Leasing: reducing the game of hiding risk
Authors: Churyk Natalie Tatiana , Reinstein Alan , Lander Gerald Harold 
Published: May 2015

Purpose

– This paper aims to examine the status and implications of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) forthcoming standard on leases. The proposal arose from concern that many lease obligations are unrecorded on the balance sheet and that current accounting for lease transactions does not represent fully the economics of many lease transactions.

Design/methodology/approach

– On September 20, 2012 and September 25, 2012, the Boards decided to account for some lease contracts using an approach similar to their proposed 2010 leases exposure draft (interest and depreciation) and to account for some leases using an approach that results in a straight-line lease expense. On May 13, 2013, the Boards decided to continue to account for some lease contracts on a straight-line basis, and others on an amortization basis separate from interest expense. Identification of the type of lease requires a two-step process at lease commencement, and all leases are recorded identically at inception. The subsequent measurement gives rise to differences. Some concerns are that an increase in assets and liabilities may result in debt covenant breaches that will require renegotiation and adjustment.

Findings

– While understanding that many financial users, preparers and auditors favor retaining the current and long-standing leasing standards, the FASB and IASB should recognize many unexpected consequences of its new proposals, including the changing of many long-held financial ratios and the resultant violations of many bank loan covenants.

Research limitations/implications

– The only limitation is that this manuscript is not based on primary empirical data. There are no implications for the study’s purpose is an update of a proposed FASB/IASB standard, an analysis of the empirical impact studies that have been done, a questionning of whether a new standard is really needed or that the current standard is not being implemented properly, and guidance for the implementation at transition and on-going for the proposed standard. This study gives a reader a compact update, implications, ramifications and guidance for preparation of a new standard if it is passed.

Practical implications

– The new rules will alter many key financial metrics that investors use to determine company valuations and credit agencies use to determine credit worthiness. Some items will improve, such as gross margin, cash flow from operations and earnings before interest and taxes. Reported interest coverage and return on assets will be lower under the new rules. Industries that make extensive use of operating leases such as transportation, banking, telecommunications, retail and real estate will be most affected.

Social implications

– In the best case scenario, the new standard would destroy approximately 190,000 US jobs. US gross domestic product (GDP) would be reduced by $27.5 billion annually. In the best case, the household earnings would be reduced by $7.8 billion annually. In the worst case, this decrease is $135.2 billion a year. The apparent liabilities of US publicly traded companies would increase by $1.5-$2 trillion, the equivalent gross state product of 20 states. Approximately $1.1 trillion of this would be attributable to balance sheet recognition of real estate operating leases, while the remainder would come from recognizing equipment and other leases as liabilities.

Originality/value

– The value of this research is the unique analysis of the proposed lease standard, and in looking at why the previous models did not work or did they? Is it the current requirements that are wrong or their implemenation? The reader is given a detailed overview of the proposed standard, its economic and social impacts, an update of the proposed standard, what companies must do now to get ready for the transition and on-going requirements, and a discussion of the tremendous opposition to any proposed changes in the current lease requirements from what they are.