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.

Going Concern March Madness Upset Alert: 3 of the Big 4 Under Pressure

We’ve got lots of Cinderellas in our midst friends. With 12 hours of voting to go in the first-ever Going Concern March Madness: Coolest Accounting Firm (“GCMMCAF”) bracket, Ernst & Young, Deloitte and KPMG are all in danger of being upset by BKD, Rothstein Kass and Crowe Horwath respectively.


As you no doubt noticed, #1 seed PwC is cruising along in their match-up with Reznick Group but aside from that, how is it that we could have such a dancity accounting firm bracket dance? Glad you asked because the consummate GC commenter, Another exKPMGer, has a theory:

I would wager serious money the cause for this is that the people who work for the other 3 firms, for the most part, didn’t vote for their own firm because they know their jobs are bullshit and want to give no sign of submission to their firm. Whereas the folks from PwC couldn’t click on themselves fast enough to prove how awesome they are. I hear they’re installing mirrors in every cubicle with the words etched at the bottom “PwC is AWESOME” so that you can stare at yourself all day and think about the awesomeness that you’re a part of.

There doesn’t appear to be any empirical evidence to support the theory at this time but supporters and debunkers are welcome to comment at the validity of this statement. And of course if you haven’t voted, jump over to the original post and get on this.

Ernst & Young, Guy Who Plays Boy Wizard to be Recognized by Trevor Project

Having seen the rabid crowds outside FAO Schwarz to see this guy first hand, it’s hard telling what kind of internal battle there is at E&Y to rub elbows with Harry Potter (even if he’s likely to be sans spectacles).

Daniel Radcliffe will be honored by The Trevor Project with the Trevor Hero Award during “Trevor LIVE” at Capitale (130 Bowery, NY, NY). The annual show benefits the life-saving work of The Trevor Project and will also honor Ernst & Young LLP with the Trevor 2020 Award.

If you’re not familiar with the Trevor Project, they do great work, focusing on “suicide prevention efforts among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth.” Kudos to E&Y for the recognition.

Did KPMG Really Warn HSBC About Madoff Fraud Risks?

A report in Bloomberg apparently thinks so.

From the ‘Berg:

HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA), Europe’s biggest lender, was warned twice by auditors that entrusting as much as $8 billion in client funds to Bernard Madoff opened it up to “fraud and operational risks.”

KPMG LLP told the London-based bank about the risks in 2006 and 2008 reports. The firm was hired to review how Madoff invested and accounted for the funds, for which HSBC served as custodian. KPMG reported 25 such risks in 2006, and in 2008 found 28, according to copies of the reports obtained by Bloomberg News.

Okay l there for two before everyone gets too excited. Let’s just get one thing straight right off the bat – KPMG probably leaked these reports to Bloomberg (I only say probably because I don’t know for an absolute fact but – COME ON – who else?). Secondly, even though the report says “warned twice by auditors” this was not an audit performed by KPMG; it was “[a] review how Madoff invested and accounted for the funds.” What exactly that entails isn’t clear; possibly agreed-upon procedures? Anyway, here’s what the story says were in the two reports:

In the list of risks in KPMG’s report, number 2 was that “BLM embezzles client funds,” using the initials as shorthand for Bernard L. Madoff. To prevent it, KPMG recommended in both 2006 and 2008 that HSBC “establish a process to monitor monthly statements” and reconcile them with contributions from clients.

[…]

The 2006 report listed fraud risk number 5 as “client cash is diverted for personal gain” and risk number 18 as “trade is a sham in order to divert client cash.” It went on to say there were concerns “Madoff LLC falsely reports buy/sell trades without actually executing in order to earn commissions” and “BLM falsifies accounting records which are provided to HSBC.”

KPMG reviewed samples of trades and account statements for both its 2006 and 2008 reports to test the risks and detected no discrepancies, the reports said. Even so, the firm suggested HSBC “consider undertaking a periodic review which includes tracing a sample of client trades back to the bulk order.”

After reading that you might think that KPMG hit a home run but what if the “risk factors” listed are just standard boilerplate risks that are included in every single one of these reports? If that’s the case, then KPMG was slapping in the applicable information as it related to BLM, handed it over and collected a nice fee. Maybe KPMG was all over this but there’s no way to know because A) Bloomberg didn’t republish the reports in full; B) Other KPMG teams close to Madoff are getting their asses sued which means they either ignored the risks or couldn’t get a hold of these two reports and C) HSBC throws KPMG under the bus, essentially saying that they were duped by Berns:

HSBC confirmed hiring KPMG in 2005 and 2008 to review Madoff’s firm, adding it now believed Madoff had tricked the auditors. “It appears from U.S. government filings that Madoff and his employees foiled these reviews by, among other things, providing forged documentation to KPMG,” the bank said in an e- mailed statement.

“KPMG did not conclude in either of its reports that a fraud was being committed by Madoff,” HSBC said. “HSBC did not know that a fraud was being committed and lost $1 billion of its own assets as a victim.”

So did KPMG warn HSBC or not? This Bloomberg story seems to think so but there are is a lot of evidence that KPMG was just as clueless as as everyone else who didn’t walk – or run away screaming, arms flailing – away from Madoff.

HSBC Was Told About Madoff ‘Fraud Risks’ in Two KPMG Reports [Bloomberg]