Posts Tagged ‘Boeing’

Accounting Standards Designed to Increase Transparency

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

is_accountingprinciples_440x248New accounting standards calling for property to be marked to market,  and changes in lease accounting rules will strongly impact balance sheets, income statements and the general financial outlook of American companies. Unfortunately, many corporations are not ready to deal with the changes, according to a new report from CB Richard Ellis.  The mark-to-market requirement - known as FAS 157 - became effective for financial assets November 15, 2007, and for non-financial assets such as real estate on November 15, 2008.

CBRE’s white paper - entitled “FAS Talking - Unpacking Real Estate’s Impact on Financial Statements” - notes that the estimated balance sheet impact of the lease accounting revisions will be in excess of $1 trillion.  According to the report, the combined consequences of mark-to-market and lease accounting changes might negatively impact earnings, capital requirements, debt covenant ratios, credit ratings and other yardsticks of financial health.

Todd P. Anderson, CBRE senior managing director of global corporate services, who wrote the report with Michael M. Omiya, CFO of Boeing Realty Corporation, says that the changes are “a continuation of the effort to have greater financial transparency, in particular in the financial statements of publicly traded corporations.”  According to Anderson, “In the absence of comparable sales, you have to figure out how to establish a value for your property.”  Corporations should accomplish that before the end of the year when they are on deadline to complete tax and accounting responsibilities.  “The corporate real estate department, if it understands what’s going on in the mark-to-market arena, can come in early and start to take a look at its properties and basically create an argument for why it is valuing properties the way it is,” Anderson concludes.

Corporate Then and Now

Wednesday, April 9th, 2008

I recently hosted a panel at DePaul University in Chicago on the history of corporate real estate, which highlighted the sector’s emergence from an embedded functionary to a stand-alone department with direct reporting to the CFO.  Unlike today’s more integrated version, the blueprint for corporations throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s was the holding company corporate model, featuring a small central command with a portfolio of autonomous, self-contained businesses, each of which owned the people, processes and technology needed to support it.  Examples included Boeing, GE, Honeywell, and AT&T.  They created value on the basis of the fact they could reorganize easily by selling off business units or through acquisitions.  Here, real estate was really a business-unit decision, which usually meant a complete separation of facilities.  Redundancy was intrinsic to the holding company model, representing a premium of as much as 20%-40% of operating cost.  In the 1990s, this changed when Corporate America, motivated in part by a recession, looked for ways to extract hard saves in their real estate and began outsourcing — first projects and later portfolio-wide functions.  This meant that internal real estate departments shrank and outside teams won global contracts to provide lease administration, property management, transaction management, etc.  The internal teams, meanwhile bcame consolidated across business units and oversaw the mission critical functions — namely strategy and customer relationship management, among other things.  We are still making this shift today.  The challenge for global service providers is to provide the depth of expertise that a dedicated internal team brings and to swim upstream to the strategic level so they make decisions that make sense on an enterprise level.