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.

 
 
Oct 27

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
10/27/2006 7:07 AM 

Interesting 6-K filing by Japanese electronics giant NEC: it seems that the company is having trouble preparing its financial results on a United States accounting principles basis. This isn't something new challenge for NEC, so it's a little unusual to see it happening now.

The company will be reporting results on a Japanese basis for the current year; they gave no indication that they'd be switching back to U.S. GAAP. NEC's financials for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006 were audited by Ernst & Young ShinNihon under Japanese auditing standards - not the same standards as required in the United States by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. After the report was filed with the Japanese regulators, the auditors "requested further analysis" for a revenue recognition issue; this caused a delay in filing the firm's 20-F with the SEC, and was announced on September 28. It still will file (eventually) the 2006 20-F on a U.S. GAAP basis; although they make no commitment to further filings, it would be strange not to continue reporting on a U.S. basis once the bugs have been worked out.

The company admits that it will take "considerable time" to prepare its financials on a U.S. basis for the first half of fiscal 2007 (the current year) because of the problems in getting resolution on 2006. So, it's switching to Japanese GAAP in its future financial releases. Needless to say, this is going to hose the analysts who have been following the company on a U.S. basis - and don't know reporting under Japanese GAAP.

What's the hold-up? Being a foreign issuer, NEC doesn't report on its internal controls yet. But the auditors have found problems neverheless: The September 28 filing states that the current internal controls do not "ensure that all significant U.S. GAAP adjustments and reclassifications, presentations, and disclosures" are included in U.S. GAAP financials; the company lacks specific policies and procedures for dealing with transactions under U.S. GAAP; and the company lacks personnel with the "appropriate knowledge, experience, and training in the application of U.S. GAAP at its headquarters' corporate controller division or its various business units and subsidiaries."

Damning stuff, and not uncommon in the United States when firms were going through their first Section 404 reviews. The net result of those weaknesses led to the delay in filing: problems were found in revenue recognition, income taxes, accruals and reserves, and research and development expenses. Basically, in much of the income statement.

The real sticky issue, as noted in yesterday's filing seems to be the revenue recognition issues in NEC's "IT Solutions" group. Apparently, this is a services group that enters into customer arrangements that have more than one facet to them: the firms is committed to delivering multiple elements of a contract over various stages of an agreement's life. The iron rule of revenue recognition (one of the iron rules, anyway) is that you don't recognize revenue before you've delivered goods or provide services - even if you've been paid in advance. NEC's auditors "requested further analysis to support the relative fair value of maintenance and support services provided as part of multiple element contracts": it's what's needed to parse out the different components of a contract, each component with a possibly different revenue recognition pattern. So the relative fair values of each can ultimately have a big impact on the timing of revenue recognition. Given that these contracts often span more than one year, it's not unlikely that there could be issues with previous years' documentation that have an effect on FY 2006 also. That would only add to the time needed to finish the job.

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.