When accounting goes unaccounted for
We have a landslide on our hands. Not only are most people we talk to disturbed by the suited swine, the winning caption was a clear choice.
With over 55% of the vote. Now, just for the sake of argument, anyone could wear the costumes to the recruiting events, people, not just partners. Embrace the truthiness.
Thanks for voting!
As is the wont of many fine publications, we’ll take a moment of your otherwise 100% chargeable day to dispense our outlook for 2010.
Many stories that were big in 2009 will be again and some stuff will just come out of nowhere. Here’s our stab at what we think you’ll be reading about in this corner of the blogosphere:
• Layoffs – Will forced ranking continue or will we go back to the heyday when only new associates that ran naked through the hotel lobby at national training get let go?
• The return of raises? – We’ve already got one guarantee courtesy of Bob Moritz but what about the rest of usual suspects?
• The PCAOB’s fate – The SCOTUS decision could put an end to the Monday morning QBing.
• IFRS vs. U.S. GAAP – Despite our sincerest wishes, the debate about who will use what and when it will happen and who will overlook everything is far from figured out.
• Fraud – It’s a part of our lives. Accept it.
• The latest on the CPA Exam – Thanks to our resident expert, you will pass in 2010. Or maybe you won’t.
• Taxes – Whether it’s the IRS’s latest demonstration of efficiency or the latest attempt by Charlie Rangel to disqualify himself from his job, we’ll be sure you know everything worth knowing.
And of course we’ll be covering the latest rumors floating around your favorite firms. Whether it’s inappropriate use of email, the latest asinine cost-saving initiatives, the banishment of music, Tim Flynn’s whereabouts we’ll cover it.
Keep us updated by sending us tips and suggestions to [email protected] and we’ll serve it up.
Crowe Horwath either has some shrewd auditors working there or they need to work on their people skills because First Place Financial Corp. just kicked their asses to the curb over irreconcilable differences.
The whole thing came down to the “material weakness” versus “significant deficiency” debate you auditors love so much.
More, after the jump
On September 1, 2009, Crowe notified the Company that it was its opinion that the Company had not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2009. This was in contrast to Management’s opinion that it had maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2009. After subsequent discussions, the disagreement remained. The essence of the disagreement concerns a single internal control weakness which resulted in an error in valuing loans held for sale as of June 30, 2009. Crowe determined that this internal control weakness was a material weakness while the Company determined that this internal control weakness was a significant deficiency.
The shitty control in question missed an error that overstated loans held for sale by $2.17 million and understated the net loss for fiscal 2009 by $1.41 million. Crowe said that this was cause for the material weakness and First said nonsense poopy-pants, it’s not material, so it’s a significant deficiency.
Well, it was obviously mule vs. mule because First Place’s audit committee ultimately decided that firing Crowe on Tuesday was the best course of action.
Maybe First Place are the assholes. WTFK, really? Whatever the problems, KPMG gets the pleasure now. If you’ve got any further information on this one, want discuss MW/SD (vomit) or just feel like speculating, discuss in the comments.
First Place Details Disagreement with Auditor [Business Journal Daily]
It’s tough being part of a bureaucracy, especially if you’re doing something as glamarous as babysitting auditors. The CIA, FBI, NSA have got it easy. You get to catch bad guys, use guns, and Hollywood makes movies about you. Aside from the warrantless wiretaps and otherwise general big brotherishness, it’s cool.
The PCAOB doesn’t get that luxury. They get to poke around auditors’ work and then tell them how much they suck at it. Not so fun for anybody. They also get to write auditing standards. Take the watchdog aspect, multiply it times infinity, and that’s about the amount fun we’re talking about for writing rules on auditing.
But now people are saying they’re too slow in writing these I-already-want-to-kill-myself boring rules? Yep:
“Given how little they’ve accomplished in the standards-setting area, they don’t get a passing grade,” says Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant for the SEC.
Turner says he and a group of investor advocates wrote to the PCAOB in 2004, asking it to improve fraud standards. But the work remains undone, he says.
Bill Gradison, the board member whose term expires in October, calls the criticism fair. “We’ve been much slower than other standards writers,” he says.
By comparison, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, which sets international auditing standards, among other duties, finished revising its own standards in March. The process, which included 37 standards, took about five years
Man, now comparisons to the Europeans. They’re looking for some new blood at the PCAOB though, since Mark Olson is retiring as Chairman and another board member’s term is expiring.
But don’t you go calling them lazy! “the PCAOB is taken seriously by the auditing community and deserves credit for trying. ‘Anyone who says it isn’t is off the wall,'”
What a ringing endorsement.
COMPLIANCE WATCH: Oversight Board Sets Sluggish Pace [WSJ]