Operating the lease - a discussion paper

The FASB is looking to overhaul its 35 year old standard on Leases - FASB 13. This overhaul looks to have been directed with the convergence of the FASB and the IASB.

Both the bodies have recently issued a discussion paper on changing the way we account for operating leases. The discussion paper higlights the rationale to change the way we account for a "right to use assets" as described in EITF 01-08 or my earlier blog on embedded leases.

Under the current rule, Companies record finance lease obligations on the balance sheet while disclosing the operating lease obligations in the notes to accounts.

Under the discussion paper, the new rule will require companies to record operating lease obligations on the balance sheet as a liability and capitalise the right to use the asset as an asset, thereby making Companies look highly leveraged.

Broadly the implications of such a rule will have a bearing on the following

1. Balance sheets look highly leveraged (an estimate pegs the operating lease obligations for SEC listed companies at $1.25 trillion
2. Financial reporters will have to test for impairment on the capitalized operating lease assets in case of non-cancellable lease obligations
3. Operating lease obligations will be required to be recorded at fair values
4. In case of contingent rentals for operating lease assets, computing the value of the assets and obligations will be a nightmare
5. Periodic reassessment of the lease classifcation in case of constant renewal options/modifications coming in the agreement
6. Rental expenses now will be broken into rental expenses and interest costs (for the imputed value of the lease obligation)
7. A nightmare of companies who outsource work say for a period of 2 years under a non-cancellable lease - splicing the agreement into services and assets would take some doing

I welcome FASB's stance on recording the obligations and recording the assets on the balance sheet. This will make reporting more structured by ensuring stakeholders get to know as to whether an asset taken on an operating lease is impaired or not and the leverage of the balance sheet.

For instance financials of Airlines companies who lease planes on operating leases do not have any planes as assets on their balance sheets nor any liabilities. This is strange considering that from a going concern perspective airline companies cannot live without these planes. The new rule will reflect a clearer picture of the financial position of such companies.

The real problem will come to accountants when they address issues on contingent rentals, renewal clauses etc. These will be highly subjective from one company to the other and will render the purpose of meaningful comparasions among different companies baseless.

Well the proposed change is in mid 2011, hopefully by then we will have a lot more brightlines to easily account for the new OPERATING LEASE REGIME.

FASB issues statements 166 and 167

The FASB recently published Financial Accounting Statements No. 166, Accounting for Transfers of Financial Assets, and No. 167,Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R), which change the way entities account for securitizations and special-purpose entities. The new standards will impact financial institution balance sheets beginning in 2010. The impact of both new standards has been taken into account by regulators in the recent “stress tests.”

These projects were initiated at the request of investors, the SEC, and The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. Copies of the new standards are available at theFASB’s website, along with a concise briefing document.

Statement 166 is a revision to Statement No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities, and will require more information about transfers of financial assets, including securitization transactions, and where companies have continuing exposure to the risks related to transferred financial assets. It eliminates the concept of a “qualifying special-purpose entity,” changes the requirements for derecognizing financial assets, and requires additional disclosures.

Statement 167 is a revision to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, and changes how a company determines when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not controlled through voting (or similar rights) should be consolidated. The determination of whether a company is required to consolidate an entity is based on, among other things, an entity’s purpose and design and a company’s ability to direct the activities of the entity that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance.

Robert Herz, chairman of the FASB, said:

“These changes were proposed and considered to improve existing standards and to address concerns about companies who were stretching the use of off-balance sheet entities to the detriment of investors. The new standards eliminate existing exceptions, strengthen the standards relating to securitizations and special-purpose entities, and enhance disclosure requirements. They’ll provide better transparency for investors about a company’s activities and risks in these areas.”

Both new standards will require a number of new disclosures. Statement 167 will require a company to provide additional disclosures about its involvement with variable interest entities and any significant changes in risk exposure due to that involvement. A company will be required to disclose how its involvement with a variable interest entity affects the company’s financial statements. Statement 166 enhances information reported to users of financial statements by providing greater transparency about transfers of financial assets and a company’s continuing involvement in transferred financial assets.

Both Statements 166 and 167 will be effective at the start of a company’s first fiscal year beginning after November 15, 2009, or January 1, 2010 for companies reporting earnings on a calendar-year basis.

Fair Valuations - can they propel the next bull run

FASB on April 9, laid to rest atleast a controversial subject on marking assets in distressed economic conditions.

The FASB via FSP157-4 issued its position on defining illiquid markets for assets and giving a leeway that the management can rely on their internal valuation models instead of using the external factors.

The rule revision applies to all assets and liabilities within the scope of accounting pronouncements that either require or permit fair value measurements.

The FSP provides that a reporting entity should evaluate a battery of factors to determine whether there has been a significant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability when compared with "normal market activity" for the asset or liability. These factors include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• There are few recent transactions;
• Price quotations are not based on current information;
• Price quotations vary substantially either over time or among market makers;
• Indexes that previously were highly correlated with the fair values of the asset or liability are demonstrably uncorrelated with recent indications of fair value for that asset or liability;
• There is a significant increase in implied liquidity risk premiums, yields, or performance indicators for observed transactions or quoted prices when compared with the reporting entity's estimate of expected cash flows for the asset or liability;
• There is a wide bid/ask spread;
• There is a significant decline or absence of a market for new issuances for the asset or liability; and
• Little information is released publicly.

This move is a welcome step and will definetly aid a lot of banks in shoring up their balance sheets. No wonder, that post April 9, most of the markets are on a bull run and have started factoring this change in the swing in the balance sheets of various financial institutions.

The FASB must also be appreciated for relenting under pressure to delineate mark-market to accounting forever and has come out with the correct decision considering the economic scenario.

Will wait and wonder what will be FASB's position in a reverse scenario, when markets are in prime bull position and prices are overvalued, will they come out with a new FSP to FAS 157....????

Read all our earlier articles on Fair value accounting