 2020

  Was sich nach dem Wirecard-Skandal ändern muss

  Jonas Heese and Karthik Ramanna

  Citation:

  Heese, Jonas, and Karthik Ramanna. "Was sich nach dem Wirecard-Skandal ändern muss." Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (July 3, 2020).  View Details

  CiteView Details

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | June 2020

  Muddy Waters vs. eHealth: The Debate of a "Lifetime"

  Jonas Heese and Cristo Liautaud

  In May 2020, an analyst was assessing eHealth’s performance. eHealth was an online / tele-sales broker of health insurance products. The stock had recently hit all-time highs, closing at a peak of $146 on March 4, 2020. But now, May 4, 2020, eHealth traded at $103. The recent fall had wiped nearly $1.0B from the company’s market capitalization because well-known short seller Carson Block had released a short-report on the company. Carson Block argued that eHealth’s management had undertaken “massive stock promotion.” In the report, Block said that eHealth’s adoption of the new revenue recognition standard – ASC 606 – inflated revenue and masked the fact that eHealth was losing money on each new policy that it sold.
  Still, eHealth’s valuation remained elevated at 3.3x FY2021E Revenue, 21x FY2021E adjusted net income, even assuming away accounting uncertainty. In addition, the mean consensus share price target as of May 4, 2020 was $179.
  Did the latest news provide a buying opportunity? Or was it best to avoid eHealth, even perhaps consider shorting the company?

  Keywords: Revenue Recognition; Health; Insurance; Online Technology; Insurance Industry;

  Citation:

  Heese, Jonas, and Cristo Liautaud. Muddy Waters vs. eHealth: The Debate of a "Lifetime". Harvard Business School Case 120-114, June 2020.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducators

  Related