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.

 
 
Nov 16

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
11/16/2009 10:23 PM 

It's crunch time. This week, the House of Representatives will decide on a bill that will give the new systemic risk regulator the power to override the SEC's judgment in its oversight of the Financial Accounting Standards Boards. It would set up a "council" of interested parties to exercise its judgment over the SEC's.

According to Jessica Holzer of Dow Jones Newswires, the American Bankers Association, the Commercial Mortgage Securities Association, the Council of Federal Home Loan Banks, the Financial Services Roundtable, the National Multi Housing Council, the National Apartment Association, the National Association of Home Builders and the Real Estate Roundtable signed onto a letter to House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D.-Mass.) and Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) on Monday.

They like the idea:

"Since the SEC's mandate is too narrow to take into consideration potential systemic risk created by accounting standards, the Council should be able to review and make recommendations on any accounting principle or standard that it believes poses a systemic risk."

Read that again: "systemic risk created by accounting standards." This kind of thinking - really, a justification for the denial of facts - is about to be built into the governance of the the accounting standards. In the credit crisis, accounting standards reported the outcomes of systemic risk - they didn't create the systemic risk. This is an opportunity for those most culpable for the mess they to fob it off on the accounting. And they just might institutionalize it by legislature.

It's created some strange bedfellows, making the accounting vortex swirl even faster. I can't remember the last time that I've seen American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the California Public Employees Retirement System, the CFA Institute, and the Council of Institutional Investors on the same side of an issue as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They're all on record as opposing the bill, same as the SEC and the FASB.

The bill is a travesty: it only provides another lever for the regulated to pull on their regulators when things don't go their way. Look at the composition of the proposed council: while the SEC would have a seat, it would never be able to dominate the council. Not with representation from the federal banking regulators, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the National Credit Union Administration at the same table.

You can do something, if you hurry: write to your Congressman copy it to Barney Frank.  The fax number to Barney Frank’s office is 202-225-0182. The House Financial Services Committee also has a link established for emails on the this page, which also suggests that letters be sent to the Member of Congress that represent their region. There is an email form on the website to contact representatives.  It is designed for communication from constituents within that state. If you need inspiration, try this form letter. Act now: time is running out.

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