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.

 
 
Oct 7

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
10/7/2005 3:27 AM 

[Note: both the PCAOB and KPMG are subscribers to The Analyst's Accounting Observer. Not that it has any bearing on the comments below, but someone might care.]

In the last week, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has released its findings from annual inspections on two of the Big Four firms. KPMG was first last week: the report was quite unflattering. For instance:

"In some cases, the deficiencies identified were of such significance that it appeared to the inspection team that the Firm had not, at the time it issued its audit report, obtained sufficient competent evidential matter to support its opinion on the issuer's financial statements. In some of those audits, that conclusion followed from the omission, or insufficient performance, of a single procedure, while other audits included more than one such failure..."


The report went on to list some of those deficiences: incorrect lease accounting (and not just of the routine stuff of earlier this year); instruments included as cash equivalents that weren't really equivalents; botched suggested adjustments; and omitted testing of goodwill impairments, among other episodes. It's not looking like a good year for KPMG...

The Deloitte report, released on Thursday, contained its share of unflattering findings, too. Like KPMG - and one would suspect, every firm examined by the PCAOB this year - there were improper applications of lease accounting. There was also a Deloitte client with botched securitization accounting; another found with an allowance for loan losses that wasn't examined closely by the audit team; and erroneous impairment charges, among other episodes.

To my knowledge, KPMG has not contested the PCAOB's findings. Deloitte, on the other hand, disagrees with the PCAOB findings in several cases, according to the Financial Times. Might be an interesting PCAOB reporting season.

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.