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 22

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
6/22/2007 1:27 AM 

The PCAOB released its report on the 2006 inspection of Deloitte & Touche. You can find the report here.

Face it: we're not in 2000 any more. Firms aren't self-immolating the way they used to, and auditors - we think - are doing real audits. So, you would hope to find less outrageous findings from the PCAOB inspectors than in the past. Nevertheless, there's one interesting point in the Deloitte inspection report - and it's not about Deloitte, directly.

The PCAOB has lately been concerned about fair value reporting and more specifically, how auditors should be auditing fair values appearing in financial statements. (Also see this story by Sarah Johnson in CFO.com.) The PCAOB's concern over fair value auditing is apparent in the Deloitte report; quite a few of their comments showed that their inspection efforts were aimed at making sure the auditors were paying attention to fair values:

  • In one audit, "the issuer incorrectly determined the fair value of warrants issued to purchase common stock because it used a block sale discount in doing so. The Firm should have identified and addressed this departure from GAAP before issuing its audit report."

  • In another audit, Deloitte hadn't completely verified the client's assertions about fair value in a goodwill impairment test.

  • In another fair value episode, the Deloitte staff had tested (for impairment reporting) the fair value of trademarks as a group rather than individually as called for by Statement No. 142.

  • On another audit, the team involved didn't test the fair value of an allocation of purchase price to the fair value of an acquired intangible asset.

  • Similarly, on another engagement, a valuation specialist had been employed to assign fair values to intangible assets acquired by the audit client in a significant acquisition - but there was no evidence of testing of the specialist's assumptions by the auditors. It seems that the PCAOB is being proactive rather than reactive. Instead of waiting for an accident to happen, it's pushing auditors to focus on fair values in their auditing process - and in turn that might make auditing firms invest more in the education of their staff in this area. If that's what the PCAOB is trying to accomplish, applaud loudly - it's the purchase of an ounce of prevention, versus pounds of regulatory cure. Wisdom at last.

    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.