英语论文网

mon. Kodak has taken six extraordinary charges since 1991 and Coca-Cola has taken four in two years. The financial community has to wonder how 'unusual' these charges are. Creative acquisition accounting is what Levitt calls 'Merger Magic.' With the increasing number of mergers in the 90’s, companies have created another one time charge to avoid future earnings drags. The 'in-process' research and development charge allows companies to minimize the premium paid on the acquisition of a company. A premium that would otherwise be capitalized as 'goodwill: and depreciated over a number of years. Depreciation expenses that have an impact on future earnings. This one time charge allowed WorldCom to minimize the capitalization of 'goodwill' and avoid $100 million a year in depreciation expenses for many years. A charge hiding in this complex note on WorldCom’s 1996 annual financial statement. (1) Results for 1996 include a $2.14 billion charge for in-process research and development related to the MFS merger. The charge is based upon a valuation analysis of the technologies of MFS worldwide information system, the internet network expansion system of UUNET, and certain other identified research and development projects purchased in the MFS merger. The expense includes $1.6 billion associated with UUNET and $0.54 billion related to MFS. (2) Additionally, 1996 results include other after-tax charges of $121 million for employee severance, employee compensation charges, alignment charges, and costs to exit unfavorable telecommunications contracts and $343.5 million after-tax write-down of operating assets within the company’s non-core businesses. On a pre-tax basis, these charges totaled $600.1 million. The dollar amounts are staggering and the future implications far reaching. Since this approach was introduced by IBM in 1995 these charges have become commonplace for acquisition accounting. A popularity, largely due to the level of room allowed in research and development estimations. The Third earnings manipulation tool discussed by Levitt is what he calls 'Miscellaneous Cookie Jar Reserves.' The technique involves liability and other accrual accounts specifically sensitive to accounting assumptions and estimates. These accounts can include sales returns, loan losses, warranty costs, allowance for doubtful accounts, expectations of goods to be returned and a host of others. Under the auspices of conservatism, these accounts can be used to store accruals of future income. Restructuring liabilities created by 'Big Bath’ charges also provides these 'Cookie jar reserve' effect. Jack Ciesielski, who manages money and writes the Analyst’s Accounting Observer, calls these accounts the 'accounting equivalent of turning lead into gold… a virtual honeypot for making rainy-day adjustments.' Various adjustments and entries that can produce almost any desired results in the pursuit of consistency. The statement of financial accounting concepts No. 2 (FASB, May 1980), defines 'materiality' as: The magnitude of an omission or misstatement of accounting information that, in light of surrounding circumstances, makes it probable that the judgement of a reaonable person relying on the information would have been changed or influenced by the omission or misstatement. Today’s management has started to ignore this fundamental principle. Materiality is being defined as a range of a few percentage points. Companies defend immaterial omissions by referring to percentag