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 30

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
6/30/2006 6:43 AM 

A couple of firecrackers on this last Friday before the Fourth of July weekend: Apple and CA Inc. both announced options dating investigations of their own. But that's a broad categorization: they're pretty different animals, both the companies and the options isssues. Apple's been the toast of the Silicon Valley set; on the other coast, CA Inc. has been the toast of the accounting restatement set. The differences in their option dating issues might be just as wide.

According to the press release and this Wall Street Journal article, Apple seems to be launching the now-standard special investigation under the direction of outside directors looking at irregularities in timing, and they mention one option grant in particular to Steve Jobs. The information is short on details, but sounds like the kind of heads-up seen so often before.

The CA investigation is unusual compared to what we've seen so far: some options may have been granted at one date, but employees didn't get notified until up to two years later. Can't recall anyone else having that problem, but it's a doozy in terms of size: maybe catch-up restatements in the hundreds of millions. The underlying mechanics are that you don't really have a complete grant to be measured until the grant has been communicated to the employees. A two year gap can leave room for quite a bit of appreciation in the value of the stock (and the intrinsic value of the options) from the time it was approved by the board and the time the employees found out, which is why there's such a dramatic catch-up. Until there's a fixed price for the options, a firm should be using variable plan accounting for the options, which is probably why the adjustments mentioned in the release seem so volatile. There should be an interesting backstory on this when all's said and done.

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.