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
3/29/2007 6:37 AM 

A while ago, I mentioned Apria Healthcare's SAB 108 adjustment to retained earnings for getting revenues recognition (and expense recognition) in line with when revenues are actually earned.

Not too surprising, then, that a similar company has a similar correction. As noted in their 10-K, Lincare Holdings has practically the same issue. Slight variation: while the issue is the timing of revenue recognition - both firms recognized revenues sooner than they should have - Lincare has an additional factor in their error. The didn't record an allowance for sales adjustments (assumed to be a form of discounting) against the accounts receivable, meaning they were overstated:

"During the fourth quarter of 2006, the Company adopted the provisions of SAB 108 effective as of January 1, 2006. During 2006, the Company identified prior year misstatements related to recognition of deferred revenues associated with rental arrangements and the recording of an allowance for sales adjustments against accounts receivable. The Company assessed the materiality for each of the years impacted by these misstatements, using the permitted rollover method, and determined that the effect on the financial statements, taken as a whole, was not material. As allowed by SAB 108, the Company elected to not restate prior year financial statements and, instead, as permitted by SAB 108, recorded a cumulative adjustment on January 1, 2006 which increased deferred revenue and allowance for uncollectible accounts by $34.4 million and $10.7 million, respectively, and reduced retained earnings by $27.6 million. Tax adjustments totaling $17.5 million were also recorded as part of the cumulative adjustment."

Note that the company found the error in 2006. They went back and assessed it according to one method - the rollover method, which is more permissive than applying both rollover and iron curtain assessments - and found that in each of the prior years, the amounts involved were immaterial and thus dodged restatements.

That seems to be the way firms are interpreting SAB 108, but not necessarily the way it was intended to be applied. SAB 108 permits the retained earnings adjustment "if management properly applied its previous approach, either iron curtain or rollover, so long as all relevant qualitative factors were considered." That makes it sound like the Commission meant if the errors had been assessed all along - not just discovered in 2006 and retroactively assessed the way they would have been had the errors surfaced before.

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.