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
11/17/2006 7:50 AM 

Starbucks released its earnings yesterday, and it contained one surprise: the company had a FIN 47 adoption charge.

In the front half of this year, FIN 47 adoption charges were plentiful, as noted in this space. That's because the standard required firms to adopt it by the end of the fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005; Starbucks has one of those awkward floating year ends which happened to be late in the calendar year anyway. Their year ended on October 1, 2006, making that date the last possible day they could comply with FIN 47.

What's unusual about this? Only that it might reflect some of the biases we let creep into our thinking as investors and observers of the business scene. When you think FIN 47, many of us automatically associate it with heavy industries like mining, energy and utilities - industries where major cleanup will be needed after an asset has been consumed and the firm has a legal obligation to return a property to a "restored" state. That's what FIN 47 was supposed to do - it was effectively a jump start for firms that hadn't complied yet with their Statement 143 reporting duties. (Statement 143 is the REAL accounting standard for recording asset retirement obligations, not FIN 47. FIN 47 is merely an interpretation.)

Being in the business of serving over-rated coffee out of retail "boxes" that it leases from others, Starbucks is party to agreements that call for it to return leased property to an agreed-upon condition at the end of a lease. That obligation occurs over the life of a lease, not on its last day - and that's the obligation for which Starbucks is now accruing. Nothing startling about the size, but it just catches your attention if you're used to thinking too narrowly about accounting standards being industry-specific.

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.