3. Too much subjectivity is involved in determining the amount of the net pension liability—that is, the number is too soft to be reported in basic financial statements.
4. The FASB had not demonstrated the need to amend APB Opinion No. 8 extensively.
Despite this opposition, the FASB remained steadfast in its determination to change previous pension accounting methods. Under the method originally advo- cated in “Preliminary Views,” the pension benefit obligation would have com- prised an accrual for benefits earned by the employees but not yet paid, including prior service credits granted when a plan is initiated or amended. The obligation would include both vested and nonvested benefits and would be measured based on estimates of future compensation levels.
The proposed measure of the pension benefit obligation was called the actu- arial present value of accumulated benefits with salary progression. As a result, the pro- posed method would have required a forecast of salary growth for pension plans that defines benefits in terms of an employee’s future salary. Because most spon- sors use financial pay plans, the salary growth assumption would result in pension benefit obligations larger than those previously being reported.
On the other hand, if plan assets exceeded the benefit obligation, a company would report a net pension asset on its balance sheet. The plan’s investment assets available for benefits would be measured at fair value, consistent with SFAS No. 35, “Accounting and Reporting for Defined Benefit Pension Plans.”5
The third component of the net pension liability was to be the measurement valuation allowance. This component was intended to reduce the volatility of the net pension liability inherent in the prediction of events, such as future changes in the pension benefit obligation and the plan assets, due to experience gains and losses or changes in actuarial assumptions.
Under “Preliminary Views,” the amount of annual pension expense that an employer would recognize would have been the sum of four factors:
1. The increase in the pension benefit obligation attributable to employee service during the period (conceptually similar to “normal cost”).
2. The increase in the pension benefit obligation attributable to the accrual of interest on the obligation (because the obligation is the discounted present value of estimated future payments).
3. The increase in plan assets resulting from earnings on the assets at the assumed rate (reducing the periodic pension expense).
4. The amortization of the measurement valuation allowance, which can either increase or decrease the pension expense. Actuarial gains or losses would be included in the measurement of the valuation allowance.
SFAS No. 87
After deliberating the issues addressed in “Preliminary Views” for several years, the FASB reached a consensus in 1985 and issued SFAS No. 87, “Employers’
5. In 1980 the FASB issued SFAS No. 35, which required companies to disclose the actuarial present value of accumulated plan benefits and the pension plan assets available for those benefits. This pronouncement was later superseded by SFAS No. 87.
3. Too much subjectivity is involved in determining the amount of the net pension liability—that is, the number is too soft to be reported in basic financial statements.4. The FASB had not demonstrated the need to amend APB Opinion No. 8 extensively.Despite this opposition, the FASB remained steadfast in its determination to change previous pension accounting methods. Under the method originally advo- cated in “Preliminary Views,” the pension benefit obligation would have com- prised an accrual for benefits earned by the employees but not yet paid, including prior service credits granted when a plan is initiated or amended. The obligation would include both vested and nonvested benefits and would be measured based on estimates of future compensation levels.The proposed measure of the pension benefit obligation was called the actu- arial present value of accumulated benefits with salary progression. As a result, the pro- posed method would have required a forecast of salary growth for pension plans that defines benefits in terms of an employee’s future salary. Because most spon- sors use financial pay plans, the salary growth assumption would result in pension benefit obligations larger than those previously being reported.On the other hand, if plan assets exceeded the benefit obligation, a company would report a net pension asset on its balance sheet. The plan’s investment assets available for benefits would be measured at fair value, consistent with SFAS No. 35, “Accounting and Reporting for Defined Benefit Pension Plans.”5The third component of the net pension liability was to be the measurement valuation allowance. This component was intended to reduce the volatility of the net pension liability inherent in the prediction of events, such as future changes in the pension benefit obligation and the plan assets, due to experience gains and losses or changes in actuarial assumptions.Under “Preliminary Views,” the amount of annual pension expense that an employer would recognize would have been the sum of four factors:1. The increase in the pension benefit obligation attributable to employee service during the period (conceptually similar to “normal cost”).2. The increase in the pension benefit obligation attributable to the accrual of interest on the obligation (because the obligation is the discounted present value of estimated future payments).3. The increase in plan assets resulting from earnings on the assets at the assumed rate (reducing the periodic pension expense).4. The amortization of the measurement valuation allowance, which can either increase or decrease the pension expense. Actuarial gains or losses would be included in the measurement of the valuation allowance.SFAS No. 87After deliberating the issues addressed in “Preliminary Views” for several years, the FASB reached a consensus in 1985 and issued SFAS No. 87, “Employers’5. In 1980 the FASB issued SFAS No. 35, which required companies to disclose the actuarial present value of accumulated plan benefits and the pension plan assets available for those benefits. This pronouncement was later superseded by SFAS No. 87.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
