Tag: CFOs

You Can Forget About Landing That CFO Position at the SEC

Mary Schapiro took some time out of her fraud fighting Friday to ask Kenneth Johnson to quit acting as the Commission’s CFO and to take on the official responsibility of running the Office of Financial Management.

Mr Johnson (KenJo?) vehemently accepted the offer and threw in a shout out to the boss, “I’m honored to accept this new role at such an important time for the agency. Chairman Schapiro is deeply committed to strong financial management, and I’m proud to lead the agency’s initiatives in this area.”


Presumably, the CFO position isn’t a kicking-down-doors type job so Johnson’s first order of business should be to determine the savings on a group rate at one porn site that can appropriate service all tastes.

Washington, D.C., May 21, 2010 — Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Schapiro today announced that Kenneth A. Johnson has been named Chief Financial Officer for the agency.

Mr. Johnson has been serving as acting CFO for much of the past year. The agency’s CFO is responsible for leading its Office of Financial Management, which handles the budget, finance, and accounting operations for the SEC.

“I’m delighted that Ken has agreed to take on this role at the SEC,” said Chairman Schapiro. “His deep experience in the financial arena will be incredibly valuable as we grow as an agency.”

Mr. Johnson added, “I’m honored to accept this new role at such an important time for the agency. Chairman Schapiro is deeply committed to strong financial management, and I’m proud to lead the agency’s initiatives in this area.”

Mr. Johnson, 37, joined the SEC in 2003 as a Management Analyst in the Office of the Executive Director. In that role, he advised on all aspects of the budget process, developed strategy initiatives, and responded to inquiries from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress regarding the SEC’s budget and financial operations. He became Chief Management Analyst in 2006.

Mr. Johnson has served as a valuable staff expert on legislative proposals, and he managed the development of the SEC’s long-range Strategic Plan that would guide agency policy through 2015.

Prior to joining the SEC staff, Mr. Johnson worked as a Commerce Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His primary responsibility in that role was to analyze and report on the budgetary effects of committee-approved legislation.

Mr. Johnson earned his Masters in Public Policy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and earned his BA at Stanford University.

Abercrombie & Fitch’s Jonathan Ramsden: CFOs Need to Challenge Conventions

Jonathan Ramsden has been Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Abercrombie & Fitch since December 2008 and is a key part of a team trying to guide the retailer’s global expansion while managing something of a remake of its domestic operations. Going Concern caught up with him recently to find out how he sees A&F’s business and what else is on his mind.


Prior to joining Abercrombie & Fitch, Ramsden was CFO of TBWA Worldwide, a global marketing services company with operations in over 70 countries. He began his career with Arthur Andersen, spending nine years in the firm’s London and New York offices. He is a graduate of Oxford University and a UK Chartered Accountant. Jonathan lives in Columbus, Ohio, with his wife and threng>Going Concern: I’ve got to start by asking how analysts got Abercrombie’s early-year outlook so wrong. One early year report out in the Wall Street Journal anticipated an ugly same-store-sales decline, and the next day you post an 8% increase in January sales in stores open at least one year. February and March were good for you too. Why the gulf between predictions and performance?

Ramsden: Our business improved at the beginning of the year and, since we don’t give forward looking guidance, the analyst consensus was modeling a continuation of the prior trend. We have also consistently said that one or two months do not constitute a trend, and that month to month results may be volatile. Our focus is less on monthly sales figures than doing what we think is right for the long-term health of the brands and the business.

Going Concern: Do you see it as part of your job to find metrics that allow shareholders and analysts to make more accurate predictions and better comparisons, or does that really fall beyond the CFO’s purview? What can you do as CFO to help people better understand the company’s business?

Ramsden: We try to provide data that enables shareholders and analysts to understand the underlying dynamics of the business. Since the beginning of last year we have not been giving forward looking guidance on sales or earnings since we think that implies a degree of precision about future results we have not had in the environment we have been through.

Going Concern: How do you expect Abercrombie to perform this year overall?

Ramsden: We feel very good about our international business, which continues to affirm the global appeal of our brands. We have been through a challenging time domestically, but are working hard to improve the domestic trend of the business. Protecting the global appeal of our brands remains a paramount objective, and we have been willing to take some pain domestically to do that.

Going Concern: Is it fair to say that the growth will now come overseas? Expanding abroad can be fruitful, but it’s also a big investment. What if sales soften more quickly than expected?

Ramsden: We do believe that the future of our business is tied to our international strategy. At the same time, if we can achieve a sustained improvement in our domestic productivity, that will be very significant to both sales and earnings. There are certainly risks associated with an international expansion, but we have been very encouraged by the results so far.

Going Concern: There seems to be a wane in the company’s popularity here in the States. Does the company agree with that statement and what’s being done to address it?

Ramsden: We believe that our brands retain a strong appeal. 2009 was a challenging year in the US, but we think we can improve the domestic business going forward. Firstly, we continue to work on our pricing. Secondly, there are a number of initiatives in place on the marketing front that we think will help us to better connect with our core customer. We feel better about the assortment than we have in some time. Lastly, we expect that we will need to close a number of stores that don’t really fit in the portfolio, particularly for the A&F brand.

Going Concern: Has Abercrombie & Fitch actually cut costs over the last couple of years? How involved have you been in that and can you explain a little about the process behind identifying excess cost in the business?

Ramsden: We went through a reorganization of our corporate “Home Office” about a year ago, which included some significant lay-offs. The company had never been through anything like that before so it was a difficult process, but we believe the company will be more efficient as a result. The entire leadership group was involved in the process. At the store level, on an ongoing basis we have been looking to find efficiencies in variable costs such as store payroll, packaging, supplies and so on. The biggest component of the margin erosion we have incurred has been in store occupancy costs (rent, depreciation etc) which are relatively fixed in the short term, but which we think we can make progress on over time, including through store closures where appropriate.

Going Concern: What are your biggest challenges as CFO with respect to financial reporting in the coming year?

Ramsden: As we roll out internationally, we have to ensure that our local reporting is to the same standard as our US reporting. In addition, the international rollout adds to the complexity of our US reporting.

Going Concern: Have you started laying the groundwork for converting to IFRS? If so, when do believe the conversion will be complete? Can you give us a sense of the scale of this task and who is helping you with it?

Ramsden: We have done our initial assessment of what would be required to convert. The area of greatest complexity for us would be moving from the retail to the cost method of accounting for inventory.

Going Concern: A recent survey by Financial Executives International/Baruch college stated that only 44% of CFOs anticipate an increase in their hiring and that 25% expect to cut back on their rate of hiring? What kind of cost saving measures (as they relate to employees) did A&F utilize in 2009? Have economic conditions improved to the point that further cost saving measures (e.g. salary freezes, layoffs, reduced working hours) won’t be necessary? What are A&F’s plans with regard to hiring for 2010?

Ramsden: During 2009, as well as layoffs, we took a number of other measure such as deferring and reducing raise pools and reducing retirement plan contributions. Our current direction is a gradual return to normalcy. We are hiring where we need to, while seeking to keep the overall headcount close to the current level.

Going Concern: You were previously a CFO at a global marketing-services company. How difficult did you find it moving sectors? What are the main differences you see between overseeing the finances of a services operation as opposed to a retail operation? (What would you say to a senior level business finance executive who is switching business sectors?)

Ramsden: There are some significant commonalities. Both A&F and TBWA are full of creative, energized and driven people. During the ten years I was at TBWA, we were seeking to build a cohesive global brand. For A&F, the next 10 years are also going to be about international expansion. The starting points are quite different, but many of the challenges of running a global business are the same. I think there are a core set of CFO skills that are transferable and that make up a significant part of the CFO role in any organization. Industry knowledge is definitely valuable, but coming from a fresh perspective also has some value. Clearly there is also a huge amount of instituational and industry knowledge at A&F.

Going Concern: In overall terms, how do you view your role as CFO?

Ramsden: There are some things that are black and white, but most are not. As the CFO, you need to be surrounded by people and processes you trust. Good processes will take care of the black and white stuff, and having people you trust in key positions will take care of most of the rest. So you have to have complete confidence in the people you work with, and you have to ensure that systems and processes are effective. The CFO also needs to challenge conventions.

Outsourcing Has Yielded Mixed Results So Far, Says Molson Coors CFO

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

I’m down at the Hackett Group’s best practices conference in Atlanta and just finished a video interview with Stewart Glendinning, CFO of Molson Coors, on the topic of outsourcing.

While the video won’t be up for awhile, I can report that Glendinning wowed the crowd of 250 or so finance executives in attendance this morning with a frank keynote address on the subject.

He essentially warned the audience that outsourcing is hardly the no brainer that everyone – from Wall Street analysts to third-party service providers – makes it out to be.


While the CFO stood by Molson Coors’ decision to outsource most if not all of its information technology, finance and HR functions in 2008, he conceded that the arrangement has yet to live up to billing.

The decision followed the merger of Molson and Coors in 2005, which was expected to produce roughly $180 million in cost savings. And while outsourcing has helped produce some of that, Glendinning – who was appointed CFO of the combined companies two years ago – acknowledged the arrangement with its vendor hasn’t been all smooth sailing. (He identified the outsourcer by name, but I’m leaving that out just to avoid starting an argument between the two.)

As a result of higher than expected turnover, largely in the vendor’s Indian and Costa Rican operations, for example, some of the labor savings that the outsourcer promised have failed to materialize. Glendinning said annual turnover in those two locations has run as high as 100 percent.

As a result, the CFO said the company was “a little shy” of the savings initially projected for the deal, due to project scope and implementation costs. He said that he would have to revisit some of these issue once the contract comes up for renegotiation in 2013. “You have to keep taking cost out,” he said.

In addition, Glendinning said that during the ramp up phase the arrangement produced higher-than-expected error rates in certain financial processes, and those produced an unwelcome payables backlog that threatened the company’s supply chain. And while he said some of the fault was that of Molson Coors, Glendinning noted that the outsourcer failed to bring it to the company’s attention, largely because of what Glendinning described as “reticence” on the part of its Indian employees to challenge their client.

While Glendinning said Molson Coors’ move to outsource was “the right decision nonetheless,” he cautioned the audience that there are a host of issues that finance executives must consider before going forward with such deals.

In particular, he noted that unlike IT or HR, more complicated, “sensitive” financial processes such as pricing and customer management probably should not be turned over to a third party.

“It’s not black and white,” he said about the decision to outsource. “There is a lot of gray in between.”

Pros and Cons of the CFO Serving on the Board of Directors

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

While shareholders and Sarbanes-Oxley demand more independent directors on boards, a new study shows companies with boards that have at least one key insider, the CFO, are better at financial reporting than those without that executive on their boards. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that all companies should appoint their CFOs to their boards, not at least without taking other considerations seriously into account. In fact, most companies probablelsewhere for the expertise that CFOs supply.


The study found that companies with CFOs on their boards have more effective internal controls over financial reporting, higher accrual quality and a lower likelihood of restatements.

The study measured the quality of financial reporting by examining the incidence of material weaknesses reported under Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley. The provisions require companies to document and test internal control over financial reporting, and the company’s independent auditor to independently test those controls and opine on internal control effectiveness.

“One overarching benefit we saw was that there was an improvement in financial reporting when a CFO was on the board,” Rani Hoitash, a professor in the department of accountancy at Bentley University and co-author along with professors Jean Bedard of Bentley and Udi Hoitash, of Northeastern University, “Chief Financial Officers on Their Company’s Board of Directors: An Examination of Financial Reporting Quality and Entrenchment,” told CFOZone.

From 2004 to 2007, 12 percent of those with a CFO on the board reported problems with their internal controls, compared with 15 percent of those without their CFOs on the board, according to the study. Companies with their CFOs on their boards were also 15 percent less likely to restate their results.

These results imply that having a CFO on the board is more likely to align management’s interests with those of shareholders. One reason, the study says, is that CFOs are more likely to share information with other board members about the status of the financial reporting function, and secure sufficient resources to invest in the establishment, documentation and testing of internal controls.

Yet only 8 percent of the more than 7,000 companies studied had their own CFOs on the board.

Of course, SarBox says a CFO can’t serve on his or her company’s audit committee because of the obvious conflict of interest. But as Hoitash points out, “they can have input.”

And SarBox also requires a board to have financial expertise. A CFO obviously fits that bill.

But having a CFO on the board is not without its drawbacks. CFOs serving on boards are more highly compensated than those in other companies, earning an average of $218,715, or 34 percent more in total compensation than their nondirector peers did. There was also a 35 percent lower turnover rate, 8.2 percent compared to 12.7 percent, among CFOs who sat on their own companies’ boards, an advantage that sometimes existed despite a decline in earnings. Hoitash said the findings were evidence that CFOs who serve on boards are more firmly entrenched than those who are not.

That can be a good or bad, depending on a company’s performance. While in many cases where companies are performing poorly, they will fire the CFO without addressing the underlying causes, Hoitash noted that the opposite is true in cases where the CFO is on the board, and that’s obviously not a good thing either. “If the CFO is on the board and the company is performing poorly we found that they sometimes don’t leave, because they have power and influence,” he said.

The question is, will they use the power to do good or bad?” asked Hoitash. If they see themselves as part of the board and work to achieve goals, that is clearly a good thing. However, that power could also be used in their interest to the detriment of shareholders.

That makes some observers wary of appointing CFOs to boards. Instead, say these observers, they should merely attend all board meetings so as to share their expertise without becoming entrenched. “Look back in history, what transgressions brought us to Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulatory reforms?” asked Marc Palker, a certified management accountant and director of CFO Consulting Partners. “Once the CFO was granted stock options in the same manner as the CEO, there was a possible partnership for crime,” Palker added.

Others go even further by recommending that CFOs not attend meetings devoted to discussions of the company’s finance functions. In that case, “it might be appropriate to hold them without the CFO present,” said Sue Mills, a consultant with Tatum, an executive services firm that provides interim CFOs.

Bottom line: CFOs don’t belong on boards unless they cannot otherwise get financial expertise. In that case, Hoitash said, “you might want” to consider the idea.

Survey: CFOs Don’t Think You Should Start Your Career at a Big 4 Firm

Accountemps released the results of a survey today that shows many Chief Financial Officers think that the best place for accounting graduates to start their careers is in a “small to midsize company.” The surprising thing about this particular survey is that the numbers aren’t even close.

When CFOs were asked, “In which one of the following employment environments would you recommend today’s accounting graduates begin their careers?” Their responses were:

Small to midsize company 56%
Small to midsize public accounting firm 16%
Large corporation 14%
Large public accounting firm 8%
Other/don’t know 6%


“Small to midsize public accounting firm” dropped 14% from 2005.

Oh right. And “large public accounting firm” came in dead last. So, for the CFOs surveyed, they’re not really hot on public accounting like they were five years ago and they’re really not crazy about the Big 4 and next tier firms.

Accountemps Chairman Max Messmer says, “At smaller companies, employees often must wear many hats because workloads are spread between fewer workers. Having a wider range of duties enables new hires to quickly build skills, gain exposure to diverse areas of the business and assume strategic roles earlier in their careers.”

From a personal standpoint, we’ve seen both the small and the freakishly large so we’ll try to provide some perspective here.

Maximilian’s thoughts are accurate as it relates to smaller companies. They do have more of a sink or you’re out on your ass approach that will help you grow up quick in that company. Additionally, small businesses have the tendency to be a little more flexible when it comes to your work/life balance. There aren’t any fancy initiatives or bombardments of emails; it’s more of the behavior of those around you. In small companies, you see people taking vacation for days and weeks at at time. That should encourage you to do the same.

At large companies, you hear about people that are losing their accrued vacation, mostly because they are lunatics, but also because it’s likely a widespread occurrence at the company. People in large firms have the asinine notion that somehow the wheels would fall off if they were to disappear for two days, forget about a week. This sounds ridiculous but it’s true.

However, large firms and companies do have resources and opportunities that smaller shops simply cannot provide. Want to move to San Francisco? Your large firm has an office there. Think you might want to spend two years in Australia? Your large company can make that happen. Small shops? Not so much.

What the press release doesn’t say is why the CFOs think you should start at a small/midsize company. Max’s opinion is fine but did he conduct all 1,400 of those phone interviews himself? Of course not. The survey was “a random sample of [CFOs at] U.S. companies with 20 or more employees.” Chances are, most of those CFOs have never worked at a big company so their perspective is likely skewed.

The other thing is – trying not to overstate this – you’ve got to make up your own damn mind about what you want to do with yourself. Do you want Big 4 experience? Then go for it. Do you want a flexible schedule that doesn’t involve a multi-level bureaucracy? Then a small company is probably more your speed.

No survey can answer those questions for you.

THINK SMALL: CFOs Recommend Accounting Grads Start Their Careers at Smaller Companies [Accountemps PR]

The BNY Mellon CFO Isn’t Mad at Andrew Cuomo…

…just disappointed about Andy getting all sue-y over BNY Mellon’s Ivy Asset Management’s involvement with Berns Madoff, which will result in more money going to – SHOCK – lawyers.

Bank of New York Mellon Corp.’s (BK) Chief Financial Officer Todd Gibbons told investors Wednesday that the company is “a bit disappointed” about the New York Attorney General’s decision to file a law suit against the bank related to Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi-scheme.

But as a result of the suit, and the current environment more broadly, legal cost are expected to run higher, the CFO said at UBS AG’s (UBS) Global Financial Services Conference in New York.

Accounting News Roundup: Why Did Power Integrations Fire Their CFO?; Spain Making ‘Sweeping Austerity Measures’; GM May Want GMAC Back | 05.12.10

Power Integrations fires chief financial officer [AP]
Not to worry Power Integrations investors, Bill Roeschlein’s firing “was not related to financial statements or regulatory issues,” according to the company. However, he is currently the “subject of a felony domestic assault criminal complaint filed in Missouri,” which he denies and naturally he will “defend himself vigorously.” Unfortunately, that might cut into the job search.

Spain joins euro zone austerity bandwagon [Reuters]
Spain has agreed to “sweeping austerity measures,” cutting civil service pay 5% and freezing it for 2011. The country will also cut approximately 13,000 public sector jobs.


Minority Owner Sues Cuban, Calls Mavericks ‘Insolvent’ [NYT]
Ross Perot, Jr. is suing SEC target Mark Cuban, accusing him of turning the Dallas Mavericks into a financial catastrophe. The Times reports, “Perot is seeking damages, the naming of a receiver to take over the team and the appointment of a forensic accountant to investigate its finances. Perot said that Cuban’s actions had diminished the value of his investment in the team and violated his and other minority owners’ rights.”

Cuban, as you might expect, isn’t impressed with Charts Boy, Jr.’s loserness. He wrote in an email to the Dallas Morning News, “There is no risk of insolvency. Everyone always has been and will be paid on time. Being in business with Ross Perot is one of the worst experiences of my business life. He could care less about Mavs fans. He could care less about winning.”

Failed Bomber’s Resume Fail [FINS]
Faisal Shazad’s resumé sucks.

Is G.M. Looking to Buy Back GMAC? [AP]
Sources say that GM is interested in buying back GMAC (now known as Ally Financial) “so they can offer more competitive lease and loan deals.” The U.S. Government currently owns 56% of GMAC and 61% of GM, who plans to announce its first quarter earnings next week.

Grant Thornton Survey Shows That CFOs Might Be Ignoring the SEC’s XBRL Deadline

It has been well established in these pages and elsewhere that the SEC has had its share of problems. Take your pick: 1) missing the biggest financial fraud in the history of the world 2) hiring an army of porn-addicted accountants and lawyers to protect our markets 3) waffling on IFRS 4) did we mention missing huge frauds?

To be fair, the Commission has been working hard to redeem itself by cracking down on dubious activity (from Goldman to Overstock), hiring more fraud experts and giving those tranny porn-obsessed employees a second chance.


Regardless of the turnaround-in-progress, CFOs in this country seem to have ceased taking the SEC seriously. Sure the 10-Ks and Qs still get filed but those were in place long before the wheels fell off.

In a recent survey, Grant Thornton found that, despite a SEC deadline for public companies to utilize eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL), a fair amount of CFOs don’t seem all that worried about reporting their financial statements using the technology:

64 percent of public companies do not currently report financial results using eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL); and of those, half have no plans to in the future even though the SEC mandated that public companies have to report their financials using Interactive Data by 2011.

“It’s concerning that almost a third of public companies still have no plan on using XBRL to report their financials despite the requirement that all public companies comply with XBRL filing requirements by mid-year 2011,” said Sean Denham, a partner in Grant Thornton’s Professional Standards Group and a member of the AICPA’s XBRL Task Force. “I foresee a lot of companies playing catch up as the 2011 SEC deadline approaches.”

Whether this lack of action can be attributed to defiance, fear of technology, or pure laziness is not explained but we wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the SEC has an outright mutiny on its hands.

A third of public companies have no plans to use XBRL – despite SEC mandate requiring XBRL use by 2011 [GT Press Release]
Also see: XBR-Lax [CFO Blog]

Accounting News Roundup: Will an International Audit Regulator Become a Reality?; GMAC Shopping for a CFO Candidate; FASB Sued for Antitrust Violations | 05.06.10

Audit chief welcomes debate on international regulator [Accountancy Age]
The idea of an international audit regulator is being kicked around in the EU with about as much seriousness as returning to the moon. That is, it’s absolutely something to be discussed but at this point nobody’s firing up the boosters just yet. IFRS has been proved to be, putting it lightly, a challenge but ever since the Lehman Brothers/E&Y fiasco, reform of the auditing business doesn’t seem far behind.

And while the idea is being entertained, the hurdles to an international regulator sound a little familiar:

Ian Powell, senior partner at PwC UK, said the establishment of an international regulator is “worthy of debate” but believes global consensus among nations may prove difficult.

“Most countries think their regulation is good and it is their system which should be applied – that is going to make it difficult to convince them to give up their system,” he said.

“If you talk to virtually any regulator in any country they do want to see more globalisation of regulation, but the big problem is there are certain political issues that are different in different countries.”

GMAC Said to Consider Ex-Citigroup Banker Yastine as Next CFO [Bloomberg Businessweek]
GMAC is hot on the trail for a new CFO after their last one bolted in March shortly after his TARP testimony. The ward of the state is said to be considering Barbara Yastine, who formerly was the CFO at both Credit Suisse’s and Citigroup’s investment banking groups.

FASB Defendant in Suit Alleging Antitrust Violations and Patent Misappropriation [Silicon Economics, Inc. Press Release]
Silicon Economics, Inc. is suing the FASB, alleging “antitrust violations and with willfully attempting to misappropriate patented technology,” according to the San Jose-based company’s press release.

The lawsuit concerns Silicon Economics’ EarningsPower Accounting™ (EPA™) – a patented method developed by the company to improve the accuracy, validity, and usefulness of financial statements. Silicon Economics recommended the merits of EPA to FASB in response to FASB’s request for public comment on the objectives of financial accounting (No. 1260-001, July 6, 2006). FASB claims that its website terms and conditions gave it ownership of Silicon Economics’ technology, even though such terms were not part of FASB’s invitation for public comment or otherwise disclosed to Silicon Economics.

Accounting News Roundup: Dissecting Overstock.com’s Q1 Earnings; The “Audit the Fed” Drum Still Has a Beat; AMT Patchwork Continues | 05.05.10

Can Investors Rely on Overstock.com’s Reported Q1 2010 Numbers? [White Collar Fraud]
Sam Antar is skeptical (an understatement at best), that Overstock.com’s recently filed first quarter 10-Q is reliable and he starts off by citing their own words (his emphasis):

“As of March 31, 2010, we had not remediated the material weaknesses.”


Material weaknesses notwithstanding, Sam is a little conpany’s first quarter $3.72 million profit that, Sam writes, “was helped in large part by a $3.1 million reduction in its estimated allowance for returns or sales returns reserves when compared to Q1 2009.”

Furthermore, several one-time items helped the company swing from a net loss of nearly $4 million in Q1 of ’09, including nearly $2 million in extinguishment of debt and reduction in legal expenses due to a settlement. All this (and much more) gets Sam to conclude that OSTK’s Q1 earnings are “highly suspect.”

UBS Dividend in Next 2-3 Years ‘Symbolic’: CFO [CNBC]
UBS has fallen on hard times. The IRS, Bradley Birkenfeld, a Toblerone shortage and increased regulation and liquidity requirements have all made life for the Mother of Swiss Banks difficult and CFO John Ryan told CNBC that could hurt their ability to pay their usual robust dividend, “They (capital regulations) are essentially rigorous to the extent that it is unlikely we’ll be able to pay anything other than a very symbolic dividend over the next two or three years,” Cryan said.

While that is a bummer but a “symbolic” dividend is still an improvement over “we’ve recently been informed that the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department will be demanding that we turn over the names of our U.S. clients.”

Effort to expand audits of Fed picks up steam in Senate [WaPo]
Going after the Fed makes for good political theatre (*ahem* Ron Paul) and rhetoric to fire up the torches of the populist masses. The “Audit the Fed” drum continues to be beaten by the likes of Rep. Paul (R-TX) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to much success and Sanders is quoted in the Washington Post as saying “We’re going to get a vote.” Pols want to crack open the books at the Fed to find out what the ugliest of the ugly is inside our Central Bank.

Ben Bernanke isn’t hot on the idea because letting the GAO sniff around may expose the Fed to short-term political pressures. For once AG – not a fan of the Beard per se – sides with BSB. As she said last fall:

It’s right there in the footnotes – pulling out the closest Fed annual report I’ve got (Richmond Fed 2007), both Deloitte and PwC agree that the Fed is a special case in Note 3: Significant Accounting Policies:

“Accounting principles for entities with unique powers and responsibilities of the nation’s central bank have not been formulated by accounting standard-setting bodies.”

The note goes on to explain why government securities held by the Fed are presented at amortized cost instead of GAAP’s fair value presentation because “amortized cost more appropriately reflects the Bank’s securities holdings given the System’s unique responsibility to conduct monetary policy.” Right there, you can see why auditing this thing might be a problem.

This might be one of those “careful what you wish for” scenarios.

Why We’re Going to Keep Patching the AMT—And Why It Will Cost So Much [Tax Vox]
The Alternative Minimum Tax has been a unmitigated failure in the eyes of many tax wonks. Congress has been talking reform in this area for some time and yet, the AMT remains largely unchanged, relying on temporary fixes that could eventually turn into a disaster:

Last year, about 4 million households were hit by the tax, which requires unsuspecting taxpayers to redo their returns without the benefit of many common tax deductions and personal exemptions. That would jump to 28.5 million this year, except for what’s become an annual fix to the levy, which effectively holds the number of AMT victims steady.

Here’s what happens if Washington does not continue that “temporary” adjustment. If Obama gets his wish and extends nearly all of the Bush taxes, the number of households hit by the AMT would soar to more than 53 million by the end of the decade—nearly half of all taxpayers. AMT revenues—about $33 million last year—would triple this year and reach nearly $300 billion by 2020. That is a nearly 10-fold explosion in AMT revenues.

Howard Gleckman argues that the AMT is too big of a political threat to let members of Congress let this sneak by and that the patchwork will continue but that it probably shouldn’t, “The President can assume the AMT will be patched indefinitely, but assuming won’t pay the bills. Unless he is willing to raise other taxes or cut spending to pay for this AMT fix, he’ll have to borrow more than $1 trillion to kick the can down the road for the rest of this decade.”

REMEC Court Decision Could Expose Companies to More Accounting Fraud Litigation

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

As if it wasn’t a big enough risk already, CFOs may have to brace themselves for more private litigation over accounting fraud if a court decision on April 21 involving failed telecom equipment maker REMEC serves as precedent. The good news is that plaintiffs will have to show evidence of the executives’ intent in such cases.


Most cases involving accounting are either dismissed because they involve judgment or are settled before they go to trial, Robert Brownlie, a partner in the law firm of DLA Piper who represented the defendants in the REMEC case, told CFOZone last Thursday. The Del Mar, Calif., company filed for bankruptcy in 2005.

One of the largest such cases involved former Lucent executives, whom shareholders charged had defrauded them through improper accounting for goodwill. In that case, shareholders agreed in 2003 to accept a $600 million settlement.

In contrast to the Lucent case, the one filed by shareholders against REMEC’s former CEO, Ronald Ragland, and former CFO, Winston Hickman, was dismissed, though it also rested on charges that they misled investors because they didn’t write off goodwill that was impaired.

But the dismissal was more difficult to achieve than it would otherwise have been, said Brownlie, because the plaintiffs submitted evidence of internal reports and testimony showing that the company was behind schedule on certain objectives and not meeting its internal forecasts. The court said that those reports created a factual issue that should be determined by a jury; the defendants had to show there was no evidence of intent to deceive on the part of management.

“Normally, with matters of opinion or judgment, you either can’t bring a suit or it’s very difficult to do so,” Brownlie said. But he warned that the decision could mean more cases against corporate executives over accounting fraud.

The court dismissed the charges even though the plaintiffs’ accounting experts testified that they would have reached different conclusions than the former executives did.

Brownlie added that his case was helped by evidence of good faith conduct by the defendants, including evidence of transparency between the company and its auditors, disclosures of disappointing results and write-offs of other accounting items during the period of the alleged fraud and the absence of stock sales.

Describing the outcome for CFOs as “both good and bad news,” Brownlie said the decision showed that the critical issue in such cases will be “a connection between claims and evidence.” And he cautioned that in other accounting cases, it’s likely to be harder to defend executives on the basis of intent, which is why he said “there’s a paradox” in the REMEC decision.

Accounting News Roundup: Would IFRS Prevented Repo 105?; The Crazy Eddie Movie Hits a Snag; JP Morgan May Bolt Tax-Refund Loan Business | 04.29.10

Lehman case “backs” accounting convergence [Reuters]
Philippe Danjou, a board member at the IASB has been quoted as saying that Repo 105 would not have been allowed under IFRS, “From an IFRS perspective I would suspect that most transactions would have stayed on the balance sheet. It makes a case for convergence, it makes a case that we should not have different outcomes under different accounting standards when you have such big amounts.”

The G-20 asked the sages at both the FASB and the IASB to converge their rules by June-ish 2011 but some people don’t sec, as there are too many disparities on treatment of key issues between the two boards.


The Real Reason Behind Danny DeVito’s Crazy Eddie Movie Project Meltdown [White Collar Fraud]
Danny DeVito wants to make a movie based on the Crazy Eddie Fraud, which was perpetrated by, among others, Eddie and Sam Antar. The project has run aground primarily because of Eddie Antar’s life rights and the potential profit he would reap from the making of the movie. Danny D is disappointed by the developments and has sympathy for Eddie, discussing it in s recent Deadline New York article:

“He’s gone through tough times, and he’s not the aggressive tough guy they paint him to be,” De Vito said. “He’s in his 70s and the past has come back to bite us all in the ass. Peter [Steinfeld] and I told him we think there is a terrific story there, but we can’t do it with you involved, in any way. We’ve taken a breather, but we’re figuring out how to jump back in.

Sam Antar is not amused by this and chimed in with his side of the story:

Eddie Antar is plainly still in denial about his cowardice towards his own family and investors. There actually is a “family dynamic” that “explains Antar’s fall” as DeVito claims. However, Eddie Antar and other members of his immediate family are simply unwilling to give a truthful account of what really happened at Crazy Eddie, while Danny Devito is willing to accept Eddie Antar’s bullshit excuses for his vile behavior.

As Chipotle Sizzles, CFO Sells Stock [Barron’s]
Ten thousand shares at $144 and change will buy a bunch of burritos.

Medifast Lawsuit: Anti-SLAPP motions filed [Fraud Files Blog]
Back when we discussed forensic accounting, the aforementioned Sam Antar said that forensic accountants can look forward to “making many enemies in the course of their work and must be unhinged by the retaliation that normally follows uncovering fraud and other misconduct.”

Tracy Coenen, no stranger to this retaliation, is now fighting back against Medifast who has sued her and others for saying not so flattering things about the company:

Anti-SLAPP motions have been filed in the Medifast lawsuit by me and by my co-defendant, Robert FitzPatrick. My motion can be read in its entirety here, and Fitzpatrick’s can be read here.

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It’s basically when a big company tries to shut up a little guy with expensive litigation. In my opinion, Medifast sued me and others in an attempt to get us to stop publicly analyzing or criticizing the company and it’s multi-level marketing business model.

In filing an anti-SLAPP motion, we are essentially asking the court to rule in our favor and in favor of free speech. Consumers should have the right to discuss, analyze, and criticize companies without the fear of expensive lawsuits.

JPMorgan May Quit Tax-Refund Loans, Helping H&R Block [Bloomberg BusinessWeek]
Bloomberg reports that JP Morgan may discontinue its financing of 13,000 independent tax preparers, a move that will benefit H&R Block, according to a competitor:

“Block is the biggest winner in this,” said John Hewitt, chief executive officer of Liberty Tax Service, a privately held company in Virginia Beach, Virginia, that also may benefit…

The reason HSBC is exiting this industry, even though they’re making $100 million a year in profit from it, is because of reputation risk,” Hewitt said in an interview. “Bankers don’t like the consumer advocacy groups picketing outside their offices.”

Refund anticipation loans (RALs) are attractive to clients that need cash immediately, based on their anticipated refund. The business is controversial because the high interest rates can drive people further into debt and consumer groups oppose them vehemently.

Funding for smaller shops that offer these loans will likely lose the business altogether as large banks like JP Morgan discontinue the financing, thus driving the business to franchise tax prep shops like H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, and Liberty.