haha, didn’t see that comment, glad i was thinking about the right thing.
Haha yeah goof youre thinking in the same line. but all this is not in the curriculum
never hurts to go a little beyond the curriculum in some topics.
althogh, imho, DBP is not one of those probably. it is becoming less and less relevant anyway. like how many companies do still have DBPs? maybe in 10 years it won’t any longer be a part of the CFAI curriculum. Honestly, even MBS is more relevant than that, and they removed it this year
Haha, very true. Would make life a bit easier for future L2 candidates, certainly made ours easier when they removed MBS, hate that topic lol
S2000magician: Peter13: S2000magician: Peter13:It would not have any impact on ratios - hence the reason why this is not covered in the curriculum.
Of course it will have an impact on some ratios.
The PBO will change if you change any of the assumptions:
- Length of service
- Salary growth rate
- Post-employment longevity
- Discount rate
- Probability of vesting
If the PBO changes, then either assets or liabilities will change.
Changing the assumptions will also change the annual pension expense, which will change net income.
So clearly some ratios will change:
- (Net) profit margin
- Asset turnover (possibly)
- ROA
- ROE
- Financial leverage
- and so on
Thanks for clarifying. However, I still do not see how Asset Turnover would be impacted as it does not have (Liabilities) in the ratio, and the Plan Asset is not impacted by an increase in the discount rate or an increase in Compensation, as only the PBO would be impacted (Liabilities)
ROA and ROE and net profit margin yes direct impact given that net income is impacted directly.
Usually you show only the net asset or liability, not the plan assets and PBO separately.
So, if you have an overfunded plan and change an assumption, then your total assets could change.
So lets say you have an underfunded plan, and your compensation rate increases (higher salaries) how would this impact the Asset Turnover?
It wouldn’t.
Which is exactly why I included “possibly” in parentheses.