Pensions: FASB Looks to the Future
The board gives a thumbs-up to the idea that companies
should try to figure out the cost of their pension liabilities going
forward.
David
M. Katz, CFO.com
July 12, 2006
Overriding the objections of employers and actuaries, the Financial
Accounting Standards Board unanimously agreed on Wednesday to require companies
to include estimates of their future pension liabilities on their balance
sheets.
Hewing closely to the views of investors, the board members okayed the use of
a projected benefit obligation (PBO) to account for pension liabilities on the
balance sheet. They also all approved a speedy completion of the first phase of
FASB's overhaul of pension and other postretirement-benefits accounting. In
doing so, they turned down requests that they delay matters to work on more
precise ways of measuring employers' pension and benefit obligations.
In the first phase of its project, the board proposes to start requiring
companies to state the underfunded or overfunded status of its pension plans on
their balance sheets for fiscal years ending after December 15. The funded
status would be the difference between the fair value of a plan's assets and the
PBO, a gauge of liabilities that includes estimates of employee salary increases
and other costs far into the future. Opponents of the metric favor the use of an
accumulated benefit obligation (ABO) because it doesn't include estimated future
pay increases.
Yet estimating future costs and discounting them back to present values is
common in other areas of accounting, contended FASB Chairman Robert Herz at
Tuesday's meeting. "I certainly believe PBO is better than ABO," he said. "I
don’t think you can just exclude the possibility of future salary
increases."
Agreeing with the board's proposal to proceed on the basis of two phases
rather than as a single project, FASB member Leslie Seidman referred to a "clear
mandate from investors to proceed on this basis." Investors have said that it's
important to complete the first phase and have at least some measurement of
pension assets and liabilities on the balance sheet as soon as possible.
In a reversal of a past decision, the board also agreed that companies
shouldn't be required to fully apply the proposed rule over past years. But FASB
ended up deadlocked on the question of whether companies should provide footnote
reporting of a plan's funded status for the first year preceding
installation.
Analysts and investors want to see full retrospective reporting on corporate
financial statement analysts, says Peter Proestakes, who manages the FASB
pensions and other postretirement benefits project. But given the amount of work
that would take, some companies would not be able to meet the deadline, he
said.
To help break the deadlock on the one-year retrospective footnote reporting,
Herz instructed the board's staff to get more information from investors and
analysts about how they might make use of such disclosure.
In deciding so firmly in favor of PBO on Wednesday, the board seems to have
put an at least temporary end to a hotly contested debate. In letters to the
board and at a FASB roundtable last month, pension actuaries and senior
corporate executives lambasted the proposed use of future estimates.
Projecting future salary increases in pay doesn’t represent a present
liability and thus doesn't belong on the balance sheet, they contended. Thus,
some argued, the board should delay launching its project until it found a more
precise way to measure pension obligations.
For their part, analysts and investor groups have been all for the
implementation of PBO reporting on the balance sheet, arguing that it would
provide them with a lot better information than is currently on offer.
© CFO Publishing Corporation 2006. All rights
reserved.