You are here: Home : Topics A-Z : Accounting : Article
New Pension Accounting: Volatility City?
(continued)
To that end, Mulford, along with graduate student associates Erin Quinn and Ryan Swanson, produced a study issued this month that seeks illustrate the impact of running changes in pension-plan value through the income statement. In a nutshell, the accounting change would spur a big rise in volatility stemming from the percentage changes in pension expense and in income from continuing operations. (The latter refers to net income before such one-time events as extraordinary items and discontinued operations.)
The study looked at 24 of the 30 companies represented in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Six companies were eliminated from the report because they either didn't have pension plans or pension data wasn't clear or available. The researchers applied the full fair value treatment to changes in asset values for each company for a five-year stretch (2002 to 2006). The study compared actual returns on pension plan assets to expected returns, reflecting the market swings of bull and bear markets.
In 2002, for example, all 24 companies — including 3M, Boeing, Caterpillar, Citigroup, Dupont, JP Morgan Chase, and Merck — predicted positive returns. But weak markets led to actual losses on plan assets for all two-dozen companies.
advertisementThus, the pension expense for median companies that year climbed by 887 percent. Run through the income statement, and evaluated by an untrained eye, that increase in pension expense could make the median company look quite a bit less profitable. Further, company profits would look extremely volatile compared to 2006, when the median company adjusted pension expense dropped by 109 percent.
To see the effects the change in accounting treatment might have on a single company, consider Dupont's pension expense over the five years (see chart). The chemical company's adjusted expense figure swung from a 2,077 percent deviation between expected and actual results in 2002 to a negative deviation of 374 percent in 2006.
The study's results for percentage change to income from continuing operations was similarly "all over the map," said Mulford. Using the revised accounting treatment, the median company would have reported a 51 percent drop in income from continuing operations in 2002, while income would have risen by 9.8 percent in 2006.
When it comes to the volatility of individual companies, Boeing stands out as being especially affected by fair-value pension accounting (see chart). The aircraft manufacturer would have recorded a 177 percent dip in income in 2002, but a 168 percent rise in 2006. Alcoa would have suffered from a big swing in volatility as well, going from a 306 percent drop in income in 2002 to a 9.8 percent rise in 2006. Caterpillar's fair-value adjustments would have been recognized as a 171 percent decrease in income in 2002 and an 11 percent jump in 2006.
| Pension expense swings Percentage change in adjusted pension expense if recorded at fair value. (%) |
|||||
| Company name* | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 |
| 3M | -150.5 | 32.0 | -72.0 | 232.0 | 1182.3 |
| Alcoa | -64.5 | 4.8 | 53.2 | 61.2 | 1000.4 |
| Altria Group | -91.5 | 45.6 | 168.5 | 93.8 | 716 |
| Boeing | -145.1 | -121.7 | -35.0 | 195.9 | 5314.9 |
| Caterpillar | -93.6 | 199.6 | 0.9 | 271.6 | 1338.0 |
| Citigroup | -184.9 | -81.9 | 247.3 | 98.2 | 1338.9 |
| Dupont EI de Nemours | -474.8 | -56.2 | 68.4 | -65.8 | 2077.0 |
| Johnson & Johnson | -18.4 | 27.8 | 85.9 | 138.7 | 993.9 |
| JP Morgan Chase | 64.1 | 71 | 136.6 | 22.2 | 1068.5 |
| Merck & Co. | -134.2 | -12.4 | -26.7 | 26.1 | 779.6 |
| United Technologies | -215 | -2.5 | 33.5 | 107.7 | 2471.3 |
| Verizon Communications | -258.8 | -49.7 | -200.4 | 98.6 | N/M** |
| *Sampling of Dow 30 companies. **N/M = Not meaningful. If the expense changed from a negative number (a benefit) to a positive number (a cost), the percent change is not calculated. Source: "The Effects of Enacted and Proposed Pension Accounting Changes on Leverage, Profitability and Earning Volatility," 2008, Georgia Institute of Technology. |
|||||
- Readers' Comments
- My point about liabilities
Posted by Daniel Moore | March 27, 2008 11:04am
- Fair Value of Pension Obligations Included
Posted by Charles Mulford | March 27, 2008 08:36am
- Mulford study half-baked
Posted by Daniel Moore | March 27, 2008 07:39am
Related Articles
- Pension Liabilities: The Road Ahead
November 01, 2007
- VEBA Is New Buzzword for Retirees
September 27, 2007
- FASB Rule Puts Pensions on Balance Sheet
September 29, 2006
Related Web Sites
Inside CFO.com
Top Story
SandwichedReader's Favorites
- The Essential Skills
- Today's Accounting Crop: Spoiled Rotten?
- Ready or Not, Here Comes Fair Value
Buyer's Guides and Special Reports
- Best of Careers
- The Greening of Corporate America
Attend A Webcast
- An Economy-Proof Approach to Managing T&E Expenses
Related White Papers
- The End of the Road? FIN 48 Disclosures and the Annual Financial Statement Process
- Stock Option Awards under IFRS: An Analysis of the Potential Impact
- New Priorities for Plan Sponsors: Match Pension Liabilities First. Allocate Assets Next. Then Choose Investment Managers.
- The FASB's Basic Ownership Approach and a Reclassification of Preferred Stock as a Liability
- 2008 Internal Audit Capabilities and Needs Survey
We Deliver
advertisement
advertisement

Video