For some time now, the PCAOB has been talking about making audit partners famous (at least to investors that are paying attention) in ways that they aren’t too thrilled about. Earlier today the Board issued a proposal for comment that will do just that.
The proposed amendments would:
• require registered public accounting firms to disclose the name of the engagement partner in the audit report,
• amend the Board’s Annual Report Form to require registered firms to disclos gagement partner for each audit report already required to be reported on the form, and
•require disclosure in the audit report of other accounting firms and certain other participants that took part in the audit.
So if you can consider yourself an astute observer of auditing policy and regs, they’d love to hear your thoughts. However, it would be greatly appreciated if you didn’t take your cues from the FASB letters and kept things constructive.
All of the Board Members made statements, including PCAOB Chairman Jim Doty (full statement on page 2) who sees this latest proposal as good sense:
I fail to see why shareholders in BNP Paribas, listed on the Euronext Paris exchange, should be able to see the name of the engagement partner in the audit report, but shareholders in Citigroup, listed on the New York Stock Exchange should not. Indeed, the names of engagement partners for some European companies that are listed on the NYSE are disclosed in U.S. filings. Why are shareholders in France Telecom to be favored over shareholders in AT&T?
And then there’s Steven Harris’s statement (in full on page 3). Harris, who is known to speak frankly about auditors, finds the proposal okay enough but would really like to see the audit partners’ John Hancocks:
While I support an identification of the engagement partner, I continue to strongly support, and would have preferred, a requirement for the engagement partner to actually sign his or her name on the audit report. My views, which I stated when the Board last publicly discussed the issue in July 2009, have not changed. Very fundamentally, I believe that nothing focuses the mind quite like putting one’s individual signature on a document.
And for good measure, he threw in this:
Many find it ironic that auditing firms in the United States, whose business is providing assurance about the transparency provided by others, resist publicly providing their own financial statements. There is no apparent reason that the auditing firms that act as gatekeepers to our securities markets should not be as transparent to investors as the companies they audit.
If you agree with Mr. Harris and happen to have a copy of your firm’s financial statements, feel free to pass it along. Or if you’d rather not wait to make your thoughts known on the Board’s proposals, you may drop them in the comments below.
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board today announced a cooperative agreement with the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway for the oversight of audit work performed by public accounting firms that practice in the two regulators’ respective jurisdictions. “With this agreement, Norway’s FSA and the PCAOB are joining forces to improve audit quality and protect investors,” said PCAOB Chairman James R. Doty. “I am pleased that the PCAOB is continuing to make progress in overcoming the obstacles that have in the past prevented PCAOB inspections in Europe.” [PCAOB]
But probably not in ways they would prefer:
In a recently updated standard-setting agenda, PCAOB Chief Auditor Marty Baumann says the board is working on the proposal to address concerns about audit transparency. The board published a concept release in July 2009 that asked for feedback on whether the engagement partner should be required to sign the audit report. Based on feedback to that release and subsequent discussions with the board’s advisory groups, the PCAOB is preparing a new requirement for audit firms to say in their audit reports which engagement partner at the firm supervised the audit and who from outside the audit firm participated in the audit.
Tweeth John Carney:
Board spokeswoman Colleen Brennan didn’t answer her phone, so we can only assume everyone is still filing back in or just turning this into a nice opportunity to grab the afternoon pick-me-up. If your office was evacuated, tell us below.
UDPATE: she does have email, thank the maker, and she responded to us so we assume everything is hunky dory. We’ll keep you updated with other news.
Because the PCAOB is giving you until December 14th to make your views known.
“One cannot talk about audit quality without discussing independence, skepticism and objectivity. Any serious discussion of these qualities must take into account the fundamental conflict of the audit client paying the auditor,” said PCAOB Chairman James R. Doty.
“The reason to consider auditor term limits is that they may reduce the pressure auditors face to develop and protect long-term client relationships to the detriment of investors and our capital markets,” Chairman Doty added.
Don’t fret anti-rotaters, the Board did invite everyone to weigh in on the idea that they “should consider a rotation requirement only for audit tenures of more than 10 years or only for the largest issuer audits.”
The PCAOB has banned former Ernst & Young partner Peter O’Toole from associating with a PCAOB-registered firm for the next three years and fined him $50,000 for his part of a 2009 scheme to fake audit paperwork. E&Y removed O’Toole from the audit engagement team in June of 2010 and canned him several months later in September. The three year ban from audits is the longest bar that the PCAOB has imposed on a partner of a Big 4 accounting firm to date.
“These actions threatened to undermine the integrity of PCAOB inspection processes, and the ability of the Board to discharge its mandate to inspect the auditors of public companies,” said James R. Doty, PCAOB Chairman in a statement. “The Board moved swiftly to address this conduct, having commenced litigation against these respondents within seven months of learning of their conduct. I commend the Board’s Division of Enforcement and Investigations for its timely and effective work,” he added.
The PCAOB has also banned Darrin Estella from working with a PCAOB-registered firm for two years in connection with the improper creation, addition, and backdating of audit documentation in this case. Estella was a senior manager with E&Y’s Boston office and also let go in September of 2010.
The Board found that, shortly before a PCAOB inspection of an E&Y audit, O’Toole and Estella — acting with O’Toole’s knowledge and authorization — created, backdated, and added a document to the audit working papers that related to the most significant issue in that audit. The Board also found that O’Toole authorized other members of the audit engagement team, including Estella, to alter, add, and backdate other working papers in advance of the PCAOB inspection.
Additionally, the Board found that O’Toole and Estella provided a written document to PCAOB inspectors in which E&Y represented to the Board that no changes had been made to the audit working papers following the documentation completion date for the audit. Neither O’Toole nor Estella ever disclosed to the PCAOB inspectors that, in fact, the working papers were altered after the documentation completion date and shortly before the inspection.
The Board found that O’Toole and Estella’s actions violated PCAOB Rule 4006, which requires cooperation with Board inspections, as well as PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 3, which governs audit documentation.
The PCAOB has not released the name of the company involved, who hired E&Y as independent auditor in 2002. E&Y expressed an unqualified opinion on the company’s September 30, 2009 financial statements, which led to notice by the PCAOB that an inspection of the unknown company’s audit was being performed on March 30, 2010. The partner, senior manager and manager on the engagement were given notice on March 31, 2010. The inspection fieldwork was set to begin on April 19, 2010.
This comes on the heels of an earlier PCAOB decision which censured 27-year-old Jacqueline Higgins for her part in the scheme. Word is she has since taken a job with McGladrey’s Boston office (unconfirmed rumor), who could probably use the help.
You could have a worse career path… like this lady.
Currently, the PCAOB is seeking the following professionals:
* Accountants and Auditors, especially those with extensive auditing experience in:
* International Financial Reporting Standards
* Industry expertise (banking, insurance, oil and gas pharmaceuticals)
* Fair value measurements
* IT auditing
* Forensic Accountants
* Enforcement Attorneys and Accountants
Their own employees say great things about their employer, like Greg, an Associate Director out of Atlanta who gushes “the most exciting part of working here is that we are still a fairly new organization. My experiences with the PCAOB have enabled me to utilize and expand on the skills I acquired both in industry and public accounting and still make it home in time for dinner.”
Or Todd, an Inspections Specialist out of Denver who says “When I was recruited and interviewed, they talked about work-life balance. Everybody talks about having work-life balance, and I think as auditors, we all took that talk with a grain of salt. But then to come here and see it’s actually true, well, that was a nice surprise. At the same time, I continue growing here and developing my career. It really is a nice balance.”
Well then, sounds like a sweet gig.
The PCAOB offers all kinds of benefits such as tuition assistance, 401(k) and retirement, a PPO health plan and a metric shit ton of paid time off.
You’ll probably have to actually apply with them to get any real salary info, so if big-time bureaucracy and work-life balance are what you’re after, get on that.
Any accounting students that happen to have an above-average aptitude for accounting or auditing will be happy to know that the PCAOB has been given the go-ahead to award fifty-two $10,000 scholarships for the 2011-2012 academic year. There are some conditions, however, including:
• Be enrolled in a bachelor’s or master’s degree program in accounting
• Demonstrate interest and aptitude in accounting and auditing
• Demonstrate high ethical standards
• Not be a PCAOB employee or a child or spouse of a PCAOB employee
In addition, we think it makes sense that anyone with “Ernst” or “Young” in their name will be forced to undergo a more rigorous examination of their qualifications. Also anyone named “Arthur Andersen” should be immediately ineligible. If you have other conditions you’d like to see attached to these scholarships, leave them below.
And here’s the list of schools:
Brigham Young University
Central Washington University
CUNY Bernard M Baruch College
Eastern Michigan University
Florida State University
George Washington University
Georgia Southern University
Golden Gate University
Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis
Indiana Wesleyan University
Louisiana State University and A & M College
Michigan State University
Middle Tennessee State University
Missouri State University
North Carolina State University
Northern Illinois University
Nova Southeastern University
Rhode Island College
University of Alabama
University of Colorado-Denver
University of Connecticut
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Hartford
University of Illinois at Chicago
University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
University of Maryland-University College
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
University of Missouri-Columbia
University of North Carolina-Charlotte
University of North Carolina-Greensboro
University of North Texas
University of Notre Dame
University of Oregon
University of Pittsburgh
University of Southern California
University of Southern Mississippi
University of Texas at Austin
University of Texas at Dallas
University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
Walsh College of Accountancy & Business
Weber State University
Perhaps you’ve heard that some U.S.-listed Chinese companies have had some trouble with their financial reporting. Often times this leads to CFOs quitting, auditors resigning or workpapers being held hostage. None of which are good. Occurrences such as these have been going on for a little while and more recently the SEC admitted that they had, in fact, heard something about it. Perhaps even more surprisingly, a Chinese official also confessed that some of these companies weren’t exactly on top of their shit and in some may not have the faintest idea of what they’re doing.
All this excitement has finally gotten the teams at the SEC and PCAOB worked up enough that it has been decided that they’re popping over to Beijing to meet with the country’s Ministry of Finance and the China Securities Regulatory Commission next Monday and Tuesday to see what’s what.
“This meeting is the commencement of our accelerated efforts with the People’s Republic of China to forge a cooperative resolution to cross-border auditing oversight. I believe we share a common objective with Chinese regulators to protect investors and safeguard audit quality through our mutual cooperation,” said James R. Doty, PCAOB Chairman.
The delegation will be led by Board Member Lewis H. Ferguson and include staff from the PCAOB’s Office of International Affairs and Division of Registration and Inspections, and the SEC Office of International Affairs and Office of the Chief Accountant. The delegation will meet with senior leadership of the Ministry of Finance and the CSRC.
“The purpose of this meeting is to provide an opportunity to exchange information about how each country conducts inspections of auditing firms and to move toward a bilateral agreement providing for joint inspections of China-based auditing firms registered with the PCAOB,” said PCAOB Board Member Ferguson.
Reuters reports that Ferguson considers the trip a “confidence-building exercise,” just in case you were still a little queasy on Sino-Forest, et al.
For anyone that missed it earlier, the PCAOB issued a concept release today putting out some ideas for changes to the auditor’s report. The members of the Board also took the opportunity to say a few words and Mr. Harris saw an opportunity to point some things out:
The events of the last few years have been a case study of the inability of auditors to provide investors with any meaningful signal about increases in financial reporting risks when management assessments or estimates change dramatically, or when debates over significant accounting issues become difficult or contentious.
And he added the following for good measure:
Out of the ten largest bankruptcies during the financial crisis, only two had going concern opinions. During the year leading up to their bankruptcy filings, the market capitalization of the eight companies without going concern opinions declined from a collective $75.5 billion in the year prior to their respective bankruptcy filings to a collective market capitalization of just under $700 million at the time of their filing – a 99% loss in investor value.
Now before you get all worked up about these, the Board is inviting everyone to throw out comments before September 30th, make other suggestions and participate in a roundtable during the third quarter in case you are inclined to heckle them for making your life more difficult. Anyway, here’s what they’ve got:
• An auditor’s discussion and analysis;
• Required and expanded use of emphasis paragraphs;
• Auditor assurance on other information outside the financial statements; and,
• Clarification of language in the standard auditor’s report.
These are just suggestions mind you, so if you’ve got something better in mind, feel free to share below.
SEC commissioners will vote today on proposed changes to broker-dealer auditing and reporting rules at a meeting in Washington. As with the 2009 rules, which tightened oversight of advisers’ custody of client assets after Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme was exposed, the new changes increase oversight of the minority of about 300 broker-dealers who hold customers’ cash.
The proposals — which would be opened for a 60-day comment period — would require that a broker-dealer’s internal controls be checked by a registered public accounting firm and would let regulators examine the broker-dealer’s audits. Broker-dealers would have to file quarterly reports describing whether they have access to client money and how any access is controlled. [Bloomberg]
Last week, we told you about Jonathan Weil’s latest scoop exposing a PCAOB issuer in an inspection report. The issuer in question was Motorola and it, once again, featured KPMG as the auditor on the receiving end of the Board’s criticism. It was also noted that PCAOB Chair Jim Doty mentioned this particular case (without naming names) in his speech at USC the previous week when he described “one large firm t am was aware that a significant contract was not signed until the early hours of the fourth quarter. Nevertheless, the audit partner allowed the company to book the transaction in the third quarter, which allowed the company to meet its earnings target.”
J Dubs put this all together in a nice little package, citing court documents from a class-action lawsuit in Chicago. What isn’t mentioned in Weil’s column but is spelled out in other court documents that we’ve reviewed is that KPMG and the Center of Audit Quality fought the release of the documents related to the PCAOB’s inspection report because they’re afraid that more lawsuits could result if issuers’ identities are made public.
The CAQ submitted an amicus curiae brief (in full on the next page) stating:
The supervisory model of regulation created by Sarbanes-Oxley and implemented by the PCAOB has thus far worked well and has improved the quality and reliability of audits of public companies. It has worked to the satisfaction of both the Board and the regulated community.
Yet, the CAQ argued that if the PCAOB inspection documents were released, “the [Sarbanes-Oxley] Act’s carefully supervisory model will be adversely affected.” That is, the confidentiality afforded to the communication between auditors and the PCAOB would be compromised and would allow Board information into the ‘hands of litigating lawyers.’ The CAQ declined to comment for this post, saying that they did not “have anything to add to the amicus brief.”
In her ruling denying KPMG’s motion (in full, on page 3) to squash the subpoena of the PCAOB documents, Judge Amy St. Eve cited KPMG’s argument that sounds very similar to the CAQ’s:
KPMG argues that “if litigants can compel production of materials related to the PCAOB’s confidential inspection process notwithstanding section 105(b)(5)(A), open and constructive engagement between the PCAOB and accounting firms could be chilled by the threat of increased civil litigation, and the statutory framework carefully crafted by Congress to improve the quality of public company audits could be frustrated.”
So basically auditors are afraid that if their super-special-secret discussions with the PCAOB are out there for all the world to see, they’ll get sued more often. But hasn’t suing audit firms already reached critical mass? Can they really fear more litigation? The only thing that keeps audit firms from being on the same level of litigation risk as tobacco companies is that they aren’t killing people.
Weil and those that agree with him argue that the PCAOB owes it to investors to name names in their inspection reports. To continue keeping issuers confidential protects them from legitimate criticism for shoddy accounting and perpetuating equally shoddy audits. Of course, if you’re an investor and that doesn’t bother you, then maybe you’re okay with auditors trying to stop the release of more information related to their work. Work that cost the investors in Motorola $244 million from 2000 to 2010.
Back in March, Bloomberg’s Jonathan Weil called attention to a PCAOB report that was pretty harsh on KPMG-Bermuda’s audit of Alterra Capital Holdings. At the time he wrote the column, KPMG, the PCAOB and Alterra weren’t talking but then Alterra filed a 8-K admitting that they were the filer in question.
Today Weil lets the cat out of the bag again and yes it’s another KPMG client, Motorola: lockquote>Four years ago, inspectors for the auditing industry’s chief watchdog discovered that KPMG LLP had let Motorola Inc. record revenue during the third quarter of 2006 from a transaction with Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), even though the final contract wasn’t signed until the early hours of the fourth quarter. That’s no small technicality. Without the deal, Motorola would have missed its third-quarter earnings target.
The regulator, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, later criticized KPMG for letting Motorola book the revenue when it did. Although KPMG had discussed the transaction’s timing with both Motorola and Qualcomm, the board said the firm “failed to obtain persuasive evidence of an arrangement for revenue-recognition purposes in the third quarter.” In other words, KPMG had no good reason to believe the deal shouldn’t have been recorded in the fourth quarter.
This may sound familiar to some of you that read PCAOB Chairman James Doty’s speech from last week when he said this:
PCAOB inspectors found at one large firm that an engagement team was aware that a significant contract was not signed until the early hours of the fourth quarter. Nevertheless, the audit partner allowed the company to book the transaction in the third quarter, which allowed the company to meet its earnings target. Although the firm discussed the timing of the transaction with the customer, it failed to obtain persuasive evidence of an arrangement for revenue recognition purposes in the third quarter. The company had been an audit client of the firm for close to 50 years.
Weil writes, “KPMG has been Motorola’s auditor since 1959; it had been Motorola’s auditor for 47 years at the time of the Qualcomm deal.” So, yeah. How did he piece this one together? Elementary, my dear auditors:
Motorola’s identity was disclosed in public records last month as part of a class-action shareholder lawsuit against the company in a federal district court in Chicago. The plaintiffs in the case, led by the Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System in Michigan, filed a transcript of a September 2010 deposition of a KPMG auditor, David Pratt, who testified that Issuer C was Motorola. KPMG isn’t a defendant in the lawsuit.
Pratt also identified the Motorola customers cited in the board’s inspection report. It’s his deposition that allows me to describe the report’s findings using real names.
The oversight board said a significant portion of the company’s earnings for the 2006 third quarter came from two licensing agreements that were recorded during the last three days of the quarter. One was the Qualcomm deal that wasn’t signed until the fourth quarter. The board also cited other deficiencies in KPMG’s review of Motorola’s accounting for the transactions.
As is their wont, KPMG isn’t talking. Motorola isn’t talking (but maybe there’s another 8-K in our future?). The PCAOB, bound by the law -which, some say, is debatable – isn’t talking. My guess is that Jon Weil will continue to talk…er…write columns shining the lights on shoddy audits until the Board breaks its silence.
Dirty Secrets Fester in 50-Year Relationships [Jonathan Weil/Bloomberg]
As you may have heard, PCAOB Chairman Jim Doty gave a speech at the University of Southern California yesterday where he discussed among other things, the possibility of mandatory auditor rotation and changing the standard auditor’s report. The prospect of these two changes aren’t exactly something auditors are stoked about but some people are of the opinion that a) auditors like to get a little too chummy with their clients which leads to b) not taking the “independence” thing too seriously and c) the auditor’s report, in its current form, its pretty much worthless.
You can read Doty’s entire speech over at the PCAOB website where touches on all of these but here’s one example around independence that probably qualifies for, in Doty’s words, “[an] approach [to] the audit with an inappropriate mindset”
[An] audit partner’s self-assessment claimed that he “overcame long-standing barriers against non-audit services at [two audit clients] with a series of well-planned meetings and supporting presentations with the Audit Committee Chair, the full Audit Committee, the CEO and the CFO at both companies.”
In response, his reviewing partner noted that he was –
highly alert to cross service line opportunities and has successfully penetrated both of his accounts where few services had been
provided in the past. The results of these efforts were a number of proposals and wins but the efforts will likely impact FY 11 in [a] more significant way.
Anyway, there are other stories of bad auditor behavior, so check the whole speech if you feel so inclined. And while Chairman Doty admitted that “We don’t see these problems in all the files we look at,” it causes he and others to wonder if “these audit partners are unaware of, or simply unconcerned about, the independence rule that should make such considerations irrelevant to their compensation, and why a firm would allow such unawareness or unconcern to continue unabated.”
So flagrantly bending the rules to the point where they might as well be breaking or stupidity? Neither is too flattering.
The PCAOB has just made a serious example out of Bountiful (yes, it’s a town), Utah-based Chisholm, Bierwolf, Nilson & Morrill by banning the firm permanently from auditing public companies after “numerous violations of professional standards, including failure to detect fraud.” The Board also barred former managing partner Todd Chisholm for life and partner Troy Nilson for five years.
Curious about what kind of shoddy work the firm performed to get such a slap? Us too. Luckily the Salt Lake Trib has an example:
One of the companies that the firm audited was Powder River Petroleum International Inc., an Oklahoma corporation with offices in Alberta, Canada.
Until it was placed into receivership in 2008, Powder River’s public filings reported that it acquired, developed and resold interests in oil and gas properties. The company resold interest in oil and gas leases to investors in Asia, but reported those investments as income despite also promising investors a return of 9 percent until their principal was recouped, the board said.
That resulted in the company, traded over-the-counter, overstating its revenue by up to 2,417 percent, its pretax income up to 441 percent and assets up to 48 percent.
I called the PCOAB to see if this was the most severe ban every given to a firm and a CPA but couldn’t get an immediate answer. The five year ban also seems pretty severe. Doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch since the Board has only issued 36 disciplinary actions since 2005. I’ll update the post when I get some definitive answers. UPDATE: We’ve been informed that “it’s among the most severe” penalties issued.
It’s also worth noting that two of the firm’s clients – Hendrx Corp. and Jade Art Group – had substantial Chinese operations which wouldn’t be an issue if it wasn’t for this, “Chisholm, who does not speak or understand Chinese, relied on Firm assistants with Chinese language skills to identify audit issues, communicate with management and third-parties, and analyze documents provided by the issuer.”
Maybe those “assistants” were audit wizards, maybe they weren’t but either way, Mr Chisholm might be looking to change careers.
After all the hubbub over the PCAOB inspection report that was brought to light by Bloomberg’s Jonathan Weil, including two recommendations by proxy advisors Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., Alterra Capital Holdings has recommended to its shareholders that they vote “FOR” the ratification of KPMG as the company’s independent auditor.
From th c.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141719/000093041311002842/c65254_defa14a.htm”>SEC Filing dated April 19th (all emphasis is original):
TO THE SHAREHOLDERS
We are writing to bring your attention to a disagreement between Alterra Capital Holdings Limited (the “Company”), on the one hand, and each of ISS Proxy Advisory Services and Glass Lewis (each, a “Proxy Advisor”), on the other hand, with respect to the recommendation by each of the Proxy Advisors to vote “against” the Company’s proposal to ratify the appointment of KPMG Bermuda as the Company’s independent auditors for fiscal year 2011 and authorize the Company’s board of directors (the “Board”) to set the remuneration of the independent auditors at the Company’s Annual General Meeting of Shareholders scheduled to be held on May 2, 2011. The Proxy Advisors’ recommendations are primarily related to a report issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”) regarding the Company’s auditors, KPMG Bermuda. The PCAOB is a nonprofit corporation established by the U.S. Congress to oversee the audits of public companies. One of the principal roles of the PCAOB is to perform inspections of the audit files of accounting firms that conduct public company audits. Each audit firm is selected by the PCAOB for inspection at least once in every three years.
In November 2009, the PCAOB reviewed KPMG Bermuda’s 2008 audit files of a public company client located in Bermuda in connection with a routine periodic inspection. In March 2011, the PCAOB publicly issued its findings in a report dated January 28, 2011 (the “PCAOB Report”). Although the PCAOB Report did not identify the public company by name, an article posted on Bloomberg News on March 30, 2011 alleged that the public company client at issue was the Company (formerly Max Capital Group Ltd.). The Company confirmed that it was the client referenced in the PCAOB’s Report in a Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 31, 2011.
The Proxy Advisors’ recommendations also cite concerns that certain of the Company’s directors and officers previously worked at KPMG.
For the reasons set forth below, the Board disagrees with the Proxy Advisors’ recommendations to vote “against” the Company’s independent auditor proposal. The Board unanimously recommends that you vote “FOR” the ratification of KPMG Bermuda as the Company’s independent auditor.
Since this decision by the Board might not sit well with a few people, they’ve carefully laid out the case as to why sticking with the House Klynveld is the right thing to do. They are as follows:
1. The PCAOB Report did not question the Company’s valuations that are reflected in its financial statements.
2. The PCAOB Report did not impact KPMG Bermuda’s unqualified opinions on the Company’s financial statements in 2008, 2009 and 2010; there was and is no restatement issue.
3. The PCAOB made similar findings regarding all four major accounting firms.
4. The Audit and Risk Management Committee was aware of the PCAOB review and made an informed decision in recommending KPMG Bermuda as the Company’s Independent Auditor for 2011.
5. KPMG Bermuda is independent from the Company.
6. The Audit and Risk Management Committee will reassess KPMG Bermuda’s qualifications and suitability in 2012.
Just a few thoughts on some of these:
• It’s not the job of the PCAOB to question the Alterra’s valuations. That’s what KPMG was supposed to do. The PCAOB said KPMG did a lousy job of getting enough evidence to support those valuations.
• Just because there wasn’t a restatement doesn’t mean the auditors did their jobs correctly.
• Admitting that “all four major accounting firms” had similar findings says a lot about what the Board thinks of auditors.
• Is point #5 supposed to be a reminder for the shareholders that have no business acumen whatsoever?
• Point #6 could be better stated as “Our Board is getting good at jumping through hoops. See you next year.”
Any other thoughts? Leave them below.
Remember Alterra Capital Holdings Ltd? They’re were exposed by Bloomberg’s Jonathan Weil last month as the KPMG-Bermuda audit client that was selected by the PCAOB for inspection. The audit didn’t go so hot as the inspectors found “the firm did not obtain sufficient competent evidential matter to support its opinion on the issuer’s financial statements.” To put this in context, Weil explained that available-for-sale securities were the largest asset on Alterra’s balance sheet and it accounted for “half of the company’s $7.3 billion of total assets as of Dec. 31, 2008, and a little more than half of its $9.9 billion of total assets at the end of last year.”
In wake of this little revelation, research firm Glass Lewis & Co. has recommended to Alterra Capital Holdings that they kick KPMG-Bermuda to curb (after nine glorious years), according to a copy of the “Proxy Paper” sent to Going Concern. The report rehashes the whole story and then concludes with this:
Despite the lack of any restatements of previous financial statements, we believe that shareholders should be concerned about the reappointment of KPMG following the lapses uncovered by the PCAOB. Therefore, we believe that shareholders should hold the audit committee responsible for reappointing the same audit firm.
Glass Lewis also wanted to make shareholders “aware” of the fact that Alterra’s Audit Committee Chair, CFO and CAO are all KPMG alumni but stopped short of citing it as a reason to oppose KPMG at the meeting on May 2. According to the report, Glass Lewis had recommended that Alterra retain KPMG as auditor prior to the last shareholder’s meeting which the shareholders did by an overwhelming margin with nearly 91 million votes voting “For,” 182k voting “Against” and 32k abstained.
Yesterday, prior to today’s excitement regarding Satyam and PwC, PCAOB Chairman James Doty spoke at the The Council of Institutional Investors 2011 Spring Meeting and he had some interesting things to say about the audit profession, specifically that auditors don’t always remember that “protecting investors” ≠ “client service”:
Time and time again, we’ve seen services that might be valuable to management reduce the auditor’s objectivity, and thus reduce the value of the audit to investors. While management may need the services, they just don’t have to get them from the auditor.
Audit firms call this “client service,” and it makes things terribly confusing. When the hard questions of supporting management’s financial presentation arise, the engagement partner is often enlisted as an advocate to argue management’s case to the technical experts in the national office of the audit firm. The mortgaging of audit objectivity can even begin at the outset of the relationship, with the pitch to get the client.
Consider the way these formulations of the audit engagement that we’ve uncovered through our inspections process might prejudice quality:
• “Simply stated we want management to view us as a trusted partner that can assist with the resolution of issues and structuring of transactions.”
• We will “support the desired outcome where the audit team may be confronted with an issue that merits consultation with our National Office.”
• Our audit decisions are “made by the global engagement partner with no second guessing or National Office reversals.”
Huh. Doty doesn’t name names but you could easily interpret those statements as one made by a client advocate, not a white knight for investors. He continues:
Or, to demonstrate how confusing the value proposition could be even to those auditors who try to articulate it:
• We will provide you “with the best, value-added audit service in the most cost effective and least disruptive manner by eliminating non-value added procedures.”
(What is a “non-value added procedure”? Whose value do you think the claim refers to? If a procedure is valuable to investors but doesn’t add value to management, will it be scrapped?)
In other words, “we promise that we won’t be pests” and “value” will be a game-time decision. And finally:
Or, consider this as a possible audit engagement formula for misunderstanding down the road:
• We will deliver a “reduced footprint in the organization, lessening audit fatigue.”
(What is “audit fatigue”? Does accommodating it add value to investors? How should investors feel about a “reduced footprint”?)
Yes, what is “audit fatigue”? Is that what happens to second and third-year senior associates every February/March? Or is this better articulated by “we know audits are annoying and our hope is that we won’t annoy you too much.”?
Taking this (the whole speech is worth a read) and everything else that happened today into account, it will be interesting to hear what Mr Doty has to say at tomorrow’s hearing.
Most of you are acutely aware that PCAOB inspection reports, while chock full of interesting tidbits, are a little anti-climactic since we never learn who the auditees are. Oh sure, we can speculate until our heart’s content but the PCAOB says they took a vow of silence after 43 struck his signature on Sarbanes-Oxley.
The secrecy is frustrating (read: bor-ing) so it was especially cool to see Jonathan Weil let the cat out of the bag on at least one Big 4 client:
Two weeks ago, Accounting Oversight Board released its triennial inspection report on the Hamilton, Bermuda-based affiliate of KPMG, the Big Four accounting firm. And it was an ugly one. In one of the audits performed by KPMG- Bermuda, the board said its inspection staff had identified an audit deficiency so significant that it appeared “the firm did not obtain sufficient competent evidential matter to support its opinion on the issuer’s financial statements.”
This being the hopelessly timid PCAOB, however, the report didn’t say whose audit KPMG-Bermuda had blown. That’s because the agency, as a matter of policy, refuses to name companies where its inspectors have found botched audits. It just goes to show that the PCAOB’s first priority isn’t “to protect the interests of investors,” as the board’s motto goes. Rather, it is to protect the dirty little secrets of the accounting firms and their corporate audit clients.
That’s why it gives me great pleasure to be able to break the following bit of news: The unnamed company cited in KPMG- Bermuda’s inspection report was Alterra Capital Holdings Ltd. (ALTE), a Hamilton-based insurance company with a $2.3 billion stock- market value, which used to be known as Max Capital Group Ltd.
Using his detective skills, Weil pieced together the number clients KPMG Bermuda had inspected, the timing of said inspections and the details of the audit deficiency (“the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the estimated fair value of certain available-for-sale securities”) to come up with Alterra. Of course no one – the PCAOB, KPMG Bermuda or Alterra – would comment/confirm for Weil’s column but you probably knew that was coming. Nevertheless, JW gets into the how bad of an audit this really was:
It’s when you look at Alterra’s financial statements that the magnitude of KPMG-Bermuda’s screw-up becomes apparent. Available-for-sale securities are the single biggest line item on Alterra’s balance sheet. They represented almost half of the company’s $7.3 billion of total assets as of Dec. 31, 2008, and a little more than half of its $9.9 billion of total assets at the end of last year.
This sort of screw-up, some might argue, falls somewhere in the range of “horrendously bad” and “really fucking bad” and Weil wonders if Alterra shareholders will have the stones to throw the bums out at the shareholders meeting on May 2. We can’t say where any of the shareholders stand on the usefulness (or lack thereof) of the audit report, so maybe this revelation is NBD to them. But if that is the case, it seems to make an even stronger case for the irrelevancy of auditors.
Weil’s larger point is that the PCAOB continues to hide behind their policies that are supposed to protect investors but in reality come off as talking points, not so unlike the firms they regulate. The PCAOB says they’re working on that but we’ll have to wait until summer to find out how crazy things get and whether it will be enough to shove auditors back into some respectability.
Dirty Little Secret Outed in Bermuda Blunder [Jonathan Weil/Bloomberg]
Alterra cops to it with an 8-K that was filed about 90 minutes ago:
Alterra is aware of a recently issued report by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”) related to the PCAOB’s review of KPMG Bermuda’s 2008 audit files of a public company client located Bermuda, as well as an article posted on Bloomberg that indicates that the public company client is Alterra (formerly Max Capital Group Ltd.). Alterra confirms that it is the client referenced in the PCAOB’s report.
The PCAOB report findings question the sufficiency of procedures performed by KPMG Bermuda in its audit of Alterra’s estimated fair value of certain available-for-sale securities as promulgated by generally accepted audit standards (“GAAS”). The PCAOB report questioned whether the audit procedures used by KPMG Bermuda in 2008 to verify such values were sufficient. The PCAOB report does not question the appropriateness of the values that Alterra attributed to assets available-for-sale in 2008.
Alterra notes that the PCAOB made substantially similar findings in a number of inspections of 2008 and 2009 audits performed by the larger accounting firms and, since 2008, we understand the firms have issued additional guidance to clarify the work to be completed on the audit of fair value investments.
KPMG Bermuda has represented to Alterra and its Audit Committee that it believes it properly and appropriately followed GAAS as defined at the time of the audit. KPMG Bermuda confirmed in its response to the PCAOB report that “none of the matters identified by the PCAOB required the reissuance of any of our previously issued reports.” Alterra reaffirms its belief that the asset values ascribed to its available-for-sale securities in 2008 and subsequent periods remain appropriate.
KPMG Bermuda issued an unqualified opinion for Alterra’s year end financial statements for each of 2008, 2009 and 2010.
“We heard from investors that they want more information in the auditor’s report. Investor dissatisfaction with the current auditor’s reporting model should concern other constituents as well, including preparers, auditors and regulators,” said PCAOB Chairman James R. Doty. “Today’s report from our own staff, based on their discussions with a broad audience, will be vital to the Board’s effort to develop a meaningful proposal for change in a concept release. Our intention is to expose such a release as early as this summer.” [PCAOB]
As if the combination of March Madness and St. Patrick weren’t enough, this slide from yesterday’s Investor Advisory Group meeting should drive many to drink.
After yesterday’s findings on the usefulness (or lack thereof) of the auditor’s report, we bring you “The Watchdog that Didn’t Bark … Again.” It’s not as caught up on surveys and whatnot, as it is just pointing out some of the well, failures by auditors during the financial crisis.
The presentation was prepared by The Working Group on Lessons Learned from the Financial Crisis of the IAG and includes past comments from critics like Francine McKenna and Jonathan Weil on the expectations gap between auditors and basically everyone else. But don’t worry, it also presents the audit profession’s defense of itself including past statements from the Center for Audit Quality and PwC’s Richard Sexton the head of audit it the UK, who said this:
Now, one could come to the conclusion that Mr Sexton works for his clients first and not investors but you might not agree with that.
Now before all the Big 4 auditors get in a huff, the presentation has some criticisms of the PCAOB as well, specifically on the report the Board issued in September 2010:
If you can manage to stop drinking your breakfast for two, check out the full presentation below and discuss.
In the past few months you may have heard a thing or two about small Chinese companies making their way into the U.S. by virtue of a reverse merger. If you’re not familiar, it was a speciality of the firm formerly known as Frazer Frost who got out of the business altogether because of a “culture clash” and “issues in the Chinese reverse mortgage practice area.”
All this has gotten the attention of the PCAOB who issued a Research Note (full document after the jump) today discussing t –more–>
Recently minted PCAOB Chair Jim Doty sprinkled in some thoughts for the press release but we obtained this statement from the Chairmn in case you anyone thinks they aren’t taking this shit seriously (my emphasis):
“As the PCAOB Research Note describes, small Chinese companies are increasingly seeking access to capital and trading in U.S. securities markets. The PCAOB has inspected the audits of many of these companies, when they were performed by U.S.-based audit firms. In some cases PCAOB inspection teams have identified significant audit deficiencies and, as necessary, made appropriate referrals for enforcement to protect investors’ interests in reliable audit reports.
“Many other such companies are audited by accounting firms in China. To date, the PCAOB has been denied access to determine through inspection whether such firms have complied with PCAOB standards. This state of affairs is bad for investors, companies and auditors alike. If Chinese companies want to attract U.S. capital for the long term, and if Chinese auditors want to garner the respect of U.S. investors, they need the credibility that comes from being part of a joint inspection process that includes the US and other similarly constituted regulatory regimes.”
Depending on how you perceive the role of auditors, this might seem like be a meaningless statement. But since China’s economy is going gangbusters and Big 4 firms are salivating at the thought of the fees associated with their introduction to the U.S. market, the temptation to help these companies comply with the U.S. rules might be high for an ambitious parter, office or firm.
That said, according to Table 8 of the PCAOB’s Research Note, no Big 4 firm had more than three CRM companies as of March 31, 2010 and now after Deloitte’s resignation from CCME, any partners that were entertaining the idea of chasing these companies could be having second thoughts.
Convergence may not be that far off after all, here it is 2011 and now we finally have U.S. and U.K. audit harassment agencies working together to share information and polish up that whole bit about protecting investor confidence in capital markets. It may or may not have something to do with the collapse of Lehman Brothers (personally I think the paranoid mistrust in foreign accounting systems – or perhaps just ours – goes back a tad more than that) but soon enough the PCAOB will have an in (after at least one failed attempt) and get a chance to
harass inspect foreign firms. We anticipate that this announcement will bring it with it a fantastic new acronym so we can all keep track of who is who.
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board today entered into a cooperative agreement with the Professional Oversight Board in the United Kingdom to facilitate cooperation in the oversight of auditors and public accounting firms that practice in the two regulators’ respective jurisdictions.
This agreement provides a basis for the resumption of PCAOB inspections of registered accounting firms that are located in the United Kingdom and that audit, or participate in audits, of companies whose securities trade in U.S. markets. The PCAOB previously conducted inspections in the United Kingdom with the POB from 2005 to 2008, but has been blocked from doing so since that time.
Acting PCAOB Chairman Daniel L. Goelzer welcomed the arrangement, which will lay the foundation for the PCAOB and POB to work together to promote public trust in the audit process and investor confidence in capital markets.
The PCAOB can thank the Dodd-Frank WSCRA which amended SOX to permit the PCAOB to share information with foreign audit agencies under certain conditions.
In light of this event, we’re wondering what happens when the two work together sharing “information.” Does it get a brand new acronym that celebrates this new dawn in inter-obnoxious-regulatory-gossiping (IORG) or does it become a hybrid acronym like the Public Professional Company Oversight^2 Board Board or PPCO^2BB? Surely we can do better.
Party at the PCAOB DC office this evening to celebrate, bring your own acronym suggestions and IFRS pocket guide.
~ Update 2 includes statement from PCAOB and clips from the SEC press release.
The SEC is set to make announcement circa
any minute this afternoon and rumor has it that there might be last minute changes that amount to “horse trading among commissioners.” Intrigue at the SEC that has nothing to do with porn! Who knew?!?
Francine McKenna also seems excited about it:
Your wild-ass guesses are welcome at this time. We’ll keep you updated once we hear the names.
UPDATE: Silly us. Tammy Whitehouse over at Compliance Week had the potentials yesterday and we somehow overlooked it:
The SEC is expected to name John Huber, former director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, Lewis Ferguson, former general counsel to the PCAOB, and Jay Hanson, national director of accounting for audit firm McGladrey & Pullen, to three seats that have been open at the PCAOB for more than a year. It’s not clear whether one of those three will be appointed chairman, or whether that title will be granted to Daniel Goelzer, the acting chairman who has held down the fort since Mark Olson resigned in July 2009.
Granted, there are lots of rumors swirling about this “horse trading” so we wouldn’t be surprised if one of these guys (i.e. Huber, Ferguson or Hanson) got dropped for [fill in the blank].
UPDATE 2: And now,
perpetually acting PCAOB chair Dan Goelzer:
“I am very pleased that the SEC has appointed three outstanding individuals to the Board. I look forward to working with Jim Doty, Lew Ferguson, and Jay Hanson in continuing to carry out the Board’s mission to protect investors and promote public confidence in audited financial reporting.
“At the same time, I want to thank the retiring Board members, Bill Gradison and Charley Niemeier, for their immeasurable contributions as founding members of the Board and for their years of dedicated service. Investors owe them a debt of gratitude.”
So the trade was Huber for James Doty (who is taking the Chairmanship), the former SEC General Counsel. INTERESTING (at least in some circles). Fro the SEC press release:
Mr. Doty is currently a Partner at Baker Botts LLP in Washington, D.C. He has represented clients on a wide range of securities law matters. He also counsels boards of directors and audit committees on problems arising under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and related issues. Mr. Doty served as the SEC’s General Counsel from 1990 to 1992. He received an LL.B. from Yale Law School, an M.A. from Harvard University, an A.B. from Oxford University, and a B.A. from Rice University.
Yale, Harvard, Oxford and Rice? Elijah Watt Sells winners, eat your hearts out.
Yesterday, Caleb shared the details on a tentative new plan hatched by Dodd-Frank that would require nonpublic brokers and dealers to open their doors to that special brand of attention known as PCAOB inspections. We also learned that if the PCAOB gets their way, those special little broker-dealers will be asked to pony up the cash for the privilege of getting PCAOB patdowns.
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board may require the biggest U.S. broker-dealers to pay more than $1 million a year to fund auditor inspections required under the Dodd-Frank Act.
PCAOB board members voted unanimously Tuesday to seek comment on the proposal, which would create a mechanism for raising the $15 million needed to perform reviews dictated by the financial- regulation overhaul enacted in July.
Unlike audit firms, of which 97% of the littler ones get constantly pestered by the PCAOB while the big boys get their boxes checked and can hit the ranges by noon for cocktail hour on the putting green, the new funding requirement would only affect 14 percent of broker-dealers large enough to meet the PCAOB’s tentative net-capital requirements.
These fees would account for seven percent of the PCAOB’s total funding, guesstimated terminally-acting PCAOB chair Dan Goelzer.
PCAOB board member Bill Gradison is sure that the PCAOB is serious about identifying issues and doing its job protecting the public or whatever the hell it is they are there to do. That means no working things out as they go, I suppose. He swears the interim inspection program is not “just a learning experience for the PCAOB” and “could have consequences for the firms involved.” That’s if anyone finds anything fishy, I am guessing.
Prior to Dodd-Frank, auditors who inspected the books of nonpublic brokers and dealers were required to register with the PCAOB but managed to avoid being subjected to the Board Insepctors’ Monday Morning QBing. Now that we’ve entered a new, exciting era of mind-numbingly complex financial regulation, auditors of all broker-dealers will soon know the pleasure of the PCAOB inspection process.
But before any of you get your knickers in a twist, it’s technically an “Interim Program,” because, in all honesty, the Board isn’t exactly sure who should be getting extra-special attention and who they can ignore.
This is part of the statement from Perpetual-acting Chair Dan Goel ://pcaobus.org/News/Releases/Pages/12092010_OpenBoardMeeting.aspx”>today’s open meeting (full statement on following slide):
About 520 brokerage firms provide clearing or custodial services. Many of the others are introducing firms that, at least in theory, do not have access to client funds or securities. Some are floor brokers without public clients; some are insurance agents that sell products that are technically securities; some are finders active in the M&A market; some are captives that serve the trading needs of a single, affiliated client. Other categories undoubtedly exist. This diversity raises questions about whether we should devote resources to inspecting the auditors of all of these types of brokers and dealers or whether some of their auditors can safely be exempted from PCAOB oversight without compromising investor protection.
While the Board does not yet have the answers to those questions, the temporary rule will allow the Board to begin inspections of broker-dealer audits so that we can develop an empirical basis on which to eventually address them.
So, in other words, the Board has NFI where to start since the broker-dealer biz encapsulates a lot of different services. The unfortunate thing for auditors is that the inspectors have to start somewhere and that’s what this interim program will do. Mr Goelzer gives you a taste of the fun to come:
The interim inspections will focus both on reviewing the work performed on specific audits and on gathering facts to inform the Board’s consideration of a permanent program. The information-gathering aspect of the interim inspections will provide the Board with insight about the potential benefits of broker-dealer inspections to the investing public and about the potential costs and regulatory burdens that would be imposed on different categories of accounting firms and classes of brokers. Armed with this type of information, the Board will be in a better position to decide on possible exemptions from oversight and to determine the objectives, nature, and frequency of inspections for firms that remain subject to PCAOB jurisdiction.
So if you’re lucky, you might – just might! – get out of the whole process altogether, although, we suggest you don’t get your hopes up. When will this all get sorted out, you ask?
Decisions about the permanent inspection program are probably at least a year away. In the mean-time, there will be ample opportunity for the public to learn what the Board is finding in the interim program and to participate in the decision process.
The proposed temporary rule provides for transparency, in that the Board will issue public reports at least annually on the progress of the interim program and on any significant observations. The permanent broker-dealer auditor inspection program will be predicated on rules that will only be adopted by the Board after public notice-and-comment and will only take effect after Securities and Exchange Commission approval.
So if this whole thing sounds like a dry run, it is. However if inspectors stumble across some über-shoddy audits (bound to happen), the Board is reserving the right to lay the smackdown. From Board Member Steven Harris’s statement (full text on last slide), “While the temporary inspection rules anticipate that firm-specific inspection reports would not begin until after a permanent program takes effect, it is important to note that the Board will still take disciplinary action, as appropriate, against an auditor where inspections under the interim program have identified significant issues in the firm’s audit work.” Likewise, if the inspectors happen across out of the ordinary at the B-D (again, a distinct possibility), they will be ringing up the SEC.
So while on the one hand they’re testing the waters, if you happen to be a downright horrible auditing firm, they’re going to make an example out of you. Investor protection is still at stake, you know.
Just a brief follow-up on the manager who received the disciplinary action handed down by the PCAOB on Monday.
We attempted to reach Jacqueline Higgins late yesterday at her office number in Boston, however we discovered that when we were transferred to her extension we simply bounced back to reception, who needless to say, was very confused about that phenomenon. After attempting to page Ms. Higgins, only then did the receptionist learn and then relay to us that Ms. Higgins was no longer with the firm.
We checked with Ernst & Young spokesman Charlie Perkins on this development and he confirmed that Ms. Higgins “will be leaving the firm at the end of the year.”
And lest there still be any confusion due to the carefully worded E&Y statement, the partner and senior manager in question have been dismissed from the firm.
We’ll keep you updated if we hear more from inside at the firm or if further action is taken by the PCAOB.
Part of perpetually-acting PCAOB chairman Dan Goelzer’s speech at the AICPA’s Conference on SEC and PCAOB Developments had to do with the future and it kinda, sorta sounds like the Board might start asking for more than just the auditor’s opinion of yore. He spoke this afternoon at the conference, saying, “it is clear that there is considerable investor hunger for more insight from the auditor into the audit process and the company’s financial reporting. Further, the 2008 report of the Treasury Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession recommended that the Board reconsider the audit report.”
What kind of ideas? Glad you asked!
The Board will have to make some difficult choices next year if it decides to change the time-honored pass/fail report. There is no shortage of ideas. During a discussion of the reporting model at our Standing Advisory Group meeting last April, some suggested that the auditor should provide more information about the audit itself and how it was performed. Others want the auditor’s views on the management judgments embodied in the financial statements regarding such things as estimates and the selection of accounting policies. Auditors have proposed that their reports should be clearer about limitations on the ability to detect fraud. Some users have suggested expanding the auditor’s current opinion to include new material; others have suggested that the pass/fail report should be accompanied by a separate auditor’s report akin to the MD&A.
Do investors really want to know how the audit sausage is made? Some auditors have trouble pulling things together so we see little up side there.
If you’ve got your own suggestions on making audits even better, feel free to share them at this time.
~ Update includes statement from Ernst & Young.
~Update 2 includes statement from Claudius Modesti, PCAOB Director of Enforcement and Investigations
Today in obscure accounting oversight board enforcement actions, an Ernst & Young Manager in the Boston office was censured by the PCAOB for repeated violations o y to Cooperate with Inspectors, and Auditing Standard No. 3 (“AS3”), Audit Documentation.
The violations occurred when 27 year-old Jacqueline Higgins “(1) added documents to the working papers without indicating the dates that documents were added to the working papers, the names of the persons preparing the additional documentation, and the reason for adding the documentation months after the documentation completion date; and (2) removed a document from the working
papers after the documentation completion date.”
The timeline goes like this: E&Y was given notice by the PCAOB that an inspection of the unknown company’s audit was being performed on March 30, 2010 and the partner, senior manager and manager on the engagement were given notice on March 31, 2010. The inspection fieldwork was set to begin on April 19, 2010.
On April 5th, the three Ernsters began preparing for the inspection and that’s when problems started cropping up which led to more trouble. The order has the details:
First, Respondent reported to the Engagement Partner and the Senior Manager that a “Review Procedures Memorandum” was missing from the external working papers. The Engagement Partner and the Senior Manager directed Respondent to create and print out the missing document, and to backdate the document to November 30, 2009. The Engagement Partner and the Senior Manager directed Respondent to backdate her sign-off on this working paper to November 30, 2009, and to add this document to the external working papers.
17. Second, Respondent reported to the Engagement Partner that the tie-out of the financial statements contained in the external working papers was performed upon a pre-final set of financial statements. The Engagement Partner directed Respondent to remove this document from the external working papers, and to replace it with a newly created document which tied-out the final financial statements, and which the Engagement Partner directed Respondent to backdate to November 2009.
18. Third, Respondent reported to the Engagement Partner that the Average Forward Foreign Currency Contracts Calculation (“A3a Working Paper”) was missing from the external working papers. The Engagement Partner directed Respondent to gather the missing document, backdate it to November 2009, and add it to the external working papers.
19. Finally, Respondent reported to the Senior Manager that three checklists were missing from the external working papers. The Senior Manager directed Respondent to assemble the missing checklists as a single document (“HH6.8 Working Paper”) and to backdate her sign-off on this working paper to November 2009. The Senior Manager directed Respondent to add the document to the external working papers. The Senior Manager and Respondent reported to the Engagement Partner the facts and circumstances related to the creation of the HH6.8 Working Paper, and the Engagement Partner took no steps to cause the document to be properly dated, or to have it removed from the external working papers.
So those are the wonky details. Where this particular story is most interesting (in our opinion) is that Ms Higgins was, prior to this little mishap, on the fast track. According to the order, she graduated in May of 2005 and started with E&Y in September. She was promoted to senior associate in October of 2007 and then promoted to manager in October of 2009. Now, perhaps she was an audit-savant or perhaps not but in just over four years, she was a manager, which is a much quicker pace than usual.
Granted, she was still under the supervision of the senior manager and partner on the engagement but a young manager nevertheless. Now, you might be asking yourself, “what about the senior manager and partner? Are they getting their wrists slapped?” Conventional wisdom tell us, “absofuckinglutely” but the PCAOB isn’t saying. We were told by a spokesperson that the Board cannot comment on any other action related to this case.
As far as what a censure by the PCAOB actually entails, we were told that “It is an official reprimand from the PCAOB.” Some might call it a wrist slap but we’re damn sure you don’t want that in your file when you’re 27 years old. The action also states that Ms. Higgins was removed from the engagement in July 2010 and “at that time Higgins ceased participating in issuer audit engagements.”
Messages with E&Y spokesperson Charles Perkins and A message left with an attorney for Ms. Higgins were not immediately returned.
Ernst & Young has issued the following statement:
Our firm policy clearly prohibits persons from supplementing audit workpapers in circumstances like those described in the disciplinary order. When we determined that firm policy had been violated, we put the three individuals involved on administrative leave and subsequently separated the partner and senior manager. We have advised the PCAOB of these facts and have cooperated fully with the PCAOB throughout its investigation of this matter.
Based on the above, you might conclude that more disciplinary action will be coming from the PCAOB but like we said, they’re not talking.
UPDATE 2 – circa 3:30 pm: Claudius Modesti, PCAOB Director of Enforcement and Investigations, explained the seemingly light punishment in an email to Going Concern:
As to the censure, under the facts and circumstances, the censure is appropriate given Higgins’ relatively junior position on the audit team and her overall role in the conduct. We also considered the fact that she settled the matter without requiring the Board to commence litigation, which would have been nonpublic as required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.”
It was then explained to us that the PCAOB has never explained a disciplinary action in this way: “We also considered the fact that she settled the matter without requiring the Board to commence litigation, which would have been nonpublic as required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.”
If that’s not quite clear, consider this: It is significant because, had Ms Higgins acted in the alternative (i.e. not settled), litigation would have been necessary and no one outside of the PCAOB, Higgins, her lawyers and E&Y would have known about the proceedings. Granted, it’s fairly common for lighter disciplinary action to result from a settlement but it also makes sense from a PR perspective (not to mention, transparency and investor protection) if the PCAOB can actually announce that they are taking action against people who break the rules. Part of the challenge the Board has faced is convincing anyone that they have teeth.
It will be interesting now to see if the senior manager and partner follow the same track as Ms. Higgins and how the PCAOB will respond to their cooperation (or lack thereof).
The PCAOB managed to roll out some news at a time other than 4 pm on Friday, announcing new appointments and reappointments to their Standing Advisory Group.
All the major firms are represented as well as some regionals (BKD, EKS&H), academics, industry pros, and others. We haven’t had the pleasure of knowing any of these fine folks (minus Lynn Turner – probably the biggest pot-stirrer on the list) but we’ve got it on good authority that everyone can get audit wonky (e.g. broker dealer auditing, the audit report model, FASB changes affecting auditing). The ushe. So you can rest soundly knowing your audit rules are in good hands.
• Stephen J. Homza, Managing Director of Internal Audit, Legg Mason, Inc.
• Lisa Lindsley, Director of Capital Strategies, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
• William T. Platt, Deputy Managing Partner, Professional Practice, and Deputy Chief Quality Officer – Attest, Deloitte & Touche, LLP
• D. Scott Showalter, Professor of Practice, Department of Accounting, College of Management, North Carolina State University
•Dan M. Slack, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado
• Joseph V. Carcello, Ernst & Young and Business Alumni Professor, Department of Accounting and Information Management, and Co-Founder and Director of Research, Corporate Governance Center, University of Tennessee
• James D. Cox, Brainerd Currie Professor of Law, School of Law, Duke University
• Elizabeth S. Gantnier, Director of Quality Control, Stegman & Company
• Arnold C. Hanish, Vice President of Finance, Chief Accounting Officer, Eli Lilly & Company
• Gail L. Hanson, Deputy Executive Director, State of Wisconsin Investment Board
• Jamie S. Miller, Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer, General Electric Company
• Steven B. Rafferty, Professional Practices Partner, BKD, LLP
•Samuel J. Ranzilla, Audit Partner and National Managing Partner, Audit Quality and Professional Practice, KPMG LLP
• Lynn E. Turner, Senior Advisor and Managing Director, LECG
• John L. (Arch) Archambault, Senior Partner, Professional Standards and Global Public Policy, Grant Thornton LLP
• Dennis R. Beresford, Ernst & Young Executive Professor of Accounting, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia
• Neri Bukspan, Executive Managing Director, Chief Quality Officer, and Chief Accountant, Credit Market Services, Standard & Poor’s Financial Services, LLC
• Douglas R. Carmichael, Claire and Eli Mason Professor of Accountancy, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College
• Margaret M. Foran, Chief Governance Officer, Vice President, and Corporate Secretary, Prudential Financial, Inc.
• Michael J. Gallagher, Assurance Partner and U.S. Assurance National Office Leader, PwC
• Gaylen R. Hansen, Audit Partner and Director of Accounting and Auditing Quality Assurance, Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
•Patricia Ann K. (Kiko) Harvey, Vice President, Corporate Audit and Enterprise Risk Management, Delta Air Lines
•Gary R. Kabureck, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer, Xerox Corporation
•Anthony S. Kendall, Chief Executive Officer, Mitchell & Titus LLP
•Wayne A. Kolins, Partner and National Director of Assurance, BDO USA, LLP; Global Head of Audit and Accounting, BDO International Limited
•Jeffrey P. Mahoney, General Counsel, Council of Institutional Investors
•Mary Hartman Morris, Investment Officer, Global Equity, California Public Employees’ Retirement System
•Kevin B. Reilly, Americas Vice Chair, Professional Practice and Risk Management, Ernst & Young LLP
•Barbara L. Roper, Director of Investor Protection, Consumer Federation of America
•Lawrence J. Salva, Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller, Comcast Corporation
•Kurt N. Schacht, Managing Director, CFA Institute
•Damon A. Silvers, Director of Policy and Special Counsel, AFL-CIO
•John W. White, Partner, Corporate Department, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
If you’re completely raptured with anyone listed, you can check out there bios over at the PCAOB’s website.
The long-awaited PCAOB inspection report of KPMG came out on Friday and while we were excited for this unveiling, the Board managed to issue the report at around 4 pm on Friday. Since the Board lacks any sense of timing whatsoever, we opted to punt on our respective post until today because well, we’re human and not a soulless blogging robot as likely perceived by TPTB at the PCAOB.
It’s worth mentioning that this is the first PCAOB report that has been issued since the SEC’s final rule on the inspections that allows audit firms to postpone the release of the report simply by taking issue with any of the findings. Since any appeal could reportedly delay the report by “30 to 100 days,” it’s safe to assume that, with a report date of October 5th, KPMG didn’t have a beef with the findings. You could also assume that since the SEC is taking a peek at these reports now, there’s going to be a ten day lag on the release of the report to allow the Commission enough time to give it their extra-special sniff test.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand –
KPMG had eight issuers noted in the Board’s inspection report and the first two are doozies. “Issuer A” runs approximately two pages and includes failure on testing of “allowance for loan losses” to “test[ing] the issuer’s estimates of fair values of financial instruments” and goodwill impairment.
“Issuer B” is a little more interesting since one of the failures the Board found was related to deferred tax assets which makes us wonder if this is Citi, since analyst Mike Mayo was loudly questioning the bank’s treatment of its DTA. Francine McKenna not-so-subtly solicited guesses on Friday as to who this “bank” might be (even though no issuer is identified as such) but it does make us wonder.
The Board cites run-of-the-mill failures for the rest of the issuers (e.g. fair value testing, pension plan testing, failure to confirm cash[!]) and the House of Klynveld’s response letter was cordial and anticlimactic.
But if you’re KPMG, do you really care what the PCAOB thinks when you’ve got an adorable gnome-ish looking analyst giving you the tepid thumbs-up (despite not knowing your name)? That’s the only endorsement we would need.
Why? Apparently because they just considered the needs of auditors. Audit committee members were feeling left out (and are, presumably, just as uncomfortable conversing with humans as auditors) so it’s back to the drawing board:
At a July 15 meeting of the PCAOB’s Standing Advisory Group, Goelzer said comments reflected a wide range of views. “A number of comments suggested that we needed to do more homework, more outreach on this subject,” he said. “Some thought we approached the subject too much from the perspective of the auditor and without a full appreciation of what audit committee members wanted or needed.”
A briefing paper to set the stage for the Sept. 21 roundtable says the board is holding the roundtable to get more insight from investors, audit committee members, auditors, and management on the proposed standard. The briefing paper outlines a number of questions the board wants to explore focused primary on what information is most relevant to audit committees, and how auditors and audit committees should communicate on those issues.
PCAOB Reopens Comment on Communications Standard [Compliance Week]
Despite the setback that was the creation of the PCAOB, the Big 4 have to be pret-tay, pret-tay, pret-tay pleased with the privacy they get when it comes to the Board’s disciplinary actions.
Perpetually-acting chair Dan Goelzer wrote a letter to the Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committees saying that by keeping the proceedings mysterio and out of the public eye. The current arrangement “gives firms and auditors an incentive to drag out litigation, sometimes for years,” and that simply won’t do.
Despite the general public’s disinterest in all things accounting (until the shit hits the fan, of course), the Board is still trying to find its place as the relatively new kid on the bureaucratic block. This request seems to be an attempt at fitting in:
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s proposal would repeal a requirement that its disciplinary actions remain secret, according to a copy of the document reviewed by Dow Jones.
The public now is denied access to information about accountants that have been sanctioned or charged by the PCAOB, acting Chairman Daniel Goelzer said in an Aug. 24 letter to several members of the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee.
Since the federal government has been all about transparency lately, it would be surprising for Congress to take the Board up on the offer. The problem is, it won’t really do much to speed anything along and transparency will remain an issue. If you remember, last month the SEC issued its final rule on the PCAOB appeals process that goes into effect next week.
That rule will: allow firms to dispute findings during the inspection process; prohibit the PCAOB from making those disputed findings public until the SEC investigation is completed and the SEC still has the option to make findings permanently private, if it so chooses.
So even if Congress is convinced that the PCAOB’s plan to make the proceedings public is utter genius , accounting firms will still be able to drag things along (and keep things secret) as they see fit.
The PCAOB has had a pretty good run of late. It all started with the SCOTUS handing them a loss that was really a win and the Board has, most recently, gotten ambitious with new risk assessment standards. What’s more is the call of acting Chair Dan Goelzer to have the Board’s enforcement inspections held publicly so audit firms can’t get all mysterio about what they did and did not do to warrant said inspection.
Well, the run of luck appears to have come to an end as the SEC issued a new rule that takes effect next month that marginalizes the Board to the benefit of the accounting firms it oversees (our emphasis).
Going into effect September 7, the rule explains how accounting firms can dispute the PCAOB’s findings during its inspection process. The firms have always had this ability under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but the SEC lacked a formal appeals process. (Indeed, the June 28 Supreme Court decision, which affirmed the constitutionality of the PCAOB, arose out of a small accounting firm’s dissatisfaction with its 2004 inspection report.)
A key feature of the process is secrecy. If an accounting firm appeals to the SEC, the PCAOB will be prohibited from making disputed portions of its inspection report public until the commission completes its review, which could take anywhere from 30 days to over 100 days. Moreover, the SEC could decide to keep the information permanently private if its reviewers determine that the PCAOB’s findings were “arbitrary and capricious.”
Meanwhile, the public will learn nothing about the appeals process or the issues under contention, which will further cloud the results of PCAOB inspections for the accounting firms’ corporate clients who read them. “Until now, the SEC has not restricted the transparency of inspection reports pending the opportunity to seek review,” a PCAOB spokesman tells CFO.
So let’s get this straight – if an accounting firm takes issue with anything in the PCAOB’s report, the firm can then run crying to the SEC – which makes that portion of the report secret – and then the report will sit dormant until that portion reads to their liking which can take 30 to 100 days? OH! And on top of that, if the SEC finds something to be ‘arbitrary and capricious’ that issue will never see the light of day?
It’s not like these inspection reports are being issued at a rapid clip (PwC’s and KPMG’s reports for ’09 are still MIA) or filled with details that are actually meaningful to regular folks (e.g. the clients inspected) and now the SEC is going to let the firms write their own inspection reports.
So much for that small matter of “Oversight.” At least the SEC is being (somewhat) transparent about a power grab.
“We thought auditors and investors would like to have an avenue to report violations of accounting and auditing standards and financial fraud.”
~ Claudius Modesti, PCAOB Enforcement and Investigations Division director. Last year, the Board fielded 179 tips – a record – that alleged wrongdoing by audit firms and their employees.
As we mentioned late yesterday, the PCAOB has been working hard these days. Late nights, weekends, ordering in and whathaveyou. Adrienne told you about the new eight auditing standards that you’re all expected to have memorized by Labor Day, and we wrapped up with Dan Goelzer snagging QOTD for the Board’s move towards open enforcement proceedings. This move will, presumably, be used in order to shame the pants off of those of you that dare to break the rules.
But the Board had one more thing to serve up yesterday and that was to put it out there that they don’t think too highly of the job auditors are doing supervising the worker bees:
“Through its inspections and investigations, the PCAOB has observed that supervision processes within firms are frequently not as robust as they should be, and that supervisory responsibilities are often not as clearly assigned as they should be,” said PCAOB Acting Chairman Daniel L. Goelzer. “Today’s Release seeks to highlight the Board’s views on the scope for using the authority provided in the Act to address those problems.”
For an industry that depends so heavily on a hierarchal structure, this does not bode well. There are several possible scenarios that led the PCAOB to jump in with their thoughts, including but not limited to:
1. Dozens of audit engagements of publicly traded companies have aloof partners that pop in once or twice a week, observe a handful of staff people feverishly ticking and tying, only to assume everything appears a-okay.
2. The PCAOB has incredible “luck” picking the biggest shitshow engagements.
3. The PCAOB is just blowing the shortage of experienced SAs out of the water.
4. Inspectors don’t buy the “we got this” story from the A1 and A2 running an accelerated filer engagement.
If you’re on one of these free-for-all audits, for crying out loud, get in touch. We want details.
“I believe the time has come for us to ask Congress to change the law and make our enforcement proceedings public, unless there is some good reason for a particular matter to be closed.”
~ Dan Goelzer, Acting Chair of the PCAOB, would like to get things out there.
Since the PCAOB was only up to Audit Standard 7 last time we checked and seems to take the conservative approach when it comes to issuing new ones, we have to say we were more than shocked to see them almost double their audit standards overnight. Gee, must be serious.
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board today adopted a suite of eight auditing standards related to the auditor’s assessment of, and response to, risk in an audit.
The suite of risk assessment standards, Auditing Standards No. 8 through No. 15, sets forth requirements that enhance the effectiveness of the auditor’s assessment of, and response to ial misstatement in the financial statements.
The risk assessment standards address audit procedures performed throughout the audit, from the initial planning stages through the evaluation of the audit results.
“These new standards are a significant step in promoting sophisticated risk assessment in audits and minimizing the risk that the auditor will fail to detect material misstatements,” said PCAOB Acting Chairman Daniel L. Goelzer. “Identifying risks, and properly planning and performing the audit to address those risks, is essential to promoting investor confidence in audited financial statements.”
What does this mean for auditors? Let’s check them out.
AS No. 8 – Audit Risk. This standard discusses the auditor’s consideration of audit risk in an audit of financial statements as part of an integrated audit or an audit of financial statements only. It describes the components of audit risk and the auditor’s responsibilities for reducing audit risk to an appropriately low level in order to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement.
AS No. 9 – Audit Planning. This standard establishes requirements regarding planning an audit, including assessing matters that are important to the audit, and establishing an appropriate audit strategy and audit plan.
AS No. 10 – Supervision of the Audit Engagement. This standard sets forth requirements for supervision of the audit engagement, including, in particular, supervising the work of engagement team members. It applies to the engagement partner and to other engagement team members who assist the engagement partner with supervision.
AS No. 11 – Consideration of Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit. This standard describes the auditor’s responsibilities for consideration of materiality in planning and performing an audit.
AS No. 12 – Identifying and Assessing Risks of Material Misstatement. This standard establishes requirements regarding the process of identifying and assessing risks of material misstatement of the financial statements. The risk assessment process discussed in the standard includes information-gathering procedures to identify risks and an analysis of the identified risks.
AS No. 13 – The Auditor’s Responses to the Risks of Material Misstatement. This standard establishes requirements for responding to the risks of material misstatement in financial statements through the general conduct of the audit and performing audit procedures regarding significant accounts and disclosures.
AS No. 14 – Evaluating Audit Results. This standard establishes requirements regarding the auditor’s evaluation of audit results and determination of whether the auditor has obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence. The evaluation process set forth in this standard includes, among other things, evaluation of misstatements identified during the audit; the overall presentation of the financial statements, including disclosures; and the potential for management bias in the financial statements.
AS No. 15 – Audit Evidence. This standard explains what constitutes audit evidence and establishes requirements for designing and performing audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support the opinion expressed in the auditor’s report.
Now don’t get me wrong, I love rules and regs as much as the next girl – if not more – but I am of the thought that users of financial statements would be better served not by more rules and regs but by a more comprehensive auditor training program that starts in college. Am I asking too much?
Did we really need clarity on audit evidence? The PCAOB seems to think so and that’s fine, they are well-intentioned in their motive and you can’t fault them for that.
Since the PCAOB is here to stay, the SEC figured it was probably best that they get some people sit on this thing to, ya know, help protect the investors, the public at large, so on and so forth.
The problem, as it appears to us, is that Mary Schapiro and the gang are plumb out of ideas for nominations. Accordingly, they’re out there looking for help from some of the best and beardest, including the Beard, acting PCAOB chair Dan Goelzer, AICPA President and CEO Barry Melancon and a few other noted notables.
However! Just because Mary Schapiro sent these people personal letters begging for some ideas, that doesn’t mean she won’t listen to yours. You can fire any names you have in mind to [email protected]. The Commission appreciates the help.
The SEC does point out that the appointees need to be “prominent individuals of integrity and reputation who have a demonstrated commitment to the interests of investors and the public, and an understanding of the responsibilities for and nature of the financial disclosures required of issuers under the securities laws and the obligations of accountants with respect to the preparation and issuance of audit reports with respect to such disclosures,” but we feel that’s subject to interpretation.
Hopefully the noms will include a few wild cards that could stir things up a bit. Sam Antar comes to mind, although the criminal record could be a bit of a problem. Francine might be up for it? We haven’t asked her yet, just throwing it out there. More suggestions welcome.