Abstract
SFAS 158 mandated balance sheet disclosure of the funded status of firms’ Defined Benefit Pension Plan using the Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO) to estimate the pension liability. SFAS 158 caused a market phenomenon because the use of the PBO engendered dramatically higher estimates of pension liability and hence the perception of risk. Our work focuses on two aspects of this change in pension accounting: first, how will industry firms change their accounting strategy in light of the new rules, and second, how will firms’ stock prices be affected by the new allegedly better estimate of pension liability? Our research suggests that firms’ accounting strategies changed in that they use higher discount rates to estimate pension liability which offset the dramatic impact of using the PBO. In addition, we find that high financial risk firms’ tendencies to use higher discount rates increase with the firms’ leverage and decrease with liquidity. To test the market reaction we utilize standard event study methodology to investigate the effects of SFAS 158 on stock returns. Our findings suggest that firms with high (low) financial risk earn negative (positive) abnormal returns on and around relevant event dates preceding the implementation of SFAS 158.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amlie, T. T. (2004). Finding the true cost of pension plans. The CPA Journal, 32(1), 44–6.
Bachan, S., Briscoe, M., Conrecode, J., Fleming, E., & Volkan, A. G. (2008). Controversies in accounting for post-retirement benefits. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(6), 15–29.
Bryan, H. S., Lilien, S., & Mooney, J. (2007). How the new pension accounting rules affect the Dow 30’s financial statements. The CPA Journal, 35(1), 17–25.
Epstein, B. J., Nach, R., & Bragg, S. M. (2006). Wiley GAAP 2007. Hoboken: Wiley.
Financial Accounting Standards Board. (1985). Employers’ accounting for pensions. Statement of financial accounting standard no. 87. Norwalk: FASB.
Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2006). Accounting for defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans, an amendment of FASB statements nos. 87, 88, 106 and 123(R). Statement of financial accounting standard no. 158. Norwalk: FASB.
Hann, R. N., Lu, Y., & Subramanyam, K. R. (2007). Uniformity versus flexibility: evidence from pricing of the pension obligation. The Accounting Review, 82(1), 107–37.
Houmes, R., & Boylan, R. (2010). Has the adoption of SFAS 158 caused firms to understate pension liability? A preliminary study of the financial reporting impact of SFAS 158. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 14(4), 55–67.
Miller, B. W., & Bahnson, P. R. (2007). Perfect storm prompts changes in pension accounting. Journal of Accountancy, 41(1), 36–42.
Soroosh, J., & Espahbodi, P. (2007). New accounting rules for postretirement benefits: How SFAS 158 may affect a company’s financial statements. The CPA Journal, 35(1), 28–35.
Stuart, A. N. (2007). Is corporate America adequately managing employee pension funds? available at: www.cfo.com/vrintable/article.cfm/3015415/c2984379?f=ovtions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Houmes, R., Boylan, B. & Chira, I. The Valuation Effect of Accounting Standard 158 on Firms with High and Low Financial Risk. Atl Econ J 39, 47–57 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-010-9257-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-010-9257-8