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.

 
 
Feb 22

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
2/22/2007 7:39 AM 

Sounds like a rehash of stock compensation issues, but it's not.

The FASB issued Statement No. 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities," last Thursday. The "option" aspect is that firms will now have a choice of whether or not to apply fair value accounting to some financial instruments that have always been accounted for at historical values.

[Subscribers to The Analyst's Accounting Observer: the exposure draft of this standard was covered in Volume 15, No. 5 "FASB's Fair Value Frenzy."

Companies that take the fair value option might find that hedging becomes easier than under Statement 133, with no need for "effectiveness testing" which seems to have been a hurdle in some restatements seen over the past year and a half. If firms are as good at hedging as they claim to be, the earnings volatility that results from having two offsetting instruments recorded at fair value should be relatively subdued. It might be a good chance for firms to control their financial exposures and reduce their compliance paperwork at the same time.

Only apparent downside at this time: comparability will suffer for investors. Remember - it's an option, not a mandate. And companies will also likely apply it only where fair value reporting will give them a better-looking balance sheet. So it's not without its drawbacks.

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.