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.

 
 
May 26

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
5/26/2005 6:18 AM 

Another day, another inventory goof...

A couple days ago, I mentioned the Maxtor slip-up on its inventory reporting in the first quarter. I made the case that it wouldn't be surprising to see more goofs along the lines of Maxtor's. But I didn't expect to see one quite so similar and quite so soon.

Yesterday afternoon, Longview Fibre Company filed an 8-K for its second quarter earnings - and simultaneously filed another non-reliance 8-K in which the firm advised investors not to rely on its first quarter figures due to an error in figuring its LIFO inventory valuation. It'll be filing an amended 10-Q soon.

LIFO inventory calculations are painful exercises involving indexes that are often internally-constructed by firms; the indexes are applied to layers of purchases to arrive at a LIFO value. In Longview's slip-up, an index from last year was mistakenly used in the current year calculation. Longview and its auditors consider the error to be evidence of a material weakness in internal controls.

Such restatements and discoveries are likely to be more commonplace, as I mentioned in the Maxtor posting. Investors need to develop an understanding of just what contributes to such errors and material weaknesses. The kinds of errors we've seen in these two instances occurrred in what might be considered isolated, occasional processes - ones that are performed only at say, quarter end and involving a lot of manual calculation and input. They're not at all like constantly recurring processes requiring good internal controls - say like, recognizing cash sales at a retail outlet. Because they happen only occasionally, and involve complex issues, it's more likely that human errors could affect these transactions. Another example of transactions like these: income tax calculations. While errors in these kinds of recordations aren't necessarily forgiveable, they're not reasons for investor panic attacks either.

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.