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.

 
 
Dec 18

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
12/18/2007 7:54 AM 

CFO.com's Sarah Johnson reported on the SEC's first roundtable held last week to explore the possibility of giving US companies the option of switching to International Financial Reporting Standards.

The thinking of the multinationals at the table? It was done in Europe in three years; it could be done here in three years. That's a "can-do" kind of spirit not often seen when it comes to financial reporting requirements. It's usually "can't do:" can't apply 157 in time, can't be ready for Section 404 audits, can't change computer systems to accommodate - (insert your favorite standard number here).

There's more benefit to firms in making a switch from US GAAP to IFRS than accrues to them from other reporting-type changes, so the can-do spirit is explainable. They might already be reporting chunks of their operations in IFRS and it would naturally be easier to get the whole thing on one footing.

They also might perceive IFRS as being more simple to apply because it contains less details to which they must conform - for now, at least. That may change as more companies road-test those standards.

Is it the straight-line path that many observers think it will be? Of course not. There are plenty of obstacles: the US reporting system is probably richer and more complex that the ones IFRS replaced in Europe, and adapting IFRS to that will be more difficult. There is a bank-regulation system that's based on US GAAP and auditing standards based on GAAP as well. And for years, there's been hand-wringing over a shortage of trained accountants; that's "trained" as in trained in US GAAP. There are even fewer accountants in the US experienced in IFRS.

The SEC seems hell-bent on making the choice happen. It's going to be quite a ride.

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.

 

 
barbie oyunu barbie giydirme oyunlarI barbie kIz oyunlarI barbie yemek oyunlarI oyunlar oyunlar oyunlar2