When the news of the split first broke in May of last year, it was rumored the vote would go down that summer. Then the winter. And, most recently, the vote was expected to take place by the end of this quarter. As we approach March, Global Managing Partner Andy Baldwin says the firm wants to hold the vote in April or May, though the split may not happen until the end of the year or possibly into 2024.
The break up of the Big Four accounting firm is “inevitable” due to regulatory and capital return pressure, Andy Baldwin, a global managing partner at EY, said in an interview with Bloomberg Radio on Monday. The firm stands by its plan — codenamed Project Everest — for the split and wants to ballot in April or May.
“This is probably the most complex corporate transaction in history,” he said. “The plan is we will be putting this to the vote probably in April or May,” and target “some form of capital transaction” by the end of the year, although that timetable may slip.
You can hear Andy Baldwin’s Bloomberg Radio interview here. In it, he’s asked if the split is something EY wants to do or if it is a necessity due to regulatory pressure (read: independence rules), to which he says regulatory and capital pressures are mostly driving the decision. Standing in the way currently are some details yet to be worked out, the main ones being a hammering out of the legal liabilities that are currently shared among partners and sorting out pensions, which he says “at different points of time run deficits” like many corporate entities. The split “involves effectively 77 simultaneous deals so inevitably we’re sort of working through a lot of complex issues with the teams and obviously for the partners,” he said.
The liberated consulting business is expected to raise $30 billion when it goes public.
So that’s where we’re at with the EY split in current day, consider yourself sufficiently caught up.
Recruiting for the talent amongst the Big 4 is competitive. This is known. What isn’t widely known are all the tactics in this competitive game of catch the accountant. In the past, we have seen direct solicitation by an E&Y recruiter which may be an effective method but it may be too abrasive for many within in the business who value propriety over the win-at-all-costs attitude.
Now comes news of a more subtle approach from KPMG, courtesy of an E&Y tipster who was searching for the firm’s career website:
While searching for the link to my firm’s career website I stumbled upon a pretty awesome ad (in a “ohhhh no you didn’t!” sort of way).
Since we’re fairly unfamiliar (read: completely unfamiliar) with Google’s method to the madness, we can only speculate how this little link found its way to the very top of Google search of “ey careers” but it does say “Ad,” so make of it what you will. Anyhoo, just for fun, we did our own quick Google Search of “ey careers” and got this:
So, it’s in the margin for us as opposed at the very top. But it’s still prominently placed on the search page and it’s also pretty hilarious that the hyperlink, “Ernst & Young Opportunities” goes directly to a KPMG URL (yes, it’s clearly disclosed by the Jobs.KPMGCareers.com at the bottom but who pays attention to that?). Perhaps our tendency to make mountains out of molehills is getting the best of us here but at the very least, this is an exciting twist on Sneaky Pete Piet.
~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).
