A busy week of acronyms

Today, influential Swiss daily Neue Z�rcher Zeitung NZZ has my article on XBRL. Which is perfect timing because of the forthcoming workshop that XBRL CH is organising next Monday. The subject matter of that event is the US SEC's new XBRL regulation, which is applicable for foreign filers as well - so, rather targeted. Back to back, but more generic, is the big XBRL show in Paris, beginning on Tuesday through to Thursday. Interactivity!

Impact of accounting and prudential regulation on pensions

"A long-term view involves short-term risk, whereas a short-sighted strategy involves increased risk over the long term."

EDHEC just released its impressive report Impact of Regulation on the ALM of European Pension Funds. Even though we disagree in some instances, we think this is mandatory reading for anyone in the pensions investment space because it highlights those areas of regulation which will be of increasing consequence for pension funds' investment strategies in the near future, as we have continued to stress over the recent past.

At the core of the report is the development of an asset allocation model in the presence of liability constraints. The solution involves the components cash, risky assets and the liability hedging portfolio. The state of the art model takes inflation and longevity risk management into account as well.

There is not enough space nor time for an in-depth review of this valuable piece. Nevertheless, I would like to mention two issues that have slightly moderated my enthusiasm for the report:

• There seem to be a few at least implicit factual inaccuracies in the parts describing the regulatory environment. The most glaring of which may be the assumption that the EU pensions directive is applicable in Switzerland - it is not.
• Accounting standards seem to be understood to effectively determine investment action. While it is not unheard of that managements structure transactions in such ways as to optimise their reporting, this clearly goes one step too far. We are well aware of the interdependence between perception (qua accounting standards) and (economic) reality, but at least in an academic report, the latter needs to retain some vestige of predominance over the former. Remember: pension funds' long-term time horizon, as accounting standards can and do change.

In the balance

The latest issue of the CFA Magazine has an article that I penned about accounting politics, meaning the high-risk game that high politics is playing with the international accounting standards setting process. The issue has been dormant during the last few weeks, but is sure to come back with a vengeance shortly, i.e. during the G20 meeting on 2 April in London. Comments, as always, are highly welcome!

Wikinomics in finance?

I quite enjoyed reading Wikinomics, although it took far too long. It's an interesting and engaging overview of the latest impacts that mass collaboration has on all sorts of business models. I was particularly surprised to see how many big names were already successfully active in that space. Which begs the question why, apparently, none of them are in the finance industry?

In essence, the Wikinomics principles�consist in Being open, Peering, Sharing and Acting globally. Classifying these as principles implies that they are to be applied diligently and carefully as they might kill off any business model otherwise.�

Much of what being open, peering and sharing stands for appeared to be synonymous to me at first, so let me try to identify the differences. Transparency, or being open, could be seen as a catch-all term for peering and sharing. In the Wikinomics sense, it means to provide some sort of access to one's business model. Peering refers to a non-hierarchical production mode where control can only be exercised in a very limited way (for instance by providing a rule book and/or a platform). Sharing means that control over pieces of intellectual property is given up, implying that others can take advantage of it if they discover profitable ways to do so. Wikinomics impressively demonstrates the application of these principles in a number of industrial settings, mostly dealing with immaterial assets such as engineering knowledge, software, IP and other know-how.�

Those principles of wikinomics seem to be anathema to the domain of finance, though. Historically, this industry is rife with control, secrecy and exclusion. Is it inevitably so, though? I don't think so. It is probably inevitable when it comes to the client relationship (yes, the Swiss perspective) and the deployment of capital, which is exclusive by nature. Also, the characteristic of finance as a regulated industry will constrain the applicability of wikinomics as long as it is not embraced by the regulator.�

When it comes to all other aspects of know-how in finance (risk management, asset management, investment research etc), however, I see no reason why they could not be profitably opened up to wikinomics, especially when there is a premium on transparency in times of crisis. The Tapscotts themselves propose to apply wikinomics to risk management, but unfortunately, they stick rather close to the surface IMHO. It will be interesting to watch IBM Data Governance Council's initiative for XBRL in risk reporting.�

However, without regulatory leadership or at least explicit support, such initiatives are destined to fail or thrive only in un-regulated niches, which are likely to shrink going forward. �A pet project for Ms Schapiro? Here's to hope!

Failed Pensions Directive?

The Pensions Directive has failed and should be replaced by a new version as quickly as possible, according to a panel discussion reported by IPE last week. The reasoning is that at this point, there are only five new cross border pension schemes in operation.

While I agree that the market response to the new opportunities offered by the Pensions Directive has been slow to date, talk of a "new" pensions directive is counter-productive in my view. The retirement industry has an unusually long time horizon, it is therefore not prone to hasty moves, especially not in the presence of regulatory uncertainty. As the CEIOPS Initial review of key aspects of the implementation of the IORP directive�showed in April, there are important aspects that require legislative attention, thus the transposition of the pioneering project that is the Pensions Directive, while formally finished, is not complete.�

The Pensions Directive can be improved, but improvements should be approached in a gradual manner, as it is highly unlikely that IORP II could bring pan-European harmonisation of retirement systems. Hence impediments to cross-border schemes, such as taxation issues, need to be removed one by one. The attractiveness of cross-border schemes should be increased by expanding the scope of the Directive's applicability. Surprisingly, this is not part of CEIOPS' conclusions, but as described earlier, an important segment of several Central & Eastern European countries' mandatory occupational retirement schemes lies outside of the Directive's scope. This unfortunate omission is due to the fact that these countries did have no part in the preparation of the Directive prior to their accession to the EU.�

Pensions Directive Review

As a precursor to the EU Commission review expected later this year, CEIOPS has published its own Initial review of key aspects of the implementation of the IORP directive. The main conclusions (from the press release) are:

there is considerable diversity in the way some key aspects of the IORP Directive have been interpreted and implemented;

there is little evidence of major issues arising from these differences;

given early days and limited experience of the Directive's implementation in some areas, it would be premature to recommend changes to the Directive.

More to follow ...

Don't miss!

On Thursday, 27 March the IASB is going to release its long expected discussion paper on post employment benefits. Don't miss IASB member Steven Cooper's live web presentation introducing the discussion paper from 1200h to 1230h (UTC). You can register for the event here.

It may be interesting to compare the IASB's position to the previously released paper of the UK ASB on the same topic. My guess is that the ASB's position will prove to be more aggressive, especially with regards to the highly controversial use of risk free interest rates to discount pension plan liabilities.

XBRL Skeptics (sic) Abound?

In evaluating the viability of any innovation, it is crucial to keep an open mind (some call it paranoia) about its limitations and critical issues. From that point of view, CFO.com's piece about XBRL sceptics�is comforting reading. The doubts offered there are really quite immaterial: The luddite accountant's view that financial analysis is an art rather than a science, for the exercise of which he needs the entire statement is answered crisply: you can have that, too. The reason why XBRL will hardly take off without regulation is easy to explain: It will only become really useful once all preparers issue their information in that standard, and that will not happen spontaneously. Without it being useful, preparers have an easy case to make against going to the effort. Classic chicken and egg. The other points raised are transient in nature.�

What I am more concerned about is the need for a consistent evolution of XBRL taxonomies within a coherent architecture, and the restrained use of X, i.e. eXtensibility, by preparers, lest XBRL documents become too complex to be useful. That is where�scepticism�is appropriate and healthy - but whether it is justified we will only be able to see further down the road.

Revised SWX Corporate Governance

The self-regulated Swiss Stock Exchange SWX has issued a revised commentary re Corporate Governance Directive that is binding for all companies listed on SWX. The most important changes are:

The comply or explain rule has been extended to contain a substantiated explanation of why the conflict of interest between the public interest in disclosure and the secrecy interest has been decided for the benefit of the latter. This explanation requirement weakens this important option substantially.

Principles and Elements of compensation or share-ownership programmes are explained and substantiated to make management compensation more transparent.