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.

 
 
Oct 27

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
10/27/2005 3:25 AM 

Same bug, different strain. They all relate to accounting, they relate to the SEC. It's the topics and the players that differ.

Almost a year ago, the SEC began investigations into pension and other postemployment benefit plan accounting at General Motors, Ford, Delphi, Boeing, Delphi, and Navistar. It wasn't any announcement by the SEC that clued in the public that such an investigation was going on: it was the disclosures by the players themselves in their public filings. There hasn't been a peep out of the SEC on the matter.

Another peep emerged from the disclosures of another filer: DaimlerChrysler. Mary Williams Walsh reported on Wednesday in the New York Times:

"...DaimlerChrysler disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission had served it with a subpoena in September seeking information in connection with a continuing investigation of General Motors' pension accounting. General Motors is one of six large companies whose pension accounting has been under review by the S.E.C. since October 2004. The others are Ford Motor, Delphi, Boeing, Navistar International and Northwest Airlines.

DaimlerChrysler said in a regulatory filing that the S.E.C. was seeking information related to methodology used in calculating pension and other retirement benefits for its North American employees. The S.E.C. said it also wanted to see "communications with G.M., Ford, and/or Delphi regarding such rate or methodology," according to the filing."

You can see the actual disclosures in the DaimlerChrysler 6-K, linked here.

It's still a puzzle. What did the SEC see in the investigations of the others that made a subpoena of DaimlerChrysler? Were these companies essentially passing around their homework to each other? And if so - was the homework correct? We'll just have to ponder it until either more clues seep out, or someone involved can actually talk about it.

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.