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 29

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
6/29/2005 7:11 AM 

Yesterday's big news was the Scrushy/HealthSouth verdict. Dumbfounding. And it looks like dumb works in a trial, after all.

Fortune's Bethany McLean summed it up better than anyone so far in yesterday's "Street Life" column: "The lessons? Get a hometown jury. Give money—lots of money—to local causes. Get a website. Houston, we have a solution. (You can bet that Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling's lawyers are going to be all over this. And Lay already has a website.) The last lesson is that Sarbanes-Oxley—Scrushy was the first CEO to be charged under the 2002 law—is not a cure-all. But it's not all over for Scrushy, who still faces civil charges. Maybe the most relevant precedent will turn out to be O.J."

The 10-K filed the day before showed some pretty remarkable revisions to history. Looking further into the enormous filing, you can find a neat little summary in Note 2, regarding restatements. Consider these revisions:

- Acquisition accounting and related items. Overstated by $1,264,352,000.
- Existence and valuation of property and equipment. Overstated by $697,406,000.
- Additional asset and liability adjustments. Overstated by $611, 513,000.

There are plenty more, and the net total of all the adjustments was a downward revision to retained earnings at January 1, 2000 of $3 billion. Those adjustments turned retained earnings into an accumulated deficit of $2 billion.

These aren't minor amounts that were just spirited into the books by ill-intentioned bookkeepers. By now, you've read the same accounts of the trial as I have; it's hard to believe that a CEO could be so innocently blind to such gross overvaluations of assets if he's doing any kind of managing at all - yet that's what Richard Scrushy got the jury to believe. One thing for sure: no one will ever accuse him of being a micro-manager...

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.