This study examines the value-relevance of the transition adjustments relating to pension and post-retirement benefits and of other comprehensive income (OCI)1 components fol- lowing the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 158— Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, which amends the earlier pension accounting rules under SFAS Nos. 87, 88, 106 and 132R. SFAS 158 requires companies to: (1) fully recognize the over or under-funded status of pension and other post-retirement benefits under defined benefit plans on the balance sheets on the basis of projected benefit obligations (PBO) and fair value of plan assets and (2) measure the assets and liabilities as of the end of the fiscal year. Companies need to aggregate the status of all over-funded (under-funded) plans and recognize the amount as an asset (liability) in statements of financial position. The publicly traded companies are required to apply the provisions of SFAS 158 and the related recognition rules to their financial statements for the fiscal year ending after December 15, 2006.2 Financial Accounting Standards Committee of American Accounting Association has opined that SFAS 158 is a significant improvement over current reporting (Ashbauhg-Skaife et al. 2007). Recognizing the funded status of pension plans in the balance sheet would better provide information about the underlying economics of a company’s pension and other post employment benefits (OPEB) plans. This would eliminate the need to make necessary reconciliation of pension information on the basis of disclosure in financial footnotes, which many financial statement users do not see or understand.
Before adopting SFAS 158, the over or under funded status of the pension and post- retirement benefit plans were disclosed in the financial footnotes. While issuing SFAS 158, Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) argued disclosure of the under/over funded status of defined benefit plans in financial footnotes caused users problems in assessing an employer’s financial position and its ability to satisfy plan obligations. Footnote disclosure is not a proper substitute for recognition of the funding status in the statement of financial position (Hurtt et al. 2007). But as a result of SFAS 158 rules, the net pension assets or liabilities will move up to the financial statements from a complex and detailed footnote to