Category: Big 4

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

(UPDATE) PwC Houston Happy Hours Still May Not Be Safe

It’s been a couple of weeks since we reported on the alleged incident at a PwC happy hour that involved a drunk (or roofied, depending on who you ask) partner who made his fondness for an associate known only to follow it up with a knuckle sandwich (we’re picturing a right cross).

Well, we decided to check in with a source down in H-town to see if there was any blowback from this whole situation.

I heard that PwC wasn’t going to do anything because of his client relationship and only offered the guy the chance to get off the job.

Well! Not exactly what we expected hear and we decided to check things out. Through a friend of capable means, we were able to verify the partner’s employment with the firm.

So then we emailed PwC spokesman Jon Stoner again about the incident but we have yet to hear back. Then we called the partner-in-question and left him a voicemail, asking very nicely to call us back. So far, he hasn’t returned our call but there isn’t any evidence by his greeting that he has left the firm.

So…you can see the conundrum here. What are Houston assurance associates going to do if they can’t drink beer on company dime without fearing a punch in the mouth (and possible getting an unwanted tongue down their throat)? Spend their own money? God forbid. If you know more about this, get in touch.

UDPATE: Just a few more details to share with you – we’ve heard from multiple sources that there were multiple kissing incidents at the happy hour. So while it sounds like more love (albeit unwelcome) was being spread than violence, that doesn’t mean you should be risking the invasion of your personal space for a few cocktails.

For Starters, PwC Pays Their Attorneys a Lot of Money

“How can any self-respecting attorney still argue – and any lucid judge still believe – that PwC’s global firm is not just a sham legal construct, an artificial vehicle for the strongest member firms to control and potentially exploit their weaker ones, all under the guise of ‘improving quality and seamless delivery to multinational clients…’ ?”

~ Francine McKenna still isn’t buying it.

Forced Rankings Appear to Be in Full Effect at Ernst & Young

Confirming some discussion in the comments from last Friday’s Ernst & Young compensation post, a source got in touch with us with more details on some rankings getting chopped:

I’ll confirm what your sources are saying about reviews being available in fso. Not only that, but forced rankings are in full effect. While [there] was less pushback during roundtables earlier (which was accurrate at the time), the ratings for at least 5 people were lowered by a notch from what was agreed to by the full committee at the end of may. (5 to 4, 4 to 3) While they do say after all people are discussed they’ll assess the levels to ensure the same criteria is being used, I firmly belive its being used as a way to lower ratings (and raises). Why have the formal review committees (roundtables) if the partners are going to have the ability to act unilateraly to ‘right size’ the ratings?

We’ll still have to wait a couple more weeks before we find out if the forced rankings actually translate into disappointing raises, as the official communication won’t come until August but this news surely doesn’t bode well. If you got knocked down a peg, discuss below and as always, keep us updated.

Bonus Watch ’10: There are Some Unhappy KPMG Kampers in California

At least it was a short week!

Looks like promotion bonuses are available to view under Self Service Connection for those who got promoted. 2nd year promote to senior (high SP rated) in specialty advisory (N. California) = 1.25% or $700 in my case. What a fucking joke…working for 2 years and I’ve been making progressively less and less money every year when you factor in a signing bonus in 2008 and a CPA bonus in 2009.

Keep in mind that the promotion bonuses are only for the “stub period” of July-September until the full year bonus/raise come into effect. I’ve also been told by numerous people not to extrapolate the stub period amount to a full year amount. Good thing they said that cause if 5% is my full year raise after 2 years of nothing, I’m out of here before you can spell GAAP.

Five Major Differences Between Small Accounting Firms and the Big 4

Ed. note: The following was submitted by a reader of Going Concern who wished to remain nameless.

As a casual fan of Going Concern, and a senior auditor of a small to mid size local firm, I feel the site is quite comical and a vast insight into the world of “bigger and better” feelings. I read the site for humor, comparison, and overall knowledge on the country’s accounting bureaucracy. I would like to dive into some of the obvious�������������������� the big boys and us local mid-market droids.

Busy season – For most, January 5th is the start date and lets up by April 1st. Busy season is usually the hours of eight-thirty to seven-thirty. The midnight coffee runs are infrequent and somewhat discouraged. (That might be just our firm, so if yours is different, chime in). Busy season does not end with a celebration, spot bonus, or dinner; we get an e-mail saying thank you for making us (the Partners) rich.


The Rank and File – The caliber of employees is different. We get a few people that could of have gone Big 4 but primarily our employees are the ones who worked through college, made mostly B’s drizzled with some C’s, or they went to Big 4 and then realized it wasn’t a good fit. A fair amount of the staff obtain the CPA license but hardly ever do they walk in with it. With that, some might think the staff is seen as not equivalent. I differ from that viewpoint. This leads me to the next difference.

Responsibilites – The degree of responsibility of a Big 4 staff auditor and a mid-size staff auditor are drastically different. It appears the people we hire from the Big 4 know a specific section of the audit to a tee but when it comes to another section they are a lost puppy. For example, the small time auditor has to draft the engagement, complete ninety five percent of the fieldwork and finish with all the management representation letters, disclosure checklist, etc. It’s a complete engagement overview, not just the cash section. This might be because of the size of the engagements but regardless, when it comes to closing the deal, the small time auditor seems to perform like Jeter in October. You might argue this is because our niche is smaller but on the SEC engagements we tackle, the same criteria takes effect. Staff do the work, manager reviews, and partner signs. No middle ground to speak of.

Money – I constantly look at GC to see what the salaries in the rest of the country appear to be and honestly, we don’t come close. It’s very much a disappointment. We probably all start off close to the same (50k plus or minus 5k), but in all actuality, the bigger accounting firms bump people up a lot faster than us local guys. Again, this might parallel to the caliber of employees we hire, or it might not. I tend to think we follow a very specific old fashion business model. We pay our staff just enough so they are complacent, and the partners bring the money home to afford the private schools, three plus luxury cars, the farms, and the multi million dollars home. If someone doesn’t want to put in the fifteen to twenty plus years it takes to get there, then tough, we will find someone else. The door is a constant revolving machine. No emotion goes into it what so ever.

Pick up a tax return! – The last item is the close ties between audit and tax. It is very common for someone in my shoes to finish all my audit responsibilities by mid-March, and then pick up the married couple with two kids tax return. It’s merely done for enjoyment and to help out the overall firm. This also helps with keeping on your toes when talking to clients about what your firm can offer. We get an incentive for bringing in clients and since our niches are smaller, it’s easier than bringing in a 100k plus job.

Bottom line is that it’s a different culture. I guess it’s always up to the staff if they like the eleven o’clock coffee run, sleep deprivation, 65k salary, or if they like the 58k salary, have a life, and come home at seven-thirty careers. It really just depends on the person. Some people strive either way but nothing should be taken away or discouraged because of the decision. I would just know what you’re getting into when you walk in the door. If you go to a smaller firm out of college, don’t expect the huge pay increases, or the spot bonuses, just expect to work and not get much for it.

Promotion and Compensation Watch: Ernst & Young Communication to Come Eventually, Someday

Straight out of the Bubba Gump Shrimp location up the street from 5 Times Square:

Ernst & Young, Financial Services Office, NY
Received communication that our annual ratings were finalized and discussions between counselors and counselees to occur by July 30. Promotions are still not final, but promotions and compensation will start to be communicated in August (to be effective October).


So t-minus three weeks (give or take a day here or there) until “you’re not going to be disappointed with raises” which apparently could mean that they will make PwC’s raises look like chump change (for auditors anyway).

BUT! In case you need a refresher on the numbers so far: 3-5% is what we last heard for those in the meaty part of the curve. No word on what top performers are getting but speculation is welcome. Keep us updated.

PwC Would Appreciate It if the FASB, IASB Would Cool Their Jets on the Accounting Standards

Christ, guys! PricewaterhouseCoopers thinks it’s nice that you’re trying to turn the entire accounting world upside down since you decided the BSDs at the G-20 were serious about this June 2011 deadline.

But then you admitted that it can’t be done and it turns out they (or the SEC) don’t give a rat’s ass. For some reason, you’re still committed to getting the job done by the end of 2011 and PwC would like you take it easy.


For starters, everyone knows that the world is ending in 2012, so this is really a futile exercise. Secondly, you’re really not being rational about the whole thing. Your gusto is admirable but you’re looking like the kid that reminds the teacher to assign homework. KNOCK IT OFF:

PricewaterhouseCoopers Calls for Slowing Down Pace of Accounting Standard Setting

NEW YORK, July 8 /PRNewswire/ — PricewaterhouseCoopers, responding to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) ambitious agenda to complete about a dozen new accounting standards (about half of which are major projects) by the end of 2011, said the current timeline is not sufficient to produce standards that meet the boards’ high thresholds for quality.

Mike Gallagher, PwC’s U.S. National Office Leader, said, “it is of utmost importance that adequate time be given to complete an effective, thorough analysis of the accounting, business and operational impacts of the proposals.” Gallagher added, “given the boards’ missions of issuing high quality standards, we believe the proposed timeline will need to be further extended to allow for appropriate due process.”

In a Point of View article released today, PwC said it fully supports an aggressive timeline and the goal of attaining a single set of high quality global standards. Yet, the firm also expressed significant concern that the current pace of standard setting does not provide enough time for companies to fully analyze the proposals and respond comprehensively. In the article, the firm’s leadership called upon standard setters to “reevaluate the current timeline and set more reasonable expectations.”

Explaining the firm’s concern about the ambitious timelines, Gallagher pointed out that “even the largest of companies won’t have the resource bandwidth to properly evaluate and respond to so many complex standards in such a limited period of time.”

The projects underway by the FASB and IASB to improve both U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and international financial reporting standards are part of a wider goal to converge U.S. and international standards in key areas.

PCAOB Report States That There Was a Fair Amount of Failing Going on at Ernst & Young

The PCAOB has issued its annual report on Ernst & Young having given the firm the third degree at its national office and 30 of its 80 U.S. offices. It inspected 58 audits performed by the firm but exactly who is, of course, a big secret (unless you tell us).

There were five “Issuers” that were listed in the report and some form of the word “fail” was used 25 times (that includes the footnotes).

[Issuer A] The Firm failed to adequately test the issuer’s loan loss reserves related to certain loans held for investment. Specifically, the Firm failed to reconcile certain values used in the issuer’s models with industry data, failed to test the recovery rates used in the issuerfailed to test the qualitative components of the reserves.

Damn those loan loss reserves!

[Issuer C] The Firm failed to perform sufficient procedures to test the issuer’s allowance for loan losses (“ALL”). The issuer determined the general portion of its ALL estimate, which represented a significant portion of the ALL, using certain factors such as loan grades. Data for this calculation were obtained from information technology systems that reside at a third-party service organization. The Firm relied on these systems, but it failed to test the information-technology general controls (“ITGCs”) over certain of these systems, and it failed to test certain of the application controls over these systems. Further, the Firm’s testing of the controls over the assignment and monitoring of loan grades was insufficient, as the Firm failed to assess the competence of the individuals performing the control on which it relied.

This loan thing appears to be a trend…

[Issuer D] The Firm failed to sufficiently test the costing of work-in-process and finished goods inventory. Specifically, the Firm’s tests of controls over the costing of such inventory were limited to verifying that management reviewed and approved the cost allocation factors, without evaluating the review process that provided the basis for management’s approval.

Hopefully that doesn’t blow back on an A1.

Anyway, you get the picture. The whole report is below for your reading pleasure. E&Y’s got its $0.02 in, however it was short and was mostly concerned about the firm’s right to keep its response to Part II (the non-public part)…non-public:

We are enclosing our response letter to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding Part I of the draft Report on 2009 Inspection of Ernst & Young LLP (the “Report”). We also are enclosing our initial response to Part II of the draft Report.

We note that Section 104(g)(2) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that “no portions of the inspection report that deal with criticisms of or potential defects in the quality control systems of the firm under inspection shall be made public if those criticisms or defects are addressed by the firm, to the satisfaction of the Board, not later than 12 months after the date of the inspection report.” Based on this statutory provision, we understand that our comments on Part ii will be kept non-public as long as Part ii of the Report itself is non-public.

In addition, we are requesting confidential treatment of this transmittal letter.

So this doesn’t mean much other than E&Y would prefer that no one know how it managed to tell the PCAOB to fuck right off as nicely as it could.

If you had the pleasure of being on one of these 58 engagements, we’d love to hear about your experience.

2010 Ernst Young LLP US

Did KPMG Plagiarize Part of Its Atlantic Yards Market Study?

Back in the fall we told you about a market study that KPMG issued on the Atlantic Yards project.

At that time, we learned that KPMG had done some less-than stellar research on the movement of the units on Prospect Park and it got the attention of some the local blogs covering the massive development project.

Namely, the Atlantic Yards Report blog. It reported:

KPMG’s report has some very shoddy research. Consider that the report (dated August 31) claims that Richard Meier’s On Prospect Park is 75% sold. (Only rental buildings are pre-leased.)

However, the New York Times reported September 27:

While the developers say half of the building’s 99 units have been sold, the real estate Web site StreetEasy.com documents only 25 closings through public records.

AYR didn’t state it so boldly back in the fall but in a post from yesterday (as well as reports in May and June) it isn’t so nice and flat out calls the firm out for lying, “The KPMG report got very little discussion, but it contains lies–blatant, checkable lies–about condo sales.”

But wait! There’s more! We learned today from a friend of GC that not only does AYR call out KPMG for having their pants on fire, it also says that the firm got a little carried away with the copy and pasting:

I discovered when I took another look, it contains more than two pages of shameless borrowing–plagiarism that is not diminished by a vague footnote.

The entire section on New York City Market Dynamics is cribbed from The Corcoran Report(s) for Manhattan and Brooklyn for the second quarter of 2009.

Yes, there’s a footnote to the section headline that cites “The Corcoran Report–2nd Quarter 2009” as a source (click to enlarge), but there’s no indication that nearly all the text–with the slightest of changes–comes from Corcoran.

No quotation marks, no indentations, no italics.

AYR provides several examples that are oddly the same identical. We’ve presented a clip from KPMG’s report here:

And here’s Corcoran’s (apologies for the small type):

Like we said, this is just one example. Our messages (email, voicemail, in a bottle) to KPMG have not been returned at this time.

Apparently a Few People at PwC Are Feeling Shortchanged

The PricewaterhouseCoopers compensation post is still a hot thread, as the majority of news was about double-digit raises and bonuses have been reported from many although at least one commenter was skeptical that all the news was good in the PwC world:

“[P]robably the people most willing to share are the ones who got the most $.”


That comment was in response to someone who assumed PwC was throwing around “1” ratings (the firm’s highest) like boomies at a Phish show. Of course, not everyone can be so lucky and apparently there are a couple of terms being thrown around by the less fortunate.

Late last week a source close to PwC dropped us the following:

“Fonus”– noun; the much-diminished bonus Big 4 firms give to borderline staff they can’t afford to pay properly, but don’t want to quit.

Not to be confused with the ‘nonus,’ which is no bonus at all.

Apparently these terms have emerged this week as fonuses started appearing in people’s paychecks.

So not to worry “as expected” staff that can’t afford to quit your jobs! If you ended up with the 6%/0% instead of the 14%/10% or whatever, whathaveyou, you’re not alone! Plus, there are some fun terms you can throw around to help you bitch about it. Continue to discuss and keep us updated with any other fallout from the discussions – verbal creativeness or otherwise.

KPMG Has Gotten Tired of KV Pharmaceutical’s Financial Reporting Side Effects

Last week we ran a post courtesy of Sheryl Nash at CFOZone that discussed the tough 2010 that KV Pharmaceutical was having. Well, it’s getting worse. KPMG, not completely adverse to risk,ps and has dropped KVP like a sack of spuds.

In an 8-K rammed through just before quitting time yesterday, “On June 25, 2010, KPMG LLP (“KPMG”) notified K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the “Registrant” or the “Company”) that it had resigned from its engagement as the Registrant’s principal accountant. KPMG’s resignation was not recommended or approved by the Audit Committee of the Registrant’s Board of Directors.”

What was the problem, you ask? Where do we start? There’s a lot in this 8-K so we’ve bolded the good parts for you:

KPMG’s report on the consolidated financial statements of the Registrant and subsidiaries as of and for the year ended March 31, 2009 contained a separate paragraph stating that “As discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has suspended the shipment of all products manufactured by the Company and must comply with a consent decree with the FDA before approved products can be reintroduced to the market. Significant negative impacts on operating results and cash flows from these actions including the potential inability of the Company to raise capital; suspension of manufacturing; significant uncertainties related to litigation and governmental inquiries; and debt covenant violations raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.”

The audit report of KPMG on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2009 did not contain any adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, nor was it qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope, or accounting principles, except that KPMG’s report indicates that the Registrant did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2009 because of the effect of material weaknesses on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph that states “Material weaknesses have been identified and included in management’s assessment in the areas of entity-level controls (control awareness, personnel, identification and addressing risks, monitoring of controls, remediation of deficiencies and communication of information), financial statement preparation and review procedures (manual journal entries, account reconciliations, spreadsheets, customer and supplier agreements, stock-based compensation, Medicaid rebates and income taxes) and the application of accounting principles (inventories, property and equipment, employee compensation, reserves for sales allowances and financing transactions).

We’ll interject here with…why didn’t they just admit, “We have internal controls in place but they suck. Every last one of the controls is ineffective and we’re really not sure they’re being performed anyway. In fact, we don’t even employee people with accounting degrees. We have a weekend COSO crash course to get temps up to speed.” ?

Back to the filing:

As of the date of their resignation, KPMG had not completed the audit of the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of the internal controls over financial reporting of the Registrant as of and for the year ended March 31, 2010. KPMG had informed the Audit Committee prior to the date of their resignation that upon completion of their audit of the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended March 31, 2010 they expected their audit report would contain a separate paragraph expressing substantial doubt about the Registrant’s ability to continue as a going concern and their report on internal controls over financial reporting would indicate that the Registrant did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2010 because of the effect of material weaknesses reported as of March 31, 2009 that had not been remediated.

We’d continue but it’s probably not necessary.