Tag: Auditors

Accounting News Roundup: Investigation of E&Y Over Lehman Begins in UK; Study: Mortgage Interest Deduction Doesn’t Increase Home Ownership; PwC Announces Revenue Numbers | 10.04.10

E&Y auditors investigated over Lehman Brothers [Accountancy Age]
“The Accountancy and Actuarial Discipline Board (AADB) has begun an investigation of E&Y in its role in reporting to the FSA on audit client Lehman Brothers International Europe’s compliance with the authority’s client asset rules, which govern the protection of client money.”

And since they were on a roll, the AADB is also investigating PwC for its role in J.P. Morgan’s misuse of client assets.

Study Finds the Mortgage Interest Deduction to be Ineffective at Increasing Owneref=”http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26762.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TaxPolicyBlog+(Tax+Foundation+-+Tax+Foundation’s+%22Tax+Policy+Blog%22)”>Tax Foundation]
“Proponents for the MID often offer the justification that it increases homeownership rates, which they say has positive benefits for society. But most economists seriously question the benefits of MID and many believe homeownership is greatly over-subsidized.”

Visa, MasterCard Antitrust Decision by U.S. Said to Be Near [Bloomberg]
“The U.S. Justice Department may decide as early as this week how to resolve its two-year antitrust probe of merchant restrictions imposed by Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc. and American Express Co., three people briefed on the matter said.

The department still hasn’t decided whether it can reach a deal with the three biggest U.S. payment networks or challenge their policies in court, one of the people said. The department likely will file a lawsuit, and MasterCard and Visa are expected to settle, people familiar with the matter said.

The talks focus on rules that bar merchants from charging extra to customers who use credit cards and steering them to competing cards, and require retailers to accept every type of card banks issue, said the people, who requested anonymity because the discussions are private. The department is leaning toward allowing the companies to maintain prohibitions against surcharging, two of the people said.”

Will KPMG Ever Wake Up and Finally Learn Its Lesson after Being Duped into Completing Crazy Eddie’s Audits Too Early Twenty Three Years Ago? [White Collar Fraud]
Today’s lesson in duping auditors – Sam Antar explains exactly how he fooled KPMG (then Peat Markwick Main) into signing off on incomplete audits back in the 80s.

PwC takes $26.6bn in global revenues [Accountancy Age]
Thanks to the miracle of rounding, $26.6 billion puts P. Dubs in a tie with Deloitte for largest firm in terms of revenues, who reported the same number last month. This obviously will not stand and we will investigate the matter further to the appropriate number of significant digits to determine who the top dog is.


Citi says CEO, CFO “rebutted” Mayo’s criticisms in meeting [Reuters]
On Friday, banking analyst Mike Mayo met with Citi execs including CEO Vikram Pandit and CFO John Gerspach and they discussed, among other things, why Citi hasn’t been writing down their DTAs. Citi says that successfully rebutted the Mayo Man who is issuing a report today with his thoughts on the sit-down.

Accountant gets year-and-a-day in Petters scam [Minneapolis Star-Tribune]
“Harold Katz, the hedge fund accountant who doctored financial statements to hide the Petters Ponzi scheme from investors, was sentenced Friday to 366 days in prison after apologizing to family, friends and investors.

Katz, 43, will be eligible for parole in about 10 1/2 months. He was sentenced for conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

‘I made a colossal error in judgment,’ Katz told U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle. ‘I hope I can use this horrific experience to help others not make the same mistakes as I have.’

Katz created false financial statements at the behest of Gregory Bell, manager of Lancelot Investment Management, a Chicago-area hedge fund, to mislead investors about the stability of Petters Co. Inc., which was defaulting on various promissory notes as its decadelong Ponzi scheme unraveled in 2008. Katz also assisted Bell in making phony banking transactions with Petters Co. Inc. to make it appear the Petters Co. was paying off notes it owed to Lancelot.”

Accounting News Roundup: ‘Won’t Somebody Think of the Small Businesses?!?’; Facebook’s New Arbitrary IPO Date; Debunking The ‘Failure’ of Bush Tax Cuts | 09.28.10

Analyzing the Small-Business Tax Hysteria [You’re the Boss/NYT]
“The rhetoric on this subject has become counterproductive. It can’t be helping consumer confidence, and it’s certainly not creating any jobs. In what used to be a running joke on ‘The Simpsons,’ whenever trouble arose, Reverend Lovejoy’s wife would shriek, ‘Won’t somebody please think of the children?!!!’ The emerging counterpart to that cry in our real-life politics seems to be, ‘Won’t somebody please think of the small businesses!’ “

AOL in Talks to Buy TechCrunch [WSJ]
“A deal would mark a high-profile marriage between the Internet giant and one of Silicon Valley’s most high-profile blogs, which has often been discussed as a possible acquisition target.

It would also be the latest in a series of alliances between content and Internet companies, which are seeking to draw more users and advertisers by pumping out inexpensive articles on popular topics like fashion, news and sports.”

Facebook IPO likely after late 2012: board member [Reuters]
“Facebook, the world’s largest online social network, is likely to go public sometime after late 2012, a board member said, satisfying investors’ appetite for a slice of one of the Internet’s biggest growth stories.

A stock market debut by a company valued in the tens of billions of dollars would be one of the most highly anticipated initial public offerings of the decade.

But Facebook board member, venture capitalist and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel stressed on Monday that will not happen until after late 2012, and would depend on the company hitting certain revenue targets and how its business model develops.”

Auditors Aren’t Forcing Full Repurchase Risk Exposure Disclosure [Re:The Auditors]
Auditors looking the other way for their banking clients. Again.

BlackBerry Maker RIM Enters Tablet Scrum [WSJ]
“RIM Co-Chief Executive Mike Lazaridis on Monday showed the device, dubbed the PlayBook, at a conference for BlackBerry developers in San Francisco. The PlayBook has a seven-inch touch screen and high-definition cameras on the front and back sides, but the device won’t connect directly to cellular networks.

RIM said its tablet won’t go on sale until early next year in the U.S. and the second quarter elsewhere in the world, meaning it will miss the key holiday season. The timing also puts RIM behind iPad competitors from Samsung Electronics Co., Dell Inc. and others.”


IRS won’t be mailing tax forms next year [AP]
They’re saving $10 million a year, presumably on stamps and envelopes.

News Corp. SVP Kevin Halpin named Dow Jones CFO [AP]
Kevin Halpin is taking the reins from Stephen Daintith.

Correlation Proves Causation, David Cay Johnston Edition [Tax Foundation]
“I agree with Johnston that tax cuts are not the correct response to every economic situation, and I do not believe that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would cause an economic armageddon. If the federal government’s proclivity for deficit spending can’t be curbed by reducing tax revenue – the ‘starve-the-beast’ approach – then permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for any and all taxpayers is a worse policy than letting the cuts expire because the country will drive off the fiscal cliff even sooner.”

Deloitte Isn’t Buying This Big 4 Oligopoly Nonsense

Over the last 20 years or so, for one reason or another, accounting firms that were able to provide audit services to largest companies on Earth have been whittled down from 8 to 6 to 5 to 4. During this time, it became the concern of many (read: anyone not in the “Big” club) that the firms were too concentrated and audit quality was deteriorating due to the lack of competition.

Naturally, the firms at the top have dismissed this argument as bupkis. And because the public accounting industry is one that elected representatives and their constituents could give a rat crap about, the cries of the less fortunate firms have gone unheard.

Until recently that is. A report this summer that revealed the existence of “Big Four clauses” in credit agreements in the UK and that allowed the Grant Thorntons and BDOs of the world to have their “A-HA!” moment.

Deloitte, however, is not impressed with revelation and would like everyone to know that the audit biz is regular dog fight:

The audit market is “fiercely competitive and transparent” according to Big Four firm Deloitte, which sees no reason to open the top-heavy industry to greater competition.

Deloitte believes audit quality is “higher than ever” and said it has seen “no evidence of anti-competitive behaviour”, according to its submission to the upcoming House of Lords inquiry into audit competition.

“Our experience is that the listed-company audit market is one of the most competitive,” the firm said.

“The firm” presumably said this with a straight face.

Audit market is “fiercely competitive” Deloitte argue [Accountancy Age]

Can My Firm Force Me to Change Brokers Even Though There Are No Independence Conflicts?

Today in accountant anxiety, a new Big 4 audit manager is perplexed as to why the firm is requiring the movement of their brokerage accounts, which on the surface, don’t result in any independence conflicts.

Have a question about your career? Is your favorite gridiron powerhouse affecting your work? Concerned that you may be allergic to your job? Shoot us an email at advice@goingconcern.com and we’ll help alleviate your problems.

Back to our muddled manager:

I’m a new audit manager at a Big 4 firm. As a new manager, my firm is requiring me to move all of my brokerage accounts (even those for which I’m the trustee but have no beneficial interest in) to a firm approved by the company and which participates in their daily transaction import program so they can keep daily track of all of my holdings. How is this legal? I’m not allowed to do business with a brokerage firm of my choice, even when there are no independence conflicts? Doesn’t this violate some law or something!?!?! Advice please!


Frankly, we’re a little surprised that you’re surprised about your firm’s requests in this matter. After all, you’re a manager. In the audit practice. We realize it’s been awhile since you’ve cracked an audit textbook but we’re curious if you’re delegating your annual independence refresher to a lowly staff because you can’t be bothered with it.

As you may recall, audit firms have to be independent in fact and appearance. Your brokerage accounts – both your personal and the accounts that you serve as a trustee – are a huge risk to your firm’s ability to maintain that independence. Your personal accounts are a no brainer – a firm simply cannot have anyone with assets with a broker that your firm has some sort of professional relationship with that could be perceived as conflict of interest.

As far as the accounts that you serve as the trustee for – Wiktionary defines trustee as follows:

A person to whom property is legally committed in trust, to be applied either for the benefit of specified individuals, or for public uses; one who is intrusted with property for the benefit of another; also, a person in whose hands the effects of another are attached in a trustee process.

So in other words, you are legally obligated to invest on behalf of the beneficiary in their best interest. This could possibly put you in direct conflict to act in a manner that would risk the independence of your firm.

And as everyone knows, an audit firm’s reputation as an independent third party that provides an objective opinion is paramount to the industry. Whether they are truly independent is a matter that Francine McKenna would be happy to take up with you on any day of the week but all the firms have a platoon of attorneys and other professionals that monitor the risk of independence violations for their respective firms constantly.

And as long as you’re an employee of the firm, the firm’s interests will trump yours. We suggest paying closer attention at your next ethics training.

FRC Raps Big 4; Pressure to Perform Non-Audit Work Remains High

This story is republished from CFOZone, where you’ll find news, analysis and professional networking tools for finance executives.

The Financial Reporting Council of the UK has released the annual results of its inspection of the Big 4 accounting firms. Its verdict? They can do better.

Each of the Big Four – KPMG, PwC, Deloitte and Ernst & Young – were found to have been less than perfect. Each firm had its own specific offenses, but the common thread running through the report was that auditors faced too much internal pressure to do non-audit work, so that the quality and independence of the audits were in danger of slipping.


Ernst & Young was rapped for linking its auditors’ pay and promotion to their non-audit work. Deloitte and PwC were both castigated for sending employees to advise companies both firms were auditing.

The inspector said that audit firms should take more “sufficient professional skepticism in relation to key audit judgments.” In other words, the firms should not take the CFO’s word at face value. In particular, this skepticism should be applied to forecasts, impairment tests, revenue and the confirmation of claimed assets.

The regulators are in a difficult position. There has never been more demand for the services of the Big 4. This week, Deloitte CEO Jim Quigley said that his firm was planning on hiring 80,000 new staff globally over the next five years, taking its total roster to 250,000.

Despite being blamed for going easy on companies and banks before the crisis, companies and regulators have no option but to rely totally on their services.

This stranglehold on business looks set to continue, with more work coming from the non-auditing side. Deloitte also released results this week that showed auditing revenues had slid 1% this year over last year. But its work in the public sector had grown by 38 percent.

A Big 4 Identity Crisis?

“The Big 4 don’t even like being called AUDITORS. Rather they provide ‘ASSURANCE Services,’ and act as ‘TRUSTED ADVISORS.’ This isn’t just rhetorical. It’s a cynical PR move and an effort to limit their liability.”

~ Francine McKenna, who will be on a panel with Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Examiner Anton Valukas, NYT Chief Financial Correspondent Floyd Norris and others, discussing the financial crisis.

KPMG Pleased That Premature Audit Sign-offs Weren’t on Failed Audits

If you’re the partner on an engagement and you know, deep down in your plums, that the numbers are fine, you probably get pretty anxious to sign off on this bad boy. You want to go on vacation or a golf date with Phil or – if they’re lucky – spend some time with the family. With that in mind, it’s not so unusual that he/she might jump the gun a little and slap down the Johnnie Hancock before all the work gets done.

Unfortunately, as anyone studying for the audit section of the CPA exam will tell you, this is against the rules.


But hey! If the numbers are hunky-dory, there’s not much cause for concern and everyone has a good laugh:

In the case of KPMG, the FRC’s Audit Inspection Unit looked at 15 audits and found that in three cases the auditor’s report had been signed too soon. Significant changes were subsequently made to the accounts in one case.

Paul George, director of auditing at the FRC’s Professional Oversight Board, which includes the AIU, said the early sign-off problem was not limited to KPMG: “It is a profession-wide challenge to some degree.”

KPMG said it accepted the AIU’s comments. “We are pleased to note that in no case did they think that the audit opinion we issued was incorrect,” said Oliver Tant, head of its UK audit arm.

See? It happens everywhere! Plus, it’s not like accounting and auditing are based on rules that anyone takes that seriously, anyway.

Okay, sure signing off early on 20% of the audits sampled sorta looks bad but at least the numbers weren’t wrong. It would be really awkward to explain that.

Watchdog raps KPMG over early audit sign-off [FT]

The PCAOB Wants to Talk More About Talking

Why? Apparently because they just considered the needs of auditors. Audit committee members were feeling left out (and are, presumably, just as uncomfortable conversing with humans as auditors) so it’s back to the drawing board:

At a July 15 meeting of the PCAOB’s Standing Advisory Group, Goelzer said comments reflected a wide range of views. “A number of comments suggested that we needed to do more homework, more outreach on this subject,” he said. “Some thought we approached the subject too much from the perspective of the auditor and without a full appreciation of what audit committee members wanted or needed.”

A briefing paper to set the stage for the Sept. 21 roundtable says the board is holding the roundtable to get more insight from investors, audit committee members, auditors, and management on the proposed standard. The briefing paper outlines a number of questions the board wants to explore focused primary on what information is most relevant to audit committees, and how auditors and audit committees should communicate on those issues.

PCAOB Reopens Comment on Communications Standard [Compliance Week]

Are Big 4 Audits in Russia Worthless?

Maybe not in so many words but this whole PricewaterhouseCoopers/Yukos situation has got some people wondering. The FT and the Wall St. Journal both published articles yesterday about the Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev trial that is close (?) to wrapping up after 18 months. The two men are accused of embezzling mega bucks from Yukos, the Russian oil company.

Khodorkovsky and Lebedev’s lawyers are now claiming that PwC “acted improperly” by withdrawing ten years worth of audits under pressure from the Kremlin. Pressure, the lawyers say, in the form of “a prriminal investigations and a slew of court cases threatened to undermine its ability to operate in the fast-growing Russian market.” Basically, they threatened to throw PwC out of Russia. And it’s pretty difficult to grow your BRIC business without the “R” so PwC pulled the audits.

The firm claims that they up and changed their minds after the prosecutors showed them some evidence that led them to believe that they had been lied to by Yukos management.


Douglas Miller was the lead partner on Yukos – and who is also reportedly under investigation by the California Board of Accountancy – claims that the accusations are is more or less bullshit and that he stands by his decision to pull the audits.

However, Miller also said in his interrogation by prosecutors that “I believe these issues are being examined not so much by the
company’s Russian office managers, but by executives at PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ global, world level.” The Journal reported, “a PWC official said the decision to withdraw the audit opinions was made by Mr. Miller and others in PWC’s Russia office.” Miller is obviously speculating about what the BSDs at PwC Global were discussing over their muffins but obviously this is a problem.

As is pointed out in the FT, this doesn’t really bode well for audit firms – hell for anyone – trying to do business in Russia:

Regardless of where the truth lies, what is emerging is a situation where global audit firms operating in Russia may all be vulnerable to the double jeopardy of auditing the books of notoriously opaque companies, while being regulated by a government able to launch arbitrary attacks. This lose-lose situation could call into question the value of audits that have been hotly sought as a western seal of approval ever since Russian companies began to access international financial markets.

[…]

[I]t underlines how all who operate in Russian finance – from global audit firms to oligarchs to pension fund investors – may still be vulnerable as the legacy of the chaotic era of Boris Yeltsin and the ensuing Putin clampdown lingers on.

In other words, audits seem to have even less value in Russia than they do in the United States. And here in the U.S. more or less everyone agrees that, at best, auditors are of limited usefulness and at worst, they should be stacked alongside the Charmin™.

But as we said before, PwC (or any other firm that wants to take advantage of Russia’s expanding economy) has billions of reasons to buckle to any pressure put on them by the Russkis. And nobody blames them – not even people close to the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev defense team quoted in the FT saying, “We don’t hold anything against them: they had a gun to their heads.”

Wall Street Journal and Financial Times Expose Serious Allegations of PwC Wrongdoing in Auditor’s Reversal on Yukos [Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center]
Oil Tycoon Says PWC Caved to Pressure [WSJ]
Russia: Chain retraction [FT]
More on PwC and Yukos:
Never Say Nyet – PwC and Moscow Update [Re: The Auditors]

Who Would’ve Guessed Al Sharpton Knew Nothing About Accounting?

Presumably everyone but if you guessed that the Rev had the good sense to hire a crack-squad of debit & credit mavens to keep everything at National Action Network tip-top, you’d be sorely mistaken.

An accounting firm hired by Al Sharpton’s National Action Network found the civil-rights group in such financial disarray that it flunked its record-keeping — and may not even survive, The Post has learned.

The scathing critique was spelled out in a hard-hitting internal audit of NAN’s books, a copy of which was obtained by The Post.

“The organization has suffered recurring decreases in net assets — and has been dependent upon advances from related parties and the nonpayment of payroll tax obligations — to maintain continuity,” the firm KBL concluded in an April 2 audit of NAN’s 2008 financial records, the most recent available.

The audit, which was submitted to NAN’s board of directors, warned, “These circumstances create substantial doubt about the organization’s ability to continue.”

KBL said it was “unable to form an opinion” on the accuracy of NAN’s financial figures “because of inadequacies in the organization’s accounting records.”

Audit finds Sharpton’s nonprofit on brink [NYP]

Why Did Dave & Buster’s Fire Ernst & Young?

Earlier in the month, adult playground company Dave & Buster’s filed an S-4 to register $200 million in senior notes. Everything seemed to be in order and the month of August just moseyed along as it does.

Until the 24th, when GOD KNOWS what happened and D&B’s audit committee up and fired E&Y. They then filed the amended S-4, letting the whole world know about it:

CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON
ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

On August 25, 2010, Ernst & Young, LLP (the “Former Auditors”) was dismissed as the Company’s independent auditors. The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved their dismissal on August 24, 2010.

The Former Auditors’ audit report on the Company’s consolidated financial statements for each of the past two fiscal years did not contain an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, and was not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles.

During the Company’s most recent two fiscal years and through the subsequent interim period on or prior to August 25, 2010, (a) there were no disagreements between the Company and the Former Auditors on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreements, if not resolved to the satisfaction of the Former Auditors, would have caused the Former Auditors to make reference to the subject matter of the disagreement in connection with its report; and (b) no reportable events as set forth in Item 304(a)(1)(v)(A) through (D) of Regulation S-K have occurred.

Naturally, this invites rampant speculation as to the why, why and the why? It’s not the most high profile client on Earth but as Adrienne pointed out, Ernst & Young is now on a list with Vice-President Joe Biden and no one needs that.

Dave & Buster’s, Inc. Announces Dismissal of Independent Auditor [Business Newswire via JDA]