A new reality ahead for pension accounting: the recession's aftermath and IAS 19R prompt changes in accounting practices.
During 2010 and 2011, several prominent U.S. companies (AT&T, Verizon Communications, UPS, and others) changed their longstanding accounting practices from the delayed recognition of pension costs to a fair-value approach that now provides immediate recognition of most changes in plan assets and liabilities. These changes appear to be motivated by two key factors. First, plan sponsors experienced a significant buildup of unrecognized losses during the depths of the recession, which had a devastating impact on the health of such plans (particularly in 2008). The accounting changes resulted in retrospective adjustments to prior-year financial statements for these unrecognized net losses and eliminated a "drag" on future earnings. Second, recent revisions to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 19, Employee Benefits, will dramatically change existing practices used by companies reporting under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Essentially, IAS 19R (effective in 2013) will eliminate all delayed recognition mechanisms and require a fair-value approach to the recognition of changes in plan assets and liabilities. The most far-reaching change is that actuarial gains and losses will be immediately reported in other comprehensive income (OCI) and will no longer be amortized to earnings. Several U.S. companies have pointed to the fair-value approach under IAS 19R as support for their accounting changes.
The following is an examination of emerging issues in U.S. GAAP and IFRS, with respect to defined benefit pension plans. First, an overview of existing accounting practices under U.S. GAAP and IAS 19 is provided, with a particular focus on delayed recognition mechanisms present in both sets of standards. Particular provisions of 1AS 19R are discussed and contrasted with existing standards, along with consequences for U.S. companies if convergence with IFRS is achieved. Recent accounting changes by certain U.S. companies are examined, including likely motivations and related financial impact. Finally, a snapshot of the health of U.S. defined benefit pension plans is provided, along with strategies that may warrant consideration.
In the near term, more U.S. companies with accumulated unrecognized losses will likely contemplate a change to a fair-value approach for pension accounting. Given FASB's commitment to convergence with IFRS, and despite the lack of a formal decision by the SEC regarding the timing or method of incorporating IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system, U.S. companies should consider the impact of IAS 19R on their financial condition and future earnings.
Overview: Expense Recognition for Defined Benefit Plans
One of the overriding objectives of accounting for defined benefit pension plans, under both U.S. GAAP and is to recognize compensation cost in the periods in which the eligible employee renders services. Inherent in this process is a benefit formula that provides the basis for determining the amount of payment to which a participant may be entitled, and a number of actuarial and other underlying assumptions about future events, including mortality, employee turnover, retirement date, changes in future compensation, and other factors. The long-term nature of defined benefit plans, coupled with a multitude of assumptions that are often beyond a sponsor's control, can produce volatility in the reported annual cost of such plans. Moreover, retroactive plan amendments, revisions to underlying assumptions, and differences between actual experience and expectations can complicate the predictability of annual costs.
In reaction to constituents' concerns about these uncertainties, FASB incorporated provisions for the deferral or delayed recognition of particular changes in plan assets and liabilities. SFAS 87 (par. 85) describes the delayed recognition feature as a concept where "certain changes in the pension obligation (including those resulting from plan amendments) and changes in the value of assets set aside to meet those obligations are not recognized as they occur but are recognized systematically and gradually over subsequent periods." These mechanisms are discussed below. Though this discussion is particular to defined benefit pensions, the concepts are largely applicable to other postretirement plans (e.g., medical).
U.S. GAAP: Net Periodic Pension Cost and Delayed Recognition Mechanisms
Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 715-30-35 identifies the components of the net periodic cost of defined benefit pension plans. Below is a brief description of each component followed by the relevant provisions, where applicable, that permit delayed recognition or "smoothing" of costs over future periods.
Service cost. This cost component represents the actuarial present value of benefits computed using the plan's benefit formula related to services rendered by employees during the period.
Interest cost. This cost component represents the increase in the projected benefit obligation (i.e., the actuarial present value of accrued benefits at a point in time) during the period, due to the passage of time. It is computed using a discount rate multiplied by the balance of the pension benefit obligation at the beginning of the period. This discount rate should reflect current prices of annuity contacts or rates on high-quality, fixed-income investments at which the pension benefits could be. effectively settled at the measurement date.
Return on plan assets. For a funded plan, the actual return on plan assets represents the difference between the fair value of plan assets at the 'end of the period and the fair value at the beginning of the period, adjusted for employer contributions and benefit payments made during the period; however, ASC 715-30 permits companies to smooth period-to-period fluctuations in plan assets by using the "expected return on plan assets" in computing net periodic pension cost. The expected return is used by most companies and is computed using two components. One is the "expected long-term rate of return on plan assets," which reflects expectations of the average rate of earnings on existing plan assets, as well as related reinvestment rates. The second is the "market-related value of plan assets," in which companies can use the fair value of plan assets or, more commonly, "a calculated value that recognizes changes in fair value in a systematic and rational manner over not more than five years" (ASC 713-30-20). For example, it can represent a moving average of fair values for up to five years based on the composition of the portfolio of plan assets. The difference between the actual and expected return on plan assets is also recognized as a gain or loss in accumulated OCI, and it is included in the amortization of gains and losses discussed below.
Amortization of prior service cost (or credit). Plan amendments (or the initiation of a plan) generally provide increased benefits that are associated with employee services rendered in prior periods. This results in an immediate increase in the pension benefit obligation and an offsetting debit to OCI. Plan amendments can also reduce benefits and have the opposite effect. ASC 715-30-35 stipulates that prior service cost should be amortized over the remaining service period of participants expected to receive benefits under the plan. Other amortization approaches are permitted, depending upon whether plan participants are active or inactive when an amendment is made. A company is also permitted to choose a less complex approach that amortizes the cost of retroactive amendments more rapidly, provided that the method is used consistently and is properly disclosed. ASC 715-30-35-16 precludes a policy of immediate recognition.
Gain or loss. These represent changes in the value of either the projected benefit obligation or plan assets resulting from 1) differences between actuarial assumptions and actual experience, or 2) a change in actuarial assumptions (e.g., retirement age, mortality, employee turnover, discount rate). The difference between the actual and expected return on plan assets (noted above) is also included.
Gains and losses are initially recognized in OCI. The cumulative amount of these gains and losses impact future net pension cost through an amortization process. ASC 715-30-35-24 requires that the minimum annual amortization of the net gain or loss be computed using the "corridor approach." Amortization under the corridor approach is required "if, as of the beginning of the year, that net gain or loss exceeds 10 percent of the greater of the projected benefit obligation or the market-related value of plan assets." If such an excess exists, "the minimum amortization shall be that excess divided by the average remaining service period of active employees expected to receive benefits under the plan." The corridor approach is used by most entities, and it often results in amortization over periods of 10 to 15 years. (A calculation of the minimum amortization using the corridor method is illustrated in Exhibit 1.) Alternative approaches are permitted including--
* immediate recognition of gains and losses in annual defined benefit cost, or
* another systematic approach that amortizes gains and losses more rapidly than under the corridor approach, provided that the alternative is consistently used and is applied similarly to both gains and losses (ASC 715-30-35-20 and 25).
EXHIBIT 1 Amortization of Gains and Losses: The Corridor Approach Nanco Inc. sponsors a defined benefit pension plan that covers substantially all full-time employees. In computing the amortization of gains and losses for 2013, the company uses the corridor approach. The following information is available as of January 1, 2013 (all figures in thousands of dollars): Market-related value of plan assets (MRVA) $ 2,500,000 Projected benefit obligation (PBO) 3,200,000 Unrecognized net (gain) or loss in other comprehensive 750,000 income Average remaining service life of active employees 10 years Amortization of net loss for 2013 is computed as follows: Greater of the MRVA or the PBO $ 3,200,000 Corridor (10% x $ 3,200,000) $ 320,000 Unrecognized net loss as of January 1, 2013 $ 750,000 Less corridor 320,000 Excess over corridor 430,000 Average remaining service life of active employees /10 Amortization for 2013 included in defined benefit $ 43,000 cost
IAS 19 and Differences from U.S. GAAP
Under IAS 19, the annual expense of defined benefit plans consists of five main components. Two elements--current service cost and interest cost--have equivalent counterparts under U.S. GAAP. The other three elements, existing delayed recognition provisions, and pertinent differences from U.S. GAAP are discussed below.
Expected return on plan assets. This value is computed using an expected long term rate of return, multiplied by the fair value of the plan assets. Unlike U.S. GAAP, however, use of the market-related value of plan assets to smooth asset gains and losses is not permitted. The difference between the actual and expected return on plan assets is an actuarial gain or loss (see below).
Past service cost Changes in past service costs (prior service costs under U.S. GAAP) from the initiation of a plan or a plan amendment are expensed immediately for fully vested employees and amortized into income on a straight-line basis over the remaining period for employees who are not vested. U.S. GAAP provides delayed recognition of both vested and nonvested benefits.
Actuarial gains and losses. Similar to gains and losses under U.S. GAAP, actuarial gains and losses under IAS 19 include differences between actuarial assumptions and actual experience, changes in actuarial assumptions, and differences between the actual and expected return on plan assets. Entities are permitted to choose among three alternatives to recognize actuarial gains and losses to profit or loss. First, the corridor approach to amortization (similar to U.S. GAAP) may be used to delay recognition until future periods. Second, any systematic method that results in faster recognition than the corridor approach is acceptable, including immediate recognition. A third alternative--not permitted under U.S. GAAP--is to recognize all actuarial gains and losses in OCI in the period they occur, without subsequent amortization to the income statement. This alternative serves to reduce the volatility of defined benefit costs in the income statement, as compared to U.S. GAAP.
IAS 19 does not require that the components of pension cost be reported as a single net amount, as is required under U.S. GAAP. Accordingly, entities reporting under IFRS often report interest cost and the expected return on plan assets as financing costs on the income statement.
IAS 19R: A New Direction?
FASB and the IASB have comprehensive projects on their respective agendas concerning particular aspects of postretirement benefits. Phase 1 of FASB's project was completed in 2006 with the issuance of SFAS 158, Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans--An Amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R), which requires that the funded status of postretirement plans be recognized on the balance sheet. Meanwhile, the IASB agreed to address recognition, presentation, and disclosure issues in phase 1 of its agenda. Phase 1 of the IASB's project was concluded in June 2011 with the issuance of IAS 19R, which is effective beginning January 1, 2013 (early application permitted).
FASB has indicated that the conclusions reached by the IASB will provide a roadmap for future changes to U.S. GAAP. At its August 29, 2007 meeting, FASB decided to "leverage the IASB 's work," and it indicated that once the IASB completed phase 1 of its project, it "will consider whether adopting similar measurement requirements would improve reporting in the United States." The final step is a joint project to comprehensively reconsider the current accounting model for pensions and other postretirement benefits.
IAS 19R eliminates the delayed recognition mechanisms, reconfigures the components of defined benefit cost, and enhances disclosures concerning the characteristics and risks associated with defined benefit plans. Selected changes included in IAS 19R are briefly discussed below. Exhibit 2 compares the delayed recognition provisions under U.S. GAAP and IAS 19 as well as the changes in these practices included in IAS 19R.
EXHIBIT 2 Summary of Delayed Recognition Provisions: U.S. GAAP, IAS 18, and IAS 19R Delayed U.S. GAAP IAS 19 (Present) IAS 19 (Revised) Recognition Provision Prior (Past) Vested and Expensed Delayed Service Cost unvested benefits immediately for recognition are generally employees who are attributable to amortized over vested. For unvested benefits the remaining nonvested is eliminated. service period of employees, All past service participants amortized on a costs are expected to straight-line expensed in the receive benefits basis over the period the plan under the plan. remaining vesting is amended or period. curtailed. Market-Related Used to compute Use of a Use of a Value of Plan the expected calculated calculated Assets return on plan market-related market-related assets. value of plan value of plan Represents either assets is not assets is not the fair value of permitted. The permitted. The plan assets, or a fair value of fair value of calculated value plan assets is plan assets is that permits used. used. gains and losses on plan assets to be smoothed for up to five years. Expected Return Calculated as the Calculated as the Expected return on Plan Assets expected expected on plan * assets long-term rate of long-term rate of and interest cost return on plan return, on the pension assets, multiplied by the benefit multiplied by the fair value of obligation have market-related plan assets. been eliminated. value of plan Interest on the assets. net defined benefit liability or asset (using the discount rate) is introduced. Gains and Permitted Permitted Single Approach Losses Alternatives Alternatives All actuarial Recognized in Recognized in gains and losses defined benefit profit or loss (i.e., cost under using the same remeasurements) alternative alternative are recorded in approaches: * approaches OCI in the period Corridor approach permitted under they occur, * Immediate U.S. GAAP or without recognition of Recognized in OCI subsequent all gains and in the period amortization to losses * Any they occur, profit or loss. other systematic without method that subsequent results in faster amortization to amortization than profit or loss. under the corridor approach.
New Components of Pension Cost
Net interest on the defined benefit liability or asset. IAS 19R eliminates the interest cost component and the expected return on plan assets and introduces a single "net interest" component. This is calculated as the discount rate times the net defined benefit liability (if underfunded) or plan asset (if overfunded). Accordingly, net interest expense is recognized if the plan is underfunded or net interest income is recognized if the plan is overfunded. The IASB views the net pension liability (or asset) as the equivalent of an amount payable to (or receivable from) the plan. The elimination of the expected return on plan assets will result in higher annual expenses compared to U.S. GAAP and existing IAS 19 because the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets will be replaced with the lower discount rate.
Past service cost. IAS 19R eliminates the delayed recognition for the unvested portion of past service costs and requires that all past service costs be recognized when a plan is amended or curtailed. Compared to U.S. GAAP and existing IAS 19, this change will increase the volatility of profit or loss for those companies with significant plan amendments.
Actuarial gains and losses. As mentioned above, IAS 19R eliminates the corridor approach and other amortization alternatives. All actuarial gains and losses are immediately recognized in OCT and not amortized or "recycled" into income in subsequent periods. Accordingly, IAS 19R will result in greater volatility of OCT but will reduce volatility of profit or loss compared to U.S. companies and those companies that presently recognize profits or losses under IAS 19.
Presentation of Defined Benefit Cost
IAS 19R introduces changes in terminology and definitions that impact financial statement presentation; however, it does not require that net pension cost be reported as a single component on the income statement, but suggests that presentation be consistent with prior practice (par. BC201). Defined benefit cost will consist of three components:
* Service cost. This component consists of current-period service cost, past service costs, and certain gains and losses on nonroutine plan curtailments. It is reported in profit or loss.
* Net interest on the net defined benefit liability (asset). The component (discussed above) is also reported in profit or loss.
* Remeasurements of the net defined benefit liability (asset). This component primarily includes 1) actuarial gains and losses on the defined benefit obligation, and 2) the difference between the actual return on plan assets and the interest income included in the net interest component. It is reported in OCI.
Changes by U.S. Companies: Motivations and Financial Impact
Under U.S. GAAP, companies may elect to change certain existing practices related to the delayed recognition provisions of defined benefit costs. One option is to change the method used to determine the market-related value of plan assets by smoothing asset gains and losses over a period shorter than five years, or by changing from a calculated value to the fair value of plan assets. Entities may also elect to change from the corridor approach to a policy that accelerates the amortization of gains and losses. Examples include changing the size of the corridor (e.g., from 10% to 5%), recognizing all gains and losses in excess of the corridor, or eliminating the corridor completely and immediately recognizing all gains and losses in the year they occur. Each represents a change in accounting principle under ASC Topic 250, "Accounting Changes and Error Corrections," and requires retrospective application of the new method to all prior years. A preferability letter from the external auditors is also requited.
During 2010 and 2011, certain U.S. companies changed their longstanding accounting policies related to the recognition of defined benefit costs. Each company had employed some variant of the delayed recognition provisions related to gains and losses. One key factor prompting these changes appears to have been the desire to eliminate the precarious accumulation of unrecognized losses experienced in 2008 during the depths of the recession and to avoid the related drag on future earnings. For example, AT&T Inc. implemented the following two accounting changes at the end of 2010: it discontinued use of the corridor method and the use of a calculated market-related fair value in order to smooth asset gains and losses and to compute the expected return on plan assets. The company adopted a fair value approach to immediately recognize all gains and losses in the income statement. The after-tax impact of the changes amounted to a $1.64 billion (8%) reduction in net income for the year ended December 31, 2010. In accordance with ASC 250, prior-year financial statements were also retrospectively adjusted to reflect the impact of the change. The previously reported net income for 2008 was reduced by $15.5 billion (120%).
Verizon Communications Inc. reported accounting changes in 2010 similar to those adopted by AT&T; however, the after-tax amount of the change for the year ending December 31, 2010, amounted to a $531 million (26%) increase in net income, compared to previous accounting practices. Prior-year financial statements were retrospectively adjusted, with a reduction in previously reported net income for 2008 of $8.6 billion (134%).
Honeywell Inc.'s management noted that its accounting practices were more conservative than its peers. Previously, Honeywell had smoothed asset gains and losses over three years (compared to five years for most companies) using a calculated market-related fair value of plan assets. Gains and losses in excess of the corridor were previously amortized over a shorter period of six years. Though Honeywell discontinued the smoothing of asset gains and losses using a market-related fair value of plan assets, the company elected to retain the 10% corridor but immediately recognize gains and losses in excess of the corridor each year. On a retrospective basis, the reduction in after-tax net income totaled $605 million (28%) for 2009 and approximately $2 billion (71%) for 2008. Other companies that also changed their pension accounting practices during 2011 included Reynolds American Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc. Exhibit 3 includes a sample list of companies, the changes made, and the impact to previously reported net income.
EXHIBIT 3 Changes in Accounting Practices for Defined Benefit Plans During 2010 and 2011: After-Tax Impact on Net Income for Selected U.S. Companies Below are 10 companies that changed their pension accounting practices during 2010 and 2011. A brief description of the accounting change(s) and the impact on after-tax net income for the year of the change and three prior years are provided. The highlighted areas reveal the impact of 2008, when many corporate plans experienced significant unrecognized losses during the depths of the recession. All figures are in millions of dollars. After-Tax Increase (Decrease) in Net Income * Year of Prior Change year Company Name Year of Type of $ % [double $ Change Change dagger] [section] AT&T Inc. 2010 1,2 ($1,644) (8%) ($397) Honeywell 2010 1,3 $57 3% ($605) International [dagger] Inc. Verizon 2010 1,2 $531 26% $1,243 Communications Inc. Fortune Brands 2011 1,3 ($41.6) (693%) $6.6 Home & Security Inc. Kaman 2011 1 $2.4 5% ($2.7) Corporation PerkinElmer 2011 1,2 ($39.3) (84%) $7.1 Inc. PolyOne 2011 2 ($45.3) (21%) $0 Corporation Reynolds 2011 1,3 $20 1% $8 American Inc. United Parcel 2011 1, 3 ($409) (10%) ($150) Service Inc. Windstream 2011 2 ($77.6) (31%) $1.9 Corporation Two years Three prior Years Prior Company Name % $ % $ % AT&T Inc. (3%) ($15,492) (120%) $5,081 43% Honeywell (28%) ($1,986) (71%) $150 6% International Inc. Verizon 34% ($8,621) (134%) $1,691 31% Communications Inc. Fortune Brands 12% $2.9 7% ($57.8) (9%) Home & Security Inc. Kaman (7%) ($7.6) (23%) $2.8 8% Corporation PerkinElmer 2% ($3.5) (4%) ($57.1) (45%) Inc. PolyOne 0% $57.2 116% ($156.8) (60%) Corporation Reynolds 1% ($7) (1%) ($894) (67%) American Inc. United Parcel (4%) ($184) (9%) ($2,348) (78%) Service Inc. Windstream 1% $64 19% ($241.1) (58%) Corporation Notes: * After-tax amounts were determined from 10-K reports for each company. [dagger] Impact for year of the change was determined from fourth-quarter earnings releases or other company sources. [double dagger] Percentage change is calculated as: change in net income/net income as originally reported before the accounting change. [section] The accounting changes fall into three main categories: 1. Changed from the use of a calculated market-related value of plan assets to fair value in the computation of the expected return on plan assets 2. Discontinued the use of the corridor approach (10% or other percentage) and immediately recognized all gains and losses 3. Continued the use of the corridor approach, but immediately recognized gains and losses in excess of the corridor
In corporate announcements, press releases, and investor presentations, the management of such companies explained the nature of the accounting changes and the impact on financial results. The following were common themes in their rationales:
* Existing accounting practices are simplified.
* Accounting is now better aligned with preferable fair value concepts.
* Gains and losses due to market fluctuations are recognized in the period they arise.
* Expense recognition is better aligned with current market returns, interest rates, and actuarial assumptions.
* There is consistency with new international accounting standards.
* Current period results have improved transparency.
* There is no impact to cash flows, plan funding, employee benefits, or dividend policy.
* There is minimal impact to the balance sheet. The change is reflected as a reduction in retained earnings and an increase to accumulated OCI.
Some corporate announcements referred to the fair value approach in IAS 19R in their explanations. In its press release announcing the change, Honeywell noted that "independent auditors have agreed as to the preferability of this change, and importantly International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) utilize a MTM [mark-to-market] methodology for pension accounting" (November 16, 2010). Similarly, in an analyst call to explain the accounting change, Verizon CFO Francis J. Shammo indicated: "This is actually a preferable accounting method and one that aligns with the fair value accounting concepts and current lFRS proposals" (January 21, 2011).
The benefits of these changes, however, must be weighed against concomitant risks. The predictability of annual defined benefit cost from existing smoothing techniques will be replaced with increased volatility in earnings and added difficulty in accurately forecasting future results. In fact, during several investor conference calls held by companies to explain their recent pension accounting changes, analysts appeared to be more interested in the impact on forecast accuracy and the risk of "surprises," since the fair value adjustments for gains and losses will be reported only in the fourth quarter of the year.
The Economic Crisis and its Aftermath
Standard & Poor's (S&P) reported that defined benefit pension plans for companies in the S&P 500 were overfunded by $63.4 billion at the end of 2007--that is, before the global economic crisis hit (S&P 500 2011: Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits, July 2012). Since then, the recession and other factors have had a devastating impact on the health of corporate pension plans. The S&P 500 index had a negative total return of 37% in 2008, and the pension plans of S&P 500 companies experienced (on average) "a 43% gap" between expected and actual returns. Total plan assets declined by 26.9%, or approximately $400 billion, contributing to a record underfunding of $308.4 billion at the end of 2008. The S&P 500 index rebounded with total returns of 26.5% in 2009 and 15.1% in 2010, but these gains were on a significantly lower asset base. Further complicating this situation is that the historically low interest rate environment has resulted in a drop in the average discount rates used to measure pension liabilities, from 6.3% in 2008, to 5.8% in 2009, and 5.3% in 2010. Unfortunately, lower discount rates serve to increase the present value of existing pension liabilities, generate additional unrealized losses, and exacerbate the funded status of plans.
At the end of 2010, the pension plans of S&P 500 companies had an aggregate underfunding of $245 billion. During 2011, a further decline in the average discount rate to 4.7%, coupled with a meager total return of 2.1% for the S&P 500 index, helped increase aggregate pension underfunding to a record $354.7 billion. Accordingly, higher future pension contributions will be necessary, either from existing resources or additional borrowing.
These economic results present a unique situation for companies with defined benefit pension plans. Moreover, given the significant overhang of unrecognized losses from prior years, the continued use of the calculated market-related value of plan assets and the corridor method will have a negative impact on earnings for years to come.
The recent accounting changes and revisions to IAS 19 have provided U.S. companies with a preview of the challenges ahead. Some may view this as an opportunity to eliminate the overhang of unrecognized losses and the drag on future earnings. But the risks of increased volatility in earnings and forecasting difficulties should not be dismissed.
Now is the time to examine long-term strategies. Although the SEC final staff report (Work Plan for the Consideration of Incorporating International Financial Reporting Standards into the Financial Reporting System for U.S. Issuers, issued July 13, 2012) does not clarify the timing or method of incorporating IFRS into U.S. GAAP, U.S. companies should consider the impact of IAS 19R on their financial condition and future earnings. IAS 19R will likely reduce volatility in earnings, but increase volatility in OCI. Moreover, the elimination of the expected return on plan assets will likely increase defined benefit costs, because returns in excess of the discount rate will be reported in OCI--not earnings. Current investment strategies to support a higher long-term rate of return could warrant a shift away from equities and riskier assets to a portfolio better matched to the plan's liabilities. Finally, companies anticipating future plan amendments should also consider the immediate recognition of vested and unvested benefits, as provided in IAS 19R.
Overall, the movement toward a fair value model and away from delayed recognition represents a major step toward improving accounting practices that have lingered for the past 25 years. But it does not settle the broader issue concerning the measurement of defined benefit costs, which represents the next step for FASB and the IASB in their long-term effort to overhaul pension accounting practices.
James M. Fornaro, DPS, CPA, CMA, CFE, is an associate professor in the department of accounting, taxation, and business law at SUNY at Old Westbury, Old Westbury, N.Y.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||accounting; International Accounting Standard|
|Author:||Fornaro, James M.|
|Publication:||The CPA Journal|
|Date:||Oct 1, 2012|
|Previous Article:||Is real tax reform realistic: the election season raises a familiar question.|
|Next Article:||Audit fee patterns of Big Four and non-Big Four firms: a study of the potential effects of auditing standard 5.|