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.

 
 
Feb 28

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
2/28/2005 9:00 AM 

Remember Charlie McCreevy? He's the European Union internal market commissioner who had been lobbying the IASB for greater EU representation at the IASB. Blogged about him here a few weeks ago.

Charlie's - and the EU's - position: the IASB, and the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF) that governs it should have a more, well, European flair. As Charlie said in the Financial Times, the“representation within the international standard-setter and within a public oversight body should correspond more appropriately to jurisdictions that directly apply the standards."

That stance, as the IASCF reviews its constitution, is another thinly-disguised volley in the battle of the European banks and the IASB. Stateside, we don't see it much - but there has been a war over derivatives accounting every bit as nasty and political as our own here in the States on stock option compensation. (The particular bone of contention is IAS 39 - quite similar to Statement 133 here.)

Charlie McCreevy, meet Paul Volcker.

Friday, Mr. Volcker addressed the Accounting Regulatory Committee of the European Commission in Brussels. He handily rebuffed Mr. McCreevy and the European Commission:

"The decision of the European Union to enforce International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by law provided bold and constructive leadership toward the concept of international, rather than national or regional, standards. It does not, however, logically lead to a decision to overweight European representation on the Board or the Committee. The “end game”, after all, is the acceptability of international standards right around the world. I have cited the strong momentum in that direction. The clear corollary is that Japan, China, India, other Asian countries, South American nations and others also want their views and experience reflected in Committee and Board discussions.”
[Emphasis added.]

This morning, the Dow Jones Newswires reports that the EU will not be giving up easily. No comment from Mr. McCreevy - yet.

Fortunately for the IASB and its constituents, they've got Paul Volcker. What happens when he retires in a year? This will not be an easy post to fill.

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.