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.

 
 
Apr 14

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
4/14/2005 6:41 AM 

Plenty of attention on the yesterday's roundtable on Section 404 experiences; plenty of media coverage. I'm more interested in what comes out of the roundtable in 30 to 45 days rather than speculating about how much "relief" might be granted.

Being a subtle change, and not a PR earthquake, another SEC development yesterday captured much less attention - but it's noteworthy for investors, especially the ones who complain about the pace of international convergence in accounting standards.

International convergence of accounting standards is a long-term goal of the FASB, the IASB and the SEC. The IASB and the FASB have been working together on major projects for the last several years, and will continue to do so - if anything, they might accelerate their joint processes rather than retard them. The European Union is already requiring its constituents to issue their financials in conformity with IASB standards - and as U.S. standards and IASB standards become closer in substance, convergence is likely to occur naturally.

One perceived obstacle to convergence has been the SEC requirement that any foreign registrant must present financial statements on a consistent basis for three years in their 20-F filings and reconcile net income to U.S. accounting-basis measures. Foreign registrants would love to see the reconciliation removed from their reporting requirements - but until accounting everywhere speaks the same language, it's a valuable disclosure for U.S. investors.

Yesterday, the SEC announced changes to its filing requirements that will give foreign registrants more of an incentive to prepare financials on an IASB basis. (Keep in mind that they US standards and the IASB standards are mutating in the same direction and hopefully will be one body of accounting law in the future.) While not changing any reconciliation requirements, the SEC will allow registrants to file two years rather than three years of income statements, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows prepared on IASB principles - as long as they do it before, or in time for, their 2007 fiscal year.

A small carrot, to be sure. But the whole process of convergence is an evolutionary one, not a revolutionary one. If you don't look for the changes happening, you'll miss them. Making it easier for the foreign filers to convert to IASB principles is an important event, because getting firms away from their provincial accounting system and on just one of two systems - IASB or FASB - makes their financials more universal. And eventually, those two systems will be pretty much the same.

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