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.

 
 
Jun 27

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
6/27/2005 7:10 AM 

A very good article on Friday in the New York Times, by Floyd Norris. Quote: "If you hide the facts on a different page of the financial statement, investors will ignore them."

What he's referring to is the concept of "comprehensive income," a statement that's been required in U.S. financials since before the turn of the century. (This century. In 1998, to be precise.) Here in the U.S., the statement is allowed to be presented in a number of different ways and locations in the financial statements, and it doesn't get a lot of attention from investors.

The IASB is proposing that such a statement be included on the income statement after "net income" - up front, where investors will see it and think about it, instead of buried in say, a statement of stockholders' equity. In fact, this approach was originally considered by the FASB when it developed Statement 130; if the IASB proposal goes through as planned, we might see such a presentation here in the United States as the two standard-setting bodies continue their efforts to converge the two sets of standards into one.

That's "if." According to the NYT article, the French and others in the European community are angered over the placement of such information. There could be the invocation of EU interference with this project just as there was with derivatives - and this time, it isn't even over new information. It's about where it's shown. Incredible.

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.