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.

 
 
Jan 25

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
1/25/2005 9:52 AM 

As reported by Business Week Online, SEC Chief Accountant Don Nicolaisen outlined his hopes for simplification of accounting standards at a New York Society of CPAs conference yesterday. (No link to the speech from the SEC's website is available yet; to be added when available.)

Nicolaisen touched on the use of XBRL, a technology that might revolutionize the way investors access and use the SEC's EDGAR database; support for more “principles-based” accounting standards; and he mentioned the Commission is looking at simplifying accounting such as “by segregating operating income from companies' other income streams”, and is looking at ways to simplify some revenue recognition issues and accounting for derivatives.

He also hinted that more breaks might come the way of smaller companies who have been complaining that Sarbanes-Oxley has caused them undue pain.

(Not my favorite idea. I think that one reason companies have had so much trouble dealing with the internal control reviews required by Sarbanes-Oxley is that they've become ossified in the way they do things, and shaking them up in a re-examination of how their accounting processes might be improved is naturally going to be painful, disruptive and costly. It's probably especially painful because companies traditionally view the accounting and finance function as cost centers incapable of producing something other than compliance with SEC and tax reporting, and therefore, they're functions that are something to be minimized. Anyway - give young companies too much “relief” from having to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley strictures, and you just might get companies that grow up with underinvested accounting systems and controls. Again.)

One point the article mentioned, and I excerpt it here:

“How do you transform today's accounting regulations (with 800 pages devoted to derivatives accounting alone) into a code as simply functional as an alarm clock?”

Just wanted to weigh in on that “800 pages devoted to derivatives” comment. Statement 133 is the whipping boy for accounting standard complexity, and it's not hard to see why: 800 pages is a lot of meat. Or fat, depending on your point of view. But if anyone wants simpler standards, look at Statement 133 for lessons on how to simplify.

That's right - simplify. As much as it's vilified for its complexity and length, it's that way because of the exceptions allowed to the basic premise of the standard, which was that derivatives must be reported on the balance sheet at their fair value. The standard itself is only 50 pages long - not exactly a comic book, but about half of that is devoted to the principles of “hedge accounting” - which are accounting treatments that companies are allowed to use for dampening the effects of reporting derivatives at fair value. Most of the rest of the standard is devoted to “implementation issues” for which companies petitioned the FASB.

So, the next time you hear the “800 pages devoted to derivatives” cliche, think of what it could be - maybe only a fraction of that - if companies weren't so dead set on avoiding the reporting of volatility. (See also: Fannie Mae, filed in the “Smooth Earnings Zone.”)

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.