Category: Uncategorized

Is David Paterson Trying to Pander to CPAs?

DavidPaterson.jpgGood news haters of all thing red tape! There is a pesky little fee in New York that goes into effect on December 31 that will require all tax preparers to pay $100 and register with the state tax department.
In case you haven’t heard, Paterson and the rest of the crew up in Albany have a bit of budget shortfall on their hands and need every dime they can get. Well! Your trusty New York State Society of CPAs has lobbied their asses off and gotten you out of this particular case of government meddling:

A bill signed into law by New York State Governor David Paterson provides an exemption from the state’s new tax preparer registration requirements for CPAs, including those who hail from outside the state.
…
The New York State Society of CPAs had advocated for an exemption for all CPAs from the registration requirements and had earlier succeeded in getting CPAs who were licensed in the state from being subject to the requirements.

Those state society fees do get you something! Call them up and thank them. And thank the Guv, while you’re at it.
New York Exempts CPAs from Preparer Registration [Web CPA]

Fraud Risk, Staffing Reductions, and OJ Logic at CFO.com

orangejuice_Full.jpgEditor’s Note: Robert Stewart is a former Big 4 auditor and ex-Marine who has since served in several executive management roles in both Internal Audit and Corporate Finance. He is also the founder and chief contributor to the online accounting and audit community, The Accounting Nation. Outside of work, he is a husband, father, brother, writer,uate aspiring triathlete.
You can always count on CFO.com for logic flaws and surface reporting. It’s like drinking that concentrated orange juice in a can when you add three parts too much water and then put ice cubes in it because it’s warm, which makes it even more watery which… Where was I going with this?
Oh yeah. In one of their latest articles, entitled “As Internal Audit Staffs Shrink, Will Fraud Rise?“, the author portends — based on a Deloitte survey and subsequent interview — that the decrease in internal audit personnel somehow increases the risk of organizational exposure to fraud. What? Ever hear the phrase “Correlation is not Causation”? Symptom or cause.


Here’s my $0.02: such staffing reductions may increase the risk that fraud will go undetected (though only nominally given that IA only uncovers about 12% percent of frauds according to the ACFE’s Report to the Nation), but the risk to the organization more than likely remains constant, right? Am I missing something here?
After all, Internal Audit is a downstream event unless you make the argument that the organizational perception of being “watched” has diminished with the reductions in internal audit/compliance staffing, thus emboldening would-be fraudsters (i.e. strengthening the “opportunity” leg of Cressey’s Fraud Triangle). But this article doesn’t make that argument.
The article further states that:

Despite the reduction in compliance personnel, 50% of respondents to the Deloitte survey, who included CFOs, CEOs, board members, and middle managers in finance and risk management, said their compliance and ethics programs are strong. Another 36% said they are adequate. Many public companies and some private companies invested significantly in their compliance programs after the passage of Sarbox in 2002, notes Francis, and they may now feel confident that those programs are effective even with a reduced staff. But that confidence may not always be justified.

Confidence? I would hardly call the above percentages “confidence” on the part of the respondents. If I told you that 50% of the airline pilots felt that their pre-flight checklist procedures were strong, how would you feel about flying? No F*#$ing way I’m getting on that plane.
The words wrapped around the survey results and subsequent interview quotes don’t at all support the conclusion that this article is trying to draw. Perhaps it’s because the survey was designed and administered by a firm (Deloitte) that has a vested interest in drumming up some business through fear tactics? After all, you’re never going to hear a burglar alarm company extolling the improvements in public safety.
And you’re never going to hear a company that sells risk-related services conducting and publicly releasing results that don’t support their strategic objectives. Or perhaps it’s just bad writing at CFO.com in order to satisfy a quota? The World may never know (I think the World will be fine with this). Either way, I’ve wasted double the amount of time that I should have on this topic (i.e. read it and wrote about it). And so with that…I bid you adieu.

Pictures of the Day: A Compelling Argument for a Computerized Exam

London’s ExCeL Centre was packed to the rafters today with almost 4,000 would-be accountants sitting their ACCA (the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) exams in Corporate Reporting, Financial Reporting and Preparing Taxation Computations. The exams are part of ACCA’s global exam series, with an estimated 73,806 students taking these exams around the world today.
Big_Exam08 (2).jpg


Big _Exam.jpg
Why are the proctors dressed like riot police?

Is Patrick Byrne’s Facebook Friends List Motivated by a Farmville Obsession?

Thumbnail image for farmvillePat.jpgWe haven’t really touched on the Patrick Byrne’s ill-fated attempt to stalk his critics (and all their friends, acquaintances, and complete strangers) mostly because we weren’t on the list and those that were (including Gary Weiss, Sam Antar, Joe Wiesenthal, and Barry Ritholtz) are doing a fine job of pointing out how desperate, shady, and just plain fucking bad this makes Patsy, his head minion at DeepCapture Judd Bagley, and Overstock look.
We only bring it up now because we’d like to point out that it’s worth speculating on the other side of this story. Our contention is that P. Byrne, being of questionable mind and maturity, is OBSESSED with Farmville and it is his personal mission to destroy the Farmvilles of his critics and their FB friends (now who’s movin’ up in Farmville, bitches?).
This agonizing torture method will eventually wear down the haters to the point to where no one will be able to take the man, his doomed-to-fail quest to locate an auditor, and his company seriously and will thus give up their quest of destroying him.
The only other thing we can come up with is that he has an intense hatred of trite status updates and was going to expose everyone for their lack of substantive commentary but we find all his critics to be interesting bloggers, so we tossed that theory.
Grant Thornton and PwC have got to feel pret-tay good about how this all turned out. If you’ve got you own theories or thoughts on this situation, feel free to discuss them here.

Who Will Replace Tiger Woods at Accenture?

tiger_phil.jpgThe possibilities are endless:
• Will they poach Phil* from KPMG?
• What about Natalie from RSM?
• Do they go in a different direction altogether and pick up Chuck Liddell?
• Becks?
T. Dubs’ tendency to screw anything with a pulse looks like it will benefit someone handsomely. Accenture can’t afford to go too long without a shill.
Let’s help them out. Vote below and discuss. Oh, and if the mood strikes you, throw a caption on this pic. You’ve go to wonder which trollop TW’s got on the brain wearing a grin like that.


*Over Tim Flynn’s dead body

Layoff Watch ’09: Grant Thornton December Edition

We come with news this afternoon about more layoffs at G to the T that are rumored to have gone down earlier this month.
This latest information we have involves two managers and two senior managers in the Los Angeles office were shown the door around the first of the month. Our source has indicated that the breakdown was three in the audit practice and one in tax. These latest cuts would be in addition to the original ten that we reported on last month for LA.
If you have more information on these layoffs or have details on a different GT office, get in touch with us or discuss in the comments.
Earlier: Layoff Watch ’09: Grant Thornton

Your Nominations for ‘Accountants of the Decade’ Are Now Being Accepted

andyfastow2.jpgFriends, you may not be aware of it but the current decade is closing fast. This means several things, a few of which are worth mentioning here: 1) Many of you will embark on this new decade inching ever closer to your first mid-life crisis 2) Many of you will enter a new decade and still not have your CPA despite posing as one for the last 3 – 5 years. 3) Ubiquitous “[insert anything here] of the decade” lists.
Now you may also be aware how we here at GC feel about lists. Not typically a fan. However, considering the historical significance of the end of the ‘0Xs (what the hell is this decade called?) and the fact that we don’t feel like working too hard today, we will now request your nominations for the “Accountants of the Decade”.
We’re looking for those CFOs, CPAs, etc. etc. that defined the decade for you, for better for worse. One possible nom is the man you see pictured here, the oddly stunning yet diabolical Andy Fastow. If you’re not familiar with AF, then please slap yourself.
A few things: 1) No obscure nominations. Your Intermediate Accounting Prof who was constantly eating star mints and wore warmup pants to class doesn’t count. Celebrity CPA Review instructors, on the other hand, are acceptable. 2) CFOs in form but not in substance are acceptable (e.g. Erin Callan). 3) Don’t blow this off. It’s important.
So fire away, and feel free to make an argument. If you’ve got a favorite picture with your nomination, kindly pass it along and we’ll include it if we end up putting this to a vote. We’ve got less than three weeks until the ball drops so get on it.

Moss Adams’ Derek Dowsett Talks to Going Concern About the Latest Ribbon Cutting

Thumbnail image for grand opening.jpgFollowing up from last week, we had the opportunity to speak with one of the lead partners of Moss Adams’ new Santa Clara office, Derek Dowsett.
Mr. Dowsett is the Regional Leader of the firms Technology & Life Science Practice for Moss Adams. He has been with MA for twelve years, being admitted to the partnership in 2006 and previously spent six years with at a Big 4 firm.


With the opening of the Santa Clara office, MA will have approximately 100 professionals working in the Bay area, according to Mr. Dowsett. Because of their close proximity, all the Bay area offices work cross-functionally to provide professional services to serve client needs as they arise:

“We utilize the resources from all of our offices which allows us to provide clients with a fully integrated client service team with the technical and industry knowledge most applicable. For example, I may draw on our international tax expertise from our San Francisco office if one of our clients needs help with an international tax issue or from our transaction services team should a client need help with financial due diligence related to a potential acquisition. Similarly, I help other offices throughout the firm with client issues within the technology and life science industries.”

The balances of services that the office provides will be break down “pretty close to 50/50, perhaps a little heavier on the assurance side” said Mr. Dowsett. MA also provides Advisory and Transaction Services to its clients in the Bay area.
In addition to the client service, Mr. Dowsett said that recruiting for the Bay area will be performed as a joint effort amongst the MA offices, with focus on the schools in the surrounding area. Their efforts will be focused at Santa Clara University, UC Santa Barbara, and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo with possible future expansion to additional schools.
Congratulations and good luck to Moss Adams on their newest location and thanks to Derek Dowsett for taking the time to talk to us. If your firm wants to get in touch with us about any news, send any correspondence to our general mailbox: tips@goingconcern.com.

Patrick Byrne May Say Something That Will Antagonize You

Thumbnail image for patsy_byrne.jpgThe Patrick Byrne Express (via Segway, natch) pulled over from its nationwide auditor search to pen the latest triumph in his quest to refute every Overstock/Patrick Byrne hater on the planet.
Patsy’s latest letter informs us of the settlement that Overstock has reached with Rocker Partners, one of those short-selling hedge fund haters, for $5 million.
His masterpiece opens with “The good guys won” and then rambles on to tell us how he feels about pretty much everyone in financial media. And that’s what this was really all about. It wasn’t about the money, you fools. This was about exposing the anti-Overstock/Patrick Byrne contingent:

What is of vastly greater significance than this $5 million payment, however, is an examination of the cover-up conducted by elements of the New York financial press. Taking the lead was CNBC, which spent a great deal of airtime downplaying the significance of this suit, vilifying me, and smearing Overstock.

Apparently, this is just the beginning. Prime brokers, sounds like you’re next.
And just so you know, PB and his company don’t give a damn if you, the SEC, or anyone else for that matter gets bent out of shape about them spreading the truth. As Floyd Norris rehashes some of the trubs going on in casa de Overstock, he notes this little treasure from the company’s unreviewed 10-Q:

Public statements we or our chief executive officer, Patrick M. Byrne, have made or may make in the future may antagonize regulatory officials or others.
We and our chief executive officer, Patrick M. Byrne, have from time to time made public statements regarding our or his beliefs about matters of public interest, including statements regarding naked short selling. Some of those public statements have been critical of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory agencies. These public statements may have consequences for us, whether as a result of increased regulatory scrutiny or otherwise.

Sounds like fighting words to us. Go ahead and bring it, SEC. Patrick Byrne will be waiting.
Overstock Claims Victory [Floyd Norris/NYT]

The FASB Buckles

bob herz.jpgBob Herz must be feeling a little blue now that his buddy Tweeds announced that he is hanging up his eyeshade.

This melancholic state has apparently led Herz to the conclusion that it’ll be okay to let banking regulators “use their own judgment” when it comes to letting banks stray from almighty GAAP:

“Handcuffing regulaorting GAAP to always fit the needs of regulators is inconsistent with the different purposes of financial reporting and prudential regulation,” Mr. Herz said in the prepared text.
“Regulators should have the authority and appropriate flexibility they need to effectively regulate the banking system,” he added. “And, conversely, in instances in which the needs of regulators deviate from the informational requirements of investors, the reporting to investors should not be subordinated to the needs of regulators. To do so could degrade the financial information available to investors and reduce public trust and confidence in the capital markets.”

Mr. Herz said that Congress, after the savings and loan crisis, had required bank regulators in 1991 to use GAAP as the basis for capital rules, but said the regulators could depart from such rules.

Herz is calling it “decoupling” of the rules which sounds a hell of a lot like “the rules are the rules only when they don’t work out so well for banks.” Not sure about anyone else but it sounds like Herz is caving to political pressure after insisting that everyone butt out.

Because if we read that correctly, any time banking regulators are feeling sketchy about the market’s ability to put value on the banks’ assets, they’ll just call a time out on fair value with no ringing up the FASB, auditors, or anybody else to get a permission slip?

Will banking regulators even know when the market is being irrational? If you were to ask JDA, she’d probably say, “No fucking way.”

A less irreverent but similar point of view from Daniel Indiviglio at the Atlantic:

I worry that if regulators are provided this flexibility, then they will always suspend mark-to-market accounting when a crisis hits. But in cases where the market permanently corrects the value of assets downward, their values would remain elevated in the regulators’ eyes. Then, once the crisis appears to improve, banks will eventually cause a sort of secondary crisis when they are forced to begin realizing the decline in the value of those assets.
Moreover, I worry about how investors will react to this change. Imagine you’re an investor. A crisis hits, and regulators step in to suspend mark-to-market accounting for a bank you own equity in. Are you worried? I sure would be — regulators were so concerned about the bank’s assets that they felt forced to suspend mark-to-market accounting! As an investor, I’ll still do my own math to figure out what I think the bank’s assets are worth. So investors might dump the stock anyway, endangering the value of the institution despite this move by regulators.

So it’s fair value unless we’re in a potential shit + fan situation. In the off-chance that the regulators recognize the impending disaster, they’ll tell the banks to forget fair value for now. Then once everything is hunky dory, we go back to fair value. Whatever, we’re over it.

Board to Propose More Flexible Accounting Rules for Banks [Floyd Norris/NYT]
Should Regulators Be Able To Suspend Accounting Rules? [The Atlantic]
Also see: Decouple US accounting rules, bank regulation-FASB [Reuters]

Sir David Tweedie’s New Promise: To Retire in 2011

Every knight lays down his sword at some point and Tweeds is no exception. The IASB Chairman will hang up his 10-key when his current term ends in June 2011.

According to Emily Chasan at Reuters, DT thought about calling it quits last year after the pols torpedoed mark-to-market in the name of bank lobbyists. Sensing that the true Holy Grail was within reach, Tweedie stayed on:

[H]e has said he stayed because he wanted to continue the convergence process, which is beginning to reach its goal of having a single set of high quality accounting standards used around the globe. The U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board and the IASB have redoubled efforts to complete their major convergence projects by a June 2011 deadline set by the G20 group of leading countries.

Now the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation, which oversees the board, is on the search for the next bean counter in shining armor. Since Tweeds gave plenty of notice, it won’t likely be the shitshow search like Bank of America has on its hands (until very recently perhaps) but the IASCF is searching all the corners of the world for the replacement and they need to come up with somebody good.
If they put some empty suit in there, the likes of Silvio Berlusconi will be writing the revised contingent liabilities standard. Lord knows we don’t need that. We need someone that doesn’t mind telling pols to BTFO of accounting biznass. Pols like Eddy “If you had just involved us in the monitoring of the IASB we wouldn’t be in this mess” Wymeersch, who probably couldn’t tell the difference between his ass and the basic accounting equation. Feel me, IASCF?
Now since that’s clear, if you’ve got any suggestions or purely want to speculate on who you will be in the big chair next (Tim Flynn? Mary Schapiro? Phil Mickelson? that smug guy in the cube next to you that got a 98 on FARE?) drop them in the comments.
IASB’s Tweedie to retire when term ends in 2011 [Emily Chasan/Reuters]
Trustees seek nominations for Chairman of the IASB from 2011 [Press Release]
See also: Kroeker Stresses Importance of Investors in IFRS Decision; Search Is On For Next Chairman Of IASB When Tweedie Retires in 2011 [FEI Financial Reporting Blog]

Because There is No Shortage of Criminals

fraud.jpgEditor’s Note: Want more JDA? You can see all of her posts for GC here, her blog here and stalk her on Twitter.
Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of speaking with Sam Antar of White Collar Fraud. I won’t give him too many props (lest he think his wily criminal charms got to me) but our conversation was both relevant and disconcerting.
In case you aren’t acquainted with Sam, he’s the ex Crazy Eddie CFO who ripped them off and now does speaking tours talking about, well, crime. But there’s a lot more than that at work here, that’s just his schtick.


So what did I learn?
I believe my editor thinks I’m a doom and gloomer so here’s some good news: besides suggesting we start training more qualified forensic auditors fresh out of school, Sam insists there is a chance for real financial reform.
Do you take your reform advice from an ex-criminal? I remind you here that a tax cheat is in charge of the IRS, do with that information what you will.
Anyway, the point here is that financial statements lack integrity. Without integrity, investors are groping in the dark and criminals are able to execute their schemes. Foreign investors are scrambling to leave US capital markets, could that be because our statements are – generally speaking – unreliable?
So. Sam’s 3 step plan to restoring sanity to financial statements. Take it for what it is.
1. Redefine audit committees as truly independent. No member of the audit committee should derive a salary or other compensation from stock options or stock holdings. Period.
2. Committee members should be qualified. CPAs and securities lawyers are qualified to sit on an audit committee, not marketing managers and other “average” sections of the corporate population.
3. Forensic accounting should be standard curriculum in university accounting programs. Don’t eliminate 404(b), if a corporation can’t afford the audits required to be a public company, then don’t become one.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that final point, I don’t think tedious audits are the solution. However, perhaps if we had more qualified auditors out in the trenches, I might be inclined to be slightly less skeptical about the effectiveness of more softcore audits.
Stay tuned as we’ll be picking Sam’s brain again soon.
GC Posts Referencing Sam Antar:
Grant Thornton: Patrick Byrne’s Pants Are on Fire
Obvious Sign of Fraud: You’re Having Sex with the Client