2018年10月3日

證券和交易所委員會

100 F街 N.E.

華盛頓特區20549

注意：Stephen Krikorian，會計部主管

 

回信：

ACI Worldwide, Inc.

表格 10-K 截至2017年12月31日的財政年度

於2018年2月27日提交

表格 10-Q 截至2018年3月31日季度結束

於2018年5月10日提交

文件 案件編號00-25346

女士，先生們：

下列陳述ACI Worldwide, Inc.（以下簡稱“本公司”）對證券交易委員會（以下簡稱“委員會”）企業融資部（以下簡稱“部門”）工作人員意見作出回應，該意見包含在您於2018年9月19日發出的函件中，涉及上述年度報告和 10-K 以及截至2018年3月31日的季度報告 10-Q. 為了您的方便，我們已將您的意見列入本函的內文中，並立即提供本公司對此的回應。

表格 10-Q 截至2018年3月31日的季度結束

附錄2. 營業收入

軟體即服務（SaaS）和平台即服務（PaaS）協議，第9頁

1. 在第33頁上，您指出SaaS和PaaS成本包括付款卡匯兌和處理費用，並納入營業成本。請告訴我們您如何計算與這些費用相關的安排中的收入，包括是否包括支付給第三方的金額，以及您如何得出此類金額應如何以毛收入和營業成本的形式反映的結論。參考ASC 606-10-55-36 通過39A。

回應：saas-云计算和paas-云计算收入包括我們的客戶支付的費用，作為電子帳單呈現和支付(EBPP)產品的一部分。對於EBPP， 公司與我們的客戶簽訂合同，提供集成的付款便利服務，根據該合同，公司主要負責提供付款便利服務(指定服務)以換取 「方便費」。費用可能由我們的客戶支付，也可能由消費者(我們客戶的客戶)直接支付，可能是基礎交易金額的百分比，也可能是每筆執行交易的固定費用。

證券和交易所委員會

2018年10月3日

第2頁

 

公司根據這些合約的義務是通過我們的電子發票支付服務提供集成支付方便服務，該服務使我們的客戶能夠向最終消費者提供電子支付選項。 公司的電子發票支付服務代表了對我們的平台及其處理能力提供連續訪問的單一承諾（即立即完成履約義務）。 這個單一承諾由一系列不同的服務期間組成，因為每天提供訪問平台的情況基本相同，並且公司的客戶在提供訪問的過程中接受和享受益處。

公司的電子發票支付服務客戶希望能夠接受包括借記卡、信用卡和ACH在內的支付，而無需通過與支付處理器和/或收單銀行直接協議並維護商戶賬戶的繁瑣和耗時過程。 如公司這樣的支付服務提供商通過直接與收單銀行和/或支付處理器簽約，設立贊助商戶賬戶，簡化了這個過程。 通過我們的電子發票支付服務使用贊助商戶賬戶，我們的客戶可以輕鬆獲得支付處理服務。

為了提供電子發票支付服務所需的商戶賬戶，公司與某些支付處理器和/或收單銀行單獨簽約，由這些支付處理器和/或收單銀行向公司提供互換和結算服務，公司根據通過電子發票支付服務處理的交易量收取支付卡互換和處理費用。 由於這些是公司需要負擔的成本來提供我們的客戶電子發票支付服務（即，它們是實現成本），我們將被收取的互換和處理費用呈現為營業成本的一部分。

在我們的電子發票支付服務提供中，公司是唯一與我們的客戶簽約的一方。 客戶與支付處理器和/或收單銀行沒有合同，也看不到我們與支付處理器和/或收單銀行（及其收取的費用）的合同。 公司全權負責處理交易，有效地充當記錄商人，並使用其與支付處理器和/或收單銀行的安排來處理付款，並將收到的款項的毛額與賬單實際付款結算。

由於付款處理商和/或收單銀行參與了此服務的提供，因此我們考慮了ASC。 606-10-55-36 記錄2023年12月31日至2024年6月30日合同負債的變化摘要如下： 55-39A 當我們確定是否應將我們向客戶收取的付款處理服務毛額記錄為本金，或者在支付互換和處理服務費用後呈現保留的淨額時。

我們考慮了ASC。 606-10-55-36 並得出結論，公司在EBPP服務下的承諾性質是直接向客戶提供指定服務（即付款處理），而不是安排其他第三方提供服務。具體來說，我們的義務是提供一種整合的付款便利服務，付款處理商和/或收單銀行進行的活動是與我們的EBPP服務相結合，以向我們的客戶提供一個整合的輸出（一種整合的付款便利服務）。

證券和交易所委員會

2018年10月3日

第3頁

 

我們的結論是公司在交易中是主要的，進一步得到ASC 606-10-55-37A(c)的支持 ，ASC 606-10-55-37A(c)指出當一個實體從另一方獲得商品或服務並將其與其他商品或服務結合以向客戶提供特定商品或服務時，該實體是主要的。如上所述，我們單獨簽訂並獲得互換和處理服務，我們將其與我們的平臺整合和結合，以將綜合支付便捷服務轉交給我們的客戶。如ASC 606-10-55-37A(c)指出，我們在將第三方服務轉交給客戶之前已經取得了對其的控制，因為它們是我們有義務向客戶提供的特定服務的輸入。 一個實體從另一方獲得商品或服務並將其與其他商品或服務結合以向客戶提供特定商品或服務時，該實體是主要的。ASC 606-10-55-37A(c)， 指出，我們在將第三方服務轉交給客戶之前已經取得了對其的控制，因為它們是我們有義務向客戶提供的特定服務的輸入。

儘管我們得出結論認為我們是該安排的負責方，因為我們整合輸入以轉移合併的產出，我們還考慮了ASC中提到的指標。606-10-55-39 進一步支持我們控制購買銀行和／或支付處理器提供服務在轉移給我們的客戶之前的結論的指標。

主要履行人 企業對提供給客戶的服務負有財務責任，如果未收到付款，將負責解決任何問題。因此，企業對EBPP服務的履行負有主要責任。

庫存風險 指標不適用於服務，因為不存在庫存損失風險。

定價 企業可以全權自行決定EBPP服務的定價，直接與客戶協商，承擔全部利潤風險。企業有權接收全額便利費，然後另行負責支付支付處理費用或銀行手續費和換匯費。購買銀行和／或支付處理器不參與其中。雖然購買銀行和／或支付處理器可能規定底限金額（企業應繳的最低金額），但企業有權按照需要設定客戶定價。

以上這些指標支持公司的結論，即公司在安排中是主要方，因為公司取得對第三方的控制權，並將其整合到公司的平台上，以提供我們的EBPP服務。因此，我們按總收入毛額記錄收入，並在成本類收入中反映我們的履約成本（互換和處理成本）。

2. 您披露您的基於saas-云计算和paas-云计算安排代表一個單一承諾，提供持續訪問，一種待命的履行義務，以供應您的軟體解決方案及其處理能力。您還指出，在這些安排下的固定酬金可能涉及與實質權利有關。請告訴我們，並修改您的披露以澄清，該實質權利是否為單獨的履行義務，以及您如何向這一承諾分配酬金。參考 ASC606-10-55-41.

Securities and Exchange Commission

October 3, 2018

Page 4

 

Response: We assess if upfront fixed consideration results in a material right on a contract by contract basis in accordance with ASC 606-10-55-41. We also consider the guidance for non-refundable upfront fees in ASC 606-10-55-50 through 55-53 and ASC 606-10-25-17. Implementation or set-up services meet the guidance under ASC 606-10-55-53 because the activities do not transfer a distinct service to the customer under ASC 606-10-25-17, and implementation or set-up fees do not constitute payment for a separate performance obligation. The single promise that is transferred to the customer at contract inception is a combined solution as a hosted or application service and is a stand-ready performance obligation. A contract by contract analysis is performed which includes consideration of the renewal price compared with the price a new customer would pay to determine if a material right would exist. If a material right is identified it would be a separate performance obligation. With respect to the standalone selling price (SSP) for a material right granted to the Customer, the Company considered the guidance in ASC 606-10-55-44 and 55-45. Based on the practical alternative in ASC 606-10-55-45, the Company allocates the transaction price to the material right by reference to the services expected to be provided and the corresponding expected consideration.

We will include in our future filings the following disclosure:

A material right would be a separate performance obligation. The Company estimates the standalone selling price for a material right by reference to the services expected to be provided and the corresponding expected consideration.

Significant Judgments, page 11

3. You disclose that the selling prices of your software licenses are highly variable and you use the residual approach to estimate standalone selling price. Please provide a comprehensive, quantitative discussion of such variability to support your conclusion. Reference ASC 606-10-32-34.

Response: The Company typically enters into multi-year time-based software license arrangements that vary in length but are generally five years. These arrangements include an initial (bundled) post contract customer support (PCS) term of one year with subsequent optional renewals for additional years within the initial license period. Under ASC 606-10-32-34(c), an entity may use the residual approach to estimate SSP by referencing the total transaction price less the sum of the observable standalone selling prices of other goods or services promised in the contract. The Company does not have a history of selling software licenses on a standalone basis (unbundled) but does sell PCS on a standalone basis (i.e., optional PCS renewals). Since the SSP for PCS and the professional services (if included) are directly observable, the residual approach can be used for the license for which observable inputs are not available if the pricing of the license is highly variable or uncertain in accordance with ASC 606-10-32-34(c)(1).

Securities and Exchange Commission

October 3, 2018

Page 5

 

The determination of whether the Company’s pricing is highly variable includes judgment and analysis. Our evaluation was primarily a quantitative approach that concluded its pricing is highly variable because a representative SSP is not discernible from past transactions or other observable evidence.

To evaluate the variability of the selling prices for the license, the Company’s pricing policies were first considered. License pricing is expected to be highly variable as the Company allows for various discounts to be granted with a large range of discounts allowed.

In order to support that the license selling price is highly variable based on actual sales, we analyzed the discounts of the contract price from the original list price based on the Company’s price book. We determined that if a majority of the discounts (relative to list price) fell outside an acceptable range as further described below, then the price would be considered highly variable. The results were organized by ACI’s three geographic regions: Americas, Europe/Middle East/Africa (“EMEA”), and Asia/Pacific (“APAC”) and primary solution category. We used this level of disaggregation as this is how products are sold and supported and is consistent with the disaggregation of revenue that is disclosed in our quarterly and annual filings.

The acceptable range was determined by using the median discount of the total contracts for each geographic region comparing the discounts provided to the median to determine if a broad range of pricing exists. We determined the acceptable range by using +/- 15% of the median discount. 15% was deemed an appropriate benchmark as this is the metric used to determine a sufficiently narrow range of observable prices for estimation of SSP within PCS offerings and is consistent with the Company’s pricing practices. By comparing the discounts to the acceptable range, we identified that a broad range of pricing exists as most discounts were significantly different from the median (and broadly disbursed).

The stratification analysis was performed for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

 

		Total Data Points				% Within Determined Narrow Range
		Americas
Bill Payments			—				—
Digital Channels/Online			8				75	%
Merchant Payments			21				43	%
Payments Risk Management			14				43	%
Real Time Payments			21				57	%
Retail Payments			68				50	%

Securities and Exchange Commission

October 3, 2018

Page 6

 

		EMEA
Bill Payments			—				—
Digital Channels/Online			—				—
Merchant Payments			21				19	%
Payments Risk Management			12				25	%
Real Time Payments			1				100	%
Retail Payments			114				27	%
		Asia Pacific
Bill Payments			—				—
Digital Channels/Online			—				—
Merchant Payments			—				—
Payments Risk Management			17				24	%
Real Time Payments			12				67	%
Retail Payments			68				29	%

Of the ranges identified that included data points, only two ranges had a result where the data points within the determined narrow range exceeded 70%. These two groupings contained a small number of data points and do not represent a statistical sample. One range only had 1 data point and the other had variability ranging from 30% to 100%. The Retail Payments category accounts has accounted for over 65% of the Company’s on premise revenue. Across all data points analyzed the variability of the discounts of the contract price from the original list price ranged from 0% to 553% supporting that most discounts were significantly different from the median and broadly dispersed. The analysis resulted in the calculated medians varying across regions and across primary solution category supporting that the Company sells licenses to different customers at or near the same time for a broad range of amounts. We deem the pricing of licenses to be highly variable. Based on the data, we concluded that SSP is not discernible from past transactions or other observable evidence (such as list price or quote price) and instead will use the residual approach to estimate the SSP of a license in contracts where SSP is determinable for all other performance obligations within that contract in accordance with ASC 606-10-32-34.

As such, the residual approach is used to determine the SSP of software license arrangements. As noted in ASC 606 Basis for Conclusions (BC) 273, using the residual approach cannot result in no, or very little, consideration being allocated to a performance obligation (i.e. the license). In the rare case that this occurs, we consider all reasonably available data and whether the stand-alone selling price of the license should be estimated using another method to meet the allocation objective.

4. You disclose that you apply judgment in determining the term of an arrangement when early termination rights are provided to the customer. Please help us better understand how you have analyzed termination provisions and the resulting impact on contractual terms. In this regard, tell us if your arrangements contain termination penalties.

Securities and Exchange Commission

October 3, 2018

Page 7

 

Response: The term of the arrangement is determined based on the period over which the Company and/or the customer have enforceable rights. We considered the guidance in ASC 606-10-25-3.

The Company’s contracts may include early termination or termination for convenience options at the customer’s discretion that may or may not include penalties or required payments in the event the right is exercised. The inclusion of termination penalties in contracts is not a common practice of the Company. An analysis is performed when a contract does include penalty language to determine if the penalty is substantive. If the contract allows the customer to exercise its termination right without penalty or required payments, the contract term is limited to the committed period as that is the period which has enforceable rights.

If the customer is required to pay penalties or pay the remainder of the contract value (i.e. required payments), an assessment is made to determine if the termination option is substantive (i.e. the customer would not be compelled to exercise the termination option because the penalties and/or required payments are significant in the context of the contract). This is a matter of significant judgment and is evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively.

If the termination penalty is substantive (significant), the contract term is the shorter of the stated term or the period up to the point at which the customer can terminate without paying the penalty or required payments.

If the termination penalty is not substantive (not significant), the contract term is the period of enforceable rights and obligations (i.e. the committed period).

*        *        *         *

We hope that the foregoing is responsive to your comments. If you have any questions with respect to this letter, please feel free to contact the undersigned at 402-778-2177.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in these matters.

 

Enclosures

 

cc:	Philip G. Heasley, ACI Worldwide, Inc.

Dennis P. Byrnes, ACI Worldwide, Inc.