Non-GAAP Financial Metrics — Defining, Defending and Staying Compliant

Non-GAAP financial measures allow companies to present their financial performance in ways they believe are more meaningful to investors than GAAP numbers alone. But the SEC imposes strict rules on how these measures can be presented. Getting the policy right before the first earnings release is essential — the choices made in the S-1 and first quarterly earnings become the standard against which future disclosures are measured.

Regulation G and Item 10(e)

Two SEC rules govern non-GAAP financial measures:

• Regulation G applies to any public disclosure of non-GAAP measures — earnings releases, investor presentations, conference calls, and webcasts — regardless of whether the disclosure is in an SEC filing. It requires: (1) presenting the most directly comparable GAAP measure, and (2) providing a quantitative reconciliation to that GAAP measure.
• Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K applies to non-GAAP measures in SEC filings (S-1, 10-K, 10-Q). It adds requirements beyond Regulation G: (1) the GAAP measure must be presented with equal or greater prominence, (2) a statement explaining why management believes the non-GAAP measure is useful to investors, and (3) a statement disclosing additional purposes for which management uses the measure.

The SEC's Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) on non-GAAP measures are the primary ongoing guidance. They are updated as the SEC staff encounter new questions in its review process and should be consulted before finalizing any non-GAAP policy.

What Adjustments Are Acceptable

The SEC prohibits certain adjustments and scrutinizes others. Adjustments that are generally acceptable:

• Stock-based compensation expense: Widely accepted; most growth companies exclude it. Requires consistent application.
• Depreciation and amortization: Standard for EBITDA calculation; amortization of acquired intangibles is widely excluded.
• Restructuring charges: Generally acceptable if truly non-recurring. The SEC will push back if restructuring occurs multiple years in a row.
• Acquisition-related costs: Transaction costs, integration expenses, and fair value adjustments are generally accepted exclusions.

Adjustments the SEC scrutinizes or prohibits:

• "Non-recurring" items that recur: The SEC's C&DI guidance states that it is not appropriate to label an item as non-recurring if it has occurred in the past two years or is reasonably likely to recur within two years.
• Revenue from non-GAAP adjustments: Adding revenue to the GAAP figure (rather than only removing expenses) is extremely rare and will draw heavy scrutiny.
• Tax adjustments that don't reflect reality: Applying a non-GAAP tax rate that is significantly different from the actual effective tax rate requires careful justification.
• Individually tailored metrics: "EBITDAC" (with crypto), "Adjusted Revenue" (with unrecognized contract value), and similar custom metrics that have no clear industry precedent will receive comment letters.

The Reconciliation Requirement

Every non-GAAP measure must be reconciled to the most directly comparable GAAP measure. Per Deloitte's DART guidance on Regulation G, the reconciliation should:

• Begin with the GAAP measure and reconcile to the non-GAAP measure (not the other way around)
• Separately quantify and label each reconciling adjustment
• Be presented as a table in most cases, though other clear formats are permitted
• Be presented with equal or greater prominence than the non-GAAP measure in SEC filings

SaaS-Specific Metrics and the SEC

ARR (Annual Recurring Revenue), NRR (Net Revenue Retention), and Rule of 40 are not defined in GAAP and may or may not be non-GAAP financial measures under Regulation G, depending on how they are calculated and what they are intended to show. The SEC has increasingly focused on:

• Whether ARR includes recognized GAAP revenue or also includes unearned revenue that has been billed but not yet recognized
• Whether the definition of NRR (or GRR, gross revenue retention) is consistent with how comparable public companies calculate it
• Whether the presentation of non-GAAP metrics creates a "misleading" impression of performance relative to GAAP results

Non-GAAP in Earnings Releases

Earnings press releases are subject to Regulation G (but not Item 10(e), which applies only to SEC filings). The practical implication: an earnings release must include a quantitative reconciliation table for every non-GAAP measure presented. The table must appear prominently — not buried at the end after 10 pages of narrative. SEC staff have cited companies for leading with non-GAAP figures in the headline and relegating GAAP results to page 4.

Best practice for earnings release structure:

• Lead with a headline that presents GAAP revenue/net income alongside the non-GAAP equivalent — not non-GAAP alone
• Place the reconciliation tables immediately after the financial highlights section, not at the very end of the document
• Label every non-GAAP measure clearly as "(Non-GAAP)" at every reference — not just at first mention
• When presenting YoY growth rates, show both the GAAP growth rate and the non-GAAP growth rate side by side

Forward-Looking Non-GAAP Guidance

When a company provides forward-looking non-GAAP guidance (e.g., "We expect next quarter Adjusted EBITDA of $X–$Y million"), Regulation G requires a quantitative reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measure — unless the company cannot provide one without unreasonable effort. Most growth-stage companies use the "unreasonable effort" exception for forward-looking guidance because they cannot predict stock-based compensation expense, restructuring charges, or acquisition costs for future periods with precision.

If the unreasonable effort exception is claimed, the company must: (1) disclose that fact, (2) identify the information unavailable without unreasonable effort, and (3) disclose the probable significance of the omitted information. The SEC has commented on companies that claim the exception too broadly — particularly for items like depreciation and amortization that can be estimated reasonably.

SEC Comment Letter Patterns

The SEC staff sends hundreds of non-GAAP comment letters each year. The most consistent patterns from 2023–2025:

• "Non-recurring" items that recurred: The SEC's most frequent comment — a company excluded "restructuring charges" or "one-time legal costs" in multiple consecutive years. The SEC asks: if it happened three years in a row, how is it non-recurring? Resolution: either stop excluding it or explain precisely why each instance is distinct.
• Revenue-adjusting non-GAAP measures: Any non-GAAP measure that adjusts revenue upward (e.g., adding back deferred revenue written down in purchase accounting) receives immediate scrutiny. The SEC requires specific justification and prominent disclosure of why the adjustment is not misleading.
• Per-share non-GAAP measures: Companies presenting non-GAAP EPS must present GAAP EPS with equal or greater prominence in all materials where the non-GAAP figure appears.
• Individually tailored recognition policies: The SEC has pushed back on companies that present a non-GAAP metric that effectively uses a different revenue recognition methodology — for example, recognizing contract value upfront in the non-GAAP figure while recognizing ratably in GAAP.
• Working capital adjustments in free cash flow: The SEC has questioned whether all "non-recurring" working capital adjustments to free cash flow are genuinely non-recurring, particularly when they make FCF look significantly better than operating cash flow.

Building the Non-GAAP Policy Before the S-1

The non-GAAP policy set out in the S-1 becomes the standard against which every future earnings release is measured. Three decisions made before the S-1 have the most lasting impact:

• Which adjustments to include: Stock-based compensation is nearly universal. Amortization of acquired intangibles is common. Restructuring charges, IPO-related costs, and CEO transition costs require judgment about whether they are truly non-recurring. Once an item is excluded, removing it from the adjustment list in a future period draws questions from analysts.
• How to define each SaaS operating metric: ARR, NRR, and Rule of 40 must have precise definitions in the S-1. Those definitions will be used by equity research analysts in their models — inconsistent application post-IPO will generate investor relations friction.
• How often to update the reconciliation format: Changing the non-GAAP reconciliation format between quarters — adding or removing line items — requires an explanation. Build the format correctly the first time.

Real-World Non-GAAP Controversies

The history of non-GAAP metrics is full of companies that pushed the envelope too far — and the SEC responses that followed. These cases are instructive because they illustrate exactly where the line is.

WeWork — "Community Adjusted EBITDA" (2019): WeWork's failed S-1 became the most notorious non-GAAP cautionary tale in IPO history. The company created a metric called "Community Adjusted EBITDA" that excluded not only the standard items (depreciation, amortization, interest, taxes) but also building and development costs, stock-based compensation, and a category simply called "other." The effect was to exclude WeWork's largest costs — essentially its entire real estate expense base. Wall Street analysts and journalists mocked the metric publicly, contributing to the collapse of investor confidence that ultimately derailed the IPO. The SEC has since cited WeWork in guidance on when non-GAAP metrics are potentially misleading.

Uber — "Adjusted EBITDA" excluding driver costs (2019): When Uber prepared for its IPO, the company's non-GAAP metrics excluded costs associated with its driver incentive programs on the basis that they were "non-recurring" launch costs in new markets. The SEC issued comment letters questioning whether these costs were truly non-recurring given that Uber was entering new markets continuously. Uber ultimately revised its non-GAAP disclosures before the S-1 became effective.

Groupon — "Adjusted CSOI" (2011): In one of the most significant SEC non-GAAP enforcement actions at the time, the SEC required Groupon to revise its S-1 to remove "Adjusted Consolidated Segment Operating Income" (Adjusted CSOI), a metric that excluded online marketing costs — which were Groupon's largest operating expense and most significant cash outflow. The SEC found that excluding a company's primary growth driver from a profitability metric was potentially misleading. Groupon refiled without the metric and revised its S-1 significantly.

Lyft — SEC-forced restatement (2020): After going public, Lyft disclosed a non-GAAP metric called "Contribution" that excluded insurance costs. The SEC issued a comment letter arguing that insurance costs were a normal cost of operating a rideshare business — not the type of item that should be excluded from a profitability metric. Lyft revised its non-GAAP presentation in subsequent filings.

Peloton — content costs excluded (2021): Peloton excluded content creation costs from its "Adjusted EBITDA," arguing they were analogous to a media company's programming investment. The SEC questioned whether this was appropriate for a fitness hardware company, and Peloton received multiple comment letters on the issue. The exclusion was ultimately retained but with significantly more prominent disclosure of why it was excluded and how to reconcile it.

Real-World Non-GAAP Examples — What Went Right and Wrong

Non-GAAP metrics are one of the most heavily scrutinized areas of IPO disclosure. The following cases illustrate both legitimate use and SEC-challenged abuse.

WeWork — "Community Adjusted EBITDA" (2019)

WeWork's withdrawn S-1 became infamous for its "Community Adjusted EBITDA" metric, which added back not only stock-based compensation and depreciation (standard adjustments) but also the company's entire cost of building out and operating its office locations — the core cost of the business. The metric showed a positive number for a company losing billions of dollars annually, because the adjustment effectively excluded the largest single line item in the income statement. The SEC never reviewed the S-1 (it was withdrawn before review), but institutional investors rejected the metric outright. WeWork's story is now the standard teaching case in every SEC compliance training on non-GAAP abuse: if your non-GAAP adjustment excludes your primary cost of revenue, the metric is misleading by design.

Uber — Adjusted EBITDA Excluding Driver Costs (2019)

Uber's pre-IPO presentations and early public filings classified driver incentive payments as non-recurring items excluded from Adjusted EBITDA. The SEC issued comment letters questioning whether payments that recurred every quarter in material amounts could reasonably be labeled non-recurring. Uber ultimately revised its non-GAAP definitions to include driver incentives in the GAAP-to-non-GAAP reconciliation on a consistent basis. The SEC's guidance is clear: a charge described as non-recurring that occurs every period is, by definition, recurring — and presenting it otherwise is a violation of Regulation G.

Lyft — SEC-Forced Restatement (2019)

Lyft disclosed an insurance reserve adjustment as a non-GAAP exclusion in its first quarterly earnings as a public company. The SEC objected, noting that the adjustment related to ongoing insurance costs that were central to Lyft's ride-sharing business model — not unusual or non-recurring items. After SEC correspondence, Lyft restated the non-GAAP presentation to include the insurance adjustment. The restatement itself was modest in dollar terms but significant reputationally: a non-GAAP restatement in a company's first earnings call as a public company is not an auspicious beginning.

Groupon — "Adjusted CSOI" Restatement (2011)

Even before the current Regulation G framework was fully tested, Groupon's S-1 used a metric called "Adjusted Consolidated Segment Operating Income" that excluded online marketing costs — which were the company's primary customer acquisition expenditure. The SEC required Groupon to remove the metric from the S-1 entirely before the registration could go effective. Groupon complied, which allowed the IPO to proceed, but the episode established an early precedent: metrics that exclude the costs of a company's core growth engine will not survive SEC review.

Airbnb — Textbook Non-GAAP Disclosure (2020)

Airbnb's S-1 is frequently cited by SEC practitioners as an example of well-constructed non-GAAP disclosure. The company presented Adjusted EBITDA with a detailed reconciliation starting from net income (GAAP) and clearly identified each adjustment — stock-based compensation, depreciation, restructuring charges from COVID, and interest. Critically, Airbnb did not exclude its primary variable cost (host and guest transaction processing) from its non-GAAP metrics. The 2020 S-1 also included Gross Booking Value (GBV) as a supplemental operating metric with a clear definition and no attempt to use it as a substitute for revenue. The SEC raised no comments on Airbnb's non-GAAP presentation.

Primary References