The New York Times is wrong about smoothing

    From what I can tell, the New York Times is wrong when it says GASB is getting rid of actuarial smoothing:

    The board will also do away with the commonplace practice of “smoothing” the value of pension investments, or spreading the recognition of market gains and losses over several years. The standard actuarial practice has been used in many places as a tool for engineering pension numbers.

    Perhaps the Times means smoothing will be regulated? I see the rules standardizing how smoothing is done, but not eliminating it.

    I have notified the Times by email and Twitter.

    Frank Keegan says:

    You are right, Zach. By the way, some pension plans amortized based on real accounting standards and found the amortization period was infinity. Infinity is great if you can catch it, right?