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 31

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
10/31/2005 7:40 AM 

Last week, I mentioned that I'd penned my response to the FASB's proposal for a second phase in cleaning up business combination accounting. The proposed standard is likely to be somewhat controversial: not because it's a single mammoth change in practice, but because it cleans up many long-standing sloppy acquisition practices - and I mean sloppy in terms of solid accounting theory.

You don't expect everyone to like change - most of all, you don't expect the companies preparing financial statements to appreciate changes. You do expect that organizations formed of accountants to be a bit more supportive of advancements in their craft - but it's not looking that way in the European Union.

Accountancy Age, a British trade paper about - what else? - accounting, reports that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (the ICAEW) has slammed the FASB proposal. (The ICAEW is to chartered accountants in Great Britain what the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants is to CPAs here in the United States.) According to Accountancy Age:

"Last week internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy warned that IASB that 'convergence is not an invitation to standard setters to try and advance the theoretical frontiers of accounting'.

'I will not take on board any revolutionary new standards,' added McCreevy. 'This should be a practical exercise, firmly anchored in business reality, to be undertaken in the interests of users and investors.'"

I hope Mr. McCreevy understands that business reality is what needs to be reported better to users of financial statements and investors. If a standard that is on the "theoretical frontiers of accounting" reports business reality better than "practical exercises," it should be welcomed rather than shunned.

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.