When accounting goes unaccounted for
So, some audit clients have allegedly told KPMG auditors not to come to their offices because of coronavirus concerns, according to a post on Fishbowl. We don’t know if these KPMG audit clients legitimately have COVID-19 concerns or, as one Fishbowl poster says, they just want the auditors off their backs for a bit.
Anyway, here’s the post:
Any other auditors being told to stay away because of coronavirus panic at the audit client? Have any of your clients made you take a survey? Let us know.
We might be a little late to the party on this but it just recently came across our desk and since trying to get a post up today is akin to turning water into wine, we’re running with it. And, frankly, if a large portion of you regularly read the “Public Accounting Report” we’ll be blown (BLOWN!) away.
The determination of the ranking isn’t entirely clear to us so we’ll just go for some superficial analysis on Crowe Horwath (#1 on the list) and the Big 4:
• Crowe Horwath #1 – Net gain of 24 clients; net gain in audited revenue of approximately $4 billion; net gain in assets audited of $18.4 billion; net revenue to the firm of $11 million.
• PwC #2 – Net loss of 8 clients; net gain in audited revenue of $34.9 billion; net gain in assets audited of $2.68 billion; net revenue to the firm of $8.4 million.
• KPMG #5 – Net loss of 1 client; net gain in audited revenue of over $12.9 billion; net loss in assets audited of $61.4 billion; net loss in revenue to the firm of $19.5 million.
• Ernst & Young #9 – Net loss of 30 clients; net gain in audited revenue of $5.3 billion; net loss in assets audited of $53.8 billion; net loss in revenue to the firm of $36.7 million.
• Deloitte #10 – Net loss of 7 clients; net loss in audited revenue of over $90.5 billion; net loss in assets audited of $718 billion; net loss in revenue to the firm of $74.7 million.
Crowe Horwath’s net gain of 24 clients is easily the highest of the firms presented and they’re the only firm that has increases in all the categories presented. Kinda makes you wonder why they had such a steady stream of layoffs in 2009. We’re open to suggestions and wild-ass theories on this topic.
On the losing end, Deloitte’s loss of huge clients due to the financial apocalypse has been noted by our contributor Francine McKenna and is noted by the PAR:
The firm landed the most wins of any of the Big Four firms for 2009, 46, garnering 3.5% of the overall SEC audit wins for the year. Overall, the Big Four won 7.5% of the auditor changes reported during the first three months of 2005. What relegated the firm to last place in the standings was two huge loses: UAL, to E&Y, and Merril Lynch’s acquisition by Bank of America.
All that added up to nearly $75 million in lost audit fee revenue for Deloitte. In terms of the number clients lost, E&Y managed to cruise to that title with net loss of 30 clients:
E&Y captured some sizable wins for the year, notably UAL/Chicago (Revenue: $20.19 billion) from Deloitte and Apple/Cupertino, Calif. (Revenue $32.48 billion) from KPMG. But its gains couldn’t offset losses for the year of Tyson, Sovereign Bancorp and Nalco Holding, to name a few notable losses.
The end result of this client musical chairs doesn’t really add up to much in terms of revenue for any of the firms. Even the $75 million lost by Deloitte is a drop in the bucket compared to their fiscal year ’09 revenue of $26.1 billion.
Peruse as you numbers see fit and feel free to wave the flag.
Details-shmetails.
In an 8-K regulatory filing and in a press release, Orient Paper said it was unaware of the problem until recently. Called the Davis Accounting Group, the Cedar City, Utah-based audit firm was supposed to be licensed by its home state, but its license lapsed in September 2008 and was formally revoked as of November last year. “During the time when Davis Accounting was retained by the Company, Davis Accounting represented that it was in good standing,” Orient Paper said in its press release.
Other than that, everything is kosh. Deloitte even said so. BDO Hong Kong is doing the restatements so everyone can pretend this never happened.
As we trudge toward a Senate vote on he financial reform bill, one issue that is of utmost interest to those in the accounting/audit biz is that of small businesses complying with Section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley.
As it stands, only a small number of non-accelerated filers are voluntarily in compliance with 404. Those not jumping at the voluntarily complying with 404 have enjoyed the repeated delays by the SEC since the legislation was passed in 2002.
But if reform bill passes in its current form, all companies with market caps of less than $75 million will be exempt from complying with the requirement to have an audit of their internal control system. And even those companies that went to the trouble of voluntary compliance, might not continue doing so:
Dan Crow is one of the few small-company CFOs with an auditor’s stamp on his internal controls. Getting it wasn’t as time-consuming or as costly as it would have been several years ago, when large public companies first began complying with one of the most onerous requirements of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, known as Section 404.
Still, Crow, who oversees finance for retailer Hastings Entertainment, doesn’t rule out dropping the extra review next year if Congress decides to permanently exempt small public companies from needing an auditor’s sign-off on their internal controls — as it seems poised to do. The Senate is expected to vote this week on the final version of the financial regulatory reform bill, which would exempt companies with market caps less than $75 million from complying with Section 404(b), the rule in question. (The House has already passed the bill.)
But that’s not all! Because 404(b) is clearly “red tape” (a popular rallying cry in an election year) that provides no benefits whatsoever and just crushes the spirit of small business (the backbone of America, we might add!) Congress has called for a study of “how the ‘burden’ of 404(b) compliance for companies with market capitalization between $75 million and $250 million could be reduced, and whether an exemption for them could increase the number of initial public offerings in the United States,” in the bill.
Christ, where does it end? Let’s just study the whole damn thing over while we’re at it. Apparently the entire Congressional body has completely ignored the benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley; never mind that costs of gone down significantly in the past eight years, making compliance less financially painful.
And not to mention that smaller companies are at greater risk for fraud and accounting manipulation. Look at the roster of companies on Sam Antar’s website and you’ll note that many of them have market caps of $1 billion or less. If these companies can’t resist the temptation to get shifty with financial reporting in order to meet (or not) the short-term focus of Wall Street, it’s difficult to reason that even smaller public companies won’t succumb to it.