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.

 
 
Sep 22

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
9/22/2006 5:40 AM 

No sense wasting more pixels on the H-P mess, even though I'm kind of thankful that it came along. Now there's a diffferent monotone drone in the news to replace backdating stories.

You just can't top the H-P story for sheer boardroom weirdness, though, even though the backdating stories suggest that there wasn't the most rigor being applied to compensation issues. Even dead guys could get backdated options. (If you don't think that spying on board members and trying to plant moles in newsrooms is weird, try out the story on Patricia Dunn being voted into the Bay Area Business Hall of Fame for leadership.)

You can argue about effective boards, sloppy boards, selfish boards, and good boards. One question is worth asking: why bother with boards anyway? How did the board system come about? Is it relevant today?

(Do boards care about accounting? Never mind.)

Back to the point. Justin Fox poses the questions above (but not the one about accounting) in his thoughtful article "Who Needs A Board Of Directors, Anyway?" in his blog Fortune magazine blog. It's a good read: I enjoyed his brief history of the board structure. And though we're stuck with it (didn't mean to spoil the ending for you, but you probably guessed it anyway), it's good to know how we got to where we are. And check out Justin's own blog at by Justin Fox. As he puts it, it's shameless self-promotion of his forthcoming book, "The Myth of the Rational Investor." But if it's by Justin, it ought to be worth reading.

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.