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 26

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
6/26/2007 3:00 AM 

Community and resort builder Bluegreen filed a non-reliance 8-K last week on its 2006 10-K and first quarter 2007 10-Q. Reason? It needs to rework its cash flow statements.

The company had accounted for "borrowings collateralized by notes receivable as operating activities in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows because the majority of Bluegreen Resorts' sales result in the origination of notes receivable from its customers and accelerating the conversion of such notes receivable into cash on a regular basis, either through the pledge or sale of our notes receivable, is an integral function of our operations." That sounds like a pretty good rationale - especially because the activity is "an integral function of our operations."

The company notes, however, that such treatment is not provided for in either Statement 95 or Statement 140. So, they're taking those activities and putting them into the financing section of the cash flow statements. While it doesn't change cash in total, cash from operating activities will be 75% higher for 2004; 72% higher for 2005; turn positive for 2006; and the negative cash flow in the first three months of 2007 will be 10% lower. The offset, of course, is higher amounts reported for cash used by financing activities.

It seems like opportune timing: after all, when cash from operations was a positive figure, nobody questioned the fact that these activities were "an integral function of operations." Now that the cash from operations has changed color from black to red, there's a change in policy. It's not inconsistent, however, with other cash flow statement reclassifications prompted by the SEC. A while ago, there were similar reclassifications in the auto dealer industry, where floor plan financing activities were moved out of the operating section and put into financing activity. See these posts on Group 1 Automotive, AutoNation, and Asbury Automotive Group.

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.