When accounting goes unaccounted for
“In the event that the PCAOB does not prevail – and the decision requires a legislative change – I would urge Congress to act quickly to fix whatever structural problems the Court identifies.”
~ Interim PCAOB Chairman Dan Goelzer, in testimony today.
The PCAOB has released its 2009 Inspection Report for Deloitte and out of 73 audits inspected, 15 deficiencies were cited in this year’s review.
The Board writes that deficiencies are “failures by the Firm to identify or appropriately address errors in the issuer’s application of GAAP, including, in some cases, er ikely to be material to the issuer’s financial statements. In addition, the deficiencies included failures by the Firm to perform, or to perform sufficiently, certain necessary audit procedures.”
Issues cited by the PCAOB in the report included goodwill impairment, deferred tax assets, inventory valuation, a failure to identify a “departure from GAAP,” among others. The Big 4 Blog rightly notes that this is the first time that the PCAOB has provided the sample size of the inspections which allows for some surprising error rates:
The error rate in this situation is quite high, almost one of every five audits has errors. Obviously, Deloitte performs thousands of audit each year and extrapolating from a small sample is quite dangerous, nonetheless, even at half of 20%, the natural conclusion is that one in ten audits has an error, and would have gone unnoticed had not the PCAOB done a good post-audit on the audit.
You could really make a fuss about what auditors did and did not do but the fact remains, audits are never perfect. Some are just more unperfect than others. What’s especially interesting is how Deloitte’s attitude has changed with regards to the PCAOB’s findings as compared to last year.
In last year’s inspection report, the Board cited seven audit deficiencies which resulted in a three page letter from Deloitte that, in no uncertain terms, told the PCAOB to get bent and keep their Monday Morning QBing to themselves. This was about as an aggressive of a response from an accounting firm as we had seen so it was definitely a surprise to see a firm lose their cool.
This year, despite the fact that Deloitte was cited for over twice as many deficiencies, the firm is considerably less defensive (read: boring) and put together a concise one page response to the Board’s findings that included the following:
“We have evaluated the matters identified by the Board’s inspection team for each of the Issuer audits described in Part I of the Draft Report and have taken actions as appropriate in accordance with D&T’s policies and PCAOB standards.”
It’s nice to see the firm playing nice with their regulator this year but we’re curious as to how the change in attitude came about. We hope that at least one of the remaining Big 4 will include a little more color in their response.
PCAOB_2010_Deloitte_Touche_LLP
PCAOB Inspection of Deloitte Audit – 20% Error Rate?? [Big 4 Blog]
Audit Deficiencies at Deloitte [WSJ]
You may have forgotten, but last year the PCAOB established some new rules that require its members to file annual reports on Forms 2, 3, and 4 with the Board. These annual reports aren’t the glossy paged marketing tools filled with smiling faces that you may be thinking of, nor do they contain an financial information. They mostly consist of information that the PCAOB wants to know in case a firm changes its address, whether your firm hires shady characters, or finds itself in some serious legal trouble (take note Big 4).
Because all this reporting is a pain in the ass for the Board, a modest charge has been established to “recover the costs of processing and reviewing applications and annual reports,” according to a statement released by the PCAOB.
Now before you get all huffy about it, this is allowed by Michael Oxley’s favorite piece of legislation and now that the Board is getting around to requiring firms to submit the annual reports (inaugurals are due June 30), a fee only seemed appropriate and necessary.
Starting this year, registered firms will be charged the following:
Firms with more than 500 issuer audit clients and more than 10,000 personnel – $100,000
Other firms with more than 200 issuer audit clients and more than 1,000 personnel – $25,000
All other firms – $500
PLUS! The minimum registration fee is being increased to $500 because “The Board believes it is appropriate at this time to raise that fee to $500 to align it more closely with the minimum annual fee.”
In the grand scheme of things, the new annual fee and the increased registration fee aren’t really worth getting too worked up over but does make you wonder if accounting firms are getting the most bang for their buck vis-à-vis the PCAOB.
Oh sure, the annual inspections are a hoot and they’ll nail a shiesty accountant here and there but what about the guidance the Board has been issuing lately?
If the best the Board can do is churn out a reminders about bizarro transactions that belittles auditors (but don’t bother giving any examples) and proposals on how auditors should carry on a conversation, some people might start demanding a little more substance out of their watchdog.
PCAOB Release No. 2010-002 [PCAOB]
• IRS audits fewer corporate taxpayers: critic [Reuters]
According to a Syracuse University research group, Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (“TRAC”), the IRS is doing fewer audits of large corporations, using the Service’s own data to report its conclusions. TRAC looked at “number of hours spent on cases that had been closed in any given year,” saying the the IRS has cut the audit hours of companies with $250 million+ in assets by a third.
The PCAOB issued a friendly reminder yesterday to auditors that sometimes unusual transactions can be cause for alarm and should send the risk red flags flying. Unfortunately, the friendly reminder did not actually mention anything about what “unusual transactions” are but regardless, you better be on the lookout for them.
“The PCAOB’s message to auditors, in this challenging economic environment, has consistently emphasized attention to audit risk and adherence to existing audit requirements,” said Martin F. Baumann, Chief Auditor and Director of Professional Standards.
Since Practice Alert No. 5 (makes it sound kind of hot, don’t it?) warns of the risk of material misstatement inherent to unusual transactions without mentioning what those transactions could be, we came up with three unusual transactions to which the PCAOB could possibly be referring. It isn’t called guidance for nothing, you’re on your own when it comes to determining what qualifies as unusual, little auditors. Hopefully this helps.
• Large and frequent A/P entries to an entity known only as “Candy” (substitute “Bubbles”, “Kitty”, or “Roxy” as appropriate) This is why you have professional judgment so use it, we’re pretty sure even if you haven’t been to a strip club you know what strippers look like on the books and records.
• If you find yourself in a warehouse on December 31st counting an inventory full of dirty bombs, AK-47s, plutonium rods, chances are your entity is engaged in “unusual transactions.” Bonus points for extra unusual if you’re counting that crap and your entity is a church. Red flag, dear auditor, red flag!
• Recurring transactions for “crack” are definitely unusual. You don’t need us to tell you that’s a giant red flag, unless you are auditing under the influence yourself and concerned mostly with where the entity’s CFO hides his stash. Remember also that crack is pretty cheap on the street so repeated transactions will likely fall outside the scope of materiality though a raging crack habit will be material in the aggregate. Adjust scope accordingly.
• Rangel Challenged by a Historic Foe [WSJ]
Someone finally realized that Charlie Rangel’s constituents in New York’s 15th District have maybe had enough of Chuck and his “pay taxes as I wrote them, not as I pay them” ways. Rangs will be challenged in the primary by New York State Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV, according to the Journal. Not only does Mr Powell have an upper hand in the ad campaign department but there’s a bit of history here.
Powell Number III, sire of IV, was defeated by ChaRang back in 1970 amid his own ethical trubs. ACP 4th Edition insisted to that this had nothing to do with sweet, sweet revenge, “It has nothing to do with revenge or anything like that. Anyone with that record in public service would be interested in higher office.”
It won’t be easy for ACP4 however. He was flicked away by Rangs in a primary challenge back in 1994 and was recently convicted of “driving while impaired,” which actually seems worse than hogging rent-controlled apartments, since that could result in, you know, someone getting killed.
• My Paycheck, My Self? [FINS]
Does your salary define you as a human being? Or, at the very least, does it feel that way? Master pay czar Ken Feinberg had to snoop around some people that pull down some hefty scratch and he found out that the human psyche can easily be affected by their pay stub.
• PCAOB Issues Staff Audit Practice Alert on Auditor Considerations of Significant Unusual Transactions [PCAOB]
Don’t worry about the plain old vanilla transactions auditors, the PCAOB needs you to be on the lookout for significant unusual transactions. What that entails, we don’t really know but we’ll assume that means any transaction, and the PCAOB means any transaction, that looks remotely out of the ordinary, has a funny name (that may or may not include a “105”), requires smokey-filled room approval etc., definitely give it a second look. Or a third.
Charlie Gasparino is on E&Y like stink on a monkey this week. After reporting yesterday that the SEC may eventually get around to charging Dick Fuld and/or Ernst & Young for the accounting hijinks at Lehman Brothers, CG is now reporting that the PCAOB is asking all kinds of questions that E&Y would rather not answer.
Not exactly great news from CG so we emailed E&Y spokesman Charlie Perkins to see what’s what. He declined to comment and said the firm would not be releasing a statement related to this report.
We also called up the PCAOB to get their take and spoke with Colleen Brennan, Deputy of Director of Public Affairs, who said that the Board is prohibited from discussing these matters and provided us with the details:
The PCAOB cannot comment on whether it is investigating a particular registered accounting firm or a particular public company audit by a firm. The Board, however, takes all allegations of improper professional conduct by a registered public accounting firm seriously and considers all information relating to such allegations.
PCAOB investigations and contested contested disciplinary proceedings are confidential under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The PCAOB’s inventory of enforcement matters includes audits of all sizes and varying complexity, including matters related to audits by large firms for issuer audit clients involved in the financial crisis.
So no one is talking. Fine, we’ll just have to take Charlie at his word. What we do know is that if the Board does decide to lay the smackdown on E&Y, they’re going to tell the entire universe about it via its “Disciplinary Orders,” and as CG notes in his report, if the PCAOB does bring an action against E&Y it will be the highest profile enforcement action in its short history. Not exactly a BusinessWeek list.
Last week the PCAOB announced that it was getting serious about audit committee communication after it was revealed that Ernst & Young kinda sorta didn’t think the Repo 105 sitch was worth brining up to the Lehman Brothers audit committee. Granted, Dick Fuld is pretty scary dude and has probably eaten plenty of Big 4 partners for breakfast in his day but avoiding the awkward convo this time around almost resulted in everyone fighting over stale hot dog buns in the street.
Oh sure, the PCAOB has been kicking this around for awhile but something needed to happen to get their motors going and it appears that the LEH/E&Y fallout has done the trick. We might be completely wrong on this but it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the PCAOB has lost faith in auditors to do their jobs and will continue to inundate them with rules until they get an “Uncle.”
How about that statement? It’s the typical press release whathaveyou including quotes from the bigshots:
“The proposed standard on audit committee communications is intended to enhance the relevance and effectiveness of the communications between an auditor and audit committee throughout the course of an engagement,” said PCAOB Acting Chairman Daniel L. Goelzer.
“The proposed standard contains appropriate requirements to achieve effective, two-way communication between the auditor and the audit committee, which we believe would improve audit quality,” said Chief Auditor, Martin F. Baumann.
So if we take Goelzer and Baumann at their word, audit committee communication has been pretty ineffective up to this point? That’s good to know.
And here’s the gist of the required communication:
• Communication of an overview of the audit strategy, including a discussion of significant risks, the use of the internal audit function; and the roles, responsibilities, and location of firms participating in the audit;
• Communication regarding critical accounting polices, practices, and estimates;
• Communication regarding the auditor’s evaluation of a company’s ability to continue as a going concern; and,
• Evaluation by the auditor of the adequacy of the two-way communications.
So there’s your checklist people. Sorry to ask but were these items not being discussed previously? One could assume that since these items are on the list, they weren’t always being discussed in practice. Does standard audit committee communication revolve around Gossip Girl? Tiger Woods’ mistresses?
This really appears to be an example of the PCAOB taking away auditors’ “professional judgment” and making them “professional inquisitors.” Further, as Jim Peterson has pointed out, checking off required communication will do nothing to protect auditors from liability in the future, “there is no legal defense or ‘safe harbor’ in American law based on proof of compliance with professional standards – box ticked or otherwise.”
In other words, make all the professional requirements you want, auditors are still going to get sued and claiming “But we checked the box!” will not work as a defense. So the rationale must have been checklists are fun and easy to follow? Sigh. You’ve got until May 27th to get your thoughts in on this thing before it gets rubber stamped. Get on it.
Press Release [PCAOB]
So maybe you heard about Ernst & Young and how they kinda, sorta didn’t bring up the shady accounting going on over at Lehman Brothers to the audit committee until a Matthew Lee, your fired whistleblower du jour, brought it up. Some people have suggested that if E&Y had made a single peep about this prior to, say, 2008, maybe we wouldn’t be having this discussion (okay, we’d probably still be having it).
The controversy over this incommunicado has now jolted the PCAOB into action as the they have announced an open meeting for Monday at 9:30 am sharp. Basically, they want to feel everyone out on a standard for required communication for auditors with the audit committees.
As Emily Chasan of Reuters notes, “The PCAOB has considered issuing rules on this issue for the past several years to formalize ways that auditors are expected to communicate with the audit committee of the company they are auditing,” but in classic reactionary fashion, nothing has been done up to this point. Now that we’ve had bankruptcy reports, recycled stories in the press, E&Y hating back the haters, and everything else in this shitstorm, the PCAOB is ready to talk about this.
So, if you’ve got no plans on Monday morning and happen to be in DC, head over to hear the discussion and throw in your $0.02. In the meantime, we’d love to hear some of your suggestions for mandatory talking points from the serious (e.g. accounting treatment that makes the partner even slightly queasy) to the über-ridiculous (e.g. biggest whore on the audit team).
• US accounting watchdog sanctions Satyam’s auditors [Reuters]
Siva Prasad Pulavarthi and Chintapatla Ravindernath, the two auditors that were arrested in India for their roles in the Satyam fraud, have been barred by the PCAOB from “being an associated person with a registered accounting firm.”
The Board who released the two orders against the men on Monday, that describe their efforts to get them to testify about their roles in the engagement last spring but they refused to cooperate, “After several attempts to accommodate Respondent with respect to the dates and location of testimony, including a delay to allow new counsel to become familiar with the matter after Respondent changed counsel, Respondent, through counsel, informed the Division in January 2010 that he would not comply with the Demand for testimony.”
• TheStreet.com To File Annual Report Late On Accounting Review [WSJ]
TheStreet.com announced yesterday that it was pulling an Overstock, delaying the filing of its 10-K for 2009. The Company, founded by sound effects specialist Jim Cramer, said that in a filing that it and Marcum (its auditor) needed to “focus attention on matters related to the Company’s previously-announced review of the accounting in its former Promotions.com subsidiary.”
In other words, the SEC is snooping around the accounting which typically is not a good sign (just ask Jim!). Despite this little bump in the road, the company assures everyone that it will “be able to file its 2009 Form 10-K on or before the fifteenth calendar day following the prescribed due date.”
• Lowest and Highest Property Taxes [Tax Policy Blog]
This map, courtesy of Tax Policy Blog, shows Texas claiming top prize for highest property tax (as a % of median home value), with New Jersey not far behind:
• Japan embraces new fair value rule [Financial Times via Accountancy Age]
Here’s a novel idea: making a decision on IFRS! Japan’s Financial Services Agency will be allowing companies to adopt the international version of the new fair value rule developed by the IASB, starting Wednesday. Since the world’s second largest economy is opting to pull the trigger on IFRS it may throw the G20’s request/demand for the world to get all kumbaya when it comes to accounting rules.
“Fair value accounting…as unleashed one of the most divisive debates to have emerged from the credit crisis, threatening to disrupt a pledge by the G20 group of leading economies to create a single, global accounting system by mid next year,” reports the FT and judging by the SEC’s indecisiveness, they may be right. With this latest development, now leaders will be able to blame each other’s securities agencies for their particular actions that will likely lead to divergence.
The allowance of Japanese companies to adopt IFRS 9 could also give Knight of the Accounting Roundtable, Sir David Tweedie, even more leverage when dealing with countries around the world to adopt the IFRS.
Right or wrong, the Japanese are sending a signal that they are prepared to move forward while the SEC prepares to have more meetings.
• GAO Criticizes PCAOB Approach to Audit Risk [Web CPA]
The General Accountability Office, never shy to point out the faults of others (that’s kind of what they do, after all), isn’t so keen on the PCAOB’s latest “risk assessment” audit standards. This after the PCAOB originally proposed standards in 2008 and then revised and re-released them late last year.
The GAO feels that the ‘duplication and inconsistencies’ created by the PCAOB’s new standards would likely lead to…more billable hours! So, as you might imagine, some firms are on board:
PricewaterhouseCoopers told the PCAOB, “We fully support the board’s objective to update interim standards regarding risk assessment,”
And some, not so much:
McGladrey & Pullen…warned that “unnecessary differences between the board’s standards and those of other standard-setters increase the costs of performing all audits because firms must develop and maintain two, and even three, audit methodologies and training programs, with no corresponding benefit to audit quality.”
Personally, we’re skeptical of anything that has the unmitigated support of the biggest players in the industry but from a more practical standpoint, do auditors really need more rules to follow? And now this could add to the workload? Is that really necessary?
• Oscar Swag Bags to Result in $91k Income to Celebrity Presenters [TaxProf Blog]
Celebrities have enough tax trouble the way it is, how is giving them gifts going to make their tax returns easier? We’re guessing most of them have smart CPAs working for them that will suggest that they give it all to charity but we may be underestimating the temptation of free luxury swag.
• A Bipartisan Plan for Tax Fairness [WSJ]
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) co-wrote an op-ed to introduce their bill for tax reform: The Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010.
The magic word! Bipartisanship! No one will argue against this bill with the magic word in there. Well, we’ll see. In the meantime they plugged all the things voters like to hear:
• Most taxpayers will be able to use a one-page 1040.
• In some cases the IRS will prepare the return for you; all the taxpayer will have to do is sign date and return.
• Reduce the six tax brackets to three: 15%, 25%, and 35%.
• Tripling the standard deduction.
• The first 35% of long-term capital gains income would be tax exempt.
• Flat corporate tax rate of 24%.
Sounds simpler, anyway.
• PCAOB Offers Guidance on AS7 Documentation [Compliance Week]
Don’t worry auditors, this is just a little guidance on Auditing Standard 7: Engagement Quality Review that was requested by the SEC. All it says is that if your engagement happens to be royally f—ed up (i.e. “significant engagement deficiency is identified”) then you have to include enough documentation so that some strange auditor, with some experience, can understand why your engagement is such a mess. Nothing extra but don’t leave out the gory details.
• Steve King To Conservatives: ‘Implode’ IRS Offices [Talking Points Memo]
Congressman Steve King (R-IA) is the winner of open-mouth-insert-foot (Joe Biden is awfully quiet these days) this week after saying that he “emphasized” with Joe Stack and that he encouraged listeners at the Conservative Political Action Conference to “implode” other IRS offices.
This may be blown out of proportion since no one typically gets hurt in an implosion but we don’t think the likes of Glenn Beck should be allowed near explosives of any kind.