Tag: Congress Will Fix This!

Your AICPA Dues at Work

stephen-colbert.jpgWe know you’re all worried about the financial regulation overhaul because it may just make your lives more of a living hell. PCAOB, IRS, state accountancy boards, etc. are bad enough but no, we could all be looking at more alphabet soup (in this case the Consumer Financial Protection Agency) in the name of political grandstanding.
Fear not. The bastions of accountant lobbying, the AICPA, is all over this like Barry Salzberg at a Rogaine convention.
Continued, after the jump

[AICPA Chairman, Bob] Harris argued that the proposed legislation creating the agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, was overly broad.
“The definition of ‘financial activity’ in the bill is so broad as to include many services that CPAs routinely provide to their clients in accordance with a very strict regulatory and oversight regime,” he said. “The bill would result in redundant regulation of CPAs and CPA firms that are already subject to appropriate and significant oversight by the IRS, Treasury, state boards of accountancy, and professional and ethical standards for the AICPA’s members.”

Sweet Jesus, Bob. We actually agree with you on this. The situation sounds oddly similar to the situation the brain trust in DC is trying to fix now. Too many regulators let the sketchy stuff fall between the cracks and now we’re in economic no man’s land. Add more
Who knew that there was common sense being shoveled around in the halls of Congress? The problem is, we’re certain the amount of bullshit being shoveled outweighs the common sense by an exponential margin.
AICPA Wants CPAs Exempted from Consumer Agency [Web CPA]

Congress Needs More Testimony on Accounting Stuff They Won’t Understand

Maxine Waters2.jpgWe don’t know about you but we here at GC are relieved that Congress is back in session this week. For starters, we’re trying to find someone that will help Charlie Rangel keep track of all his money.
Also, we feel as though we’re a little overdue for some legislative nose-poking into accounting and auditing rules. Thankfully, the House Financial Services Committee is scheduled to revisit H.R. 2664 this week.
The Promoting Transparency in Financial Reporting Act would require annual testimony from the SEC, FASB, and PCAOB big wigs on accounting and auditing rules before the committee.
More legislative wisdom, after the jump


The testimony is supposedly going to enlighten the committee on progress of:

• Reassessing complex and outdated accounting standards;
• Improving the understandability, consistency, and overall usability of the existing accounting and auditing literature;
• Developing principles-based accounting standards;
• Encouraging the use and acceptance of interactive data; and
• Promoting disclosures in ”plain English”.

Excuse the cynicism, but since this particular bill’s title doesn’t include the words “patriot”, “American People”, or “anti-bonus”, there is virtually no opportunity for shameless grandstanding and most members of the committee will probably opt out of sitting in on the testimony.
That being said, the collective competence of the committee will increase exponentially if Maxine Waters is not in attendance so maybe our judgment is premature.
Promoting Transparency In Financial Reporting Act Up For Vote In Congress [FEI Blog]

We’re Probably Going to Have to Accept the Fact That Accounting Rules are No Match for the Bank Lobby

reservoir-dogs-mexican-standoff.jpgWe’ve been over this 1000 times but like a bad rash, the issue keeps coming back.
NYT has already accused politicians of meddling in the esoterica of accounting, though personally I think that accusation might have been expressed just a tad too late.
As I mentioned when the July article came out:
More, after the jump

Ex FASB chair and former KPMG partner Edward Trott got it right saying “The area for bank regulators to be involved with accounting standards setting is to help identify the financial information the banks need from others to make appropriate lending and investing decisions. In my experience, banks want current fair value information about assets that serve as collateral for loans. They do not want information about what assets cost two or three years ago.”

Exactly! So what’s the debate about?
Assets are not being valued rationally. If someone can explain the model to me, I would love to hear it.
Or as we now call it, “fuzzy math.”
I’ve never been a huge fan of math, probably a large part of why I ended up on the fringes of the accounting industry, we hardly use it. It’s the rules that are being perverted, not necessarily the numbers. That’s Trott’s point, and he’s not the only one who feels that way.
The problem is that companies (non-financials) need to navigate these waters that have been artificially stirred up to allow banks to appear healthier than they are. Companies are licking their wounds and selling off assets while banks are preening over their profitable quarters? That doesn’t make sense.
Accounting pressure is not new either:

What’s gone unnoticed is that in the late ’90s Summers did nothing to stop former Fed chair Alan Greenspan from pressuring US accounting rule makers to water down a proposed new derivatives accounting rule that may have helped stop the current crisis. Many business leaders had strongly opposed the new rule…In fact, in 1998, Summers testified in Congress against regulating the derivatives market.

The ongoing debate gets stranger. What is there to debate about? The pressure is there, minus the understanding of what occurs as a consequence of these actions. Somehow, the behavior continues and we’re still arguing over it.

Arlen Specter Not Pandering to the Bean Counter Vote

Arlen_Specter_official_portrait.jpgArlen Specter is many things. Senator. Cancer survivor. Some might say, turncoat. And since he is a newly minted Democrat, Specter is expected to prove his political stripes.
Well, Specter has decided that the best way to earn those stripes is to embrace the recent investor outrage and introduce legislation that will allow investors to sue accountants, lawyers, and investment banks, that provide, what Specter calls “substantial assistance” in a fraud.
More, after the jump


According to Bloomberg:

Shareholders are barred from suing parties that have only an indirect role in a fraud after Supreme Court decisions that limited liability to those directly and publicly involved in the scheme.The Specter measure would upend rulings in Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc. of 2008 and Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver. Prior to the rulings, investor lawsuits against fraud accomplices were common, Langevoort said. The 1994 Central Bank decision was a “major gift” to individuals and corporations that aided in a fraud

The Refco scandal is right at the heart of this debate as attorneys, auditors, and investment bankers were all misled by Philip Bennet, Refco’s then-CEO. Suits against PwC, Grant Thornton, KPMG, and E&Y were dismissed back in April along with suits against several investment banks. Refco’s outside counsel Joseph Collins of Mayer Brown is currently involved in a lawsuit that is being reviewed by the SEC.
We’re all for making accountants responsible when they screw the pooch but if clients just flat out lie and go way the hell out of their way cover those lies up, there’s very little that can be done.
And if there’s one thing that keeps Big 5 4 partners up at night it’s the threat of litigation. The premise that this legislation would increase that litigious exposure is, at the very least, disconcerting to partners.
Specter Law Would Let Investors Sue Fraud Accomplices [Bloomberg]

Barney Frank Doesn’t Legislate Accounting, He Only ‘Exerts Pressure’

bfrank.pngAs you may know, the mere thought of Congress legislating accounting rules makes us nauseous to the point of passing out. Barney Frank, in an attempt to alleviate this common malady among accountants, has been quoted by Web CPA saying that “We will never legislate accounting while I’m chairman [of the Financial Services Committee]”.


According to the piece, Barn says that when he, and the rest of the committee, whipped Bob Herz, FASB Chairman, into submission over changes in mark-to-market rules, this was not legislating, this was “exerting pressure”.

Depending on who you ask (ahem, Hank Paulson), exerting pressure could easily be confused with “threatening” and threatening is clearly how legislation gets done in this country, whether it’s got a signature on it or not. So call it what you like, Barney-boy, we’re on to your doublespeak .

Barney Frank: ‘We Will Never Legislate Accounting’ [Web CPA]

Newt Gingrich Doesn’t Like the FASB

NewtGingrichPhotograph.jpgCongress seems hella determined to keep accountants from writing accounting rules. HR 1349, aka the Federal Accounting Oversight Board Act, which was introduced in the Spring would create a board that would consist of the chairs of the Fed, SEC, FDIC, PCAOB, and the Secretary of the Treasury.
This merry band of bureaucrats would basically get to slap the FASB around whenever they want. According to Newt “My head isn’t that big” Gingrich, a supporter of the bill, because of the FASB’S independence, politicians can’t torpedo accounting rules that are “destructive”.
More, after the jump


This gem of legislation has 14 co-sponsors, including seven members from the House Financial Services Committee, along with Gingrich and Paul Volcker. It has been referred to the Financial Services Committee so it will getting some Barney Frank lovin’ soon enough.
Say what you will about the wonks in Norwalk but we’re of the strong opinion that handing over the accounting rule bazooka to this board could possibly be the worst legislation since…anything Maxine Waters has introduced.
Congressional Bill Supports Federal Takeover of Financial Reporting [FinCriAdvisor via Jr. Deputy Accountant]

When $11.99 at Taco Bell Can Cost You $300

taco bell.jpgNow that American consumers have maxed out their credit cards, they’re trying to pay for everything in cash or using their debit cards. Noble attempt but if they buy something when their account is zero, the dreaded overdrafts fees are bleeding them out. IT’S NOT FAIR!
It’s becoming apparent that banks will be vilified for anything that results in revenue. And who comes to the rescue when banks are wronging the American people? Congress, obv.
That’s right, thank God we’ve got lawmakers working for the people because right now the banks are “walking across the battlefield and shooting the wounded”, which, we have to admit, is a pretty awesome analogy.
Yes, banks are charging fees for too many things that shouldn’t be allowed. Consumers need to be able keep to spending long after their accounts are at zero. How hell else can this economy get rolling again if Americans aren’t spending?
Nevermind that 3,000 banks may collapse if legislation passes that would limit overdraft charges. And forget about setting up automatic transfers from savings, THERE ARE NO SAVINGS. Help us, Congress. PLEASE.
Overdraft Debit Fees Treat Customer to $300 Fast-Food Charge [Bloomberg]