Hur företag påverkades av slopandet av korridormetoden varierade från företag till företag. Dock hade alla undersökta företag som tillämpat korridormetoden räkenskapsår 2012, ackumelerade underskott. Den totala genomsnittliga effekten på eget kapial blev en minskning med -4,49 procent. En sjättedel av företagen i undersökningen vidtog någon åtgärd för att förebygga en negativ effekt på eget kapital. Den främsta åtgärd som dessa företag hade vidtagit, var att de successivt hade övergått till avgiftsbestämda pensionsplaner under de senaste åren och stängt de förmånsbestämda pensionsplanerna, vilket har förebyggt en negativ effekt. En ytterligare anledning till varför effekten inte blev så stor som befarades i media, kan bero på att en del företag valde att tillämpa den reviderade IAS 19 i förtid, det vill säga under tidigare räkenskapsår. / How the corporates equity was affected due to the abolishment of the corridor method varies from corporate to corporate. However, all investigated corporates in the essay which practiced the corridor method the fiscal year 2012 had an accumulated deficit. The total average effect on equity shows a decrease by -4,49 percent. One sixth of the corporates reviewed performed preventive actions to mitigate a negative effect on equity. One foremost action these corporates performed was to move from defined benefit plans to contribution plans the last years and close the defined benefit plans. One additional cause why the effect on equity was not as big as the media predicted, could be because some corporates choose to practice the revised IAS 19 in their previous fiscal years.

M.Com. (International Accounting) / Post-employment benefits under IAS 19 include defined benefit plans (DBP’s) and defined contribution plans. The accounting for defined contribution plans is fairly straightforward, since accrual accounting is applied and the employer entity’s legal or constructive obligation is limited to the amount the employer entity agrees to contribute to the defined contribution plan. In contrast, the accounting for DBP’s is complicated and provides a promise/guarantee of future benefits and the investment and actuarial risk of the plan lies with the employer entity. The literature review indicated that accounting and presentation of DBP’s is complicated because of the long-term nature of the liability/asset that is raised for the plan. There are many uncertainties involved in estimating the liability as this involves looking into the future and making estimates and assumptions about the future. The literature also indicated factors such as the market performance of assets, and inaccurate or unrealistic assumptions and decisions that delay making payments to DBP’s affects the funding status. Actuaries and accountants differ somewhat in the roles they play in determining the amount for DBP’s, with accountants choosing the accrued benefit method. The problem with DBP’s is that they are of a long-term nature and require estimates and assumptions to be made in calculating the DBP liability/asset. The long-term nature affects the adequacy of the liability/asset recognised for DBP’s and the related disclosure in the financial statements of large listed companies. The objective of the minor dissertation is to perform a content analysis on the presentation and disclosure of DBPs in the financial statements of a sample of Johannesburg Stock Exchange listed companies in South Africa. The research approach applied includes a broad assessment of the current status of DBP’s and defined contribution plans operated by the top 40 Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) listed companies, followed by a quantitative and qualitative assessment on the disclosures provided by these companies’ financial statements.

Background to problem: Pensions play a big role in people's lives when life expectancy continues to increase. Companies can choose different ways of reporting their pension plans, and within the defined benefit pension plan poses the actuarial gains and losses that can be reported based on three different methods. Only one method will exist from 2013, how will the companies that use the other two handle the new situation? Purpose: Investigate why different companies have chosen to report its actuarial gains and losses along the corridor approach, directly against income or directly in equity. How will the companies that use the corridor method manage the situation when it will only be allowed to report in other comprehensive income as of 2013 and how will this affect them. Methodology: Data was collected through qualitative questionnaires sent to companies listed on Nasdaq OMX Nordic Stockholm, Large Cap and Mid Cap, and a qualitative interview. We felt that the best way to getting the desired information was to use qualitative questionnaires and an interview. Conclusions: The corridor method is chosen mainly because the actuarial gains and losses do not affect the company as much as when using the other two methods. To report directly to equity is preferred as the result of the company is not affected. The change from the corridor method to recognize in other comprehensive income as of 2013 will mean that the pension liability and equity is adversely affected. Suggestions for further research: Study how companies were affected by the implementation of the revised IAS 19. What was the impact on businesses in the method transition? / Bakgrund och problem: Pensionen spelar en stor roll i människors liv då livslängden fortsätter att öka. Företag kan välja olika sätt att redovisa sina pensionsplaner, och inom den förmånsbestämda pensionsplanen uppkommer det aktuariella vinster och förluster som kan redovisas med tre olika metoder. Från 2013 kommer endast en metod att finnas kvar, hur kommer då företagen som använder sig utav de andra metoderna att hantera situationen? Syfte: Undersöka varför olika företag har valt att redovisa sina aktuariella vinster och förluster utefter korridormetoden, direkt mot resultatet eller direkt mot eget kapital. Hur kommer de företag som använder korridormetoden hantera situationen när det endast kommer vara tillåtet att redovisa i övrigt totalresultat från 2013 och hur kommer det här påverka dem. Metod: Data samlades in genom en kvalitativ intervju samt enkäter som skickades till börsnoterade företag. Att använda oss av enkäter samt en intervju ansåg vi var det bästa sättet för att få fram önskad information. Slutsats: Korridormetoden väljs främst för att de aktuariella vinsterna och förlusterna inte påverkar företaget i samma utsträckning som vid användning av de andra två metoderna. Att redovisa direkt mot eget kapital föredras eftersom resultatet i företaget inte påverkas. Bytet från korridormetoden till att redovisa i övrigt totalresultat från 2013 kommer innebära att pensionsskulden ökar och eget kapital påverkas negativt. Förslag på vidare forskning: Studera hur företagen påverkats av implementeringen av den omarbetade IAS 19. Vad blev det för konsekvenser för företagen vid metodbytet?

Abstract Authors:Stefan Harrå and Magnus Björk Advisor: Markku Penttinen Title: Accounting Consequences of the change in pension accounting Background to problem: When the revised IAS 19 comes into force January 1, 2013, it means that two of the three accounting principles for defined benefit pension plans are disappearing, including the corridor method. The corridor method has made it possible for companies to defer its actuarial gains and losses. Now that the corridor approach abolished then the unrecognized actuarial gains and losses immediately be covered by equity, which involves very large amounts of some companies. Why the amounts have grown so big is much because of the discount rate. The discount rate is a controversial parameter, and there is disagreement on how it should be fixed. Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to examine the accounting implications this will have for the company applied the corridor method, and if there is some parameters in the actuarial assumption that is more important than others. Methodology: The thesis has mainly been based on a qualitative research through qualitative interviews with a small sample that is affected by this change. There are quantitative elements to a greater depth by examining the annual reports, discount and deferred pension liabilities of the various companies. The approach is exploratory as it is a qualitative study and there was little knowledge of the subject before the work of it started. Therefore, a study of literature, regulations and previous research before the empirical study. This made it possible to gain a broader understanding of the subject and to shape relevant and essential interview questions. Conclusions: The conclusion shows that the largest accounting consequences for the companies in the study in conjunction with the change is that the unrecognized actuarial gains and losses will now be covered by equity and that the expected return on plan assets is based on the discount rate. The study also shows that it is the discount rate which is considered the most important parameter that the companies are looking at in the actuarial assumption. The conclusion also provides a shared sense of the true and fair picture of the companies after the revised IAS 19. Suggestions for further research: That after 2013 to study how the actual result of this rule change did this compare to the expected. Look at the problem of determining the discount rate. How will the IASB look at it if more and more begin to deviate from the standard? Keywords: "IAS 19", "IAS 19 revised", "corridor method", "pension accounting", "pension liabilities", "defined contribution plans", "actuarial assumptions", "actuarial gains and losses" and "discount rate".