Category: Big 4

If it happens at a Big 4 accounting firm, we’re talking about it here.

Latest Epic Video Out of Ernst & Young Includes Lots of Bleeps, Faux-Coffee Diss, Best Lyric Ever

It’s been increasingly obvious that Ernst & Young has the most talented video producers amongst the rank ‘n’ file Big 4 professionals. Last year we saw a video from the Las Vegas office (it was pulled) that was not the most impressive in terms of the talent presented but a Elvis impersonator made up for the rest of the group.

More recently from the Black and Yellow we’ve seen a farewell rock video and a mockumentary from across the pond (also pulled) that both demonstrate the sort of right-brained capabilities that exist within E&Y. Today, we bring you the latest in epic E&Y videos that brings voice to the frustration of being stuck in a JIT (“just-in-time”) cubicle.


So there’s a lot to digest here but I’ve got my favorite moments picked out:

1. I’m not sure who wears vests to the office these days but it’s fashion-forward and I like it.

2. Cursing right off the bat (and not letting up) score bigs points with Adrienne.

3. A Flavia diss is always apropriate.

4. Best lyric ever: I’M THE KING OF EY; ON A JET LIKE TURLEY; YOU’RE IN PUBLIC ACCOUNTING, NO YOU AIN’T LEAVIN’ EARLY

5. Kicking the roller was mean (but hilarious).

6. They should have known they were doomed when they wrote the lyric about a partner “seeing me now.”

7. Chuck Norris? Obama? Paddycake? Things really took a strange turn at the end.

The word from the tubes is that it’s been making the rounds inside and outside E&Y so we’re not exactly sure when this was made but our tipster was a little miffed about the possibility of these guys not having anything to do:

Here’s another video produced by auditors in the midst of busy season who somehow find time for this shit. This one comes courtesy of EY San Jose. Apparently it’s been making it’s rounds inside (and outside) of EY all day. HR must be thrilled at this use of company time (and property, from what it appears).

Apparently it never occurred to our tipster that this was a firm-sanctioned production since the Vegas vid went over so well. There’s only one way to find out so I left voicemails for both of these guys to try and get the behind-the-JIT story. So far I haven’t heard back from either of them but it’s still a little early out in San Jose. But whenever you can guys, email us.

Your thoughts on this latest bit of video ingenuity are welcome at this time.

Former Deloitte Partner Jeff Farber Lands Deputy CFO Gig at AIG

Not only is Mr Farber a Deloitte audit alum, he also had stints as the controller at Bear Stearns and CFO at Gamco Investors. Today came the announcement that he is still winning, now as the new sidekick to David Herzog.

In this new position, Mr. Farber will provide global leadership and coordination for AIG’s Controllership and Accounting Policy functions, as well as the AIG Global Tax Department. He reports to David L. Herzog, AIG Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

It’s worth noting that as the a leader and coordinator for global tax department, Farber alone will encompass more oversight than all of Weatherford International.

ANYWAY, back to the boilerplate:

“Jeff Farber is well prepared to help take these key AIG finance functions to an even higher level,” said Mr. Herzog. “Over the past several years the finance team has worked diligently through an extraordinarily complex restructuring, and this new role provides Jeff with an opportunity to lead a great team and work closely with the finance transformation team as we roll out our new financial platform.”

Sounds like a hoot. Best of luck to Mr Farber.

Low Voter (aka Partner) Turnout Expected for Deloitte Leadership Election

Last week we shared the Deloitte U.S. Leadership candidates with you but at the time we hadn’t confirmed that the thumbsup/thumbsdown had begun. This week, a source confirmed for us that voting had, in fact, started last week but no one should get too anxious about hearing the results:

The vote continues at least until the Firm achieves a 50% voting rate from all the partners. This is typically a struggle, and many voice messages and e-mails are sent rounding up at least the 50%. This is part of the problem (and a bit pathetic). Nobody believes their voices are heard, so they don’t care to vote. Or, if they vote NO, they fear retribution.


As we reported in January, the retribution of a “No” vote is something that many young partners may fear and you can presuppose that many veteran partners who are a little preoccupied with a little something called “busy season clients” aren’t exactly concerned with casting a vote in an election that is all but decided already. All this adds up to a pretty sad voter turnout, sayeth our source:

Ok – so then, among that paltry 50% voting rate, there needs to be a 2/3 approval for each candidate in order for them to win election. So – if you do the math…we have about 2800 partners. Only 1400 need to vote for a quorum, and only about 940 need to approve each candidate for them to get into office. So perhaps only about 33% of the partners end up approving of the people that run the firm.

Unfortunately – nobody focuses upon this fact. Unbelievable. And now we have a non-CPA being put up for the Chairman’s spot of an accounting firm. It’s insanity, really.

Oh, right; the non-CPA chairman controversy. For those of you that are unfamiliar, Punit Renjen is the CEO of Deloitte Consulting. Mr Renjen has been on the job for just over a year and by all accounts has done an acceptable job and it doesn’t surprise us that he’s up for this position. The fact that he, in all likelihood, will become the next chairman of a Big 4 firm, bothers a lot of CPAs. Despite the bellyaching of those on the audit/tax side of the house, what’s not up for debate is that Deloitte Consulting is the second largest practice, according to the this year’s revenue data. But what’s even more important, consulting is the fastest growing segment, with double digit growth in FY 2010. So if Mr Renjen’s ascension to the chairman position bothers some in a CPA puritanical sense, we can appreciate that. But from a numbers standpoint, it’s probably overdue and is definitely not surprising.

Mike Mayo Is of the Opinion That Citigroup ‘May Have Violated Sarbanes-Oxley’

Last week we heard from a number of people on the topic of Citigroup’s internal controls that while it didn’t sound like they were quite up to snuff, KPMG was somehow cool with it and Vikram Pandit signed his name to it, saying that everything was hunky dory.

Now along with bloggers and journalists, the scourge of Citigroup, CLSA analyst Mike Mayo, has decided to get into the act:

Citigroup may have violated Sarbanes-Oxley with its 2007 10-K submission, in our opinion. The new information relates to letters from regulators that were only revealed earlier this year as part of the FCIC archive. We believe these letters between Citi and the Fed, Citi and the OCC, and the OCC with internal staff, imply that Citi should have known about internal control shortfalls for the year 2007 and was directly told about them by the OCC only eight days before the 10-K was signed. Also, Citi reported large unexpected losses with less than two months left in the year. Thus, the lingering question in our mind is why Citi signed off on its 2007 10-K as having effective controls in light of such problems. This information is still relevant today because it reflects on the magnitude of the risk shortfalls and what we feel is the higher-than-perceived task of turning them around.

That’s from Mayo’s update on the bank, dated today, and along with the “opinion” on a Sarbanes-Oxley violation, he has a few questions:

To what extent was the audit committee and board at Citi aware of the concerns voiced by various regulators at the time, and who gave the advice to sign the 10-K? To what extent has Citi’s board examined the issue since the release of letters from the FCIC? Has the SEC and DOJ looked into this matter?

We bolded that portion since it might – just might – be referring to KPMG and the apparent disregard everyone had for the letter sent to Citigroup from the OCC. Of course, not everyone always agrees with Mayo, namely Dick Bové who has gave HofK the thumbs up although it was obvious that he’d never heard of the firm. Bové hasn’t weighed in on this particular report but it’s only Monday.

Anyway, Citigroup remains steadfast in their thoughts on the matter, telling The Street’s Lauren Tara LaCapra that the “certifications were entirely appropriate,” although things increasingly seem to be pointing to the possibility that wasn’t the case. A message left for Marianne Carlton, a KPMG spokeswoman, hasn’t been returned.

A Few People Are Not Satisfied with the $624 Million Countrywide Settlement

And, unfortunately for Bank of America and KPMG, that could mean digging through the couch cushions.

Several large institutional investors have rejected a court settlement where Countrywide Financial Corp. had agreed to pay $600 million to a number of national pension funds. Those pulling out of the agreement include BlackRock Inc.; the California Public Employees Retirement System, or Calpers; T. Rowe Price Group Inc.; Nuveen Investments Inc.; and the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System, according to a document from the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The investors decided the settlement, initially agreed to last May, wasn’t enough and will seek their own terms with the mortgage originator and its current owner Bank of America Corp., as well as Countrywide’s auditor KPMG LLP. KPMG had committed another $24 million to the settlement.

In typical HofK fashion, the firm didn’t bother commenting for the Journal’s story however BofA managed to express their disappointment, “It is unfortunate that some investors chose to opt out of what we believe is a fair and equitable agreement to settle these issues.” Right. Because the likes of BlackRock and Calpers should be tickled pink with the pleasure of splitting $624 million with dozens of other investors.

Big Investors Refuse Countrywide Settlement [WSJ]

Let’s Discuss: Beards in the Big 4

From the mailbag:

Caleb –

Just curious what your thoughts or GC readers’ thoughts are on male facial hair in the public accounting world. Personally, I hate shaving. I shave once a week but am sure to keep a clean line under the chin. (I also dress well and don’t believe that business casual means khakis and a golf shirt.) A friend of mine told me that his manager at his big 4 firm was asked to shave his nicely groomed beard by his partners. Is this normal? Petty? A generation thing?


Let me address your questions one at a time:

1.a. Q: “Is [partners telling managers to tell someone else to do something, like shaving] normal?” A: Yes. Some partners can’t believe they have��������������������general vicinity as the staff, let alone talk to them, so when an awkward conversation needs to be had, a manager often gets the privilege. That said, ambitious managers who want to become partners will often take it upon themselves to inform the beast in question to break out the Bic.

1.b. Q: Is [frowning on facial hair] normal?” A: As a general rule, yes. Some smaller firms are known to be pro-beard but As far as I am aware, the Big 4 state that they allow mustaches and beards if they are kept “neatly trimmed.” However, the reality is that most partners don’t like facial hair. Whether you are growing it for charity, you lost a bet to a broheim or your spouse thinks it’s hot; they don’t give a damn. They want your faces clean shaven.

2. Q: “[Is this] petty?” A: Well, we are talking about the Big 4, now aren’t we? Petty annoyances are part of the deal. In fact, a beard could cost you a promotion if you’re working for the wrong person. That said, I personally don’t think making an issue of facial hair is that petty. The reason being, that despite your well-trimmed beard, it is the exception rather than the rule. I share your hatred of shaving (not to mention your anti-khakis/golf shirt stance) but this is one of those “a few bad apples” situations. Lots of men in the Big 4 are flat-out slobs and if you give them an inch on facial hair, they’ll take a mile. Now, if you happen to have snuck in a well-groomed beard or mustache and kept it that way, you may get a pass but if you’re just letting the 5 o’clock shadow extend an extra day or two and it’s disgustingly obvious, you should get a talking to.

3. Q: “Is this a generational thing?” A: No. There are anti-beard people at various ages who simply equate facial hair with hipsters, hillbillies and the Taliban. I think it’s more of an accounting firm culture thing. So if you’re sporting one, it puts you at odds with TPTB and squarely in the “counter-culture” camp. But on a more practical level, you work in a professional environment for crissakes. For advisory and audit professionals staff who are in client-facing roles earlier than their tax counterparts, partners and managers don’t want you looking like a hobo in front of clients. It doesn’t seem logical to let the gents in tax let themselves go, so the rule applies across the board.

The “beard or no beard” question is now open for debate. Sorry about the gender-specific topic ladies. Your thoughts and unfiltered judgments on the matter are certainly welcome and encouraged.

How Did Citigroup’s Internal Controls Cut the Mustard with KPMG?

Jonathan Weil writes in his column today about Citigroup and their “acceptable group of auditors,” (aka KPMG) and he’s having trouble connecting the dots on a few things. Specifically, how a love letter (it was sent on February 14, 2008, after all) sent by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit:

The gist of the regulator’s findings: Citigroup’s internal controls were a mess. So were its valuation methogage bonds, which had spawned record losses at the bank. Among other things, “weaknesses were noted with model documentation, validation and control group oversight,” the letter said. The main valuation model Citigroup was using “is not in a controlled environment.” In other words, the model wasn’t reliable.

Okay, so the bank’s internal controls weren’t worth the paper they were printed on. Ordinarily, one could reasonably expect management and perhaps their auditors to be aware of such a fact and that they were handling the situation accordingly. We said, “ordinarily”:

Eight days later, on Feb. 22, Citigroup filed its annual report to shareholders, in which it said “management believes that, as of Dec. 31, 2007, the company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective.” Pandit certified the report personally, including the part about Citigroup’s internal controls. So did Citigroup’s chief financial officer at the time, Gary Crittenden.

The annual report also included a Feb. 22 letter from KPMG LLP, Citigroup’s outside auditor, vouching for the effectiveness of the company’s financial-reporting controls. Nowhere did Citigroup or KPMG mention any of the problems cited by the OCC. KPMG, which earned $88.1 million in fees from Citigroup for 2007, should have been aware of them, too. The lead partner on KPMG’s Citigroup audit, William O’Mara, was listed on the “cc” line of the OCC’s Feb. 14 letter.

Huh. There has to be an explanation, right? It’s just one of the largest banks on Earth audited by one of the largest audit firm on Earth. You’d think these guys would be more than willing to stand by their work. Funny thing – no one felt compelled to return JW’s calls. So, he had no choice to piece it together himself:

[S]omehow KPMG and Citigroup’s management decided they didn’t need to mention any of those weaknesses or deficiencies. Maybe in their minds it was all just a difference of opinion. Whatever their rationale, nine months later Citigroup had taken a $45 billion taxpayer bailout, [Ed. note: OH, right. That.] still sporting a balance sheet that made it seem healthy.

Actually, just kidding, he ran it by an expert:

“As I look at the deficiencies cited in the letter, taken as a whole, it appears that Citigroup had a material weakness with respect to valuing these financial instruments,” said Ed Ketz, an accounting professor at Pennsylvania State University, who reviewed the OCC’s letter to Pandit at my request. “It just is overwhelming by the time you get to the end of it.”

What Vikram Pandit Knew, and When He Knew It [Jonathan Weil/Bloomberg]

Ernst & Young Video Accurately Portrays First Year Associates in Their New Habitat

This came by way of Jersey (this Jersey, you idiots) and the footage is incredible.

A few things that I observed and/or learned from watching this video:

1. “Duckling syndrome” is something I was familiar with but not that it had a name or was a syndrome.

2. All tax professionals seem to behave exactly the same, no matter where you encounter them.

3. Apparently this was filmed on a casual Friday based on the denim worn by the guy that appears at the 4:00 mark.

4. Timesheets are due at 5:30 on Fridays?

One thing that was less surprising:

1. “At some critical stage in their development, tax professionals generally fail to attain the basic skills necessary for social interaction.”

Leave your own observations below.

How Would You Vote on the Deloitte Leadership Candidates?

Last month, we shared with you the concerns of a Deloitte partner who has a lot of issues with the processes around electing the firm’s leadership. As the partner explained it to us, “The elected individuals are the Chairman, the CEO, and a CEO ‘Alternate.’ The CEO ‘Alternate’ is there in the event that the CEO elect is also elected as the Global CEO (which will typically happen).”

Recently, we were able to confirm the candidates and thought we’d share them with all of you since some of you might not be aware of who they are:


• Punit Renjen, for Chairman of Deloitte LLP (Current CEO of Deloitte Consulting)

• Barry Salzberg, for CEO of Deloitte LLP (Current CEO of Deloitte LLP)

• Joe Echeverria, for CEO Alternate (Current Managing Partner of U.S. Operations)

What’s not immediately known is when Deloitte partners will be voting “Yes or No” on these candidates. One of our sources speculated that the vote could be as early this week.

In our previous post, we learned that the partners vote up or down on these candidates as a group as the partner in our last post explained “The partners get to vote ‘YES or NO’ on the ‘slate’ of candidates that is advanced.” Since we know a lot of you out there in Internetland are Deloitte employees but not partners, we thought we’d get your perspective on this slate of candidates and whether you would give them a “Yes” or “No.” And since the comments box allows for further explanation, feel free to elaborate on your vote. We know of one person who will be voting no.

A message left with Deloitte spokesperson Jonathan Gandal was not immediately returned.

Earlier:
Deloitte Partner Encourages Brethren to Take Back Their Firm

KPMG Employee with Combination of Short-timer’s, Spring Fever Pushes the Dress Code Envelope

Last week’s unseasonably warm weather in New York had one KPMG employee – who had recently put in her notice – taking advantage of the pleasant temps to show off the gams. According to a conversation we overheard on Twitter:


To which someone responded:

This infraction, it’s our understanding, occurred at the friendly confines of 345 Park Ave. Now, anyone familiar with the House of Klynveld knows that shorts are definitely frowned upon, especially at 345 Park where backpacks are rumored to get the crook-eye. Showing this amount of flesh in the middle of February, in a staunchly business casual environment, is about as an awesome disregard for the dress code we’ve ever heard.

The most important question, however, remains unanswered: what kind of shorts? Are we talking boxers? Boy shorts? Daisy Dukes? We need a witness (or two or three) and pictures obviously get bonus points.

What Did Ernst & Young Call Lehman’s ‘Goat Poo’ Assets?

Considering E&Y was, ya know, the auditors and all, they should have been aware that these assets were a grade or two (or three) below human excrement and probably had some name for them.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEHMQ.PK) filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15, 2008 and then quickly sold its prize investment banking assets to Barclays Bank (BARC.L). JPMorgan had been Lehman’s banker. The court papers, filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan on Thursday, said that Barclays and Lehman called certain Lehman assets “toxic waste” and “goat poo” and knowingly excluded them from their sale agreement.

Jim Turley has been a willing participant in this whole thing so far but were far more interested in what you guys think.

JPMorgan says Lehman called assets “goat poo” [Reuters]

In Case You Were Wondering, KPMG Is Still Wells Fargo’s Auditor

As we’ve discussed, the sudden departure of Wells Fargo’s now-former CFO, Howard Atkins, has been a bit of a mystery. The bank stated that Howie quit for “personal reasons” but Chris Whalen, for one, wasn’t buying that story and stated that it was an “internal dispute” at the Stagecoach Shop and “public behavior suggests significant problems in the bank’s internal systems and controls as defined by the Sarbanes-Oxley law.”

Then John Carney got all heresay yesterday, reporting:

Others say that the departure stems from a heated argument between Atkins and the CEO of Wells Fargo, John Stumpf. Still others say that there could be even more personal reasons for Atkins leaving.

This is pretty fun because this “heated argument” could have been over something awesome like Atkins’s using Stumpf’s private commode without permission or a spurious challenge in their weekly Scrabble® match. Whatever the reasons for Atkins’s departure, all this speculation got the gang over at The Street wondering that maybe – just maybe – KPMG’s risk management team had soiled themselves over the whole situation and asked the audit team to start drawing up their resignation papers.

KPMG said Friday that it remains Wells Fargo’s […] external auditor, though the firm wouldn’t comment on recent criticism that Wells’ financial disclosures aren’t up to snuff. KPMG spokesman George Ledwith confirmed that the Big Four accounting firm is still working with Wells Fargo, which plans to file its 10-K annual report by the end of the month. Howard Atkins, who had been CFO of Wells Fargo for nearly a decade, resigned unexpectedly last week and won’t be signing off on that report. His replacement, Tim Sloan, will do so instead. “Yes, KPMG LLP is the external auditor for Wells Fargo & Company,” said Ledwith.

So what prompted this brief line of questioning is, in itself, a mystery. KPMG resigning as the auditor of Wells Fargo is about as likely as John Veihmeyer throwing all his copies of Rudy into an incinerator. But then again, maybe The Street knows something we don’t. Was/is/will there be any doubt that KPMG will remain the auditor of Wells Fargo? Rampant speculation and nightmare scenarios are welcome. And if you’re in the know, email us.

Auditor Stands By Wells Fargo [TS]