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.

 
 
Sep 23

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
9/23/2005 5:57 AM 

Plenty of observers - self included - wondered if new SEC Chairman Christopher Cox would favor business over investors.

So far, he hasn't opened the Pandora's box of option expensing accounting; he's taken no action to overturn the FASB rule. His remarks on the Cisco derivatives proposal were unsettling - but you could also read them as ambivalent.

Today's Wall Street Journal reports an interesting new focus for the SEC: the subject of corporate retaliation against analysts who publish unfavorable opinions or reports. In a letter to Rep. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Chairman Cox indicated that "this is indeed a concern and we will tackle it." Apparently, the SEC has already interviewed nine brokerage firms; six of them listed retaliatory practices as a problem. New regulations might be on the way.


Analyst folklore is rife with stories of analysts being frozen out of corporate communications; it's a good idea for the SEC to make sure that all opinions on a company can be heard, without bias towards only corporate sycophants. The puzzling thing to me is this: if the SEC's Regulation FD is working as intended - to provide equal access to corporate communications - then why is this even an issue? If negative analysts are being frozen out of things like "special invitation events", doesn't that imply that something isn't working right in Reg FD? Perhaps enforcement of that rule is needed before issuing new ones.

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.