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.

 
 
Apr 19

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
4/19/2006 6:59 AM 

You know, it was supposed to be the accountants who were going to kill stock options.

Now it looks like companies are going to kill them all by themselves. Yesterday's revelation of an internal investigation into the timing/possible backdating of grants at UnitedHealth Group led to a shocking proposal by CEO William McGuire: eliminate new grants of stock options as well as other forms of noncash perks. You can see his remarks in the 8-K here.

Today, Vitesse Semiconductor reports an investigation of its own, similar UnitedHealth's investigation of stock option grant timing. Which is similar to the one announced by Comverse Technologies on Monday. That one might require a restatement of financials as far back as six years. The time needed to complete its review and restatement could lead to the company's delisting from the Nasdaq.

Back in November, Mercury Interactive got the ball rolling on the investigations of option timing. Their CEO was quoted as saying he knew of about thirty other Silicon Valley companies being questioned by the SEC about their option granting practices. It looks like the investigations may have spurred firms in other regions and industries to take a look at their own practices. (Minnetonka, home of UnitedHealth, is a long way from Silicon Valley.)

The pending implementation of Statement 123R, combined with a stiffer internal control environment (courtesy of Section 404) may also be provoking companies to bring their option granting policies up to the level of a defensible practice. Note however, that these actions or influences do not require firms to abandon the practice of granting options.

Back in 2002, Coke fired the shot heard 'round the world when it announced that it would adopt a policy of treating stock option compensation as a recognized expense. I'm wondering if UnitedHealth is firing a similar shot if their board takes up McGuire's suggestion. Wouldn't it be interesting to see firms try to outdo each other in trying to distance themselves from using stock options? (One advantage: the accounting would certainly be easier for them to maintain. There'd be less of a need for documenting the estimates of option values and all of the underlying assumptions. All by itself, that benefit could be a driver in any firm's decision to abandon options.)

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.