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 27

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
3/27/2006 7:38 AM 

Last week, I mentioned General Motors' announcement of its expected delay in filing its 10-K. I noted, in the context of the 8-K only, its curious disclosure that the "misstatement related to the fact that GM's portfolio of vehicles on operating lease with daily rental car entities, which was impaired at lease inception, was prematurely revalued in 2005 to reflect increased anticipated proceeds upon disposal." In lease-speak, that means that the residual value of leased cars - representing the amount of money GM expected to get from end-of-lease disposal of cars returned to it -had been upped once in 2005 before it should have been. Now it's being written down.
The blogger known as "Iocaste" at Fantasy Life pointed to me that GMAC's 2004 10-K brings home the nature of the write-up/writedown a little more clearly:

"GMAC bears the risk of loss to the extent that the value of the vehicle upon remarketing is below the residual value estimated at contract inception. GMAC primarily uses published residual guidebook values in establishing standard residual values at contract inception. These projected values may be upwardly adjusted as a marketing incentive if General Motors considers an above-market residual appropriate to encourage consumers to lease vehicles. Such residual support by GM results in a lower monthly lease payment by the consumer. General Motors reimburses GMAC for its portion of these increased residual values, to the extent remarketing sales proceeds are less than the contract residual at termination."

Judging by that disclosure, GMAC starts out with one figure for residual values; if GM decides it needs to prod sales by offering lower lease payments, then an "above-market" residual is employed by GMAC to get juice flowing. In the end, if GMAC doesn't get the "above-market" residual (why would it? the market price is what it is), then GM is on the hook for the difference between what GMAC gets and what it recorded as residual values.

It sounds like GM is now taking action to clean up the portfolio values - probably a necessary step provoked by its efforts to shop around GMAC. Once you see this, you begin to wonder how much similar dross is floating around in the portfolios of other auto companies and other firms with captive financing subs.

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.