Category: News

People Need to Calm Down About the FASB’s New Fair Value Proposal

This story is republished from CFOZone, where you’ll find news, analysis and professional networking tools for finance executives.

The accounting change for reporting the value of banks’ loans, which got the New York Times all hot and bothered yesterday morning, really amounts to a hill of beans, once you take a closer look at it.

In fact, the description in the article left me scratching my head on a couple of counts. How, for example, do banks write down the value of non-performing loans, as accounting rules require them to do, if they don’t mark them to market?


And what’s up with the tortuous explanation of how the Financial Accounting Standards Board decided to have banks mark to market the loans for purposes of the balance sheet but not for earnings? While I’m as big a fan as anyone of Jack T. Ciesielski, the accounting expert who publishes the investment newsletter, the Analyst’s Accounting Observer, his quote calling the decision a “smorgasboard” doesn’t really mean anything without some sort of context.

That context is pretty easy to provide, at least in the eyes of Charles Mulford, a Georgia Tech accounting professor and advisor to CFOZone.

As Mulford sees it, FASB simply is bringing information that’s already contained in the footnotes onto the balance sheet, specifically into the line item on that statement known as “other comprehensive income.” And this quite naturally has no impact on the earnings bank report on their income statements.

Currently, banks’ balance sheets carry loans at historical cost, less an estimate of the portion that is uncollectible, with fair value information in the notes, the accounting professor explains. The proposal would move the fair value information to the balance sheet by reconciling the cost of the loan with its fair value, he continues. But Mulford adds that there would be no change in the income statement, since that already includes any loan impairments. Instead, adjustments to fair value would be accounted for as a component of other comprehensive income, which is reported on the balance sheet.

“I view it more of a change in presentation than a change in accounting,” says Mulford.

In other words, investors who pay attention already understand this, so any complaints on the parts of banks should be seen as just an attempt to continue to fool those that don’t.

At Least One Accountant Thinks “Legally Cooking the Books” Is A-Okay

That accountant is Ren Carlton, CPA, CSMC and “native Michigander.” Although Ren is hesitant to broach the subject because, “this information can be abused to defraud investors and cheat on taxes.” Who knew?!?

Despite that caveat, Ren has decided that sharing this information is too critical to be kept to himself, “I have decided that legas is a critical skill for attracting investors and lenders, as well as satisfying the occasional customer or vendor requests.”

Okay then! So if we understand correctly, the rationale here is that cooking the books is sort of like drinking alcohol. In moderation, it’s fine and sometimes even the right thing to do but if you abuse it, you start making an ass out of yourself and probably some bad decisions that could lead to, ya know, jail.


But wait, do you really even know what “cook the books” means? You may be under the cockamamie notion that it’s a bad thing. Well, it’s not and Ren explains it for us:

Cooking the books (also known as creative accounting and earnings management) are euphemisms referring to accounting practices that may follow the letter of the rules of standard accounting practices, but certainly deviate from the spirit of those rules. They are characterized by excessive complication and the use of novel ways of characterizing income, assets, or liabilities and the intent to influence readers toward the interpretations desired by the authors. The terms “innovative” or “aggressive” are also sometimes used.

See? Cooking the books just doesn’t follow the “spirit of those rules,” it’s not breaking the rules. Strangely enough, Ren’s definition is strangely similar to this Wikipedia entry for creative accounting:

Creative accounting and earnings management are euphemisms referring to accounting practices that may follow the letter of the rules of standard accounting practices, but certainly deviate from the spirit of those rules. They are characterized by excessive complication and the use of novel ways of characterizing income, assets, or liabilities and the intent to influence readers towards the interpretations desired by the authors. The terms “innovative” or “aggressive” are also sometimes used.

Cooking the books, creative accounting – they’re the same right? Close enough, anyway. Now that the semantics are out of the way, what other words of wisdom can we get from Ren? How about an example of acceptable book cooking? Say, revenue recognition:

One example of cooking the books is acceleration of revenue recognition. This tactic is used to recognize revenue before it is considered earned by GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). Methods for accelerating revenue include recognizing sales that are not yet earned or complete. Another method is to book sales that are actually earned in another period (e.g., recognizing January 2011 sales on your 2010 income statement). Flagrant abuse of the Revenue Recognition Principle includes backdating sales and fabricating fictitious sales.

How are you going to impress that bank with your revenue numbers if you ram in some revenue from a future period? What if you need another investor to help you reach the next stage of your business? It’s your God-given right to present them with phony numbers in order to get them on board. This is America, people. Don’t let the spirit of GAAP hold you back!

In Other Words, The Estate Tax Debate Will Continue to Drag On

“The debate becomes what rate to apply, and there’s the Republican view and the Democratic view, and what level of transfer exemption should be there. There are two different camps on that. I think historically that would be ripe for sort of compromising down the middle, but unfortunately, that’s not the political environment that exists right now.”

~ AICPA President and CEO Barry Melancon remains optimistic that something will get done.

Accenture, Looking for Fresh Ad Campaign, Makes the Right Choice to Launch Review

As CEO of Avidan Strategies, an agency search firm, we constantly conduct reviews for clients who wish to switch ad agencies. The reasons for conducting a search cover the span of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Sometimes clients resort to spurious explanations for a review. Sometimes, the arrival of a new chief marketing officer is enough to precipitate a review, as its ties to the CMO’s predecessor taint the incumbent agency.

Yet, the Accenture agency search, as reported in this story by Advertising Age, is appropriate and well timed. Until the wee hours of last Thanksgiving, when Tiger woods slammed his SUV into a tree, Accenture had a solid ad campaign. Using Tiger as spokesman and symbol of the consultancy dedication to excellence was effective. Although not exactly relevant to Accenture’s offerings, Tiger was magic. He was the ultimate professional, an athlete that not only transcended his sport, but one that transcended all sports. Tiger was a rock star.


To its credit, Accenture reacted fast to the unfolding scandal. Within weeks it dropped Tiger as a spokesman and launched a new campaign, featuring animals in unusual situations to illustrate aspects of its service. For example, a surfing elephant to depict nimbleness. The marketer is trying to downplay speculation that the animal campaign was a “hail Mary” pass, and suggests that it’s agency, Y&R, had pulled it out of a drawer. I doubt it. When you sign up Tiger Woods to be your spokesperson, you don’t need a Plan B. You know that this is the horse that you are going to ride.

That said, Accenture is smart to call a review. The animal campaign was a good stop gap measure, but now it is time to look beyond the horizon and come up with the next big campaign idea that can last 7,8,9 years. Y&R has been Accenture’s agency since Accenture was formed in the mid-90s. While longevity is not necessarily a bad thing, relationships can get stale. So it’s smart of Accenture to cast a wider net. As a matter of fact, more and more companies now conduct mandatory periodic reviews, previously conducted only by governmental agencies, to insure that services provided are best in class.

I hope that the winning idea will not be apologetic. Tiger’s mess has nothing to do with Accenture, and unlike Nike, they acted ethically and wisely by dumping him swiftly. The new agency should focus on Accenture leadership equity, it’s commitment to research and it’s ability to manage complicated systems. As we are coming out of the recession, glitz is being replaced by authenticity. Businessmen, Accenture’s target, are under tremendous pressure in a tough bottom-line environment. The animals campaign is funny and warm, but perhaps too cartoonish for our time. A more straightforward campaign, with Accenture traditional warmth and humanity, is more appropriate.

Avi Dan is President & CEO of Avidan Strategies, a New York based consultancy specialized in advising professional service companies on marketing and business development. Mr. Dan was previously a board member with two leading advertising agencies and managed another.

Why Did Patrick Byrne Sell $3 million in Overstock.com Shares?

So Patrick Byrne (via his 100% wholly owned entity High Plains Investments, LLC) sold 140,000 OSTK shares in the past five days and that has a few people talking/wondering aloud about what the hell is going on.

Barry Ritholtz, who is long OSTK (quantitative drivers) despite, “I…think it is a steaming pile of shit, that the CEO is an asshole, and that the entire company is probably corrupt,” is really curious:

Is Byrne in possession of material insider information? Would he be so stupid as to sell the shares? (I doubt anyone could be that dumb).

Perhaps he sees a favorable outcome to the SEC investigation? Maybe he is raising money to pay a fine?

These are all excellent jumping off points (although we disagree with the notion “I doubt anyone could be that dumb”) but let’s explore other possibilities:

A) Segways for the KPMG audit team.

B) Reverse Psychology – he’s done fighting the short selling crowd (or is he?)

C) He’s going to apologize to Sam Antar monetarily (how generous he will be, is another matter entirely).

D) He needs some cash for a Father’s Day gift.

E) Needs to feed the Farmville addiciton.

These are merely some ideas. And there’s always the possibility that PB has gone right out of his mind. Share your own, should you feel inclined.

Long OSTK, Short Byrne [The Big Picture]
Proxy Statement/Schedule 14A [SEC.gov]
Patrick Byrne Pockets $3.1 Million from Dumping Overstock.com Shares [White Collar Fraud]
Patrick Byrne Dumps His Overstocked Overstock Shares [Gary Weiss]

Integrated Reporting Will Gain Momentum as Banks, Private Equity Increase Their Focus on ESG Issues

In the first part of our conversation with Michael Krzus, co-author of One Report, Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy, we discussed the nature of integrated reporting, how it will change corporate reporting as it is commonly known and some of the benefits to both stakeholders and companies.

The second part of our discussion looks at how small and midsize entities will benefit from integrated reporting, the feedback received from clients, and what the future holds.


Going Concern: Do you see a point in time when companiessults for sustainability issues on a reoccurring basis similar to quarterly earnings reporting?

Michael Krzus: I know enough about this to be dangerous, so I’ll give you that caveat, but I am aware of the somewhat recent EPA rule making that is going to require companies to report emissions and things of that nature. There are some limitations, but there will be more frequent reporting for U.S. domiciled companies. I think some of it will depend on the technology available. I don’t know what it takes for a coal-fired electric plant to account for CO2 emissions. So I’m not really in a good position to tell you that in five years whether that will evolve into more regular reporting or not.

GC: What kind of companies will be able to utilize integrate reporting? Can any size company embrace it or will it start with the largest players and work its way down?

MK: As a practical matter, it will have to be large, public traded companies, particularly the global players. On the other hand, I think small and mid-cap companies, especially private ones, have as much or more skin in the game and a lot more upside than the big guys. And that’s because of the complexity of information and the complexity of accounting standards. If you’re Microsoft, you’ve got a lot of issues that can be addressed by your large accounting department but if you’re a $400 million manufacturer of widgets, you don’t have those kind of resources. But you do want to tell stakeholders your story clearly and succinctly. I think the idea of the integrated report gives them the opportunity to do that.

Additionally, in the last couple of years, I’ve developed a good working relationship with the Society of Investment Professionals in Germany and one of the things that group has done is build example reports of what an integrated report could look like for a small or mid-cap sized company. If you think about it from the German perspective, much of their market base is small and medium sized companies and analysts there are very interested in the benefits that an integrated reporting can provide. So, there’s a lot upside for companies that fall outside the Fortune 500.

GC: Do you see a point in time where banks start requesting more non-financial information (i.e. ESG information) in order to qualify for lending?

MK: The short answer is “Yes.” To me, sustainability really has to do with long term viability of an entity. I don’t think a company can be viable for the long term without understanding and managing their environmental, social and governance risks because those three risk types specifically translate to reputation.

To some degree a lender will have to start considering non-financial factors. The price of admission is opening your heart and soul, as a company, to the banker. A banker can ask all kinds of question whether its about CO2 emissions or manufacturing location in Thailand that may cause child labor problems because you’re running a sweat shop.

To parallel that, I recently attended a conference of institutional investors. I found it interesting that a group of people that wanted to know more about integrated reporting were private equity folks. These private equity people are in the same boat as the bankers. If they are going to make an investment, they will open up everything. It’s not just about getting the 10-K, it’s about understanding everything from financial projections and processes to social and environmental risks in China. So, the markets in general, not just bankers, but also private equity and traditional sources of capital have become more and more interested in a broad set of non-financial information.

GC: What has been the experience with clients?

MK: Clients have assisted us by presenting challenging questions to help us think more clearly about the situation. For example, some people have argued that we don’t need integrated reporting because the markets are efficient and already have all the information they need. I would argue that, even without the events of the last couple of years, markets aren’t efficient and don’t have all the information they need because we have so many firms employing armies of analysts, all of who are looking for that shred of information that will give their company an edge. There’s always something that the analysts don’t have.

Another argument is whether or not the integrated report somehow diminishes the corporate responsibility report. My response to that is that by not integrating the two types of reports, companies avoid an audit of non-financial information. In general, the companies that have an integrated report do have some assurance over the non-financial information; it’s not necessarily subject to the same standards as auditing standards but there is some kind of assurance. So I think some kind of audit over the information – and over time perhaps controls and processes – will elevate the quality of the reporting. So good questions from very sharp people like “Have you guys thought about this?” forces us to engage in some dialogue of our own so we do have a coherent responses.

GC: How does IFRS fit into integrated reporting?

MK: I’m one of those people who think that there should be one global set of accounting standards. To speculate just a little bit, I could envision a world that might have IFRS that govern the financial statements and perhaps an international non-financial reporting standard, because at some point we’re going to have to address that. I think the larger question of IFRS is to first, how do we develop a global standard of non-financial information? And secondly, can we develop some sort of benchmark for auditors? So, I remain optimistic that U.S. will eventually adopt IFRS and would hope in the next few years there would be some kind of move to adopt international standards for non-financial information.

GC: What’s next?

MK: There are a couple of major conferences coming up this year where integrated reporting will be a topic in several sessions. We use various conferences to spread the word and build some momentum behind the idea. The Harvard Business School and the Harvard University Center of the Environment are co-sponsoring an event on integrated reporting later this year. Two newspapers in Japan are hosting an event in November and the Prince of Wales Accounting for Sustainability has an annual event in December that hosts roundtables on various topics.

On the Accounting for Sustainability website, there are a number of press releases including a PDF on a governmental collaboration that calls for the establishing an international integrated reporting committee. I can tell you that the Accounting for Sustainability Group has the resources and, frankly, the brand name that could call for the IASB or some other group to undertake the idea of a global framework for reporting non-financial information. I could see us having this conversation a year from now and I’d be very disappointed if there was not some kind of formal announcement from an international integrated reporting committee.

So I’m cautiously optimistic about the future. The timing for this is right and integrated reporting is important when you believe in the concept of inter-generational responsibility. This is the only planet we’ve got and we should every intent to leave it in as good as condition as we found it.

But as a hard-headed capitalist I also think integrated reporting makes sense because you don’t want to invest in company that will go bust. A company simply cannot be viable for the long-term unless they are considering ESG issues.

Accounting Going Green? The Move to Integrated Reporting

Transparency is fast becoming the most important tool corporations can use. Not long ago, management determined what was relevant and stakeholders were notified on a need-to-know basis. Now the tables have turned and stakeholders have the ability to demand information of all types and if companies are not willing to provide it, those stakeholders now have the resources to discover (or in some cases, uncover) it for themselves.

Adding transparency to corporate reporting still seems to be a work in progress. As the SEC s ruminates over IFRS and its impact on financial reporting, corporate sustainability and responsibility reporting is fast becoming one of the popular ways for companies to give stakeholders a snapshot of its social, environmental, risk, and ce.


The problem from a practical perspective is that it’s difficult to consume all information in an efficient manner. That’s where the idea of integrated reporting comes in. Simply, it combines the the traditional financial report along with the non-financial information presented in the corporate responsibility, social responsibilty or ESG report.

One Report, Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy is a book written by Robert G. Eccles, senior lecturer of Business Administration at Harvard University and Michael P. Krzus, a public policy and external affairs partner with Grant Thornton.

We had the pleasure of speaking with Mr Krzus recently about One Report, covering topics like what kind of data it consists of, how it will change corporate reporting, and what the future holds. This is part one of a two part interview. Check back for part two tomorrow.

Going Concern: How can you best summarize what integrated reporting is, how it will be different and how it will improve corporate reporting.

Michael Krzus: On it’s face it’s a very simple idea – the notion of an integrated report really involves the combination of the traditional financial or corporate report and combining it with corporate sustainability, responsibility or ESG report and combing them into a single package. However, that doesn’t mean that companies will staple together two reports, each one about 150 pages long, that results in one report that’s 300 pages long.

If you look at one of the companies we talk about in the book, United Technologies here in the U.S. and Danish company Novo Nordisk, each of their integrated reports perhaps have 115-120 pages and what both have a very robust website. Just because something may not be deemed material for the integrated report, there is still a lot of information that both of those companies, as well as others, present in very easy-to-navigate websites. So one of the things that we’re seeing is that integrated reporting is really helping develop very advanced websites.

Similarly, I was working on a couple of presentations on the German chemical company BASF has a page on their website that will allow you to link to 200 different global social media outlets including the likes of Facebook and Twitter. So we’re really starting to see that kind of engagement develop from companies that are embracing integrated reporting as well.

Companies are using the idea of an integrated report to better understand their own internal concepts of materiality and by engaging with their stakeholders and understanding what they think is material or what their material risk exposures are. It’s a disservice to the broad stakeholder community that some mainstream analysts don’t give consideration to some of the environmental or social risks that exist.

From the perspective of the socially responsible investor or perhaps a non-governmental organization that follows a very narrow or very critical mission, they may not understand the trade-offs that these company have made. We think that the idea of a single integrated report will help broaden the perspective and help them make an informed decision.

GC: Considering a traditional corporate responsibility report, how the data change? Similarly, will the data change from the two separate reports combining into a single report?

MK: There are relationships between financial and non-financial performers and vice versa. Companies need to better explain what those relationships are.

One example is BMW. On one hand, water is a relatively small cost that goes into an automobile but in terms of water as a resource, it is an increasingly scarce resource in certain parts of the world. BMW has decided to make huge investments in reusing water and they actually have a plant in Austria that doesn’t bring fresh water to the plant, they just continually reuse it. The benefit, as it turns out, is because of their focus and because they’re a few steps ahead of other automobile manufacturers, they’ve got a cost advantage. Making that kind of discussion clear, it’s not just about cutting CO2 emissions, but also process improvements that enable companies to produce more at a lesser cost.

I think the other difference that you’ll see in the new reports is that the mainstream analysis will be giving more consideration to ESG issues. The traditional analyst has several companies that they’re following and these companies have different sectors in an annual report, corporate responsibility report, and many others. It’s extremely difficult to consume that many reports. My co-author and I interviewed an analyst once who brought in a stack of about 60 reports because some of the companies that she followed were issuing financial, environmental, and responsibility reports all separately, and she said “there’s no way.” So I think the integrated report will help that.

A couple more examples: last September Bloomberg launched a product that involves making global reporting initiatives that available on their Bloomberg terminals and CalPers’ board has undertaken a project to integrate ESG factors into their analysis better and in turn, push that down that to their asset managers. So we are starting to see some movement. That relationship between financial and non-financial performance and making things easier for the analysts to consider non-financial information will be the two biggest changes that will come about as result of wider adoption of integrated reporting.

GC: And CalPers is not a lightweight. If you see someone like someone like that setting an example, there are other companies or large holders of assets that will follow their lead.

MK: CalPers is not a lightweight at all. We’ve developed a good working relationship with a couple of people at CalPers and they are taking the idea of integrated reporting very, very seriously.

When you think about it, if CalPers goes to their asset managers and says we want you to integrate ESG into your traditional analysis and here’s the way we want you to come up with it. I think that’s going to have a ripple effect across other pension fund managers and assets managers other than those at CalPers.

GC: What would you say are the biggest benefits that stakeholders will get out of integrated reporting?

MK: I think the biggest benefit is actually going to be better engagement with companies they want information about. In my opinion, a company cannot undertake an integrated reporting project without really listening to the stakeholders. For a company to understand the perspectives, not that they’ll all be material, but that they’ll be willing to engage in that dialogue.

And it may not be in ways that companies are not comfortable with whether it’s Twitter or Facebook or something else, I think that process of stakeholder engagement is going to be mutually beneficial. The companies will better understand who’s out there and what they’re expectations are. And from the user perspective, it they will have a better understanding about what some of the tradeoffs are, as well as what some of the reporting implications might be. Overall, I think it will create a better overall understanding for both groups.

And by having more robust information, it’s going to allow for better decision making. I see that as a benefit on both sides. From the investor side, they’re going to have a much better understanding of the some the risks a company faces. An investor has to consider a lot of intangibles when making a decision. Whether its the business risks to climate change or the innovation process. If that kind of information is made available, it’s going to allow investors to make better decisions and who the winners and the losers are.

GC: Is there any risk that stakeholders might have too much information?

MK: Frankly, yes but I think in some ways it’s an overblown risk because when Bob and I looked at some of the oldest integrated reporters, you clearly see an evolution. A great example is BASF. Because of the diversity of their operations and the nature of the chemical business, there’s a lot of relevant information, especially about risk and materiality of certain exposures. About a year ago I spent half a day with their reporting team looking at both the financial and sustainability side. They do a very good job of looking in the mirror. One of the first comments was that the integrated report was still too long; that they needed to do a better job of getting their arms around materiality and again, the dialogue with the stakeholders helped them do that.

Over time as companies engage their stakeholder through various technologies, they will reduce the report down to a very information rich package. So yes, there’s a risk for too much information but I don’t think that will stop anyone.

Don’t forget to check back here tomorrow for part 2!

Koss Files 10-Q Sans Financial Statements, Declares Dividend

Somehow this got overlooked earlier in the week but we can’t literally be all-knowing, all-seeing, all the time. Plus, haven’t you missed this mug?

Headphone cobbler Koss filed it’s first quarter 10-Q earlier this week, which ordinarily would be a non-event except for a small matter of missing financial statements.

The Milwaukee Business Journal reports that the company cited the missing financial statements “due to delays relating to certain previously disclosed unauthorized transactions.”


Yes, that’s PR-speak for ueSay achdevaSay.

Koss executives intend to amend the Form 10-Q to include the quarterly unaudited financial statements as soon as possible after Koss Corp. completes restating statements from previous quarters in fiscal 2008, fiscal 2009 and the quarter ending Sept. 30, 2009, the company said. The company said it expects to file amended financial reports with the SEC no later than June 30.

But there’s nothing to be worried about because the company declared a dividend and secured an $8 million credit facility with JP Morgan. Progress!

Koss declares dividend, but yet to report results [Milwaukee Business Journal]
10-Q [SEC.gov]
8-K [SEC.gov]

You Can Forget About Landing That CFO Position at the SEC

Mary Schapiro took some time out of her fraud fighting Friday to ask Kenneth Johnson to quit acting as the Commission’s CFO and to take on the official responsibility of running the Office of Financial Management.

Mr Johnson (KenJo?) vehemently accepted the offer and threw in a shout out to the boss, “I’m honored to accept this new role at such an important time for the agency. Chairman Schapiro is deeply committed to strong financial management, and I’m proud to lead the agency’s initiatives in this area.”


Presumably, the CFO position isn’t a kicking-down-doors type job so Johnson’s first order of business should be to determine the savings on a group rate at one porn site that can appropriate service all tastes.

Washington, D.C., May 21, 2010 — Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Schapiro today announced that Kenneth A. Johnson has been named Chief Financial Officer for the agency.

Mr. Johnson has been serving as acting CFO for much of the past year. The agency’s CFO is responsible for leading its Office of Financial Management, which handles the budget, finance, and accounting operations for the SEC.

“I’m delighted that Ken has agreed to take on this role at the SEC,” said Chairman Schapiro. “His deep experience in the financial arena will be incredibly valuable as we grow as an agency.”

Mr. Johnson added, “I’m honored to accept this new role at such an important time for the agency. Chairman Schapiro is deeply committed to strong financial management, and I’m proud to lead the agency’s initiatives in this area.”

Mr. Johnson, 37, joined the SEC in 2003 as a Management Analyst in the Office of the Executive Director. In that role, he advised on all aspects of the budget process, developed strategy initiatives, and responded to inquiries from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress regarding the SEC’s budget and financial operations. He became Chief Management Analyst in 2006.

Mr. Johnson has served as a valuable staff expert on legislative proposals, and he managed the development of the SEC’s long-range Strategic Plan that would guide agency policy through 2015.

Prior to joining the SEC staff, Mr. Johnson worked as a Commerce Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His primary responsibility in that role was to analyze and report on the budgetary effects of committee-approved legislation.

Mr. Johnson earned his Masters in Public Policy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and earned his BA at Stanford University.

Details We’d Like to See in Stephen Chipman’s Blog: Partners with Self-assigned Nicknames

We enjoy Stephen Chipman’s blog as much as any casual reader inside of Grant Thornton but he often leaves us wanting more. He talks about New York, Chicago, Atlanta, London, China (God, he loves talking about China) but sometimes we’d like to know what some of the smaller offices have going for themselves.

We know what’s going on in Honolulu, Greensboro, and Madison but what about Grant Thornton Salt Lake City? Or Oklahoma City? What’s going there, Steve-o?


Fortunately, we stumbled upon a little blog that tells us about not one, but 25 things about GT’s Phoenix office. As you might expect, the office gets a place on a “Best Places” list and most of the information shared is about the volunteering the firm does in the local community or raising awareness about [insert major problem, e.g. Americans are fat and don’t exercise] which is really nice.

As much as we like – nay – love nice, we know that similar efforts are made in other offices so we’re craving something local, something unique, something that makes you say, that sums up Grant Thornton Phoenix.

Luckily, they did just that by way of an 80s slapstick comedy that some of you young GTers have probably never seen (and frankly, we don’t really remember either):

Grant Thornton tapped three friends and partners, who called themselves the “3 Amigos,” to start the Phoenix office. Ed O’Brien, Brad Preber and Ken Garrett were serving clients out of different Grant Thornton offices. Each had a unique specialized expertise – O’Brien in audit, Preber in consulting and Garrett in tax.

Mr Preber is also a tournament champion fly fisherman so we picture him as a hunky Brad Pitt in A River Runs Through It type but the rest of the amigos are a blank.

25 Things You Didn’t Know About…Grant Thornton LLP [HMA Time]

Getting Regular Sex in Denmark May Have Cost Søren Hansen About $2.6 Million

Back in March we told you about non-Phil/Tiger golfer Søren Hansen, who was looking at jail time for dodging about 10 million kroner in taxes.

He managed to avoid the Danish joint but a judge did order him to pay 8 million in back taxes and an additional 8 million in fines. This works out to $2.6 million which is around what Tiger Woods spends on hookers in a weekend. So in other words – a chunk.


Hansen maintained throughout the ordeal that he was not a resident of Denmark because he changed his residence to Monaco in 1999 (it’s on his Wikipedia page for crissakes! What’s it going to take?!?) and thus not subject to the tax. The judge didn’t buy it because “he used his summerhouse in Hornbæk for residential purposes, as well as stayed over in his girlfriend’s Copenhagen apartment regularly.”

Obviously Hansen could have moved his g/f to Monaco to avoid all the trips back but that would have put a serious damper on the Monaco tail situation.

Golfer hit for 16 million kroner [Copenhagen Post]