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 18

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
4/18/2005 8:21 AM 

Now that the implementation date for Statement 123(Revised) has been delayed for calendar year firms, there's time for HR 913, the "Broad-Based Stock Option Plan Transparency Act" - a fantastic piece of double-speak - to gather steam in Congress.

The bill is recycled version of the one introduced last year by Rep. David Dreier and Rep. Anna Eshoo of California; it intends to accomplish the same thing, namely to stop the FASB in its tracks from ever getting Statement 123(Revised) into financial statements. How? Look at some of the requirements of the bill:

"[It] directs the SEC to examine and report to specified congressional committees on the effectiveness of the enhanced disclosures required by this Act in increasing transparency to current and potential investors.

[It] prohibits the Commission, between enactment of this Act and submission of such report, from recognizing as generally accepted accounting principles any new accounting standards regarding the treatment of stock options.

[It] directs the Secretary of Commerce to analyze and report to specified congressional committees on broad-based employee stock option plans, particularly in the high technology and any other high growth industries."

In short, it's death by delay. At least some of those tech companies that the Secretary of Commerce will be studying should have been reporting under Statement 123(Revised) soon, given that the SEC's delay of Statement 123 (Revised) didn't affect them.

There are now 40 co-sponsors of the bill; they're listed on this page. If you're represented by any of them, you should drop them a line and offer your discouragement.

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