Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Comp Watch ’16: PCAOB

Posted on by Caleb Newquist

PCAOB Chairman James Doty had the pleasure of presenting a budget to the SEC today and it probably could've gone better. I'd say that any time you're asking people for money it can be a little nerve-wracking, but this is the federal goverment! There's virtually no chance that you won't offend someone no matter how reasonable your budet is or how much evidence you present in support of it.

So naturally, the Board is asking for more money, $257.7 million to be exact. Here's an excerpt from Doty's statement:

[T]his 2016 Budget represents a 2.7 percent increase over the 2015 Budget but is still short of the 2014 Budget of $258.4 million.

The 2016 Budget is based on an appropriate and realistic assessment of today's competitive market for the hiring of experienced professionals. I'm glad to report that we have also successfully turned around our recruiting efforts. We project approximately 875 staff by the end of 2016, including approximately 25 new staff and a 10 percent turnover rate.

While I'd like to think our interview with Inspections Director Helen MirrenMunter had everything to do with the Board's improved recruiting efforts, I reckon it came down to salaries. The Board pays well! And good salaries and benefits will get you a fair amount of audit talent.

However, as chairman, Doty makes $670k per year. The other four members "earn about $546,000" and with over 800 staff, the compensation expense adds up a bit. So guess what Mary Jo White called attention to during the meeting?

“I encourage the board to take a hard look at funding and expenses in the coming year, including with respect to compensation, and identify possible savings and efficiencies,” SEC Chairman Mary Jo White said at meeting where commissioners voted 2-1 to authorize the PCAOB’s funding.

Also, Commissioner Michael Piwowar said, “A more modest budget should have been presented for 2016,” so you can count him as the one feeling a little insulted by the Board's need to offer employees decent salaries.

[WSJ, PCAOB, SEC]

Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated the name of the PCAOB Inspections Director. The director's name is Helen Munter not Helen Mirren. Monday!

Related Posts

Auditors Will Be Happy to Know That Term Limits Are Still on the Table

In a keynote speech at the AICPA's National Conference on SEC and PCAOB developments, Chairman […]

Alterra Blows Off Proxy Advisors; Recommends Shareholders Reappoint KPMG as Auditor

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 thc.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.

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

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

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

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

Damn those loan loss reserves!

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

This loan thing appears to be a trend…

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

Hopefully that doesn’t blow back on an A1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010 Ernst Young LLP US