Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

KPMG Still Rocks at Having the Worst PCAOB Inspection Report Among the Big 4

Posted on by Going Concern News Desk
KPMG Rocks signs held by a woman in a KPMG shirt

The last of the 2021 Big 4 PCAOB inspection reports belongs to KPMG, which has had the highest audit deficiency rate of the four firms for six out of the previous seven years—the lone exception being 2019. Make that seven out of the last eight:

In the 2021 inspection of KPMG LLP, the PCAOB assessed the firm’s compliance with laws, rules, and professional standards applicable to the audits of public companies.

We selected for review 54 audits of issuers with fiscal years generally ending in 2020. For each issuer audit selected, we reviewed a portion of the audit. We also evaluated elements of the firm’s system of quality control.

We also selected for review two reviews of interim financial information (“interim reviews”). Our reviews were performed to gain a timely understanding of emerging financial reporting and auditing risks associated with issuers that were formed by mergers between non-public operating companies and special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). We did not identify any instances of non-compliance with PCAOB standards related to the interim reviews that we reviewed.

[…]

Fourteen of the 54 audits we reviewed in 2021 are included in Part I.A of this report due to the significance of the deficiencies identified. The identified deficiencies primarily related to the firm’s testing of controls over and/or substantive testing of revenue and related accounts, allowance for credit losses, inventory, and going concern.

So that’s an error rate of 26%, which is behind EY’s 21.4%, Deloitte’s 13%, and PwC’s 3.6%. The good news for KPMG is its deficient rate for 2021 was slightly better than the one in its 2020 auditing report card—26% vs. 26.4%.

For 2021, eight audits had problems in both internal control over financial reporting and in the financial statement, two had deficiencies in the financial statement only, and four had deficiencies in ICFR only. The most common Part I.A deficiencies related to testing the design or operating effectiveness of controls selected for testing, testing controls over the accuracy and completeness of data or reports used in the operation of controls, testing data or reports used in substantive testing, and in some cases the resulting overreliance on controls when performing substantive testing, according to the PCAOB.

The five main trouble spots for KPMG auditors were:

  • Revenue and related accounts: The deficiencies in 2021 (as well as in 2020 and 2019) related to substantive testing of, and testing controls over, revenue.
  • Allowance for credit losses: The deficiencies in 2021 primarily related to testing controls over the allowance for credit losses.
  • Inventory: The deficiencies in 2021 primarily related to testing controls over the existence of inventory.
  • Going concern: The deficiencies in 2021 primarily related to substantive testing of the evaluation of an issuer’s ability to continue as a going concern.
  • Investment securities: The deficiency in 2021 related to testing a control over the evaluation of investment securities for possible impairment.

KPMG failed five of its nine audits for issuers in the financials sector, while mistakes were found in three of the seven audits of issuers in the consumer discretionary sector, three of the 12 audits of issuers in the industrials sector, two of the seven audits of issuers in the IT sector, and in one of the four audits of issuers in the energy sector. KPMG did get a passing grade in its audits of issuers in the communications, consumer staples, materials, real estate, and utilities sectors.

You can read more about the 2021 audit inspection season at KPMG below.

Related Posts

Muddy Waters CEO: There Are Some Big 4 Partners in China Conspiring to Defraud Investors

As you probably heard, the PCAOB officially put out a proposal earlier this week for audit partners to be named in the annual reports of public companies. It would also require “registered firms to disclose the name of the engagement partner for each audit report already requirethe form” and “disclosure in the audit report of other accounting firms and certain other participants that took part in the audit.”

While most Big 4 audit partners are probably feeling a little chapped by this whole proposal, there is at least one person going on record (by way of PCAOB comment letter) that feels that it doesn’t go far enough. That would be Carson Block, the CEO and founder of research firm Muddy Waters. In Block’s letter (in full on page 2) to the Board he writes that not only should the engagement partner be identified but that he or she should be putting their name on the audit opinion because “[it] will decrease investors’ future losses to fraud and gimmicky accounting by billions of dollars.”

That on it’s own is enough to get more than a few people riled up. But as we indicated, there are some conspiracy and fraud accusations as well:

Even the most reputable auditors in China seem to be in a race to the bottom. We believe that there are particularly egregious situations in which some Big Four partners in China offices have actually conspired with their clients to defraud investors. Further, it is a reasonable proposition that the conflict of interest inherent in the Chinese auditors’ business model also affects the quality of US company audits.

Now before your knickers in a twist, don’t forget that this is the guy who called Sino-Forest a “Ponzi Scheme for the 23rd Century” which more or less looks to be accurate. Further, if you consider all the trouble Big 4 firms have had with Chinese companies listed in the U.S. and elsewhere, it doesn’t seem to be that much of a stretch that some partners would just say fuck it and work with their clients to keep a lid on the shenanigans than go through the pain of actually doing their jobs.

Regardless, with these accusations the PCAOB may try to make another run at getting the Chinese to play ball.


Carson Block 102011

CFTC Didn’t Think Too Much of McGladrey’s Audit of One World Capital Group

They were so unimpressed with it, in fact, that they are fining the firm $900,000 and partner David Shane $100,000 to settle up.


Mickey G’s issued an unqualified audit opinion for One World Capital Group’s 2006 financial statements and also stated that the company’s internal controls were just fine and dandy. Neither of these things turned out to be true. And when you read the CFTC’s press release, you really have to wonder if anyone was really auditing this company:

[T]he order finds that One World’s 2006 financial statements were materially misstated in various ways including: (1) the 2006 Statement of Financial Condition states that liabilities payable to all customers were over $6.9 million, when in fact information available in One World’s records showed that it may have owed at least $15 million just to forex customers alone, for whom One World served as the counterparty; and (2) the 2006 financial statements materially misstated the nature of One World’s business by failing to reflect that One World served as the counter party to its forex customers for over 90 percent of its business, according to the order.

In addition, McGladrey failed to report material inadequacies in One World’s accounting system and internal accounting controls, including the lack of a customer ledger, and an accounting system that did not properly identify the number of forex customers or the amount of customer liabilities, according to the order. These material inadequacies reasonably could, and did, lead to material misstatements in One World’s 2006 financial statements, the order finds.

No punch and cake for anyone after this fiasco.

[via CFTC]

Almost Everyone Thinks Mandatory Auditor Rotation is an Awful Idea

Back in August, the PCAOB issued a concept release on audit firm rotation and invited […]

3 thoughts on “KPMG Still Rocks at Having the Worst PCAOB Inspection Report Among the Big 4”

  2. Their engagement pricing/budgeting system is crooked. their budgeted hour for each client is based only on approximately 75% (on a 100% realization basis) of total fee they charge clients. In other words, if an engagement fee is $100k, engagement teams can only spend $75k on the audit and the rest supposedly goes to administrate expenses which who knows what it may be. Not sure why PCAOB has not picked on this yet.

  3. They were fined RM300 million by the Malaysian Government for false audit reports issued for 3 years for 1MDB involving RM50 billion fraud.

Comments are closed.