Related Posts

Let’s Get to Know KPMG’s New International Chairman, Michael Andrew

Yesterday we learned that new KPMG International Chairman Michael Andrew doesn’t think too highly of second-tier accounting firms. Sure, they might have fancy ad campaigns, or offer Starbucks cards for being tattletales but could they audit a global bank? No. Hell no. Rubes. According to Andrew, those firms are “quite lazy” about investing in their businesses which means you couldn’t trust those audits as far as you could throw them.

But perhaps that wasn’t the best introduction for the man replacing Tim Flynn (who is, frankly, irreplaceable). Luckily, in addition to the FT piece we mentioned yesterday, there was also a much longer profile of MA that will give you a better idea of the man who has to fill T Fly’s shoes.


For starters, being the chair of an international accounting behemoth can be a quite the harried job, it’s important that Drew be afforded the quickest transport possible:

Holding court in a hotel at London’s Heathrow airport, Michael Andrew is boasting about how easy it is to get from his desk to the runway back home in Hong Kong. “I basically walk out of the office and they guarantee me to be sitting on the plane in 45 minutes,” he says.

The new chairman of KPMG International is not trying to rub salt into the wounds of harried air travellers in the UK and US. Rather, the 55-year-old Australian is explaining why he recently became the first head of a major global accounting network to be based in Asia.

And since he is based in Asia, this should put everyone on notice that the House of Klynveld isn’t caught up in the old world thinking of being centered in New York or London like other firms:

The bosses of KPMG’s three bigger rivals – PwC, Deloitte and Ernst & Young – are all based in New York or London: “We are trying to say we are a much more globally balanced firm.”

Okay, so PwC had over $29 billion in revenue. And Deloitte’s results were nothing to sneeze at. Even E&Y managed to put up a decent number. But do their respective Chairmen reside in the eastern hemisphere? I think you know the answer.

But just because he is the new Chairman of one of the largest accounting firms on Earth, you might expect that Drew is caught up in the high-flying lifestyle of a rockstar accountant. Sure, he golfs like the rest of you but that shouldn’t give you the wrong idea about Mike:

Mr Andrew’s hobby of racehorse breeding suggests he is more unbuttoned than the stereotypical accountant, even though three of his horses are called Discretion, Tactfully and Chatham House – the latter a reference to the famously off-the-record UK forum. But Mr Andrews himself is certainly willing to make punchy comments.

That’s right. This means stomping through shit. Bossing stable boys around. Firing trainers when necessary. Clearly, he’ll get down in the mud if he has to.

An accountant betting on Asia [FT]

Mike Mayo Is of the Opinion That Citigroup ‘May Have Violated Sarbanes-Oxley’

Last week we heard from a number of people on the topic of Citigroup’s internal controls that while it didn’t sound like they were quite up to snuff, KPMG was somehow cool with it and Vikram Pandit signed his name to it, saying that everything was hunky dory.

Now along with bloggers and journalists, the scourge of Citigroup, CLSA analyst Mike Mayo, has decided to get into the act:

Citigroup may have violated Sarbanes-Oxley with its 2007 10-K submission, in our opinion. The new information relates to letters from regulators that were only revealed earlier this year as part of the FCIC archive. We believe these letters between Citi and the Fed, Citi and the OCC, and the OCC with internal staff, imply that Citi should have known about internal control shortfalls for the year 2007 and was directly told about them by the OCC only eight days before the 10-K was signed. Also, Citi reported large unexpected losses with less than two months left in the year. Thus, the lingering question in our mind is why Citi signed off on its 2007 10-K as having effective controls in light of such problems. This information is still relevant today because it reflects on the magnitude of the risk shortfalls and what we feel is the higher-than-perceived task of turning them around.

That’s from Mayo’s update on the bank, dated today, and along with the “opinion” on a Sarbanes-Oxley violation, he has a few questions:

To what extent was the audit committee and board at Citi aware of the concerns voiced by various regulators at the time, and who gave the advice to sign the 10-K? To what extent has Citi’s board examined the issue since the release of letters from the FCIC? Has the SEC and DOJ looked into this matter?

We bolded that portion since it might – just might – be referring to KPMG and the apparent disregard everyone had for the letter sent to Citigroup from the OCC. Of course, not everyone always agrees with Mayo, namely Dick Bové who has gave HofK the thumbs up although it was obvious that he’d never heard of the firm. Bové hasn’t weighed in on this particular report but it’s only Monday.

Anyway, Citigroup remains steadfast in their thoughts on the matter, telling The Street’s Lauren Tara LaCapra that the “certifications were entirely appropriate,” although things increasingly seem to be pointing to the possibility that wasn’t the case. A message left for Marianne Carlton, a KPMG spokeswoman, hasn’t been returned.