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.

 
 
Jul 27

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
7/27/2005 12:49 PM 

Interesting piece in this morning's NY Times by Gretchen Morgenson.

Analyst Tad Lafountain of Wells Fargo Securities has been put into the "penalty box" by Altera Corporation for his views on the company's use of stock options and share repurchases to offset dilution from them. Here's the drift, according to Gretchen:

Altera's main complaint about Mr. LaFountain's analysis relates to how he views the company's share buybacks... Altera uses such buybacks, as many companies do, to offset the share increases that result when stock options are issued to compensate executives and lower-level employees. In Mr. LaFountain's opinion, those repurchases are not in the shareholders' interests and are the equivalent of using stockholder money to buy shares at high prices and issue them to executives and employees at much lower prices.

For example, from 1999 to 2004, Altera issued 29.5 million shares through option grants at an average price of $6.94 a share. During the same period, Altera bought back 54 million shares at an average price of $23.97 each.

"When Altera has made over the last five years $2.44 a share and its tangible book value goes up only 61 cents, that means 75 percent of the earnings have disappeared," Mr. LaFountain said.


Just another example of why there's a need for a consistent application of accounting standards that take into account the cost of stock compensation. Statement 123R fits the bill. Let's hope companies will realize that behavior like this - or demanding the pull-out of stock compensation from earnings - is no way to build credibility. And that's something they'll want when they don't have it.

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.