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 29

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
3/29/2006 7:00 AM 

The SEC's chief economist, Chester Spatt, delivered a speech entitled "Financial Regulation: Economic Margins and Unintended Consequences" at the Washington Area Finance Conference at George Washington University on March 17.

He made some interesting points, maybe some that we've all noticed before. For instance, with regard to the 1993 cap that was placed on the tax-deductibility of non-contingent executive compensation over $1,000,000; however, "firms substituted alternative compensation in order to be able to pay prospective employees their equilibrium compensation level. One could argue that an "unintended" consequence of such legislation was to increase executive compensation."

He wonders about the possible "unintended consequence" of stock options expensing:

"Because of the efficiency of our financial markets, I would not expect options expensing to lead to substantial changes in the valuation of companies that have significant option programs. However, one potential impact from options expensing and arguably an "unintended effect" may be to moderate the use of these grants in compensation programs by educating boards of directors as to the potential ex ante cost to these grants and removing the natural bias in favor of a compensation tool that was not reflected previously on the profit and loss statement."

Surely there will be some definitive academic study on the before-and-after prevalence of U.S. stock option grants once all companies are reporting on the same basis. (And that's still going to take some time.) For now, the anecdotal evidence - or at least the conventional wisdom - points to that unintended consequence: options grants are widely believed to be declining, in favor of more awards of restricted stock.

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.