Author: Adrienne Gonzalez

Adrienne is a 15-year veteran of the accounting industry, if by "veteran" you mean "vulture prowling the periphery of the profession waiting for something exciting to happen." She has been spewing vitriol on Going Concern since the site was founded in 2009. A former CPA review employee, she has sat through more FAR classes than any CPA exam candidate ever could -- even one who has failed FAR seven times -- and can still recall most of the mnemonics all these years later.

The Art of Bank Failures

alan_greenspan_pancake.jpgDeutsche Bank wins the prize for the most well-capitalized art collection, racking up 53,000 works in one of the largest corporate art collections in the world – as of 2004, worth an estimated $124 million (USD). Does that fall under PP&E? How does one depreciate a Cezanne hanging in a corporate office anyway? Oh wait, you don’t.
In honor of the year anniversary of Lehman’s fall, we find it worth noting here that Lehman’s Dick Fuld and his wife found that when you’re in desperate need of a capital infusion and facing epic failure, pawning off your precious fine art pieces works in a pinch.
More, after the jump


Guardian UK:

The bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers wants to sell at least $8m (£5.2m) worth of the art collection that once decorated its offices. The news comes as $20m of postwar art, put up for sale by the former Lehman boss Richard Fuld and his wife Kathy, goes on the block tonight at Christie’s in New York.

That’s got to hurt.
But Dick isn’t alone. If only banks would have considered these precious assets while spiraling down the toilet.
Portfolio has a do-not-miss on the art collections left behind by bank failures:

From coast to coast, millions of dollars of corporate art that once hung in the offices of well-known banks has itself become entangled in the fallout from the financial crisis. The fate of that artwork is still being sorted out, along with the assets involved in many of the unprecedented bank failures and resulting mergers that took place last year. Some of the surviving financial institutions appear to be holding onto the valuable artwork for their own collections, despite the chance to cushion their coffers with its sale. Others are selling the art or donating it to local museums and nonprofits.

Well, wait a minute, will this art have the same fate as the $4 billion in WaMu deposits the failed thrift is fighting to get back from JP Morgan? Just sayin.
This is nothing new. In 1991, the FDIC netted a cool $250,000 for the art collection of failed Boston Trade Bank. Though that was a pathetic catch in comparison to the $800,000 the collection of 219 pieces was estimated to be worth but hey, every little bit helps.
Wonder why no one’s thought to tap AIG for some precious paintings? Surely General Motors has a few pricey pieces lying around corporate offices, let’s use that to recoup that $23 billion American taxpayers may never see again!

The Day the Audits Died

128 The Agony - Gethsemane.jpgI will refrain from expressing my opinions on the PCAOB and do my best to keep this neutral, I swear.
Accounting Onion pointed out in 2007 that “more than half of the PCAOB’s inspection resources (> $65 million) are protecting the public against the equivalent of a flea bite on the hindquarters of a bull (market),” meaning a bunch of overpaid auditors are inspecting 1% of public company revenue. 1%! What do we need them for?
More, after the jump


And it gets worse. The PCAOB and SEC have decided as of August 13, 2009 that auditors need a whole lot more on their plates including but not limited to increased disclosures for:
• An audit firm withdrawing an audit report
• Any time a firm’s name is used in an unauthorized manner by an issuer without the firm’s consent
• Any time new hires are brought into the firm with a history of disciplinary sanctions
• Anytime professional licenses are revoked, suspended, or subject to conditions or sanctions.
The last one is my personal favorite. Watch your Ps and Qs out there kids, they’re coming for you.
Let’s hope State Boards of Accountancy aren’t as broke as the states they belong to (this means you, California BoA, with your 3 furlough Fridays a month and ELEVEN WEEK WAITING TIME to process CPA exam applications!) otherwise there might be monetary incentive for state licensure authorities to put more bad accountants in the back of their monthly pub just so firms can avoid as many of these reports as possible.
As of October 12, 2009, firms will be required to make these reports to the PCAOB, who will then disseminate the information to the unwashed masses as it sees fit.
The same PCAOB of which Skeptical CPA speaks so highly on June 4, 2009:

Another PCAOB triumph. Does the PCAOB think say KPMG is unaware of problems at Citigroup? Or is the PCAOB aware that it is? How can anyone take the SEC and PCAOB seriously? Is Spokane more fraud plagued than Wall Street? Or just less well connected? Now if Goldman Sachs moved its offices to Spokane …

Check out the article for the backstory.
The SEC is having trouble seducing accountants to its team because of the competitiveness of PCAOB salaries. So what, let them get the scraps? You hear that, soon-to-be-grads? Why are you at Meet the Firms when you could be off getting wined and dined by the PCAOB? Sounds like fun, right?
The Maryland Association of CPAs’ CPA Success made the new reporting requirements sound much tamer, as if it were just a polite, albeit groundbreaking request from the PCAOB.
Perhaps it is a benign request. But this appears to be a PCAOB power grab to me, not to mention a costly one.
Just my $0.02. Do I have to report that to the PCAOB?

Cash and Cash Equivalents, Insolvent State Version

statebudget_woes.jpgIs your state broke? Suffering from liquidity issues? Desperate to buff up municipal coffers? Worry no more, dear resident, if your state is anything like mine, they’ve got one hell of a plan up their sleeve.
Lots of bright ideas, after the jump


NYT:

With the economy floundering and tax revenues falling, governments and public authorities have tried to patch holes in their tattered budgets by charging new or higher fees for a broad range of services — including taking a civil service exam and operating a nuclear power plant.
The purpose of the many microcharges is to help avoid, or at least limit, broader tax increases. But with escalating fees for things like tanning bed inspections, pistol permits and marriage certificates, daily life can start to seem like a labyrinth of public-sector panhandlers.
There are increased payments required from cradle (birth certificates) to grave (plots in municipal cemeteries); in the workplace (licenses for private investigators, lifeguards and tax preparers) and at leisure spots (entrances to parks and public golf courses).

It doesn’t end there. Municipalities will have to make their pennies up wherever they can – this affects everything from parking meters to licenses (yes, even your precious CPA, little beancounter!), booze to license plates. “Fee-based government” is the new “tax and spend” and you can pretty safely bet that you’re going to get it squeezed out of you everywhere you turn. States argue that the policy allows them to make up vulgar budget shortfalls in the least offensive way possible, applying increased fees to specific services instead of vague, across-the-board tax increases.
We are used to this when it comes to the CPA exam as NASBA has increased fees every August as far back as I can remember (thankfully a beer is now $96 in California so my short term memory has increased as I’ve cut out discretionary spending and at the same time unintentionally solved my drinking problem that came as a result of my accounting job) and 2009 is no exception. It cost $809.71 in 2008 and is now $822.73. Putting this into perspective, just Audit would have cost you $159.25 in 2006. By 2008, it was up to $226.28 – keeping in mind that this is only the fee paid to NASBA and does not include re-exam fees and/or applicable State Board of Accountancy/Prometric fees.
Ouch. Don’t expect this to get better any time soon.

Chicago Learns the Importance of Public Comment

parking meter.jpgWe haven’t seen outrage like this since FASB bent over and rewrote mark to market!
Denver is now considering taking a cue from a Chicago plan that basically pimped out the city’s parking meters for a lump-sum lease payment instead of relying on a constant stream of unknown revenue in quarters. Genius… sort of.
More, after the jump

Councilman Doug Linkhart would like to solve the city’s $120 million budget shortfall with quarters. But instead of fixing the deficit one quarter at a time — about $9 million in revenue from parking meters per year — the councilman would like to sell the city’s parking meter revenue stream to a private firm for one lump sum — as much as $430 million — and then use some of the money to close the budget gap. “It’s got some potential,” Linkhart told the Denver Daily News on Friday. “It sounds like a good idea … by no means is it perfect, and by no means is it exactly what I would do … but the concept is certainly worth looking into.”

That’s all well and good and on the surface it appears as though this plan cannot possibly go wrong, right? I hope Denver is watching how this unravels before jumping prematurely on the parking meter pawn shop bandwagon.
Hmm:

Clint Krislov, a Chicago attorney for a group of taxpayers, said on Thursday that a Cook County Circuit Court judge on August 28 will hear their petition to allow the lawsuit challenging the deal to proceed. “The contract is illegal so we’re asking (the court) to block spending tax dollars on it,” Krislov said. “After the transaction closed, the city continued to expend public funds to maintain and repair CPM’s privately controlled meters based on complaints that a number of CPM’s parking meters were disabled, would not take coins, did not properly recognize the coins placed in the meters, and displayed inaccurate parking rates and times of enforcement,” the lawsuit stated.

Chicago taxpayers have a point. You cannot use city streets as a private pawn shop and then apply taxpayer money to pay interest on your pawned items. Perhaps someone can point to the FASB that says as much?

Let’s Talk the CPA Exam

Disclaimer: Author is Project Coordinator/new media scientist for a leading CPA Review course. She’ll try her best not to bash any competitors (*coughthismeansyouTimGeartycough*)
Let me start this by saying we have a problem in the accounting industry. I’m not sure if it starts with the accounting professors or the firms, nor am I sure whether or not it is even fair to blame the powers that be over the accountants themselves but there seems to be an overwhelming thread of apathy and fear dominating professional licensure.
More, after the jump


Some facts are unavoidable; firms don’t always support the journey to CPA licensure (let’s face it, it isn’t exactly an easy trip), accounting professors don’t always prep future grads for the careers they are about to embark on and of course the AICPA Board of Examiners complicates things by throwing curveballs like new pronouncements and a laundry list of changes to exam content that pile up every six months. Who can keep up?
Well that’s the candidate’s job, isn’t it? Is this what you wanted to do with your life? Is this the path you took?
Of course it is, if it weren’t such a long, drawn-out process we’d have way more CPAs running around signing off on half-assed audits and trying to claim a client’s parrot as a deduction. Firms hate to think that they aren’t getting all of your blood, sweat, and tears; knowing that the exam will likely take all the good brain cells an accountant has left, they hate to see their new hires buried in Financial Accounting and Reporting. Why?! Don’t they want qualified professionals on their payroll? Well yes. To hear the firms tell it, new hires are the ones dropping the ball.
I can’t say why the Big 4 and beyond make it appear as if they do not support licensure. I do know that in the last two years I have personally witnessed a critical shift in the industry; whereas once upon a time the they just wanted a warm body in the chair to push buttons, they are now looking beyond “mediocre” and towards ambition, which inevitably leads to certification. The days of stumbling up the corporate ladder to manager without a CPA license are over and frankly I couldn’t be happier to see that shift.

We’re Probably Going to Have to Accept the Fact That Accounting Rules are No Match for the Bank Lobby

reservoir-dogs-mexican-standoff.jpgWe’ve been over this 1000 times but like a bad rash, the issue keeps coming back.
NYT has already accused politicians of meddling in the esoterica of accounting, though personally I think that accusation might have been expressed just a tad too late.
As I mentioned when the July article came out:
More, after the jump

Ex FASB chair and former KPMG partner Edward Trott got it right saying “The area for bank regulators to be involved with accounting standards setting is to help identify the financial information the banks need from others to make appropriate lending and investing decisions. In my experience, banks want current fair value information about assets that serve as collateral for loans. They do not want information about what assets cost two or three years ago.”

Exactly! So what’s the debate about?
Assets are not being valued rationally. If someone can explain the model to me, I would love to hear it.
Or as we now call it, “fuzzy math.”
I’ve never been a huge fan of math, probably a large part of why I ended up on the fringes of the accounting industry, we hardly use it. It’s the rules that are being perverted, not necessarily the numbers. That’s Trott’s point, and he’s not the only one who feels that way.
The problem is that companies (non-financials) need to navigate these waters that have been artificially stirred up to allow banks to appear healthier than they are. Companies are licking their wounds and selling off assets while banks are preening over their profitable quarters? That doesn’t make sense.
Accounting pressure is not new either:

What’s gone unnoticed is that in the late ’90s Summers did nothing to stop former Fed chair Alan Greenspan from pressuring US accounting rule makers to water down a proposed new derivatives accounting rule that may have helped stop the current crisis. Many business leaders had strongly opposed the new rule…In fact, in 1998, Summers testified in Congress against regulating the derivatives market.

The ongoing debate gets stranger. What is there to debate about? The pressure is there, minus the understanding of what occurs as a consequence of these actions. Somehow, the behavior continues and we’re still arguing over it.

PCAOB, We are Paying Attention

TOLD YOU.jpgPublic accounting could learn a thing or two from Wall Street. What if we treated the PCAOB like Goldman Sachs does the CFTC and the Treasury? Can you imagine PwC partners dispatched into high-profile regulatory positions doing the dirty work for them? We’d save millions in intern fees (oh wait) since no one would have to run a single shredder.
Case in point, the head of the CFTC (who used to work at Goldman) says, “I believe that position limits should be consistently applied and vigorously enforced. Position limits promote market integrity by guarding against concentrated positions.” And what does he do? Block GS competitors with federal limits while letting his friends run wild in commodities futures. We need one of those on our team!
More, after the jump


Oh wait a minute, we already have that! And it gets better, not only does his work history read “E&Y”, he used to be on Fed payroll as well. Double winner – this is the guy you want heading up the audit board? That’s laughable.
Remember?

Mark W. Olson was recently appointed head of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board by Chris Cox, SEC Commissioner. This ends months of uncertainty about leadership at the PCAOB or Peekabo as it is popularly known. Mr. Olson was a Governor at the Federal Reserve Board.

In fact, the PCAOB chair’s wife probably hangs out with Goldman wives. A quick glance at his resume reveals the sorts of circles Mr Olson travels in; future partners of Big 4 firms might start setting their goals right about now if they’re trying to out-schmooze this guy.
So if you believe Wall Street and the auditors are that different, you’re wrong. No one is going to call Deloitte the vampire squid but it might be a good idea if we started looking at our own questionable regulatory ties. Perhaps accounting can learn a thing from Wall Street before it hits us like it has them?
And who is letting things go to hell?
Now that Olson has abandoned the PCAOB for bigger and better things, we can only hope his mustachioed replacement and those who come after continue the tradition of questionable business associations set forth by our friends at Goldman Sachs and of course the Big 4. Life just wouldn’t be the same without it.

Dear FASB, I’m Breaking Up With You

begging.jpgEditor’s note: Adrienne Gonzalez is founder and managing editor of Jr Deputy Accountant as well as regular contributor to leading financial/investment sites like Seeking Alpha and GoldmanSachs666. By day, she teaches unlicensed accountants to pass the CPA exam, though what she does in her copious amounts of freetime in the evening is really none of your business. Follow her adventures in Fedbashing and CPA-wrangling on Twitter @adrigonzo but please don’t show up unannounced at her San Francisco office as she’s got a mean streak. Her favorite FASB is 166.
I can’t take it anymore. I’m serious, this is BS. It has been nothing but up and down, agony and ecstasy for as far back as I can remember on fair value and I want off this ride.
More agony, after the jump


Via SmartBrief:

The Financial Accounting Standards Board’s updated fair-value rules will require companies to fully understand fair-value and mark-to-market concepts and extensively document their analysis of illiquid assets, as this article notes. The FASB gave companies some new latitude in applying fair-value principles but stood firmly behind the importance of fair value in preparing meaningful financial statements.

Stop, please. This is getting to be abusive.
Remember when you whispered in our ear, “Certainly, to those who say that accounting should better reflect true economic substance, fair value, rather than historical cost, would generally seem to be the better measure” in 2003, Bob Herz? We totally fell for it. Who wouldn’t? Swept off of our feet and still hurting from Enron, we needed a rebound and fair value totally worked.
Now what?
I truly wish you and IASB the best of luck in whatever you two decide to do with your miserable little lives.
WebCPA:

While FASB may be pushing back in the other direction and mulling the use of fair value and mark-to-mark with bank loans in addition to assets like mortgage-backed securities, the IASB seems to be tacking in an alternative direction. That could be leading them on the road to divergence, not convergence.

And I’m defriending you on Facebook, Bob. At least you know your new girlfriend does fair value.
Love,
AG

Bank Failures by the Numbers

empty-2dpockets-small.jpgThis isn’t mathleticism, this is simply truth in numbers. With Colonial Bank officially R.I.P. and torn to shreds (North Carolina-based BB&T has picked up the branches, the garbage will likely be marked down and sold off to whichever sucker the FDIC can find) this past week, it might be a good idea to look at the mathematical reality of the situation.
Lately, bank failures seem to lead tangentially to accounting in that banks often point the finger at mark-to-market as the key piece which sent them hurtling toward doom. Sure, blame the accounting, that’s always a classy move. But all’s fair in love and value right?
In an era where the word “trillion” hardly raises an eyebrow, let’s put this into perspective and look at the 5 largest bank failures of all time (in terms of costs to FDIC):
More, after the jump


5. BankUnited, Coral Gables, FL: $4.9 Billion
4. American Savings and Loan, Stockton, CA: $5.7 billion – at the time, the amount to cover American S & L cost the FDIC 10% of its “fund” and was one of the largest failures of the savings and loan crisis.
3. Continental deserves its whole epic tale
2. Washington Mutual (we can’t discuss costs to the FDIC for this one since JP Morgan swooped in to get it and there are still active lawsuits around the deal)
1. IndyMac: $10.7 billion. That wasn’t too long ago so you should still remember the tale.
In one day (this past Friday), the FDIC found itself on the hook for an estimated $3.68 billion, and surely that’s a positively-doctored number. Move along now, nothing to see here.

Authorities on August 14 closed down five banks — Colonial Bank; Dwelling House Savings and Loan Association; Union Bank, National Association; Community Bank of Arizona and Community Bank of Nevada.
As per the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which is often appointed as the caretaker of failed entities, the collapse of these five banks would cost the agency a staggering USD 3.68 billion.

Maybe now would be a good time to express a doubt.

KPMG UK’s Sweet New JPM Gig

KPMG_chair.jpgNothing like a good (alleged) fraud story to finish up our week, eh?
Just in case you missed the story, it appears as though KPMG UK will be a tad busy in the near term trying to unravel this little mess. I suppose that’s good news for the kids working those 4 day work weeks across the pond, though the same cannot be said for JPM, who is facing an unlimited fine as a result.
UK’s Daily Mail:
More, after the jump

The FSA has called in a top firm of accountants to examine the bank’s London activities after evidence emerged that JP Morgan had mixed customers’ funds with its own.
Banks are meant to maintain a strict segregation of their own money from that which is held on behalf of clients.
But JP Morgan managers in London discovered last month that client and bank money used for trading futures and options – a way of speculating on movements in currencies, share prices and commodities – had apparently been put into a single pool.

This isn’t the first time regulatory authorities have busted firms for pooling client money and using it to play craps in the market but it is certainly the first time the FSA has gone after a big player like JP Morgan.
JP Morgan claims an “operational error” in their options and futures arm dating as far back as 2002 caused the “mix-up” though we aren’t sure we buy that line. “We identified an operational error that was corrected within 24 hours of its discovery. No clients have lost money as a result of this error and we are cooperating fully with the FSA,” a spokeswoman for the bank said.
Sure, okay. Just because no clients lost any money doesn’t make it legal. It’s now up to KPMG to slog through 7 years of transactions (at JPM’s expense) to see if any clients missed out on interest due as a result. Prelim findings are due to the FSA by the end of August, with a final report expected in September.
Have fun, KPMG UK!

Hey Big 4, How’s Gen Y Working Out for You?

I read an article awhile back in CFO mag about Generation Y, or more specifically how large firms were preparing for this ‘special’ crop of soon-to-be new grads.
I’m not sure ‘panic’ is the appropriate word but let’s just say these kids had partners freaking out; technologically-inclined, lazy, and pre-programmed with a sense of entitlement normally reserved for royalty and Nobel prize winners, you knew something was up with these kids if management was stressing their arrival. The Big 4 went so far as to hold trainings for partners on how to tame this hyped generation as they prepared to descend on the corporate world.
More, after the Jump


Now that the first wave of Gen Yers have successfully penetrated the corporate fortress, we figured it might be a good time to check in and see how that’s working out.
‘Screw our SEC deadlines’ may not be an exact quote but that was the typical Millennial attitude impressed upon us by one of our sources, a 40-something CPA lucky enough to be stashed away in private accounting out on the East Coast. He also called working with Gen Y ‘horrid’ but private accounting can be horrid in and of itself so we won’t credit that fully to the Under 30 crowd.
Gen Y is driven by… Well we haven’t figured out if they are driven at all. All reports are that they think ‘work ethic’ means avoiding checking their Facebook pages on company time, expect the corner office as soon as the ink dries on their offer letter, and have absolutely no grasp on the concept of performance-driven bonuses.
What’s worse, say sources, is they don’t seem fazed in the least by economic turmoil. Though employers using performance above seniority as a lay off gauge naturally look to their poor performers as first in line to get sliced, the Millennials are so dosed on the illusion of their own greatness that they seem absolutely stunned when the pink slips come.
So why would the Big 4 continue the tradition of recruiting new hires from college campuses, blocking out the 35 year olds who understand that just getting up in the morning is not cause for a gold star?
You’ll have to talk to the hiring managers if you want an answer to that. Perhaps it’s that we’ve got them all wrong and the generalization itself is what’s driving the conflict.
In the meantime, we are looking forward to seeing how Gen Y breaks out of the stereotype to impress the pants off of us and inherit the empire. With all that ambition and talent, we’re sincerely hoping they learn to apply that to the Big 4 to shake things up for the better. Hopefully they can also bury the billable hour once and for all while they’re at it. Go, kids, go!

Ken Lewis Should Have Been a CPA

KenLewisNOPEb.jpgWe know public accounting is hard. The unpaid overtime (*cough* perhaps PwC can tell you about that *cough*), busy season, the misconception that all CPAs are number-crunching mathletes, and, of course, the inconvenience of having to answer everyone’s obscure tax questions. “Dude, I don’t even WORK in tax, I’m an auditor.” “Yeah but I just have this quick question about a deduction…”
As bad as the CPAs may have it, they’ve got it easy compared to this guy. Poor Ken Lewis. Someone invite him to waste a few years in public accounting please, he’s getting pounded from every angle over here, poor bastard.
Let’s check the timeline – please compare to your busy season and see who has it worse if you’re still regretting your decision.
More on KL’s banner year, after the jump


Ken Lewis’ year started sucking in January after the Merrill bonus scandal erupted. This got NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo on his back, eventually leading to the Fedgate scandal in which Lewis claimed Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson “threatened” the Bank of America CEO or kept him on a short TARP leash or some such “OMG did he really just say that?” revelation. He’d already come off a pretty rough year previous but you already know that story.
Bernanke and Paulson didn’t take getting fronted off too kindly (we can only assume) and Lewis hasn’t really gotten a break since. The guy couldn’t even sell his Porsche without feeling the heat. Now a judge is blocking the $33 million settlement he’d love to make with the SEC and some Citigroup reject is being groomed as his replacement. Burn. Oh, and then there are the JP Morgan analysts saying Bank of America will service the loans that TBW cannot since, well, it was raided by Federal agents and barred from making loans by the FHA.
So how bad do you really have it? We told you it could be worse. Next time you’re out there ticking and tying wondering how in the hell you’re going to spend the rest of your life that way, just think about Bank of America and remember you could be Ken Lewis right about now.
What we’d really like to know is: will Lewis be able to limp along for the next 3 years and make it to retirement before totally flipping out?