Click on the message below.
Do you think that this guy might be thegoldenowl who came back under a different posting name ?
Here's what gave it away, dell:
( he's talking about me, dell )
<<<<I suspect he is paid for his efforts. I also suspect he is part of a larger sophisticated operation of crooks. Assume he knows everything you are doing including being able to watch while you are entering keystrokes, trace everywhere you go on the internet, and looking at (copying) everything on your hard disk. Am I telling you anything you don't know about this particular aspect of computer crime?>>>>
It sounds like something that thegoldenowl would have written, doesn't it, dell ?
Long and Strong on IBM .... and still ROFFLMAO
( I'm starting to hear Twilight Zone music when I read these messages .... ROTFLMAO )
Subj: Re: PENSION:tally_ho_us ... Part 1
Date: 04/27/02 09:29 pm
<<<<It is true that FASB 87 does REQUIRE them to use a formula which they can not change.>>>>
I suggest that you try to convince truthdisclosurecanon of that. Maybe if he hears it from YOU, he'll believe it.
Or, maybe he'll think that you are part of the big conspiracy ..... you know ..... those of us who want companies to use GAAP instead of making up hybrid mathematical formulas to suit their agenda.
<<<<It is not true that FASB 87 REQUIRES them to use 10% for their "assume rate of return" esp. with the type of long-term investments they must have in this kind of account.>>>>
tally, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that FASB 87 required IBM to use a 10% rate of return.
Your question should be directed to IBM ( and companies like General Motors and Anheuser-Busch who BOTH used the SAME 10% rate for the last 3 years. I will take a wild guess, and say that if you looked at ALL of the Fortune 500 companies footnotes, you would see that 10% rate in at least 400 of them ).
tally, do you REALLY think that they pull these numbers out of a hat, or do you think that they are actuarily calculated based on prior performance of stock market average long-term returns?
<<<<While they have to use the "high numbers", they created the "high numbers" with their assumptions. Comments?>>>>>
tally, what was the average stock market long term rate of return in the late 1990's .... here is a clue .... "irrational exhuberance" .... and do you see the key words "long term" in FRONT of the phrase "rate of return" ???
While we could debate the 10% rate forever, I will decline the invitation to do so because I am not qualified to evaluate the appropriateness of the number since people MUCH smarter than me feel that it WAS appropriate to use for the years in question.
I wonder if the people with the crystal ball who set the rate of return were able to forsee the September 11 tragedy and the effects it would have on pension portfolios in 2001?
What do ya think, tally?
Maybe YOU should set the rate for next year.
Long and Strong on IBM
It is interesting to me that you so strongly object to this discussion of public, published, documented, numbers that are in an annual report. I don't object to FASB 87, where did you get that? I am trying to understand his thought process about the pension money which is published in the annual report. I don't see a problem with this discussion since this is NOT made up numbers and IBM has published these numbers. It is true that companies have to follow GAAP rules. It is also true that if in following GAAP rules they mislead shareholder that is a bigger NO, NO! Understand that as a shareholder you can go directly to IBM and buy shares without having to go to a broker. In that way, (my mind) they are just as responsible to not mislead investors on this company as Merrill Lynch. They both are selling investments. I am trying to understand what they have done in their reporting (confusing reporting I might add)and learn something too. I see no problem in doing this. He seems to know about this area and I am learning it. If I wanted to find out about a disease I would ask and learn from someone who knew something about it. I think all investors will be appreciative of a better understanding of "consolidated financial statements". Not all of us took finance, accounting in school. Some of us were learning other subjects. I want to become a better informed investor.
Truth - continue with this discussion.
<<Here is the problem in this statement>>
The "expected" return is based on using a 10% rate of return on assets.
It is the 10% that is a problem. Companies that want "help" with their numbers can simply pick a high assumption and pump up the pension "surplus". (this is what it looks like to me) Am I wrong? Who sets this "assumed rate of return" to use in the FASB 87 formula?
It is true that FASB 87 does REQUIRE them to use a formula which they can not change. It is not true that FASB 87 REQUIRES them to use 10% for their "assume rate of return" esp. with the type of long-term investments they must have in this kind of account. While they have to use the "high numbers", they created the "high numbers" with their assumptions. Comments?
tally is learning Pension Accounting from a guy who wrote:
<<<<Even kool agrees that the higher "expected" profit figure of $6.324 Billion has flowed into the current year's operating profit if you can nail him down. His point is that other companies are doing the same thing and he tries to make the numbers as confusing as possible .....( and here comes the GOOD part ) ............................................ I suspect he is paid for his efforts. I also suspect he is part of a larger sophisticated operation of crooks. Assume he knows everything you are doing including being able to watch while you are entering keystrokes, trace everywhere you go on the internet, and looking at (copying) everything on your hard disk. Am I telling you anything you don't know about this particular aspect of computer crime?>>>>
Long and Strong on IBM .... and STILL ROTFLMAO
(click on the message below for the full text)
write your objections to the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
IBM and every other company subject to SEC requirements and subject to being audited by independent public accountants follows GAAP.
Companies don't write the rules, the FASB does.
GET OVER IT !
I'm sure that, as a stockholder of IBM, you are free to author a Proxy Resolution for the next Annual Meeting to recommend that IBM no longer comply with FASB 87 .... and you want them to use truthdisclosurecanon's hybrid mathematical formula instead.
I would vote AGAINST your resolution.
Long and Strong on IBM
but why is the Cartel disparate. This is a public annual report which is on the 10K sent to the SEC. What is wrong with discussing this subject online? They published the numbers, all we are doing is discussing them. :-)
(CONTINUED FROM PART 1)
Re: FRAUDULENT PENSION:tally_ho_us
by: truthdisclosurecanon 04/27/02 03:14 pm
Msg: 136640 of 136655
(6)<<<<I am at the library and don't have a printout of the financials but have written a few notes down. I may be able to make things clearer when I can look at my Note printouts at the same time I am posting.>>>>
ROTFLMFAO... he MIGHT be able to make things "clearer" !!!!!
(7)<<<<The "expected" return is based on using a 10% rate of return on assets. $6.324 Billion would represent a 10% return on $63.24 Billion of plan assets. The beginning value of plan assets is about $68 Billion. The ending value billions less. The $63.24 Billion must represent some sort of average balance such as average month end value of plan assets.>>>>
WOW ! That's the FIRST thing that this guy wrote that I DON'T take a strong exception to ... and the difference is NOT large enough to bother to research.
(8)<<<<You may get a better idea of how "expected" gains flow through financial income by looking at kool's GM reference. Their note is clearer than IBM's. I access their financials by going to "www.IBM.com" -investors-financials-(numerous options)>>>>
At the risk of sounding redundant, "expected return on plan assets" is a specific, required line item component of a specific, REQUIRED formula in arriving at a sum total called "Total Retirement Plan Income/Cost Recognized in the Consolidated Financial Statements".
The substitution, alteration, or omission of any specific, required component results in a number that is NOT in accordance with FAS 87.
Long and Strong on IBM
is that other companies are doing the same
thing and he tries to make the numbers as
confusing as possible. >>
Let me give you example of this cop out. If you had a child who wanted to be "part of the group" so they took drugs (because everyone was doing it) and you went to them in jail because they got picked up with everyone else, do you think they would here these words - but everyone was doing it!!! If corporations can make the claim that "everyone is doing this" and think that makes it OK - what kind of example are they setting for future workers? I don't buy the fact that "everyone was doing it so it is OK" cop out and that is what it is.
Now back to this "published documented report discussion". On page 76-77 IBM managment discusses Retirement-Related Benefits. (Why is it way over there is stupid)(the trouble with this report is it is worse than it was)(kinda like IBM is right now - disorganized)(this report is a perfect example of this)(it is all over the place to find information)
Anyway,on page 77 at the top IBM management discusses what they used and assumed in calculating pension numbers. The paragraph starts with <<One of the principle components of the net periodic pension calculation is the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets may result in recognized pension income that is greater or less than the actual returns of those plan assets in any given year. Over time .....>> It seems to me they are explaining what they used and how they used it. They know that the "15B" is higher but they say over time this will even out. I don't see fraud here if they explain it. Basically, I think pension accounting needs to be reviewed period. How can you assume in this market you will be getting 9.5% return on the type of long-term investments they have to make in these type of accounts. Is it because they mix the defined pension and the defined contribution together? The "rate of return" in my mind is closer to 6-7% not 9.5 therefore the fund will be under water again next year only worse since this is accumulative. 23B underwater looks very close to our debt amount. Anyway the point is doesn't this explain the higher amount used and therefore could not be Fraud since they are telling you they did use the higher amount. Comments?