ISA Consulting Takes Up with Ernst & Young

The firm that wouldn’t be named adds the Philadelphia-based company to the advisory business.

“The acquisition of ISA Consulting is part of a broader strategy to expand Ernst & Young’s already strong presence in the performance management and analytics market,” said Bob Patton, Americas Advisory Services Leader, Ernst & Young LLP. “ISA Consulting’s reputation for quality service and integrity, as well as the experience of their team, makes them a great cultural fit with Ernst & Young.” Just don’t get mixed up with those auditors. [PRN]

PwC India Affiliates Settle with SEC, PCAOB Over Satyam Audit Failures

The affiliates – Lovelock & Lewes, Price Waterhouse Bangalore, Price Waterhouse & Co. Bangalore, Price Waterhouse Calcutta, and Price Waterhouse & Co. Calcutta – must pay $6 million to the SEC, $1.5 million to the PCAOB and are barred from accepting U.S.-based clients for six months. The SEC fine is the largest ever levied against a foreign-based accounting firm in an SEC Enforcement Action and the PCAOB fine is the largest in the regulator’s history. PW India must also “establish training programs for its officers and employees on securities laws and accounting principles; institute new pre-opinion review controls; revise its audit policies and procedures; and appoint an independent monitor to ensure these measures are implemented.” The SEC’s press releasilures “were not limited to Satyam, but rather indicative of a much larger quality control failure throughout PW India.”

More from Bob Khuzami & Co.:

“PW India violated its most fundamental duty as a public watchdog by failing to comply with some of the most elementary auditing standards and procedures in conducting the Sataym audits. The result of this failure was very harmful to Satyam shareholders, employees and vendors,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

Cheryl Scarboro, Chief of the SEC’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit, added, “PW India failed to conduct even the most fundamental audit procedures. Audit firms worldwide must take seriously their critical gate-keeping duties whenever they perform audit engagements for SEC-registered issuers and their affiliates, and conduct proper audits that exercise professional skepticism and care.”

For the PCAOB, Chairman James Doty:

“The reliability of global capital markets depends on auditors fulfilling their obligation to investors to perform robust audits, resulting in well-founded audit reports. Two of the PW India firms, PW Bangalore and Lovelock, repeatedly violated PCAOB rules and standards in conducting the Satyam audits. These confirmation deficiencies contributed directly to the auditors’ failure to uncover the Satyam fraud.”

And Claudisu Modesti, the Director of Enforcement:

“Accounting firms that audit U.S. issuers, including affiliates of international accounting networks, provide an essential bulwark for investors against issuer clients that are committing fraud. PW Bangalore and Lovelock repeatedly failed to meet their obligation to comply with PCAOB standards, and these failures contributed to PW Bangalore and Lovelock failing to detect the fraud committed by Satyam management.”

You can see both the enforcement actions on the following pages. As for the firm, here’s a portion from PW India’s statement:

The SEC and PCAOB orders found that PW India’s audits of Satyam did not meet US professional standards and, as a result, did not discover the fraud underlying Satyam’s 2005-2008 financial statements. The orders make clear that Satyam management engaged in a years-long fraud, going so far as to create scores of fictitious documents for the purpose of misleading the auditors.

These settlements, in which PW India neither admits nor denies the U.S. regulators’ findings, apply only to the U.S. regulatory enquiries into Satyam. Neither of the orders found that PW India or any of its professionals engaged in any intentional wrongdoing or was otherwise involved in the fraud perpetrated by Satyam management. The settlements mark the end of the Satyam-related U.S. regulatory enquiries concerning PW India and are a positive step and important milestone in putting the Satyam issue behind PW India. PW India remains hopeful of resolving the outstanding enquiry with the Indian market regulator.

Sounds a little defensive, doesn’t it? Here’s what PwC International Ltd. had to say:

PricewaterhouseCoopers International fully supports PW India’s decision to resolve these issues with the US regulators and is hopeful that an agreed resolution will also be reached with the Indian market regulator. The PwC network will continue to work closely with PW India as it fulfils its commitments to its regulators, its clients, and to the Indian and global marketplaces.

PricewaterhouseCoopers International is committed to a PwC presence in the vibrant and fast growing Indian marketplace.

“India is a key market for PwC and we are committed to working with our colleagues in India to build on a successful practice with quality at the centre of everything it does,” said Dennis Nally, Chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers International. “The last two years have been challenging for PW India but I believe that PW India has learned the lessons of Satyam, made the right changes and is on a sound footing to move forward, dedicated to quality work.”

This may be a foreign firm but it makes us wonder if the SEC and PCAOB are just getting warmed up. Mr Doty and SEC Chief Accountant James Kroeker will be on the tomorrow’s panel that we will be live-blogging and it will be interesting to hear what they have to say.

SEC_PW India

PW_India

Did PwC Help the Fed Cook Its Books?

After every Federal Open Market Committee meeting, you can peek into the Fed’s brain in a highly succinct fashion when the statement and minutes are released shortly after it ends but five years must pass before the full transcript of the meetings is released to the public. If you’re playing along at home, that means the FOMC transcripts should be full of all sorts of intriguing info specifically pertaining to the market collapse of 2008 on or around 2013.

But we’re talking about the 1999 minutes today and that’s where Adrian Douglas at Market Force Analysis comes in. He decided to read through some of the now-available minutes (hey, we all need hobbies) and look at what we have here. Did PwC help the Fed brush out a material accounting boo-boo?


Maybe when you actually create the money and the financial accounting handbook to go with your audits you can get away with sort of thing but something about this just doesn’t sit right.

This is System Open Market Account Manager Peter Fisher speaking to the committee:

Last spring, as members of the Committee will recall, we entered into a series of transactions with the ESF to re-balance our euro and yen holdings so we could come to a better split both in terms of total holdings and the currency mix. This involved a number of transfers of ownership of a series of investments and resulted in quite a significant amount of accounting activity. In the course of reviewing that, our own accounting staff identified an error that had been introduced in the prior year in our treatment of the premium on bonds held in the accrual account, overstating the accrual account by about $5 million. In the course of confirming that, they identified an additional $26.6 million overstatement in the accrual account for interest on foreign currency investments. We have had a number of staff members working full time trying to trace the source of that $26.6 million overstatement. They have worked back through the records to December 1994, before which detailed records at the transaction level just no longer exist due to the routine and appropriate destruction of documents.

The Board examiners were at our Bank to conduct an examination of the System Open Market Account in September and PricewaterhouseCoopers also has looked over our methodology to try to trace this overstatement back through time and find its source. PricewaterhouseCoopers is confident that we have traced it back as far as we can. They have tested our work papers and agree with our conclusion that we simply can’t go back any further.

After a quick back and forth over whether or not this could be a diversion involving a few folks within the Fed working together to funnel out the money and shooting that theory down, they present the solution:

The Board’s staff and our accounting function at the New York Fed have worked out an accounting treatment to correct for both the $5 million and the $26.6 million errors. That involves reducing the accrued interest asset account by the entire $31.6 million, with an offsetting reduction in interest income on foreign currency investments. We will make that adjustment before the end of the year and spread it among all the Reserve Banks. Of course, for all of us with responsibilities for SOMA this is an embarrassing, indeed humbling, event. As a technical matter, though, I understand that PricewaterhouseCoopers is comfortable with the conclusion of both our accounting and audit function and the Board staff that this is not a material event for purposes of disclosure for any Reserve Bank.

That’s right, the Fed fudged the numbers to make things add up right and PwC gave it the all clear. Perhaps I’m a bit ignorant on how things work but “working out an accounting treatment” to scrub out over $30 million in errors is no easy feat, maybe friend of GC and former criminal Sam Antar can give us some hints on how to accomplish such a task?

Notice also that no one else gets the privilege of “the routine and appropriate destruction of documents,” leading us to ask the obvious question: how is it they get away with it?

What Do Libya and KPMG Have in Common?

That was the question posed to us by our tipster. The answer: more and more defections. The latest is James Draper, per an internal email sent to us this morning.

Welcome new Risk Assurance Principal James Draper

The ranks of Risk Assurance continue to grow with the addition of accomplished professionals. These catalyst and experienced hires are helping us to evolve our services, and impress the marketplace with the expertise in which we deliver them. James Draper is our newest edition, joining us as a principle [sic, Jimbo is now a PwC “pal”] in our San Francisco office.

Jamie’s focus will be on helping to grow our IT&PA/ERP Controls services, particularly in the areas of SAP and JD Edwards. He joins us from KPMG where he has logged over 15 years experience assisting clients with technology risks. Instrumental in helping clients implement controls and security, Jamie has effectively managed the risks associated with large system implementations. In fact, he has assisted a number of global companies across a variety of industries through complex implementations, among them: Chevron, eBay, Nestle, Rolls-Royce (Aerospace) and Dolby. Jamie will help us to help our clients become more efficient in their control processes, leveraging system functionality including SAP’s Governance Risk & Compliance (GRC) module.

[The part where they talk about his personal life]

Please join me in welcoming Jamie to our firm, and to Risk Assurance.

If history is any indicator we’ll see a press release from PwC at some point but in the meantime, reactions to the latest KPMG turncoat are welcome at this time.

More competitive poaching:
PwC Lands Another KPMG Partner; Steven Tseng Joining Transfer Pricing Practice
PwC Picks Up Thomas Henry from KPMG; Will Lead Global Incentives Practice

In Case You Forgot, the Big 4 Are Hiring a Small Army of People This Year

CNN/Fortune managed to dig up this corpse of a story: “Bean counters wanted: Why the Big 4 are in a hiring frenzy.”  This refers to the hiring bonanza that Deloitte announced last September that was followed by various announcements by the rest of the Big 4:

[T]here’s one unlikely place where the help wanted sign is up, big time: Accounting firms.

Deloitte plans to hire 17,000 professionals in the U.S. and India in 2011, according to Cathleen Benko, its chief talent officer. It’s seeking accountants, auditors, consultants, and IT staff. Hiring is split evenly between experienced and entry-level applicants.

Ernst & Young has stepped up recruiting. It’s looking to hire 7,000 employees from college campuses — 4,500 full-time and 2,500 interns — and 6,000 experienced staff, totaling 13,000 people in 2011, says Dan Black, its director of Americas Campus Recruiting. Experienced staffing is up 80% from last year and campus recruits are up 20%.

Both firms compete for talent against PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, and large consulting firms such as McKinsey and Bain. The hiring confirms a 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics report that predicted employment in accounting and auditing would spike 22%.

For starters I don’t know why accounting firms are an “unlikely” place for the “help wanted sign” but don’t forget that this is the same outlet that told us that the firms were making money hand over fist back in the Fall of ’09. Also, why CNN/Fortune is now reporting Deloitte’s India’s hiring numbers as part of this story is a little confusing. Plus, if “hiring is split” between experienced and new hires that is a change in the breakdown from what was reported last September. Again, maybe the India numbers change things up a bit and I lost my 10-key long ago.

And we’ll also mention that the E&Y numbers are slightly better than what they initially reported last September so make of all these stats what you will, the rainbow and unicorn PR machine is in full force and CNN is happy to scoop them up spit them out.

Bean counters wanted: Why the Big 4 are in a hiring frenzy [CNNMoney]

(UDPATE) KPMG-Bermuda’s PCAOB Inspection Gets a Little Unwanted Attention

Most of you are acutely aware that PCAOB inspection reports, while chock full of interesting tidbits, are a little anti-climactic since we never learn who the auditees are. Oh sure, we can speculate until our heart’s content but the PCAOB says they took a vow of silence after 43 struck his signature on Sarbanes-Oxley.

The secrecy is frustrating (read: bor-ing) so it was especially cool to see Jonathan Weil let the cat out of the bag on at least one Big 4 client:

Two weeks ago,Accounting Oversight Board released its triennial inspection report on the Hamilton, Bermuda-based affiliate of KPMG, the Big Four accounting firm. And it was an ugly one. In one of the audits performed by KPMG- Bermuda, the board said its inspection staff had identified an audit deficiency so significant that it appeared “the firm did not obtain sufficient competent evidential matter to support its opinion on the issuer’s financial statements.”

This being the hopelessly timid PCAOB, however, the report didn’t say whose audit KPMG-Bermuda had blown. That’s because the agency, as a matter of policy, refuses to name companies where its inspectors have found botched audits. It just goes to show that the PCAOB’s first priority isn’t “to protect the interests of investors,” as the board’s motto goes. Rather, it is to protect the dirty little secrets of the accounting firms and their corporate audit clients.

That’s why it gives me great pleasure to be able to break the following bit of news: The unnamed company cited in KPMG- Bermuda’s inspection report was Alterra Capital Holdings Ltd. (ALTE), a Hamilton-based insurance company with a $2.3 billion stock- market value, which used to be known as Max Capital Group Ltd.

Using his detective skills, Weil pieced together the number clients KPMG Bermuda had inspected, the timing of said inspections and the details of the audit deficiency (“the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the estimated fair value of certain available-for-sale securities”) to come up with Alterra. Of course no one – the PCAOB, KPMG Bermuda or Alterra – would comment/confirm for Weil’s column but you probably knew that was coming. Nevertheless, JW gets into the how bad of an audit this really was:

It’s when you look at Alterra’s financial statements that the magnitude of KPMG-Bermuda’s screw-up becomes apparent. Available-for-sale securities are the single biggest line item on Alterra’s balance sheet. They represented almost half of the company’s $7.3 billion of total assets as of Dec. 31, 2008, and a little more than half of its $9.9 billion of total assets at the end of last year.

This sort of screw-up, some might argue, falls somewhere in the range of “horrendously bad” and “really fucking bad” and Weil wonders if Alterra shareholders will have the stones to throw the bums out at the shareholders meeting on May 2. We can’t say where any of the shareholders stand on the usefulness (or lack thereof) of the audit report, so maybe this revelation is NBD to them. But if that is the case, it seems to make an even stronger case for the irrelevancy of auditors.

Weil’s larger point is that the PCAOB continues to hide behind their policies that are supposed to protect investors but in reality come off as talking points, not so unlike the firms they regulate. The PCAOB says they’re working on that but we’ll have to wait until summer to find out how crazy things get and whether it will be enough to shove auditors back into some respectability.

Dirty Little Secret Outed in Bermuda Blunder [Jonathan Weil/Bloomberg]

UPDATE:
Alterra cops to it with an 8-K that was filed about 90 minutes ago:

Alterra is aware of a recently issued report by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”) related to the PCAOB’s review of KPMG Bermuda’s 2008 audit files of a public company client located Bermuda, as well as an article posted on Bloomberg that indicates that the public company client is Alterra (formerly Max Capital Group Ltd.). Alterra confirms that it is the client referenced in the PCAOB’s report.

The PCAOB report findings question the sufficiency of procedures performed by KPMG Bermuda in its audit of Alterra’s estimated fair value of certain available-for-sale securities as promulgated by generally accepted audit standards (“GAAS”). The PCAOB report questioned whether the audit procedures used by KPMG Bermuda in 2008 to verify such values were sufficient. The PCAOB report does not question the appropriateness of the values that Alterra attributed to assets available-for-sale in 2008.

Alterra notes that the PCAOB made substantially similar findings in a number of inspections of 2008 and 2009 audits performed by the larger accounting firms and, since 2008, we understand the firms have issued additional guidance to clarify the work to be completed on the audit of fair value investments.

KPMG Bermuda has represented to Alterra and its Audit Committee that it believes it properly and appropriately followed GAAS as defined at the time of the audit. KPMG Bermuda confirmed in its response to the PCAOB report that “none of the matters identified by the PCAOB required the reissuance of any of our previously issued reports.” Alterra reaffirms its belief that the asset values ascribed to its available-for-sale securities in 2008 and subsequent periods remain appropriate.

KPMG Bermuda issued an unqualified opinion for Alterra’s year end financial statements for each of 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Deloitte Is Lending Michigan a Helping Hand

Did I say lending? Sorry, that’s not technically accurate. Deloitte Consulting is monitoring Michigan’s welfare computer systems and that involves billable hours. Lots of them. $15 million worth.

The state of Michigan is spending millions of dollars on a contractor to run its welfare computer system partly because it doesn’t offer enough money to attract new hires. A system called Bridges keeps track of welfare cases in the Department of Human Services. In February, Deloitte Consulting was given a one-year contract for about $15 million to maintain it and make regular updates.

Of course it would be cheaper if the Wolverine State did this themselves but there’s a small problem:

[The State’s technology department] lost 15 people to early retirement in December and had several vacancies starting at roughly $42,000 a year. Nobody applied.

Mich. spends millions on contractor [AP]

Should a Big 4 Audit Associate Ditch His Firm for a Client?

Welcome to the I’m-just-sick-about-the-Mad-Men-situation edition of Accounting Career Emergencies. In today’s edition, a Big 4 associate wants to apply for an analyst position at his client and wants to know if there will be backlash or independence issues that would accompany such a move. What’s in store for our turncoat? Let’s find out!

Have an interesting career dilemma? Need some ideas to cheer up the troops? Looking for some ways to offer some constructive criticism without resorting to veiled insults? Email us at advice@goingconcern.com and we’ll help you squash any temptation for name-calling.

Meanwhile back at traitor island:

Dear Going Concern,

I’m an Associate at a Big4 looking to do something more exciting. After checking out at my clients website, they seem to have a lot of entry-level analysts positions that interest me.

I was curious as to what your thoughts were about applying to one of your clients, and how my team might react if I get the job before busy season. Also, do I have to worry about independence issues if I’m only an Associate?

Thank you,
Extremely Bored Associate

Dear Extremely Bored Associate,

You think an entry-level analyst position sounds more exciting than Big 4? Your bar for thrills is awfully low, my friend. Never mind that you lack an inner Indiana Jones, I’m here to help you.

For starters, I’m not really sure what you mean by “just before busy season” since it’s March and busy season is all but over. However if you do ditch your team prior to busy season, some will sneer at your timing and then forget about you. And then there are the people that will hate you just on principle. You simply have to accept that as a cost of doing business. As far as independence is concerned, I don’t see any issues since you’re pretty low on pecking order but your firm may have a cooling off period or some other policy that forbids you from taking a position for a certain amount of time, so consider that your homework assignment.

Have said all that, I should tell you that it’s possible that your client may not be interested in offering you a job simply because you worked for the audit team. The argument being that maintaining a good relationship with their audit provider trumps any cog in the wheel so poaching you from their professional services firm is something they simply won’t do. Now are there exceptions? Probably. So the only the way to know is find out; run it up and see what happens. Good luck.

Brits Call Big 4 Auditors ‘Disconcertingly Complacent’ During Financial Crisis

Not exactly what you would call a compliment. And while they were at it, the House of Lords would like the Office of Fair Trading to investigate why the “Big 4” isn’t a “Global 6” or “Universal 8” or “Dirty Dozen” or something similar.

Of course auditors have claimed that did everything they were legally obligated to do and the HoL admits that’s kindasorta true but not really:

Its report said: “We do not accept the defence that bank auditors did all that was required of them. In the light of what we now know, that defence appears disconcertingly complacent.” It added: “It may be that the Big Four carried out their duties properly in the strictly legal sense, but we have to conclude that, in the wider sense, they did not do so.” Bank auditors and regulators had been guilty of a “dereliction of duty” by not sharing more information with each other on an informal basis before the crisis, the committee claimed. Auditors were either “culpably unaware of the mounting dangers” at banks or they were at fault for not sharing any concerns with supervisors, it added. Either way, auditor complacency had been a “significant contributory factor” in the banking meltdown, the committee said.

So in “the wider sense,” auditors best step up their game. Go forth.

Auditors criticised for role in financial crisis [FT]

The Doomsayers at Deloitte Have Come Up With a Crisis Management App

By crisis, we don’t mean 70 hour work-weeks and diversity training in the face of that A1 in your office who likes to wear short skirts and low-cut tops just to mess with you.

In the event of a catastrophic emergency like an earthquake, it’s good to know where your co-workers are if you’ve got to evacuate the building. Deloitte Australia has addressed the issue of safety and keeping tabs on the worker bees with Bamboo™, a Business Continuity Management (BCM) smart phone application (so far released for BlackBerry and iPhone only).

How does it work?


The BlackBerry application uses the device’s unique PIN (anyone addicted to BBM knows what that is) as well as voice, SMS and email to keep the team in communication in the event of an emergency. Emergency plans are readily available with Bamboo, eliminating the need to lug along a huge contingency binder stuffed with exit plans and instructions in a crisis situation.

Bamboo automatically logs all usage on each handset and when there is network access, sends these logs to the Bamboo server. The Bamboo Administrator is able to view all logs, from all users to understand its usage, retrace all steps taken and tailor training based on this usage. This data is also valuable in post-incident reviews and audits.

Don’t try to find it in the app store, Bamboo is an enterprise application and as such is deployed by the Company through enterprise application deployment, supported by the local Deloitte office.

Follow Deloitte’s Australian BCM team at @DeloitteBCM and stay tuned, they assure us they’re working to get the kids in America hooked up with their own BCM team.

Check it out in action below:

PwC Boy Band Demonstrates That Tax-related Lyrics Don’t Come Easy (VIDEO)

This video appears to be from last summer but since we’ve just been made aware of it, we’re brining it to you now. Why there are multiple videos playing off the Backstreet Boys’s “I Want It That Way” is quite baffling in of itself but this particular group decided it would be best to use their own non-studio produced singing voices AND to come up with lyrics that include “351,” “Like-Kind Exchange” and “STD.”


There are a lot of directions to go with this so feel free. Make haste however, I’m sure it won’t be up for long.

Reznick Group’s Upset of PwC in GCMMCAF Was a Team Effort

In collegiate tournament basketball, a #16 seed upsetting a #1 is virtually unheard of. The only time it has ever happened was the Harvard Womens squad upsetting Stanford in 1998. It has never happened in the mens tournament. But in the Going Concern March Madness: Coolest Accounting Firm bracket, superior athletes, coaching and luck do not matter. Like most things in accounting, it comes down to numbers.

Late yesterday, PwC’s lead over Reznick Group completely vanished. I speculated to my parter-in-crime that based on the sheer volume coming out of the Virginia/Maryland region that it had to be some sort of a concerted effort on the part of Reznick Group. Turns out I was right; more right than I could possibly know.


This email went out to all Reznick Group offices. Yes. All.

And here’s the victory lap/dancing on PwC’s grave:

We knew America would land with Reznick Group accountants being the coolest bean counters around. With the underground movement of getting clients, family and friends to help vote along with a huge push from our India employees motivating a billion voters, hard to stop the Reznick Group momentum.

Bring on the next contender!

So for the firms left – this is what you’re up against. I’m not suggesting that you should undertake similar efforts but that’s because I have to remain neutral in this regard.

It should be noted that based on the numbers accumulated by Vizu, it appears very few Reznick people bothered voting on any of the other match-ups. This isn’t exactly the kind of participation we had in mind but since most of RG is probably new to the site, we’ll let it slide. The question now is whether this amounts to a “Reznick win” or a “PwC loss.” Please discuss. We’ll updated you with the match-ups for the second round later today and the voting rolling tomorrow.