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.

 
 
Sep 7

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
9/7/2007 7:15 AM 

The Investors Technical Advisory Committee is an advisory group composed of a dozen individuals who are associated with the investment world, usually by employment. What they share in their backgrounds is that they have some decent accounting chops.

The twelve of us have put together a comment letter to the SEC on their proposal to eliminate the IFRS-to-GAAP reconciliation requirement for foreign filers who report on a pure IFRS basis. ("Pure IFRS" means that the financials are prepared in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards as published by the International Accounting Standards Board. Any "country-flavored" versions of IFRS - where IFRS have been adopted with exceptions to particular standards - don't qualify for the reconciliation waiver.)

When confronted with the question of whether or not the reconciliation should continue, I think the knee-jerk reflex of many investors is that it should be trashed. There are two things wrong with this (aside from being a knee-jerk reflex in the first place):

  • As a matter of course, investors might not go to that reconciliation and immediately make a buy-sell-hold decision based on what they see in it. For those who actually read financial statements and try to understand the workings of a foreign company in the context of something they're already familiar (US GAAP), that reconciliation provides a useful environment.

  • "Then what?" Those are two of the most under-rated words in the investment world. Eliminate the reconciliation and crow that you've "simplified" the system. Then what? Will convergence of accounting standards still take place the way it should? Is there still a reason for standard setters to work together on problems if there's no visible display of what makes their results different?
In writing this letter, we asked ourselves "then what?" many times - and I think we've come up with some issues that go beyond merely looking like something has been accomplished by eliminating this reconciliation. I hope you'll take a look at it and think about the issues we've raised - and write your own letter. It would be a complete embarrassment to the US financial reporting regime to see this reconciliation be yanked - only to see it return years later once it becomes apparent that it was too early to do away with 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.