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 28

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
3/28/2006 8:06 AM 

A couple of recent restatements ...

Calgon Carbon Corporation filed a non-reliance 8-K yesterday, for a total $1.4 million (pretax) understatement of expenses in 2005. Reason:

"The Company determined that it failed to record invoices for professional services in a timely manner totaling $0.6 million for the quarter ended March 30, 2005; $0.5 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2005; and $0.3 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2005."

No clue as to the nature of the professional services. The amended 10-Q shows that the adjustments knocked another 2 cents from net earnings per share for the nine month period.

CSK Auto Group filed a non-reliance 8-K yesterday, too, covering its financials from 2005 and 2004. Multiple reasons:

"... the accounting errors and irregularities relate primarily to the Company's inventories and vendor allowances, as follows.


1. In-Transit Inventory. The Company is investigating a potential overstatement ... It appears that at least $20 million of this inventory overstatement originated in periods prior to fiscal year 2002.

2. Other Inventory Accounts. The Company has identified certain costs included in its inventory, a portion or all of which appear to be improper. The aggregate fiscal year-end balances of these costs were approximately $13 million in fiscal 2001, $14 million in fiscal 2002, $28 million in fiscal 2003, $32 million in fiscal 2004 and $25 million in fiscal 2005...

3. Vendor Allowances. Certain vendor allowance receivables on the balance sheet at the end of fiscal 2004 that were refunded or written off in fiscal 2005 are being investigated. It appears that between approximately $4 million and $10 million of such receivables may have resulted from errors or irregularities in prior periods."

CSK Auto Group is still investigating the details of its problems; restatement forthcoming.

So - what's the common thread?

There are two of them. First, none of these problems related to exotic interpretations of accounting literature for derivatives, or pensions, or anything remotely complex accounting-wise. They related to failures of internal controls over basic transactions within each firm, the essential blocking and tackling that should take place every day. In both cases, the blocking and tackling didn't happen for months, even years.

Second, both of these firms have market caps below $700 million. They're examples of the kinds of companies that would benefit from "lighter regulation" sought by the SEC's Advisory Committee on Smaller Companies. And they both show why it's a mistake.

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.