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.

 
 
Mar 14

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
3/14/2008 8:05 AM 

 I finished up my fifth year on the FASB's Emerging Issues Task Force on TWednesday. My, how time flies.

I've retired, and my financial statement user seat at the table will be more than ably filled by Mark Lamonte, of Moody's. (And a fellow ITAC member, I might add.)

So - a couple thoughts on my time at the EITF. I've said it before: if accounting is considered a branch of microeconomics, then the EITF debates the nano-economics of accounting issues. And I'll reduce all my EITF observations to one analogy: the television program "Lost."

No, that's not a sarcastic or ironic swipe at the EITF. Bear with me, please.

Loyal fans of the show, of which I count myself, look for clues and threads about the show's eventual conclusion in every episode. (Why, if I didn't watch that one hour of TV per week, I'd have a 50% greater output on this blog. That's sort of like the counting of small firms saying that SOX 404 compliance costs would drive them into bankruptcy.)

Back to the "Lost" analogy. I remember reading an interview with the show's creators, where the interviewer was pumping them for any clues or significance attached to a bracelet. The item belonged to an important character that may been connected to another character appearing in one of the show's signature "flash-forward" sequences - the connection being provided by the bracelet. One of the creators threw cold water on that possible connection, saying that "sometimes a bracelet is just a bracelet."

And that is a bit like what I've encountered in my time on the EITF. The EITF spends an incredible amount of time on financial instrument issues. You have a lot of high-powered people puzzling over tiny accounting bracelets, often trying to find a way to see something in a particular financial instrument: is a portion of this promise to pay really equity? Or is it all equity? Or none of it? After puzzling over these issues in the last five years, I believe that sometimes, a liability is just a liability. (Thank you, Damon Lindelof.) 

It'll be interesting to see what happens to the EITF agenda if the FASB and the IASB complete the liabilities and equity project. It might wipe out their agenda; on the other hand, it might sweep in a whole new class of questions accounting for financial instruments. More "Lost" ponderings about the connections to the EITF agenda, if I don't stop here. Have a great weekend!

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.