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.

 
 
Jun 22

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
6/22/2006 6:32 AM 

About a month and a half ago, Altera Corporation announced a special committee that would investigate their past option grant practices. This morning, the company announced an update to to its investigation via a non-reliance 8-K filing.

The news is what you would expect by this time. The special committee did indeed find instances of option grants that didn't properly make it into the financials. They reached "a preliminary conclusion that the actual measurement dates for certain stock option grants issued between 1996 and 2000 differ from the recorded grant dates for such awards. As a result, the Company expects to record additional non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense in prior periods. The Company believes that these charges are material and, accordingly, expects to restate its financial statements for the fiscal years ended 1996 through 2005."

That is one extensive restatement. 1996 through 2000 alone would be the restatement of the firm's financial history during the internet bubble era. That alone would provide some interesting contrasts between erroneous reporting and clean reporting. Ten years is really far-reaching, though. If it's material enough to affect all those years, you've got to believe that the grants issued in the 1996-2000 era had lingering effects in the subseqent years, even if the grants in 2001-2005 were properly accounted for. If so, it'll be a testimony to how mistakes in one period can affect reporting in many other later periods.

Altera's announcement focused on the "non-cash charge" aspect of the pending restatement; no amounts given in the filing. And no information was given on the sole cash aspect of the restatement, either: the firm didn't yet know if the findings driving their restatement would also affect tax deductions taken for the improperly recorded options. Hard to imagine that they wouldn't, but we'll see.

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.