
- The lessee has actual ownership (automatic transfer of title)
- The lessee has potential ownership (bargain purchase option)
- The lessee has effective ownership (75% test)
- The lessee has effective ownership (90% test)
« What a Schwing! | Main | More Dumbing »
Jay,
Banks and rating agencies, among others, restate the lessees' financial statements to take the operating leases into account. In this regard, they are monitoring the indebtedness associated with the operating lease. What never gets into this analysis is the residual portion of the lease, meaning that the residual portion of the equipment acquisition is always off balance sheet. Many internal compensation plans do not consider operating leases, which adds impetus to use operating leases as a financing technique.
Shawn,
I am familiar with the inclusion of operating lease payments and the various formulas that different agencies use to approximate the total indebtedness associated with operating leases. My issue is with exactly what you stated, regarding the off b/s nature of the residual. I know that most mid to large size banks have leasing arms and therefore are aware of the future liabilities created by entering into operating leases. It seems as though banks are knowingly ignoring the residual values, which can be material dollar amounts depending on the technology, term, and structure of the lease. Is this an example of the banking industry giving its customers room to acquire needed equipment or is it an oversight? Your thoughts?
Jay,
I think there are several issues going on here. The first is that the residual position in an operating lease is, at best, a contingent liability. There is absolutely no obligation on the part of the lessee to purchase the asset (if the auditor has done his job). Second, the accounting does not require recognition of this contingent at best obligation. You know banks - they go for the accounting perspective big time. Lastly, there is the practical implication. How would you ever quantify the residual? So, I don't think the banks are giving their customers room, nor is it an oversight. The alternative would be to record a very fuzzy, highly contingent liability. Just not enough value for the effort.
Shawn
Shawn, thank you for your explanation. Of recent, I have seen auditors attempting to attach "very fuzzy" return fees to the 90% test as well as taking the stance of subjectively deciding how likely is it that the lessee would exercise any buyout option, whether at lease expiration or as an early option, in calculating the 90% test.
Jay,
You are absolutely right about recent audit trends, that is why I mentioned the auditors in my last response. I will address this issue in much more detail in upcoming posts. Thanks for the direction!
Shawn
» Know More This Week from Know More Media
The ebb and flow around the network has been interesting recently [Read More]
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Use these fast growing business social media sites to promote your business, feature your products, spotlight your business leaders, create links, and drive traffic back to your company site, all for free!
BIZZlogos - Add your logo - free link to your site| View Network Map Network Feed List (OPML) Know More Media Network Feed |
LeasingNotes is a member of the Know More Media network of business related blogs.
Here are some current headlines from some of our business publications:
ProductivityGoal | CallCenterScript |
AdHurl | TheBizofKnowledge |
LandingTheDeal | CustomersAreAlways |
HealthCareVox | BrainBasedBusiness |
TheInsurancePolicy | MarketingBlurb |
Shawn, why do you think banks put leverage ratio restrictions on companies which would prevent them from entering into loans or capital leases for equipment,but, allow those same companies to enter into operating leases?
Posted by: Jay Zeinfeld | January 24, 2006 4:31 PM | Permalink to Comment