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 17

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
11/17/2005 7:43 AM 

Last month, Dana Corporation reported problems with its 2004 annual report and its 2005 quarterly reporting through June, due to "issues involving customer pricing and transactions with suppliers in Dana's Commercial Vehicle business." About a week later, it pegged the cumulative possible restatement net income effects at $25 to $45 million; subsequently, Dana filed a notification of delay on third quarter 2005 reporting.

Yesterday, Dana filed a non-reliance 8-K covering the financial statements going as far back as 2000. It's not as nefarious as it sounds. How come? From the 8-K:

"The items requiring the restatement of the years prior to 2004 are unrelated to the company's ongoing internal investigation [mentioned above]. During 2004, Dana had recorded net charges totaling approximately $7 million after tax to adjust for items related to prior periods, including certain European benefit plans, state income taxes, inter-company balances, interest expense, and other accrued liabilities. The company had determined that these items did not materially impact the results of operations for the 2004 quarters in which they were recorded or for the full year. As a result of restating its 2004 financial statements for the items identified in the investigation, Dana will now be required to record the items comprising the $7 million in the periods to which they are attributable. Consequently, Dana will be restating financial results back to 2000. Items pertaining to periods prior to 2000 will be recorded in 2000 because they are immaterial to that year."


In short, there were $7 million of assorted charges belonging in prior periods that Dana charged to income in 2004, when its income from continuing operations was $95 million dollars. (Dana figured these were not material to 2004 income, which at first glance seems absurd. It's nearly 7% of income before the prior-period charges. However, they probably figured materiality based on continuing operations income exclusive of $180 million of the nearly-standard amalgam of loss on debt extinguishment, loss on sale of a business and the ever-popular restructuring charge. Add them all back, and the $7 million charge is less than 2.5% of the adjusted earnings.)

Once the 2004 figures are reduced by some $25 to $45 million, however, the $7 million of error correction becomes more material; in either case, the $7 million is much closer to 3% of the revised adjusted earnings. So, the $7 million gets taken out of 2004 and put into the years in which the errors really occurred. The individual years' errors might be higher or lower than the $7 million, obviously, and it looks like they must be material in 2001. The year 2001 was a loss year, making the materiality scope narrower; 2000 was a solidly profitable year ($334 million) making it more likely that recording the cumulative effect of the errors to that year would not make much difference in the figures.

A small cumulative figure can be a net of large positive and large negative figures - and each of those figures, when relating to different prior periods, can carry a lot more importance to each prior year when one of the figures has to be restated. It's a ripple effect, the old butterfly-in-Tokyo flapping its wings and making a storm in Kansas. The difference here is that Dana's restatement of 2004 figures is the butterfly, and the effect is rippling back in time to the year 2000. And that concludes today's lesson on how seemingly small cumulative figures today can be material to prior periods.

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.