Operating and synthetic leases: Exploiting financial benefits in the post-Enron era

Applying constructive lease capitalization to operating leases of firms in the 2003 S&P 500 index, we demonstrate that currently companies can hide billions of liabilities, enhance retained earnings, income, and ratios by reporting leases as operating. With the rekindled interests of the International Accounting Standards Board and Financial Accounting Standards Board on lease reporting, our study provides valuable and timely information for their decisions.Results indicate that by reporting operating leases, firms avoided on average $582 million of liabilities (11% of total liabilities) and $450 million of assets (4% of total assets) for our 366 sample firms. Partitioning sample into negative and positive income impact subgroups provides additional insight into firm's motivation for using operating leases. Under lease capitalization the top quartile positive subgroup experienced an 18% increase in income while the top quartile negative subgroup had an 11% decline in income. There was also a significant negative impact on liquidity, leverage and performance ratios.     

Canadian Evidence on the Constructive Capitalization of Operating Leases*

One type of relevant ex ante research supporting the accounting standard‐setting process is the study of a proposed standard's impact on reported figures. The International Accounting Standards Board recently decided to review the lease accounting standard, which will naturally involve consideration of the G4 + 1 recommendation to capitalize all noncancellable lease contracts, including operating leases. National evidence of the impact of the G4 + 1 proposals provides feedback for the international standard‐setter. This study developed and used a refined constructive capitalization method, in which company‐specific assumptions — interest rate, total/expired/remaining lives of leased assets, and tax rate — were used to compute the impact of operating‐lease capitalization on key financial indicators for a sample of Canadian public companies. The results indicate that capitalizing operating leases would lead to the recognition of important additional assets and liabilities on the balance sheet. It would therefore significantly increase the debt‐to‐asset ratio and significantly decrease the current ratio. These results were noted across all industry segments in the sample. Income statement effects were generally less material. Significant impacts on return on assets, return on equity, and / or earnings per share were noted in only three industry segments: merchandising and lodging, oil and gas, and financial services. Intercompany comparability would not be affected overall nor within industries, because of similar rankings for each financial indicator before and after operating‐lease capitalization.     

Proposed Changes in Lease Accounting and Private Business Bankers' Credit Decisions*

This study contributes to the debate on lease accounting currently ongoing at the international level and to future discussions at the Canadian level for private enterprise standards following a potential revision of lease accounting in international financial reporting standards (IFRS). A user perspective is adopted to examine private business bankers' preferences on the issue of capitalizing all noncancelable lease contracts, including operating leases, as suggested by the G4+1. While bankers use both capital and operating lease information, they give significantly more consideration to the former when analyzing private business loan requests. Accordingly, operating lease information receives less attention than capital lease information in the credit‐granting decision process. In addition, private business bankers consider a number of aspects of the current lease accounting standard to be inadequate and are in favor of the principles governing the approach suggested by the G4+1. They feel that the capitalization of operating leases would improve their ability to evaluate lessees' long‐term financial commitments and increase their estimates of the risks involved in providing financing to lessees. This study also demonstrates that the capitalization of operating leases would have a significant impact on key financial indicators of a sample of Canadian private companies. Bankers perceive that these realistic changes in financial indicators would affect their assessment of borrowers' capital structure/solvency, liquidity, ability to repay, and risk rating. From a cost‐benefit perspective, the findings provide standard‐setters with an indication of the benefits of the G4+1 proposals to users.     

Lessee Reactions to Regulation of Accounting for Leases

This study examines lessee firms’ responses to Australian Accounting Standard 17, Accounting for Leases (AAS 17, 1987) and Approved Accounting Standard ASRB 1008, Accounting for Leases (ASRB 1008, 1987). Both Standards required that lessees capitalize finance leases, thus bringing the finance leases of many firms‘on balance sheet’ and increasing reported leverage. If the capitalization requirement altered firms’ equilibrium contracting cost distributions sufficiently, firms would take actions to mitigate its effect, possibly by altering their capital structures. The study examines whether the capital structures of these firms did change in response to the requirement, and if so, how. The results indicate that firms responded to the Standards by reducing their reliance upon finance leasing and increasing their reliance upon non-lease debt and shareholders’ funds. Firms do not appear to have used definitional interpretations to classify leases as operating rather than finance leases. As expected, the firms previously disclosing finance leases in footnotes experienced increases in non-lease debt reliance while the control sample (firms that previously capitalized the lease obligations) experienced decreases. Differences between control firms’ and footnote disclosure firms’ reactions to the Standard are generally consistent with contracting theory predictions. Control firms reacted to the loss of the potential to off balance sheet finance. Footnote-disclosure firms reacted to the loss of an already utilized off balance sheet financing technique.     

The Impact of IFRS 16 on Key Financial Ratios: A New Methodological Approach

In January 2016, the International Accounting Standards Board issued a new standard for lease accounting: International Financial Reporting Starndard (IFRS) 16. IFRS 16 will lead to the capitalisation of the majority of current operating leases by lessees. We analyse the impact of the new accounting model on entity’s key financial, contributing to research by making significant changes in the Imhoff et al. [(1991). Operating leases: Impact of constructive capitalization. Accounting Horizons, 5(1), 51–63. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&;db=buh&;AN=9604010111&;site=ehost-live; (1997). Operating leases: Income effects of constructive capitalization. Accounting Horizons, 11(2), 12–32. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.fama.us.es/docview/208896121?accountid=14744] methodology used by previous authors. We change how the lease term is estimated (more aligned with the final approved standard), and how the discount rate is obtained. Furthermore, we use a more comprehensive sample (646 quoted European companies). In line with previous research we find important systematic impacts on key balance sheet financial ratios (mainly leverage ratios), on a magnitude that depends on the operating lease intensity of the sector in which the entity operates. Our estimated impact is generally higher than that obtained in previous studies. The most affected sectors are retail, hotels and transportation. We do not find a consistent result with regard to the effect on profitability ratios.     

Recognition versus disclosure of finance leases: Evidence from Japan

This study examines whether credit market participants—bond investors and credit rating agencies—treat recognized and disclosed finance leases differently when assessing firms’ credit risk in Japan. I use firms’ credit risk, measured by bond spreads and credit ratings, to investigate the relations between recognized versus disclosed finance lease obligations and firms’ credit risk following the adoption of Statement No. 13, Accounting Standard for Lease Transactions. For a sample of firms issuing new bonds, I find that, unlike recognized finance leases, disclosed finance leases are not associated with bond spreads. Moreover, the associations between recognized versus disclosed finance leases and bond spreads are substantially different. Conversely, recognized and disclosed finance leases are associated with credit ratings and are processed similarly when credit ratings are determined. Taken together, my results suggest that the sophistication of capital market participants influences their credit risk assessments of recognized versus disclosed finance leases.     

Do firms lease to hedge? CEO risk-taking and operating lease intensity

Operating leases are used extensively for financing, but their ability to separate ownership and use also creates hedging opportunities. We investigate whether firms recognize such opportunities by examining the relation between chief executive officer (CEO) risk-taking incentives and the use of operating leases. Consistent with firms using operating leases to hedge, we find higher CEO risk-taking incentives lower operating lease intensity. To address endogeneity, we use the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 123R as an exogenous shock to option compensation, dynamic panel generalized method of moments, simultaneous equations, and change regressions. Our results are robust to placebo and alternative tests.     

The valuation and reliability implications of FIN 46 for synthetic lease liabilities

We examine whether adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 46/R (FIN 46), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities–an Interpretation of ARB No. 51, changed the market valuation and related measurement reliability of synthetic lease liabilities. Adopted in 2003, FIN 46 requires financial statement recognition of many previously off-balance sheet structures, including synthetic leases. Synthetic leases are hybrid financing structures that, prior to FIN 46, allowed firms to maximize the benefits of asset ownership for tax purposes while retaining operating lease treatment within the firm’s financial statements. We identify a sample of 125 synthetic leasing firms impacted by FIN 46. Utilizing methodology consistent with Dhaliwal et al. (2011), we constructively capitalize these lease liabilities in the period preceding FIN 46 and compare market valuation of these liabilities with capitalized leases after adoption of the standard. We find that the market places greater weight on synthetic lease obligations recognized within the body of the financial statements than it does liabilities disclosed within the associated notes. Finally, we rely on econometric procedures developed in Barth (1991) and extended in Choi et al. (1997) to examine whether the differential market valuation of lease liabilities post FIN 46 is due in part to perceived differences in measurement reliability. The results indicate there is a post FIN 46 reliability effect for all lease liabilities examined. However, while the synthetic lease amounts are the most unreliable examined, they also experience the greatest increase in reliability post FIN 46, indicating that perceived measurement reliability explains in part differential market valuation associated with FIN 46. Our findings have the potential to inform the ongoing standard setting debate surrounding the possible capitalization of all leases. Further, our study also has economic implications for managers concerned with the potential constraints on asset financing options imposed by accounting regulation.     

The Effect of Firm Characteristics on the Use of Percentage Retail Leases

Choice of lease payments has been widely studied in the literature. There are three—not necessarily exclusive—explanations that have received attention. The first attributes the choice of fixed versus percentage lease payments to risk-sharing preferences. The second explanation views percentage-of-sales lease agreements as a way discriminating monopolists can appropriate economic rents. The third attributes percentage-of-sales lease agreements to a metering and bonding argument. This paper examines the proposition that the choice of percentage retail leases is driven in part by managements' desire to circumvent the cost of violating debt covenant restrictions. The evidence presented here supports the prediction that retail firms with higher debt–asset ratios are more likely to adopt percentage lease agreements.     

Pirate Wireless: Revenue Recognition in the Telecommunications Industry

Pirate Wireless is a telecommunications company with stores and offices all over the globe. Jim Bayley is an extremely busy professional who enters into a contract with Pirate Wireless for the ultimate purchase of a smartphone with one‐year warranty, voice and data services, Cryptonite encryption software, and an extended warranty. The case requires students to act as Assistant Controller of Pirate Wireless Corporate and determine the appropriate revenue recognition for Pirate Wireless's contract with Jim Bayley. This mandates a thorough review of the five steps of revenue recognition set forth in Revenue from Contracts with Customers, the jointly converged standard issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in May 2014. The FASB's Accounting Standards Codification 606 is effective for all U.S. public entities for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2017. The IASB's International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 15 applies to an entity's first annual IFRS financial statements for a period beginning on or after January 1, 2018. This case is appropriate for an undergraduate or graduate level Intermediate Accounting course.     

Altering Investment Decisions to Manage Financial Reporting Outcomes: Asset‐Backed Commercial Paper Conduits and FIN 46

We evaluate the manner in which sponsors of highly leveraged asset‐backed commercial paper (ABCP) conduits responded to Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 46 (FIN 46), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities an Interpretation of ARB No. 51, and its Canadian counterpart Accounting Standards Board of Accounting Guideline 15 (AcG‐15), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities. By matching commercial paper investors with corporations seeking liquidity, ABCP sponsors facilitate a significant amount of short‐term, securitized financing in the United States. FIN 46 and AcG‐15 require sponsors to consolidate their ABCP conduits with their financial statements. We demonstrate that the volume of ABCP began to decline when FIN 46 was first proposed, and that this decline is primarily attributable to a reduction in North American banks' sponsorship of ABCP. We also demonstrate that North American banks entered into costly restructuring arrangements to avoid having to consolidate their conduits per the new accounting standards. Our results suggest that, in certain settings, accounting standards appear to have real effects on investment activity and product‐market competition.     

Location and lease intensity

U.S. firms lease assets extensively. We find that, during 1980–2011, the average U.S. firm has a lease intensity of about 40%. Or, the average firm has present and future (up to five years) rent commitments equal to 16.6% of their total assets. We investigate whether agency costs between the lessor and the lessee affect the lease intensity of firms. To do so, we examine the impact of firms' location on the use of operating leases. The main idea of our paper is that, because obtaining information and monitoring is costly for potential lessors, especially when a lessee is relatively far away from financial centers, rural firms are less likely to use operating leases. Consistent with this hypothesis, we show that rural firms tend to have lower lease intensities than similar urban and small city firms. In addition, we find that firms with higher levels of debt capacity lease less and firms that face more financial constraint lease more. Our findings are robust to industry and lease maturity controls and consistent with the existence of an agency problem associated with leasing.     

Climate‐related Risk and Financial Statements: Implications for Regulators,Preparers, Auditors and Users

Interest among investors in understanding climate‐related risk from companies’ management has increased in recent years. Despite this, climate‐related risks are currently predominantly discussed outside the financial statements, if at all. However, as set out in the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB)/International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) Practice Statement 2 Making Materiality Judgements (APS/PS 2), qualitative external factors such as the industry in which the entity operates and investor expectations may make such risks ‘material’ and warrant disclosures when preparing financial statements, regardless of their numerical impact. The AASB and the AUASB expect that directors, preparers and auditors will be considering APS/PS 2 when preparing and auditing financial statements. This paper provides an outline of the guidance and motivation behind the issuance of the bulletin on climate‐related risk disclosures, key takeaways and recommendations, and the AASB's and AUASB's suggestions on the type of evidence that would be useful for standard setters.     

Defining the Reporting Entity in the Not‐for‐profit Public Sector: Implementation Issues Associated with the Control Test

This paper reports the main findings of a research project carried out on behalf of the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) and the New Zealand Financial Reporting Standards Board. The purpose of the research is to inform standard setters about implementation issues that had been encountered in the not‐for‐profit (NFP) public sector when applying the control concept in AASB 127, Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements. The intention is to use the findings to inform proposed implementation guidance for AASB 10, Consolidated Financial Statements. Data were collected via a literature review and meetings with various NFP public sector constituents. Identified issues were either conceptual in nature (for example, who are the relevant users of NFP public sector general purpose financial statements and what are their needs?) or related to implementation concerns (for example, is the power exerted by one NFP public sector entity over another of an ‘ownership’ or a ‘regulatory’ form?). The findings give rise to several suggested actions that standard setters could take in providing useful guidance to NFP public sector constituents.     

Converging to International Accounting Standards: Views from Japan

Many countries, including the European Union member states and Australia, adopted international accounting standards in 2005. This year was also critical in Japan for convergence activities. Based on a review of 2005 financial statements and a survey of securities analysts, this study identifies key issues for convergence of Japanese and international accounting standards. We find that accounting requirements relating to fair value measurement, comprehensive income items, leases and business combinations are relevant to Japanese firms. A survey of 974 members of the Security Analysts Association of Japan about these issues indicated support for convergence and the use of fair value measurement, disclosure of comprehensive income, recognition of leases and use of the purchase method for consolidation. We report support for several positions favoured by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), a positive signal for achieving convergence goals in Japan, which will be of interest to capital market participants in Japan and other countries .     

A Critical Look at SFAS 34: Capitalization of Interest Cost

In 1974, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) noted that an increasing number of companies were capitalizing interest costs, and that this practice was not being adequately disclosed (FASB, 1979, par. 26). In light of the alternative practices concerning the accounting for interest and lack of adequate disclosure by companies that were already capitalizing interest, the SEC recommended that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) consider the issue of accounting for interest cost. As a result of the SEC's initiative, in 1979 the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards [SFAS] No. 34, Capitalization of Interest Cost, which mandated uniform interest capitalization rules in accounting for interest costs associated with the acquisition of qualifying non-current assets. The purpose of this article is to examine SFAS 34 in terms of its financial statement impact, the congruence of its assumptions with economic behaviour, its effect on subsequent standards related to interest capitalization, and its implications on financial accounting standard setting. To explore these issues we first illustrate the extent to which interest capitalization affects financial statements. We then empirically analyse the measure employed in SFAS 34 for the capitalization of interest cost in cases where debt is not directly linked with the acquisition of qualifying non-current assets. In addition, we critically examine the treatment accorded interest cost in subsequent FASB standards. Our research suggests that SFAS 34′s rationale for interest capitalization is incompatible with firm behaviour, and that the rules for interest capitalization as reflected in various accounting standards are inconsistent. These findings suggest that in the case of interest capitalization the benefits of comparability in financial reporting are not realized. A policy recommendation is then offered to alleviate some of these difficulties. The recommendation is to disallow the capitalization of interest cost in the absence of a direct link between the debt and the acquisition of qualifying assets.     

Accounting policies in the public sector: Characteristics and consequences of accounting for capital assets

We study the evolution of American state and local governments’ capital asset accounting policies from the initial adoption of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34 through the fiscal year ending in 2016. We document substantial cross-sectional and time-series variation in capital asset accounting policies, which potentially diminishes the comparability of capital asset accounting information across governments and over time. We also explore the economic implications of those policies in terms of capital investment decisions and capital asset condition ratios, as reported in governments’ annual financial reports. Our findings, which are relevant to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board and its constituents, extend prior research examining the adoption and application of generally accepted accounting principles in the public sector.     

Did Australian Firms Choose to Switch to Reporting Operating Cash Flows Using the Indirect Method?

In 2007 Australian accounting standards were amended to allow a choice of presenting operating cash flows using either the direct or indirect method. This study investigates the number of ASX‐listed entities that switched to the indirect format. Our results indicate that between 2007 and 2009 nine companies changed their reporting format. The firms adopting the indirect method have similar leverage, liquidity and performance to industry and size‐matched controls. Given that previous research indicates that the direct method provides superior information for predicting cash flows and performance, our results will be welcomed by financial statement users and the Australian Accounting Standards Board.     

Financial Restructuring in Fresh‐Start Chapter 11 Reorganizations

We find that firms substantially reduce their debt burden in “fresh‐start” Chapter 11 reorganizations, yet they emerge with higher debt ratios than what is typical in their respective industries. While cross‐sectional regressions reveal that post‐reorganization debt ratios are more in line with the predictions of the static trade‐off theory, they also reveal that pre‐reorganization debt ratios affect post‐reorganization debt ratios. Collectively, these results suggest that impediments in Chapter 11 prevent firms from completely resetting their capital structures. We also find that firms that reported positive operating income leading up to Chapter 11 emerge faster, suggesting that it is quicker to remedy strictly financial distress than economic distress.     

The Role of Holding Company Financial Information in the Insurer-Rating Process: Evidence From the Property-Liability Industry

We examine data for the year ended December 31, 1997 for 80 publicly traded property‐liability insurers that have Best financial strength ratings of their consolidated insurance‐operating subsidiaries. These firms employ a holding company structure, in which a parent owns the stock of multiple insurance‐operating subsidiaries. The operating subsidiaries prepare a consolidated annual report using the Statutory Accounting Principles (SAP), and an analogous set of financial statements based on the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) is released by the parent. We find that the financial characteristics important in determining ratings at the individual firm level—capitalization, liquidity, profitability, and size—are also important at the group level. Further, financial ratios from holding company statements are incrementally useful in the ratings' process, after group‐level ratios have been taken into account. Robustness tests based on a subsample of holding companies with minimal investment outside of the property‐liability industry reinforce our conclusion that parent company statements influence consolidated group ratings. However, our data do not allow us to separate the relative contribution of the GAAP model and underlying transactions to the ratings decision.