Text/HTML
Text/HTML
If you are a registered user please log in to see more postings.
 

The AAO Weblog covers accounting issues and current events as they relate the practice of investment analysis.

 
 
Aug 29

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
8/29/2006 6:38 AM 

Defense contractor Herley Industries has a strange saga going on: the firm and its former chairman were indicted for fraud by the Defense Department in early June. Its auditors, BDO Seidman, unilaterally withdrew from their review and audit engagements because of scope limitations placed on them by the management in their review of the April 30 quarterly financials. And the NASDAQ has announced its intention to delist the company because of its lateness in filing those financials. For good measure, BDO Seidman is disassociating itself from the audit it performed in 2005 because it can "no longer rely on the representations of management provided to date."

It might be handy for Herley to have an audit committee stacked with financial experts. Yet they don't have even one, at least in accordance with the definition of "financial expert" as commonly applied to publicly traded companies these days. Go back to the audit committee report in the last proxy for Herley, and you'll see a couple of startling admissions:

"The members of the audit committee have substantial experience in assessing the performance of companies, gained as members of the Company's board of directors and audit committee, as well as by serving in various capacities in other companies or governmental agencies. As a result, they each have an understanding of financial statements. However, none of them keep current on all aspects of generally accepted accounting principles. Accordingly, the board of directors does not consider any of them to be a financial expert as that term is defined in applicable regulations. Nevertheless, the board of directors believes that they competently perform the functions required of them as members of the audit committee and, given their backgrounds, it would not be in the best interest of the Company to replace any of them with another person to qualify a member of the audit committee as a financial expert."


Well, there's a lot to be said for experience being the best teacher, and that "book-smart" isn't always so smart. But looking back at this mess with 20-20 hindsight, the words "not in the best interest of the Company to replace any of them with another person to qualify a member of the audit committee as a financial expert" seem sadly comical. There's a reason why a financial expert belongs on audit committees, and Herley has provided an excellent example.

Tags:
 

Pension & Other Benefit Plans: A Look Ahead


    Investors in firms with defined benefit pension plans always face the risk of suddenly being pushed farther back in line when it comes to being served their returns. Variability in plan assets and variability in benefit plan obligations are the reason: poor asset returns coupled with sinking interest rates always spell tough times for defined benefit plan funding. In that regard, this year’s asset returns combined with the Fed’s “Operation Twist” add up to “Operation Agony” for defined benefit pension plans. If trends continue along their current path, firms that may have anticipated moving to more realistic pension accounting - like Honeywell, AT&T and Verizon already have done - might forego that decision. It could be just too painful. 

    Pensions aren’t the only kind of benefit plan affected by Operation Twist. Other postemployment benefit (OPEB) plans share much the same accounting model as pensions, including the calculation of a projected benefit obligation that similarly incorporates a discount rate - one that will also be affected by Operation Twist. The net OPEB obligations were slightly less than pension obligations at the end of 2010, but also promise to grow in 2011. Investors perceive them as less threatening than pension obligations because they don’t require funding. Strangely, there are a number of firms that are recognizing income from these benefit plans - without ever creating a dime of cash for investors.

A recent edition of The Analyst’s Accounting Observer dissects these issues, and is available only to paid subscribers. A condensed version is available for free upon request. To receive it, send an e-mail to Brenda Rappold at brappold@accountingobserver.com, with “PENSIONS” in the subject line.

For information about subscribing to The Analyst’s Accounting Observer, click here.