首页 | 学习中心 | 注册 登录
返回列表 发帖
badonkus

Rank: 2

UID
223389 
帖子
274 
主题
59 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2016-4-15 
1# 跳转到 » 倒序看帖
打印
tT
发表于 2011-7-13 13:32 | 只看该作者

FRA: Pension Accounting

interest, investment, following
Reference: Schweser FRA Reading #24 pg. 123, #5

The answer calculates Economic pension expense as $15 with the following formula:
Econ pension exp = Current service cost + interest cost - actual investment return
Econ pension exp = 63 +29 - 77 = 15


However, when I use an alternative formula I get a the same answer but with a negative number:

Econ pension exp = (End funded status - Beginning funded status) - Employer contributions
Econ pension exp = (120 - 87) - 48 = -15

Is my formula wrong?
收藏 分享

zhaoyp

Rank: 2

UID
217809 
帖子
258 
主题
140 
注册时间
2011-5-24 
最后登录
2012-9-12 
2#
发表于 2011-7-13 13:32 | 只看该作者
It is -15.

In the first formula, think of expense and cost as negative numbers, etc.

Econ pension exp = -Current service cost - interest cost + actual investment return
Econ pension exp = - 63 -29 + 77 = -15

Your pension will cost you the Current service cost, payment for interest, then you get back as an adjustment actual investment return. Always think whether you are paying money or getting money.

TOP

Sportsman

Rank: 2

UID
217806 
帖子
300 
主题
164 
注册时间
2011-5-24 
最后登录
2012-9-12 
3#
发表于 2011-7-13 13:32 | 只看该作者
This would be the same if you use the alternate formula:

Change in funded status less employer's contribution = employer's contribution - change in funded status. The signs would be opposite. But you should be concerned only about the absolute amount. Because a positive number cannot mean something like "pension income" right. So just don't worry.

TOP

kingstongal

Rank: 2

UID
223407 
帖子
318 
主题
8 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2014-8-2 
4#
发表于 2011-7-13 13:32 | 只看该作者
Yes you can have a negative or positive pension expense, so be careful.

TOP

redskins44

Rank: 2

UID
223432 
帖子
312 
主题
12 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2016-4-19 
5#
发表于 2011-7-13 13:32 | 只看该作者
That is so intuitive ... thanks.

Sometimes I get so bog down with the signs as if there is something hidden when in reality I should be checking my common sense ...

TOP

busterbluth

Rank: 2

UID
223413 
帖子
356 
主题
7 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2016-4-19 
6#
发表于 2011-7-13 13:32 | 只看该作者
Yes, quite correct. I think sticking to one way of interpreting the expense would be less confusing - otherwise we'd be prone to negation errors.

In the text, Schweser solves it the way I did above but in #5 they used a separate formula causing a non-negative number ... but all in all they seem to mean current economic expense is down by $15. Had the actual investment return been greater the expense would be up by the higher return difference.

TOP

返回列表