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.

 
 
Mar 1

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
3/1/2005 8:09 AM 

Last week Countrywide Credit Industries announced that it was revising gain-on-sale aspects of its securitization accounting. Yesterday, credit card provider Providian Financial filed an 8-K describing forthcoming changes in its past accounting for securitizations due to far more complex issues than Countrywide's.

It's waaay too early to call it a trend. Right now it fits into the category of coincidence, and not a surprising one at that. Call it part of my "increased accounting precision" thesis: if auditors are out there beating the bushes as their newly-invigorated independence permits them, there are going to sloppy practices permitted in the past that are going to be tightened up. Securitizations, an accounting Frankenstein rife with moving parts and estimates, are an area where auditors might not have trouble finding problems.

Back to Providian: several issues in their securitizations. One had to do with their estimated values for interest-only strips, those devilishly volatile leftovers from a securitization that relate to the "gravy" interest exceeding the interest for servicing securitization assets. Providian's cash flow model for estimating the IO strip values took into account the level of principal collections expected to occur when forecasting the repayment of the securitized receivables in the Company's securitization trust. That's not exactly the right way to model: auditors Ernst & Young advised Providian that it's better to base them at each valuation date on the contractual rights the related securityholders would have for collections of principal if the investor securities were not revolving.

As of December 2001, Providian had revised its modeling methodology to apply a method that got to the same result - except for the effect of applying total payments versus principal-only payments. In January 2002 the Company changed its methodology to partially incorporate the effect of a revolving period into the principal collection estimate - but this constitued a change to a less preferable method of accounting. That would require obtaining a "preferability letter" from Ernst & Young and disclosure of the change. Providian didn't follow through on this in 2002, so it now faces treating the botched change as an error requiring correction by restating the previously issued financials.

Ernst & Young identified found other flawed assumptions used in 2000 and 2001 that deserve error treatment. These include: the effect of the December 2001 triggering of certain spread account funding provisions, which the Company included in its January 2002 cash flow projections, should have been included in December 2001; the modification of cash flow forecasting techniques to eliminate certain averaging conventions for 2000 and 2001; and a change from total payment to principal-only payment assumptions for purposes of forecasting customer loan repayments. (Providian began this methodology in November 2002.)

So - Providian will restate annual back to 2000, and quarterlies for 2003 and 2004. The earnings and balance sheet effects were not disclosed. Messy stuff.

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.

 

 
barbie oyunu barbie giydirme oyunlarI barbie kIz oyunlarI barbie yemek oyunlarI oyunlar oyunlar oyunlar2