SFAS 158 disclosure?

[Lori H]

Is this a required disclosure when preparing an annual actuary report, if not, is it required in order for auditors to make a clean opinion on financial statements relating to a DB plan?

[david rigby]

SFAS158 (and SFAS 87/88/132 and 106) are related to the financial statements (and the audit thereof) of the plan sponsor, not of the plan itself.

[Effen]

Usually it is the auditors call if they need the FAS 158 report or not. Generally, non-professional type employers usually need them, but its up to the auditor.

[Lori H]

The client historically has received FASB 132 and that has seemed to suffice. However, they have new accountants. And apparently they did not find the 2007 admin to contain all of the required disclosures, especially the ones relating to SFAS 158. They claim they may not be able to issue a clean opinion on financial statements as the pension obligation is a material disclosure for both companies.

The auditors are requesting an updated study with such elements and disclosures. I question this as it was never requested in the past from the prior auditor.

[JanetM]

It depends on timing. SFAS 158 is effective for publicly traded company for fiscal year end after 12/15/06. For non .publicly traded it is effective for fiscal year ended after 6/15/07. The actuary will normally provide the bulk of the data the company will use to comply with FAS

Here is Financial accounting standards board site - it is this body who writes the rules.

http://www.fasb.org/st/summary/stsum158.shtml

[SoCalActuary]

The client historically has received FASB 132 and that has seemed to suffice. However, they have new accountants. And apparently they did not find the 2007 admin to contain all of the required disclosures, especially the ones relating to SFAS 158. They claim they may not be able to issue a clean opinion on financial statements as the pension obligation is a material disclosure for both companies.

The auditors are requesting an updated study with such elements and disclosures. I question this as it was never requested in the past from the prior auditor.

Your actuary should have studied the FAS 158 disclosure rules, issued in September 2006, that explained the change.

Those who don't read about current developments are doomed to constant surprise!

[Lori H]

The client historically has received FASB 132 and that has seemed to suffice. However, they have new accountants. And apparently they did not find the 2007 admin to contain all of the required disclosures, especially the ones relating to SFAS 158. They claim they may not be able to issue a clean opinion on financial statements as the pension obligation is a material disclosure for both companies.

The auditors are requesting an updated study with such elements and disclosures. I question this as it was never requested in the past from the prior auditor.

Your actuary should have studied the FAS 158 disclosure rules, issued in September 2006, that explained the change.

Those who don't read about current developments are doomed to constant surprise!

Very true. Did FAS 158 replace FASB 87?

[Lori H]

The client historically has received FASB 132 and that has seemed to suffice. However, they have new accountants. And apparently they did not find the 2007 admin to contain all of the required disclosures, especially the ones relating to SFAS 158. They claim they may not be able to issue a clean opinion on financial statements as the pension obligation is a material disclosure for both companies.

The auditors are requesting an updated study with such elements and disclosures. I question this as it was never requested in the past from the prior auditor.

Your actuary should have studied the FAS 158 disclosure rules, issued in September 2006, that explained the change.

Those who don't read about current developments are doomed to constant surprise!

Very true. Did FAS 158 replace FASB 87?

Never mind, it did. Thanks for the link Janet.

[david rigby]

Never mind, it did. Thanks for the link Janet.

Not really. It amended 87, 88, 106, and 132. In the link mentioned above, you will see this statement:

This Statement amends Statement 87, FASB Statement No. 88, Employers’ Accounting for Settlements and Curtailments of Defined Benefit Pension Plans and for Termination Benefits, Statement 106, and FASB Statement No. 132 (revised 2003), Employers’ Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits, and other related accounting literature.

[Lori H]

any thoughts????? after a month trying to get this info for a client, the actuary we use offered us this response:

"I do not have good news. After reviewing the Fasb 158/132 requirements with our actuary and

Evaluating our software system we do not have the ability to do these calculations without purchasing

Additional software. Since this is the only plan that we service that would require additional FASB

Calculations it is not feasible for us to purchase the additional module.

I apologize for putting you in this situation but I think you understand this business decision."

:angry:

[tymesup]

They were able to produce 132 numbers but not 158?

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

I was brought in by auditors to have a conference call with an actuary who had one FASB client. Nothing balanced, nothing made sense. After all how good would you be if you did it only once a year and "it" kept changing.

Run. Run fast. Run fast and far away to an actuary who does this more often and hope he doesn't find a bunch of errors.