When accounting goes unaccounted for
If it happens at a Big 4 accounting firm, we’re talking about it here.
“If there are Republicans who break with Grover Norquist’s position, I think that’s an important thing,” said Clint Stretch, managing principal of tax policy at Deloitte Tax LLP in Washington.
“I think it signals a willingness on their part to have the fight with him over whether every tax expenditure is a legitimate reduction in effective tax rate, or whether there are some that should be regarded the way they regard spending programs.” [Bloomberg, Earlier, Earlier]
Last week, we told you about Jonathan Weil’s latest scoop exposing a PCAOB issuer in an inspection report. The issuer in question was Motorola and it, once again, featured KPMG as the auditor on the receiving end of the Board’s criticism. It was also noted that PCAOB Chair Jim Doty mentioned this particular case (without naming names) in his speech at USC the previous week when he described “one large firm t am was aware that a significant contract was not signed until the early hours of the fourth quarter. Nevertheless, the audit partner allowed the company to book the transaction in the third quarter, which allowed the company to meet its earnings target.”
J Dubs put this all together in a nice little package, citing court documents from a class-action lawsuit in Chicago. What isn’t mentioned in Weil’s column but is spelled out in other court documents that we’ve reviewed is that KPMG and the Center of Audit Quality fought the release of the documents related to the PCAOB’s inspection report because they’re afraid that more lawsuits could result if issuers’ identities are made public.
The CAQ submitted an amicus curiae brief (in full on the next page) stating:
The supervisory model of regulation created by Sarbanes-Oxley and implemented by the PCAOB has thus far worked well and has improved the quality and reliability of audits of public companies. It has worked to the satisfaction of both the Board and the regulated community.
Since the PCAOB’s own Investor Advisory Group issued a report entitled “The Watchdog that Didn’t Bark … Again,” one might say that the Center’s final point is debatable.
Yet, the CAQ argued that if the PCAOB inspection documents were released, “the [Sarbanes-Oxley] Act’s carefully supervisory model will be adversely affected.” That is, the confidentiality afforded to the communication between auditors and the PCAOB would be compromised and would allow Board information into the ‘hands of litigating lawyers.’ The CAQ declined to comment for this post, saying that they did not “have anything to add to the amicus brief.”
In her ruling denying KPMG’s motion (in full, on page 3) to squash the subpoena of the PCAOB documents, Judge Amy St. Eve cited KPMG’s argument that sounds very similar to the CAQ’s:
KPMG argues that “if litigants can compel production of materials related to the PCAOB’s confidential inspection process notwithstanding section 105(b)(5)(A), open and constructive engagement between the PCAOB and accounting firms could be chilled by the threat of increased civil litigation, and the statutory framework carefully crafted by Congress to improve the quality of public company audits could be frustrated.”
So basically auditors are afraid that if their super-special-secret discussions with the PCAOB are out there for all the world to see, they’ll get sued more often. But hasn’t suing audit firms already reached critical mass? Can they really fear more litigation? The only thing that keeps audit firms from being on the same level of litigation risk as tobacco companies is that they aren’t killing people.
Weil and those that agree with him argue that the PCAOB owes it to investors to name names in their inspection reports. To continue keeping issuers confidential protects them from legitimate criticism for shoddy accounting and perpetuating equally shoddy audits. Of course, if you’re an investor and that doesn’t bother you, then maybe you’re okay with auditors trying to stop the release of more information related to their work. Work that cost the investors in Motorola $244 million from 2000 to 2010.
That’s because it’s Deloitte IMPACT Day which means no one is actually “billing” but instead providing services and time pro bono at 800 events across the country.
Three-quarters of the firm’s people are participating in various events including some in Boston working on fund Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the Memphis Botanic Garden. Surely some people just called in sick and started drinking at noon but let’s not focus on that. If you’ve got pics or other stories to share from your event, get in touch. [Deloitte]
Some clients treat their auditors like dirt. Given. To these haters, the financial statement audit is an onerous task that is mandated by the SEC and it amounts to an assault on liberty, capitalism and Ayn Rand’s genius. Accordingly, some clients try to push auditors around because typically they can. Today we bring you a rare example of a pushy-ass client going too far and an auditor standing up for themselves.
Ernst & Young resigned at the auditor of Life Partners Holdings Inc. in a letter dated June 6, 2011 after the CEO, Brian Pardo, WROTE IN A MEMO that he would “take action” against the firm if they did not sign off on the financial statemen t committee got wind of this little soapbox moment and promptly told E&Y about it.
From the 8-K Filing:
On June 6, 2011, Life Partners Holdings, Inc. (“we” or “Life Partners”) received a letter from Ernst & Young LLP (“Ernst & Young”) addressed to the Chairman of our Audit Committee (the “Resignation Letter”) confirming that it had resigned effective June 3, 2011, as our independent registered public accounting firm, as had been orally communicated to the Chairman of the Audit Committee on June 3, 2011. The resignation means that Ernst & Young will not certify our financial statements for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2011 (“Fiscal 2011”), which is necessary for completing and filing our Annual Report on Form 10-K for Fiscal 2011 (the “2011 Annual Report”).
The resignation follows a letter from Mr. Brian Pardo, our Chairman and CEO, to our licensee network (persons who refer purchasers to us) commenting upon the delayed filing of our 2011 Annual Report. The letter stated that it was Mr. Pardo’s position that we would “take action” against Ernst & Young if it did not promptly complete its audit and sign off on our financial statements without adjustment. Our Audit Committee wrote to Ernst & Young disclaiming the letter’s statements and asserting that the letter did not speak for the Audit Committee. Notwithstanding the Audit Committee’s disclaimer, Ernst & Young stated that the letter compromised its independence, and when considered with other recent developments, that it was no longer able to rely upon management’s representations, and that it was unwilling to be associated with the financial statements prepared by management.
Just for good measure, E&Y also stated that the company’s revenue recognition policy sucks, needs revised and they pulled their unqualified opinion over the 2010 financial statements. How’s that for “action”?
UPDATE:
As noted by the first comment below, the second comment on a post over at Deal Journal has what appears to be the memo in question from Brian Pardo.
Message From Brian Pardo
Yesterday we filed for an extension of the time to file our annual10K which should have been filed by May 15th because the Auditors have not yet completed their part. Quite frankly I am confident that the SEC is interfering with us by trying to unnerve the Auditors (by asking frivolous questions) which has added to the delay in getting out the 10K which is done and ready to release. They are trying to force us to “restate” our revenue recognition criteria; one that has been in use for ten years now.
Restating for any period, for any reason is viewed by the market as an implicit admission that prior quarters were probably misstated, which they were not. We do expect to file shortly, but the WSJ called last night to print another negative article.
There is no reason to restate because any proposed adjustment is immaterial under GAAP guidelines. E&Y signed off on our revenue recognition criteria policy last year and every other audit firm has as well since we went public in 2000. However some of your clients will probably read about it in the WSJ or in some other supposedly legitimate news media. And, the shorts will no doubt make a big deal about it.
My position is we either ratify the 10k as is very soon or we will take action against E&Y as well as with the SEC in Washington. It is time to put an end to this nonsense! I believe E&Y is trying to mitigate problems they may have with the SEC at our expense. For instance, we were never told by E&Y that they audited at least one large organization in the Madoff matter.
We are well within GAAP boundaries regarding every of aspect of our financial statements including all materials created, used or reviewed in relation to our published financial statements. We have ten years of doing this the exact same way and every Auditor from every firm for the entire time has signed off on every single 10k over those last 10 years.
Brian D. Pardo
PS You are authorized to share my statement with concerned clients and Licensees, but, not the press although the matter is in the public domain now.
Back in March, Bloomberg’s Jonathan Weil called attention to a PCAOB report that was pretty harsh on KPMG-Bermuda’s audit of Alterra Capital Holdings. At the time he wrote the column, KPMG, the PCAOB and Alterra weren’t talking but then Alterra filed a 8-K admitting that they were the filer in question.
Today Weil lets the cat out of the bag again and yes it’s another KPMG client, Motorola: lockquote>Four years ago, inspectors for the auditing industry’s chief watchdog discovered that KPMG LLP had let Motorola Inc. record revenue during the third quarter of 2006 from a transaction with Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), even though the final contract wasn’t signed until the early hours of the fourth quarter. That’s no small technicality. Without the deal, Motorola would have missed its third-quarter earnings target.
The regulator, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, later criticized KPMG for letting Motorola book the revenue when it did. Although KPMG had discussed the transaction’s timing with both Motorola and Qualcomm, the board said the firm “failed to obtain persuasive evidence of an arrangement for revenue-recognition purposes in the third quarter.” In other words, KPMG had no good reason to believe the deal shouldn’t have been recorded in the fourth quarter.
This may sound familiar to some of you that read PCAOB Chairman James Doty’s speech from last week when he said this:
PCAOB inspectors found at one large firm that an engagement team was aware that a significant contract was not signed until the early hours of the fourth quarter. Nevertheless, the audit partner allowed the company to book the transaction in the third quarter, which allowed the company to meet its earnings target. Although the firm discussed the timing of the transaction with the customer, it failed to obtain persuasive evidence of an arrangement for revenue recognition purposes in the third quarter. The company had been an audit client of the firm for close to 50 years.
Weil writes, “KPMG has been Motorola’s auditor since 1959; it had been Motorola’s auditor for 47 years at the time of the Qualcomm deal.” So, yeah. How did he piece this one together? Elementary, my dear auditors:
Motorola’s identity was disclosed in public records last month as part of a class-action shareholder lawsuit against the company in a federal district court in Chicago. The plaintiffs in the case, led by the Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System in Michigan, filed a transcript of a September 2010 deposition of a KPMG auditor, David Pratt, who testified that Issuer C was Motorola. KPMG isn’t a defendant in the lawsuit.
Pratt also identified the Motorola customers cited in the board’s inspection report. It’s his deposition that allows me to describe the report’s findings using real names.
The oversight board said a significant portion of the company’s earnings for the 2006 third quarter came from two licensing agreements that were recorded during the last three days of the quarter. One was the Qualcomm deal that wasn’t signed until the fourth quarter. The board also cited other deficiencies in KPMG’s review of Motorola’s accounting for the transactions.
As is their wont, KPMG isn’t talking. Motorola isn’t talking (but maybe there’s another 8-K in our future?). The PCAOB, bound by the law -which, some say, is debatable – isn’t talking. My guess is that Jon Weil will continue to talk…er…write columns shining the lights on shoddy audits until the Board breaks its silence.
Dirty Secrets Fester in 50-Year Relationships [Jonathan Weil/Bloomberg]
Ed. note: Have a question for the career advice brain trust? Email us at advice@goingconcern.com.
Going Concern received not one but two emails from a contributor in recent weeks. Aptly named Enginerd, P.E., this fine gentleman had hopes of joying a Big 4 firm with Enginerd’s background is as follows:
I come from a technical background, 8-10yrs of consulting in engineering and regulatory roles, and am being courted by a B4 to join up with a technically minded advisory/consulting group. You may not know, but engineers are a forgotten bunch earning far less than many of our other professionally degreed brothers. I’m anticipating a very healthy offer, but I don’t have much to base it on; Bologna is better than SPAM, but that isn’t saying much.
For the doubters out there – yes, the Big 4 occasionally hires engineering experts in niche markets when expanding their advisory practices. These experts may work with Transaction Services teams in markets heavy with M&A activity (think technology, energy, environment, etc.). Even at that, they don’t hire C.A.D. experts but rather individuals with previous consulting experience, like Enginerd.
Admittedly, Enginerd’s original email sat unanswered in the advice box [Ed. note: you should see the backlog!]. He recently followed up with positive news:
No response from y’all, but I did get a response from B4. They made me an offer I couldn’t refuse.
So the last questions still hold, Any thoughts on breaking into B4 consulting (done), not getting lost when you get there, and behaviors which will help make my stay a long and profitable one? I’m listed at about 85% billable, which isn’t bad, but is still a lot of hours. Short of rereading How to Win Friends and Influence Others, what is my Modus operandi?
Thanks,
Enginerd, P.E.
Dear Enginerd,
Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of direct advice for you as I do not work regularly with employees in your position. That said, I suggest continuing to do what made you successful up to this point:
1. Network every day of your early career. Meet with the group leaders not only in your office, but in other offices as well (as it applies). Have a regional/national meeting coming up? Make plans to connect with your peers in other offices. Connecting faces with email addresses is extremely important as your responsibilities inevitably expand.
2. Find a mentor. Chances are you are not the only person in your group/office that has a background similar to your own. Feel the group out over the first few months, evaluating who you feel stands above the rest. Find someone with a background similar to yours (and senior to you in ranking) that has a strong future with the firm, and build a professional relationship with them. You shouldn’t hesitate in asking him/her to be a mentor for you. Generally speaking, people are flattered by such a request and can become excellent resources for you down the road.
3. Read advice from the Going Concern peanut gallery. I’m sure there are people with similar backgrounds to yours that are regular readers here on the site. With that said, I open it up to the group – what advice do you have for Enginerd as he joins the Big 4 consulting circus?
Our tipster had this to say, “No wonder they are getting rid of PSW [Ed. note: he/she is referring to this], there are more partners than junior staff! Where the hell is the leverage model? This is beyond completely ridiculous.”
Posted on the Green Dot’s internal interwebs:
Did you know?
The Los Angeles office represents 55% of the PSW region in terms of headcount:
Los Angeles Headcount Partners, Principals, and Directors 195 Sr. Managers and Managers 407 Senior/Senior Consultants 304 Staff Consultants 188 Junior Staff/Analysts 141 Client Service, Admin, and Other Support 271 TOTAL 1506
Technically, the combination of “Staff Consultants” and “Junior Staff” exceeds the PPD number although that but that puts the ratio of 1.69 staff for every PPD. I’m no expert but that could be considered low. It’s safe to say there are a few big engagements in L.A. that demand more than 1.69 staff people which probably leaves the small jobs shorthanded. Anyone in Deloitte L.A. (or anywhere else for that matter) feeling the pain because of this? Let us know in the comments.
As
you know, the Big 4 are pretty competitive when it comes to landing the best talent. The brightest brains. The biggest, swingingest…well you know. Anyhoo, PwC has been on tear this year, luring an accounting firm equivalent of a platoon from KPMG. They’ve also managed to pick off people from Duff and Phelps and the SEC.
But now the tables have turned unexpectedly on P. Dubs. They certainly had to be wary of the likes of Deloitte, E&Y and yes, even KPMG trying to woo their partners seeking greener pastures but it’s highly unlikely they saw this coming:
WTP Advisors, an award-winning, global tax and advisory firm, announced today that it has opened a new office location in Long Beach, CA. The new site will be headed by tax expert, Jon Worden, who most recently managed PwC’s West Region International Tax Services Quantitative Solutions Team. “Jon is a terrific choice to lead WTP Advisors’ West Coast tax practice. Like all WTP directors, he has Big Four experience, combined with a drive to forge deep and lasting client relationships. His personality, talent, and ambition will represent us well with large multinational companies in this region,” says Mike Minihan, Partner and co-founder of WTP Advisors. In his new role, Worden will be responsible for serving the L.A., Orange County and Northern California markets, as well as cultivating relationships with organizations up and down the West Coast.
Or maybe they did. WTP Advisors was founded by “four PwC veterans” back in 2005 according to this Fortune blurb on the firm’s website. It also boasts that it “has retained 100% of its clients” since the founding of the firm. The clip above is also from said blurb which depicts some sort of Rumble in the Professional Services Jungle between WTP and PwC. Perhaps WTP is gunning for P. Dubs because there is some bad blood there, we don’t know (but would love to hear about it). And with only 75 employees and $12 million in revenues, they barely register on Bob Moritz’s radar but it’s clear that they can poach P. Dubs talent and they are already better at using PR to make it known than some other firms.
A hospital in Winnipeg is suing Deloitte after an ATM scam went undiscovered for over ten years. Luckily some vigilant RN, janitor or cafeteria worker (it’s not clear from the article) noticed something amiss and alerted the proper authorities.
Police arrested a long-time hospital employee last year after she allegedly skimmed $1.5 million from automated teller machine (ATM) deposits between 2000 and 2010.
According to a lawsuit filed last week, the fraud was uncovered by hospital staff, not the auditor. The lawsuit accuses Deloitte & Touche of preparing financial statements not in accordance with “generally accepted accounting principles” and “materially misleading” the hospital about its financial position.
“MHC says that D & T owed it a duty in contract and owed it a duty of care not to act negligently or make negligent misrepresentations to MHC and to ensure that cash and liquid assets as reported in the financial statements were not materially misstated.”
According to the lawsuit, a former finance clerk deposited Worker’s Compensation Board cheques into the hospital operated ATM, understated the amount and pocketed the difference.
All this trouble and no one was even taken hostage. Not good, Green Dot.
Misericordia Health Centre files suit against auditor [Winnipeg Sun]
For those of you that have been anxiously awaiting the details on KPMG’s “Next Level” like the Royal nuptials, we have the details straight from John Veihmeyer and Henry Keizer (via a couple of tipsters). Before we get to the message from The Gipper and Hank, you should be warned that if your excitement was piqued by the “Next Level” movie-trailer video, you might – MIGHT! – not be that enthused with the actual “Next Level.”
With that said, let’s turn it over to the boys:
Welcome to the Next Level: Our High-Performance Culture
A Message from John Veihmeyer and Henry KeizerIt’s no secret that we operate in an increasingly c ve environment, one in which our clients—both internal and external—are demanding more from us every day. More than ever, they need the skills and services we can bring, as long as we continue to raise the bar on our own performance and add more value and insight than ever before. To meet these demands and take full advantage of the opportunities ahead of us, we must be committed to fostering a High-Performance Culture, one in which we have the best people, with the skills and determination to deliver above and beyond.
If you managed to make it through that paragraph, you’re probably queasy already. The bad news is, it gets worse.
By now you’ve likely heard about our focus on high-performance culture. But chances are you still have some questions about exactly what it is, as well as what it means for you and for the firm as a whole. That’s why we’ve created The Next Level, a Web-based orientation for all partners and employees.
This mandatory 1 CPE credit self-study program will help you to:
• Articulate the key elements of our High-Performance Culture (HPC) initiative, including why it is critical to our firm’s success and your individual success
• Describe what the firm is doing to drive HPC, as well as what’s expected of you
• Identify and model the key attributes of high performers to elevate your own performance
• Effectively use our streamlined performance development process
• Give and receive feedback more effectively
• Most important, you’ll learn how high-performance culture will help you to share in our collective firm success, build skills for tomorrow, and have pride in being part of something extraordinary.
• The deadline for completion of The Next Level is July 7. (Note: All partners and employees are required to participate in this self-study program.)Thanks in advance for your participation! And keep in mind that this is only the jumping-off point… you’ll be hearing a lot more about our HPC efforts in the weeks and months ahead.
Okay Klynveldians, I don’t know about you all but I’m still not sure if I understand what the “Next Level” is. What is clear is there is nothing in this email about loyalty bonuses, allegations of gender discrimination or the opportunity to wear jeans (given that you’ve got a five-dollar bill in your pocket).
BUT! There is something about a “high-performance culture,” which gets its own acronym so that might be the “Next Level.” Then there’s stuff about a web-based orienation, feedback, streamlined something or other and MANDATORY PARTICIPATION FOR EVERYONE (this means you, 30+ years partner who can barely turn on your laptop). Granted, I’ve been out of the HoK for quite some time so maybe I’m misinterpreting John and Hank’s prose but this “Next Level” seems like the same “level” only with a few more hoops to jump through and definitely more emails from J&H that may or may not explain how this will “foster a high performance culture.”
If you’re more hip to this, please enlighten everyone. But if you’re confused, annoyed or mortified with disappointment you can share those feelings too.
We’re still waiting to hear what the Next Level is but this should tide you over in the meantime.
I’m a second-year audit senior associate at KPMG in the New York Office. This past Wednesday there was a round-table discussion with about a dozen seniors to discuss compensation. I’ve been looking on Going Concern to see what has turned up, and since I’ve yet to see anything i figured I would send along what was discussed…
The meeting was run be a couple of our heads of compensation, and they were certain to tell us that in no way has this been approved by leadership, but as long as feedback from the round-table sessions is positive, they think it has a good chance of happening. They asked us about how the above and beyond award [Ed. note: aka utilization bonuses] was received, to which everyone responded negatively, and they unveiled their plan for future bonus compensation to reward loyalty for the firm. They said that this plan would be in addition to any raises and variable comp that the firm already has, so this would act as a reward for loyalty to the firm. I will highlight the details below.
-This plan is applicable for senior associates
– In December everyone makes an election that they classified as immediate, one-year, and two-year. The immediate pays $1,000, the 1-year pays $4,000, and the 2-year pays $8,000. This election would be made each December by senior associates. One example they gave of a first-year senior associate entering this bonus program was as follows:December 2011: two-year election – pays $8,000 in May 2014
December 2012: two-year election – pays $8,000 in May 2015
December 2013: one-year election – pays $4,000 in May 2016They were selling us on the fact that you would be paid out $20,000 in the span of twelve months, which of course sounds pretty great. One thing to keep in mind is that the terminology “immediate”, “one-year”, and “two-year” isn’t completely accurate. In reality it is more like one, two, or three busy seasons. Some of the particulars are that once you make an election you’re stuck with it, so if you take the immediate payout and happen to stay another few years, you are less loyal than someone who knew ahead of time. Also, if you leave the firm before you reach your payment date you obviously get nothing.
The plan was generally well received in the meeting, but didn’t get good reviews at all when I told some of my co-workers about it. I am curious to see how others feel about it. We all seemed to agree that it didn’t seem worth it to take the $1,000 payout because after taxes you’d barely notice it, and that it would take real guts to take the $8,000 payout, because as a first-year senior associate the length of your deferral is longer than your employment at the firm to date, so you never really know if you’ll still be there to collect.
Say what you will about the KPMG, they are trying to get creative with the bonus structure. Whether or not it takes with Klynveldians is another matter entirely but you can get started by commenting with your reactions below.
I agree with our tipster who wrote, “I’m just sitting here in disbelief that it’s such a big deal (in Denver of all places) that it merited an officewide email.”
From: [Denver OMP]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:03 PM
To: US-DEN KPMG Office Everyone List
Subject: TodayIt appears as though many of you thought that today was a regularly scheduled jeans day for the Denver office. This was not a scheduled jeans day; however let’s turn this into a positive. If you are wearing jeans today, please [see the] receptionist, and pay your $5. All monies will be donated to the Red Cross to benefit the tornado victims in the south. Thanks everyone for your generosity to those in need.
A source in HoK Denver told me that he saw “several partners wearing jeans” so it’s entirely possible there’s a Rocky Mountain mutiny in the works but I’ll try not to jump to any conclusions.