Category: The JDA

Hallelujah! Church Accounting Miracles!

I had no idea how much a minister can make but now I do. Wait a minute, this just tells me how to bypass Service rules by writing checks in the church’s name. I might totally be in the wrong line of work.

Free Church Accounting (I’m not kidding) brings us a question from “Sharon” of Corsicana, Texas:

How much money does a minister have to make in order for money to be reported?

I started my church back up after 12 years vacancy. I do not have very many members. Right now we are 3 active members and other people stop in from time to time. I do not actually receive money. Since the church is striving I use the money to pay the light bill, get the grass moved.


Answer:

According to the IRS website, “Earnings of $400 or more are subject to self-employment taxes.” (that includes qualifying ministers)

If you are a church employee, income of $108.28 or more is subject to SE tax.

It would be better for you, if you opened a checking account in the church’s name and paid expenses out of it. If that’s not possible, just make sure and keep all of the receipts that show where the church funds are going.

Fascinating! I took the preliminary “Are You a Tax-Exempt Church” quiz on their website and failed miserably so I guess I’d make an awful 501(c)(3) but that’s probably for the best.

There are ways to fail at this of course, like the Spokane, WA priest who couldn’t keep his arms and legs (and other parts) inside of the vehicle at all times, financial mismanagement in the University of North Carolina system, and JDA favorite the University of Colorado’s wild credit card user with horrible hair.

I would never imply that more regulation is the answer; I’m merely pointing out that there’s a bit of work to be done in identifying non-profit fraud. Seriously, how can one detect fraud when the core basis of fund accounting is an imbalance between “expenses” and expenditures?

The Church of Jr Deputy Accountant Scientist? I’m down.

>75: What to Do Two Weeks Before Your Exam

Happy Friday CPA Exam munchkins! For the self-loathing types that are going through busy season and sitting for an exam, let’s discuss what you should be doing in the two weeks before your exam, not how to quit your job (not my line of expertise).

At this point, you should be through lecture videos and homework at least once. Really? You have two weeks left! If you’ve been disciplined up to this point, you’re feeling comfortable with most of the MCQ.

A final review at this point is essential. You have enough time to go back over weak areas and give everything a last look over. If you have software or your firm blew a bunch of money on overpriced programs to do this for you, use it. If you’re going with just a book, take a look at questions you’ve gotten wrong more than once and review those areas in the text.


Though we all know it’s illegal to discuss what’s actually on the exam, there are plenty of blogs and forums that share “commonly tested” items, many of which are updated often. The CPANet forums are a perfect example of candidates openly sharing their experiences and identifying common testing patterns. The AICPA Board of Examiners used to give paper and pencil candidates a COPY of their exam as they left so don’t let partners tell you it was way more rough back in their day. Still, there are channels available; it’s up to the candidate to use them.

The BoE has also committed to faster scoring and a continued evolution of exam content. They do not expressly state what that means for candidates, that’s why it’s important to ask questions and know about changes. The only real signals they’ve sent so far are that they are excited to start testing IFRS years before it is implemented in the US and the computerized exam is due for more changes in the years ahead. And? Get it over with now, whether or not BEC will be easier with communications but an extra half an hour.

Anyway, the last week. It’s your last chance to review weak spots and work through practice questions once more. I know you’re pissed at me for not writing “now you can screw off and play PS3 after 16 hours of work” but that’s not really how it works.

At this point, you shouldn’t expect to feel entirely confident and that’s okay; focus only on the last few, most heavily-tested areas. You should already know what these are, if they don’t, put off your exam and start asking questions or reading textbooks. Most CPA Review programs (even the cheap ones) give you some idea of what these areas are.

Hope that helps. On the next >75, we’ll talk about what “simulataneous IFRS implementation” really means for FAR unless you have a CPA exam question, in which case I’ll save my anti-IFRS rant for a different Friday.

New Obama Proposal Would Invest $30 Billion TARP Funds in Small Banks

One can only postulate that since there was no room in President Obama’s bloated 2010 budget for small business initiatives, he instead chose to apply some TARP money that’s just lying around to get small business working again. I wish Mr President the best of luck on that plan as he’ll be needing it.

WSJ:

President Barack Obama proposed a $30 billion small business lending program Tuesday, the latest in a series of administration efforts to jump-start hiring by the nation’s small businesses.

The program, which Mr. Obama detailed at an appearance in Nashua, N.H., would invest $30 billion from the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program in community banks to encourage them to lend to small businesses. If approved by Congress, the program would incentivize small and midsize banks to provide loans valued at several times that figure.


Didn’t we invest $700 billion in the Too Big to Fail banks for this same purpose? Not that it matters, we’ll try it again with the hopes that community banks will be able to accomplish what TBTF couldn’t.

A proactive sort of administration, White House officials were already prepared to counter the argument that TARP was never intended as a general piggy bank for funding the administration’s whims:

“The law is very clear: The monies recouped from the TARP shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for the reduction of the public debt. It’s not for a piggy bank,” [Sen. Judd] Gregg said.

[White House Budget Director Peter] Orszag said new legislation would be required to create the new small-business plan. He said the cost of the plan would depend on the subsidy rate of new activity and wouldn’t amount to a net cost, in terms of the deficit, of $30 billion.

Considering that he’s referring to a deficit of $3.8 trillion, I guess $30 billion isn’t really anything to get stressed out about after all.

Meanwhile, can community banks counter the continued deterioration of commercial real estate weighing on their balance sheets? I guess we’ll have to wait it out and see.

How to Charge the Client: Killing the Billable Hour with VeraSage’s Ron Baker

I’ve long wanted to track down VeraSage’s Ron Baker and pick his brilliant brain; at last, JDA had the opportunity to steal a few minutes with the man credited for killing the billable hour.

In his 15-some years crusading against the ridiculous measurement of “time” as a performance gauge, Ron has made quite a few steps in the right direction. Seven to ten percent of 90,000 firms have moved away from time sheets and toward “value pricing”, with 1,000 or so firms eliminating the billable hour completely. While he admits it’ll be a cold day in hell when the Big 4 follow suit, he’s encouraged by the momentum.


“There is a change and it is coming from customers,” he says, “[unfortunately] the billable hour has survived many recessions.” The rigid “that’s how it’s always been” structure of public accounting, specifically, doesn’t seem to be taking the idea well. “They’d rather be precisely wrong than approximately right,” he says of major accounting firms trapped in the billable hour vice.

Encouraging value pricing in pay structures is a slow process, he says, equating the movement to that of Germ Theory in the 1800s. It was hundreds of years from the time “contact contagion” was theorized to the time it was generally accepted in medicine and eliminating the antiquated pricing structure of employee incentive won’t go down without a fight either.

Billed as “a think tank dedicated to promulgating and teaching Value Pricing, Customer Economics, and Human Capital Development to professionals and businesses around the world,” VeriSage seeks not to revolutionize business but improve it.

“You don’t let your surgeons pierce ears,” says Baker, meaning value pricing implies a company’s best soldiers will be dispatched to serve their respective battalions. In simpler terms, employees are paid results, not for how long they’re sitting in a chair. And in an uncertain economic environment, aren’t results what matter above all else? I’m not sure it could be much simpler.

Baker knows he’s got his work cut out for him but yours truly is 100% behind the idea. As a person who can tear up in one hour what five people can’t even accomplish in two, I get it. Boy do I get it.

Lucky for those who choose to accept what Ron is selling, he’s also a brilliant business mind. Knowing that Michelle Golden may have potentially criticized his website, he chose instead to hire her as a consultant. Genius! (Disclaimer: JDA loves Michelle Golden and isn’t just saying that because she doesn’t want to get torn up on her website – her “Accounting Blog list” is the most comprehensive I’ve ever seen.) She sits on their Board so she gets it. Excellent!

Want more JDA? Check out all of her posts for Going Concern here.

Bernanke’s Next Four Years

We’re skipping >75 this week because apparently none of you have any CPA exam questions. That’s sad. Really? None? Well if you do, send them over. Please. JDA needs to eat.

Anyway, let’s talk about Bernanke’s confirmation!

WSJ:

Ben Bernanke won the backing of the Senate for a second four-year term as chairman of the Federal Reserve by a comfortable margin Thursday. Even with that storm behind him, Mr. Bernanke faces formidable political and economic challenges made tougher by the bruising confirmation fight.

Yeah, ok, let’s ignore the fact that the Fed spent the last week buttering up everyone they could to get to push Bernanke through. WSJ made it really easy with a chart of Senators who were going to vote for him, who weren’t, and who were undecided. It was a fucking Fed Telethon trying to save Bernanke’s ass and with a 70-30 vote, apparently they won.


Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher wrote in the WSJ that Congress is Politicizing the Fed but Market Ticker argued that The Fed is Politicizing the Fed. What do you call making a last ditch effort to convince undecided Senators to keep the Bernanke crack flowing? That’s not necessarily the Fed getting political, it’s just them trying to save their own asses.

I’m not going to rant about Zimbabwe Ben and his mission to destroy the dollar. In some ways, I’m glad this thing is over with and Bernanke is the least of all evils (Larry Summers for one) but it’s funny that markets reacted as they did when Bernanke’s confirmation was “up in the air” (LOL, we all knew what would happen).

I would hate to go all conspiratorial and throw out “manipulation” as the culprit, nor can I pretend to know what charts mean.

Don’t miss The Bernanke Confirmation: Incompetence, Indifference and Institutional Inertia via Huffington Post.

DealBook:

The Senate voted 70 to 30 on Thursday afternoon to confirm Ben S. Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve for another four years, Sewell Chan of The New York Times reports from Washington. The confirmation came minutes after senators voted 77 to 23 to end a debate in which critics excoriated the central bank’s handling of the financial crisis.

The confirmation was a victory for President Obama, who had called Mr. Bernanke a critical leader in the nation’s recovery from recession, but the rancor in the debate also signaled the extent to which the Fed, once little known to the public, has become the object of populist anger over high unemployment and bank bailouts.

Grrrrr.

Jr Deputy Accountant and Michael Panzner Discuss 2010 Part II: The Impotent Fed; An Election Year; Waiting for the Recovery

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for angry bear.jpgIn case you missed part one of JDA’s 2010 Outlook interview with Financial Armageddon’s Michael Panzner, you can find it on Going Concern here.
For the first half of my 2010 talk with Panzner, I focused on the other shoes left to drop; commercial real estate, political backlash, and the threat of the massive bubble still being inflated in China. But even bears have their bright sides and Panzner is no different. So what do we have to look forward to this year? Oh crap, more doom and gloom; sorry, I got my interviews mixed up.


Panzner points to our leaders’ missteps throughout the crisis as a major factor that could place a damper on any hope of recovery. “Many of the problems and imbalances that helped about the crisis have gotten worse,” he says, “That means people have less in reserve than they did before, and many have not positioned themselves for a ‘new normal.’ That suggests the next leg down, economically speaking at least, could be much worse than what we’ve experienced so far.” If only we’d been prepared for the worst instead of coddled into believing everything is better, eh?
When asked to take a guess as to when the Fed would finally raise interest rates, Panzner gave an interesting answer. “In my view, the Fed is no longer in control – of the economy or its destiny. For the most part, market and other forces, not the FOMC, will determine what happens to interest rates in future.” So I guess it doesn’t matter when they’ll raise rates, markets are no longer listening. Or are they?
A big picture sort of guy, Panzner identifies sociopolitical threats as another major concern this year, and with this being an election year (hello, Scott Brown anyone?), I’m willing to go on the record as agreeing wholeheartedly with him (shock). “Wait and see what happens to the social and political mood if and when the economy rolls over,” he says ominously.
Oh, believe me, JDA is waiting. And waiting. And waiting. Still no rollover but dammit, I’ll still be here twiddling my thumbs.
Hopefully I’ll get a chance to check in with Panzner again come summer to see where we are.
Editor’s Note: Want more JDA? You can see all of her posts for GC here, her blog here and stalk her on Twitter.

Regulatory Agencies’ Final Word on FAS 166/167

rules_1668_1668.gifThe Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision released their long-awaited final word on new rules for securitized assets, specifically for bank balance sheets:

The federal banking and thrift regulatory agencies today announced the final risk-based capital rule related to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s adoption of Statements of Financial Accounting Standards Nos. 166 and 167. These new accounting standards make substantive changes to how banking organizations account for many items, including securitized assets, that had been previously excluded from these organizations’ balance sheets.

What does this mean for banks? In simple terms, they’re no longer going to be allowed to hide massive amounts of SPEs and derivative exposure off their balance sheets. Hit the deck!

Banking organizations affected by the new accounting standards generally will be subject to higher risk-based regulatory capital requirements. The rule better aligns risk-based capital requirements with the actual risks of certain exposures. It also provides an optional phase-in for four quarters of the impact on risk-weighted assets and tier 2 capital resulting from a banking organization’s implementation of the new accounting standards.

In case your ass has been under a rock for the last year, FASB came after banks’ asses over the summer. Miraculously, the Fed encouraged this switch, leading me to believe they’re just trying to cover their tracks.
Quadruple Whammy: Regulatory Agencies’ Final Rule on FAS 166/167 [JDA]
See also:
FASB Changes, Toxic Asset Shuffle

The JDA and Michael Panzner Discuss the Year Ahead

Thumbnail image for 2010.jpgEditor’s Note: Want more JDA? You can see all of her posts for GC here, her blog here and stalk her on Twitter.
The last time I spoke to Financial Armageddon’s Michael Panzner for Going Concern, it was about how to prepare for the worst (while not necessarily hopinin September of last year. This time around, it’s the beginning of the year so even though I’m late, it’s time to discuss the 2010 outlook.
Panzner can also be found writing at When Giants Fall and Huffington Post and if you don’t know his bio, it’s here.
First of all, before we could get to anything I had to have him explain his strong dollar policy again:
“There are a number of reasons why I expect a technical rally in the dollar even though my long-term view remains quite negative,” he said, “The fact is that even if the fundamental outlook is poor, prices can still rise in the short run if too many people — speculators and investors — are short or if other factors temporarily gain in importance.”
This explains why he seemed spooked by recent market behaviors, like everything from March 2009 on. You know, when things started getting wonky. Panzner is a classy bastard so he’s not about to make conspiratorial statements about the behavior of markets but let’s just say his feeling is that they’re performing less rationally these days. No shit. Might be all that fishy stuff going on but who am I to speculate?


He points to massive speculation and gigantic stockpiling in commodities, specifically oil. Gee, wonder who is behind that. He recognizes that China is at least attempting to clamp down on speculation.
He also admits to having underestimated how people will behave with free money. I find that statement incredible; didn’t we see the houses, big screens, and Hummers? It was obvious at the time and it feels obvious now. “Last time they speculated like there was no tomorrow, they were worried tomorrow would never come,” he says. Again, this from the man who brought us Financial Armageddon.
Interestingly, Panzner says if he could do the book over, he would have better predicted the contagious nature of the financial crisis. It scared the shit out of me when I read it for the first time in 2008. It didn’t seem sluggish at all the way he’d imagined it. In fact, I’ve been waiting for the bottom to drop out for months now after seeing how he painted it.
As far as threats go, he pretty much agrees with most of what I identify as the largest (the Fed’s dumb behavior, sociopolitical pressures, blahblahblah) and adds a few. He’s with most of us who feel CRE still has to drop, which places additional pressure on smaller banks. There are also the usual suspects; conflicts in the Middle East putting pressure on energy markets and municipal debt problems. Birmingham, Alabama is not an isolated incident, in other words.
I know Caleb gets pissed when I write too much so I think we’re good on the economic outlook for now, lest he come flame me as Guest. Whatever. Back with Part 2 on Monday: What comes after?

The Big “Regulation” Joke

laughing.jpgEditor’s Note: Want more JDA? You can see all of her posts for GC here, her blog here and stalk her on Twitter.
In an uncharacteristic move by one of our favorite accounting professors, Prof Albrecht went off on regulation over at The Summa yesterday and personally, JDA was stoked.
The Economic and Regulatory Shadow is recommended in its entirety but here’s a juicy tidbit for you to suck on:

It is frustrating to be an accounting professor and to live in the United States of America. A mind set that triumphs the interests of corporations and auditors over those of investors is entrenched in the regulatory shadow. Consequently, any policies that might favor populist policies have little chance of success.


The federal government’s financial and economic regulatory apparatus is comprised of the Treasury Department (Treasury), the Federal Reserve (Fed), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The top positions are political appointees, but the bulk of the work is performed by career and long-term personnel. It is a lot like the situation at the State Department (State), Department of Defense (DoD), and the National Security Agency (NSA).

Know what’s really funny about Professor Albrecht’s timing? The Fed is facing this same regulatory dilemma, even if major financial bloggers missed the point over the weekend. Sure, they care about the spectre of an audit but mostly right now they don’t want the President being the one who puts regional Fed presidents in their positions. I don’t blame them for tripping on that.
So? Our dear Professor has gone out on one hell of a limb here, nearly unheard of when it comes to accounting professionals. The glossy marketing materials CPAs outnumber those who keep it real like Francine, Dennis, Skeptical CPA, and now Professor Albrecht but we’re making progress (he did always get the IFRS thing so this isn’t really all that surprising of a position).
I’m constantly thrilled to see outrage. Maybe that’s because I’m a shit-disturber but I think it is about time the industry get worked into a lather over perceived imbalances in the very regulatory system that we have to tip-toe around. All that tedious stuff you little CPAs do each and every day? It means nothing without the backbone of a regulatory system and as Professor Albrecht so astutely points out, we are sort of lacking in that department these days.
And? WTF are we supposed to do about that? Heads down and keep ticking and tying, kids, there’s not much else to do at this point.

>75: That Time of Year Again: Balancing the Exam and Busy Season

Help!.jpgEditor’s note: This is the latest edition of >75, our weekly post on questions that you have related to the CPA Exam. Send your questions to tips@goingconcern.com and we’ll do our best to answer as many of them as possible. You can see all of the JDA’s posts for GC here and all our posts related to the CPA Exam here.
Do you have a CPA exam question for >75? Send it in. I’ll be nice I swear. Possibly useful.
So it’s January and some of you are heading into a rough couple of months. With the 18 month clock ticking on the CPA exam, you don’t really have any options but to fight through it. Or argue with people on the Internet. Maybe that’s why you don’t have enough time to study?
Anyway. It’s not easy but remember it is also temporary so as long as you suffer through it a bit (oh please, is it really that bad?), it’s possible. Here are some things I’ve seen work:
• Talking to management and partners – I know. You’re going to laugh me out of here (“wtf version of JDA is this?”) but stick with me. Have you asked? I’m not saying this is always a successful method but it can never hurt to ask or let management know you’re taking the CPA exam. Especially if you work in a smaller firm, just talk to someone above you with some pull. I’ve seen it so I know it isn’t impossible.


• Cutting out the extraneous crap – You know exactly what I mean. Time management for studying is a lot like budgeting for chronic spenders. I used to burn through paychecks until I actually printed out three months worth of debit and ATM charges and saw how I was $2 and $7 and $14ing my way to $0 in no time. In much the same way, you have to figure out where you are spending your time in a week (or a day if that works better for you). Things that take “a few minutes” (Facebook anyone?) add up so count them.
• Not doing too much – One exam is enough if you really are swamped. It’s fine. Just don’t let post April 15th suddenly turn into late August because you were “so wiped out” from busy season. Take a realistic break but don’t get too detached from your goal.
What works for you to get through busy season and the exam? And don’t say trolling accounting websites trying to pick Internet fights.
Good luck? As always, it has nothing to do with circumstance, it’s just discipline.

The FDIC’s New “Risk-Based” Fee Policy. Or, Alternatively, “F&%k You, Pay Me; Banker Edition”

Uncle Sam.jpgEditor’s Note: Want more JDA? You can see all of her posts for GC here, her blog here and stalk her on Twitter.
Listen, we know the FDIC is broke, there’s no use pretending they aren’t. But apparently we’re going to keep doing it so let’s stop for a moment and analyze the FDIC’s latest crackpot scheme to keep bad banks afloat and their balance in the black, shall we?
The summation up to now — for those of you with short attention spans — is that the FDIC is looking to tax banks’ asses based on the risks they take. On the surface that doesn’t sound like a bad idea until you consider the fact that the FDIC, by its very nature as a “safety net”, encourages the exact behavior they’re looking to “penalize”. Keeping in mind also that the Obama administration is coming down on banks from the other end with some tax scheme, it makes you wonder why the hell we bailed them out in the first place.


Blame the academics and these brainiacs in Washington who believe there’s nothing wrong with the fundamental framework of American banking, least of all that any of it could possibly be attributed to the attitude that Uncle Sam will always come to banks’ rescue. Here’s hoping the bankers paid attention in Econ 101 when they went over that whole “no such thing as a free lunch” part.
UPI:

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said there was “a broad consensus of academic studies,” that concluded “poorly designed compensation structures can misalign incentives and induce risk taking.”
Bair said called a study of “compensation structure, rather than levels of compensation,” a fair approach.

Maybe I just don’t have the auditor mind needed to wrap around a concept like this but WTF is that supposed to mean?! The FDIC epitomizes moral hazard so how in the hell is it that the FDIC is the one coming in to tap banks to cover said risks? I’m not rationalizing banks’ behavior (I remind dear reader here that the top 5 banks in America hold $275 trillion in notional derivative exposure) but, uh, just because Sheila needs to cover the next round of failed banks doesn’t make it appropriate to start regulating now.
Has she ever heard of too little too late? How about too much too late?
As I have already pointed out, we all know who is going to ultimately pay for this and it sure as hell isn’t the banks. Bend over, the next round is about to hit and it’ll hurt less if you’re prepared.

Double-dipping the Economic “Recovery”

Thumbnail image for tax man.jpgIn case you haven’t heard, it’s go time for the Obama administration to cover its continually-growing deficit with no sign of increased foreign investor demand for unstable and uncertain US debt. What happened to passing a health care overhaul before Christmas? And what about those 140 failed banks in 2009? And hey! What became of that $700 billion in stimulus money that was supposed to save and create bazillions of jobs?
Here’s the solution. Tax their asses.
NYT:

President Obama will try to recoup for taxpayers as much as $120 billion of the money spent to bail out the financial system, most likely through a tax on large banks, administration and Congressional officials said Monday.


In a desperate scramble to come up for cash, the administration has thrown out a couple of unpopular ideas (unpopular if you’re a banker, of course) including excessive taxes on bonuses and bizarre financial transaction taxes. Like squeezing blood from turnips, apparently these guys forget that it was less than a year and a half ago that Hank Paulson appeared on the Hill threatening full-on financial doomsday were TARP not instituted rightf*ckingnow. So much for pulling out the bazooka in his pocket.
And let us not forget that shit rolls down hill. Who do you think would ultimately be responsible for these additional monies? The banks or the idiot customers who continue to shovel out ever-increasing fees to said banks? Exactly.

Lobbyists for bankers, taken by surprise, immediately objected to any new tax. They said financial institutions had been repaying their portion of the bailout money in full, with interest. Losses from the $700 billion bailout fund — estimated to run as high as $120 billion — are expected to come from the automobile companies and their finance arms, the insurance giant American International Group and programs to avert home foreclosures, and the president is aiming to recoup that money.

I really, really hate to side with the bankers here but they are absolutely right. If retribution for the financial crisis is our goal, taxing them to death isn’t the way to achieve that. If paying our government’s bills is the goal, however, I could see how this could easily be spun into populist payback for the pain and suffering of the last 2 years.
Hate to break it to you, America, but any money potentially recouped by this genius scheme has already been spent and certainly wouldn’t result in any long term benefit to us as a country. I’d use the pay day loan analogy again but hell, isn’t it played out by now?