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.

 
 
May 25

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
5/25/2006 6:03 AM 

From the folks that brought you the options backdating panic, a couple of really good articles...

Yesterday's "Long & Short" by Jesse Eisinger is a dead-solid perfect summary of how "in two short decades, stock options have gone from being the solution to the problem." He didn't go into details citing one professor or another with a really slick way to sniff out the next backdating bottom drop-out. He did, however, nail the reason why this issue resonates so loudly - and will continue to do so with regulators and prosecutors:

"...as the stock prices of the companies involved in the backdating-scandal tumble, investors are realizing that widespread abuse of options grants were more than about earnings.

They told you about character."


Anyone whose been overly sanguine about options issuance (doesn't matter, it's a bean-counter issue; it's in the denominator; everyone else is doing it; management is worth what they're paid even if I don't know what the worth is, etc.) for the last ten years completely missed the point. When there's minimal visibility into what people do with their compensation - with the resources entrusted to them by shareholders - you're going to find out the nature of their character. And that's exactly what's happening now.

He also rightly pointed out that the post-Sarbox required reporting for officer stock transactions might help reduce opportunities for backdating. Even if the quicker reporting deadlines weren't in place, only a flint-hearted scoundrel would think about backdating these days. (Or only if they were just plain dumb.)

Different article in today's Journal by Gregory Zuckerman highlights the whirlwind witch hunt going on over backdated options. Everybody and their brother is coming up with their own hit list of who might be next on the receiving end of a subpoena. It reminds me a LOT of the Enron death thrash, when people kept calling here asking if I had a list of companies who were "using SPE's" - as if it were some kind of off-the-shelf deodorant.

A worthwhile point made by Zuckerman: with everyone out there pushing some kind of list of potential villains, there's no sure way to separate the good guys from the bad guys. You won't know who they really are until the informal inquiry/special committee/US attorney general subpoena has been announced.

I've made no list myself; I've outlined what concerned investors can do for themselves in a couple of these posts. (Screen on "Options Daze" in the search box.) But remember, folks: it's all circumstantial evidence. Keep that in mind before you churn an entire portfolio. Unfortunately, this is pretty reactive thinking. As Eisinger points out, all these things have to do with character - and all the evidence has been out there for years. And there's a certain fellow in Omaha who's been saying the same thing over the whole stretch.

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.