• H.R. 4173, Summary of Accounting and Audit Related Provisions – Lots to digest here but it’s all important, including a possible GASP name change for the PCAOB. [FEI Financial Reporting Blog]
• Invitation to a Conversation: If the Auditors Were Missing from the Financial Crisis — Let’s Ask Why – Jim Peterson doesn’t mince words: “The simple if depressing reason is that their core product has long since been judged irrelevant. The standard auditor’s report is an anachronism — having lost any value it may once have had, except for legally-required compliance.” [Re: Balance/Jim Peterson]
• Accenture Makes Right Decision, Drops Tiger Sponsorship – The awkward inappropriateness of the whole situation is now hitting T. Dubs in the wallet, as Accenture jumps into the “your services are no longer needed” camp. He won’t starve. [The Big Four Blog]
• Open Letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (Part 5): Issuer Retaliation Complaint Against Overstock.com – Patrick Byrne’s attempt to develop his own Richard Nixon-esque enemies list has been met with fierce resistance. [Sam Antar/White Collar Fraud]
• CPA firms face pricing pinch – “After years of gains since the government started keeping track in December 2003, overall prices for CPA firm services plummeted with the onset of recession in December 2007.” [CPA Trendlines]
• Citigroup to Repay $20 Billion of Government Bailout – $25 bil to go. Get on it. [Bloomberg]
Tag: PCAOB
Review Comments | 12.09.09
• Tiger Woods Dilemma for Accenture – Cloud or Cancer? – There’s no dilemma from where we stand. [The Big Four Blog]
• Year-end Planning: Make Sure You Have Enough Basis to Deduct Your S Corporation Losses – Despite the Biblical weather in Iowa, Joe Kristan continues with the year-end tax planning series. [Tax Update Blog]
• Unleash the auditors? – We mentioned the Fed. How the hell has FASB managed to dodge the SCOTUS? [CFOZone]
• Tighter controls on wireless data usage coming for iPhones and other devices, AT&T exec warns – Abuse the new toys while you can, Deloitte grasshoppers. [CT]
The PCAOB Setting a Precedent…for the Fed?
First of all, before I go anywhere with this, I know GC already gave her a link but this recent Re: the Auditors post on, well, auditors — or rather the lack thereof — is a do-not-miss. It is especially relevant when we’re talking about the usefulness of audits, PCAOB or otherwise.
Anyway.
As many of you already know, the PCAOB is on the chopping block and bad. While we’ll have to let that one work itself out in court, the case against the PCAOB is actually an all-too-familiar argument.
The Federal Reserve System (much like the PCAOB) pulls its regional bank presidents not under direct Presidential directive but because that’s how it has always been. The President appoints a Fed Chairman of course but beyond that, Washington tries to stay as far away from the regional Fed bank structure as possible. Why? That question is a tad too complicated to answer here, so we’ll get into that another day.
The important part here is that the Fed should be closely watching the PCAOB case in the Supreme Court. If the PCAOB is brought before the people of the United States to answer for its alleged recklessness as an agency free from Presidential influence, the Fed may follow soon after.
WebCPA:
The plaintiffs argued that the PCAOB violates the separation of powers principles in the Constitution because the PCAOB’s members are appointed by the SEC and not directly by the president, and they cannot be fired except for cause. Several justices indicated some sympathy for that viewpoint in their questions.
Gee, that sounds just a little too familiar. Seeing as how two-thirds of regional Fed bank directors are chosen by the very banks those regional banks “supervise”, the Fed may have some ‘splaining to do.
So while Bernanke is out there running PR for the Fed System to keep nosy Congressmen out of their business, where is the PCAOB defensive play against SCOTUS? Don’t they have anything to say in their own defense? Apparently not if my experience is any indication.
While most of you know I am not exactly a cheerleader of the PCAOB nor the Fed, I can’t see how consolidating all of our power in Washington can be a benefit either. There is something to be said for the wacky structure of these agencies as it is a Frankenstein of influence instead of a concentrated wave of power emanating from DC.
So watch the PCAOB case closely, Ben Bernanke, it could be you next and you don’t want to have to explain why the banks you regulate pick the soldiers of your precious System.
Auditors, You’re Just Going to Have Start Finding Fraud, Okay?
Because that’s your job, right? The PCAOB is giving consideration to new auditing standards that would presume that certain related party transactions would constitute a fraud risk.
This just serves as another example of auditors’ responsibility for discovering fraud reaching a ridiculously unrealistic level.
According to Web CPA, “Although such standards have been in the talking stage at the PCAOB for at least five years, there is fresh interest in this area now because related-party fraud has been a factor in a number of recent corporate financial scandals.”
Classic reactive measures being employed by the Board here. No sense in developing any kind of standard until after something happens. The Board hasn’t really been doing a bang-up job on much of anything but no matter, the effectiveness of a government regulator is not the issue here.
Auditors, you’re being duped. That’s unacceptable and according to some, the procedures you currently perform over related party transactions just won’t do any more:
But some officials at the PCAOB as well as members of the accounting profession have suggested that these standards may not be sufficient. At least part of the problem involves what some have described as widespread related-party transaction fraud slipping under the radar screen of auditors.
As we’ve mentioned in the past, the PCAOB simply is not satisfied with your ability to follow the current rules, auditors. Accordingly, the PCAOB will make more rules for you to follow until they are proven inadequate and then more rules will be written and on and on. You get the idea. It’ll be routine before you know it, if it isn’t already.
PCAOB Mulls New Related-Party Standards [Web CPA]
Also see: Fair Value, Audit Committes, Related Parties Highlights Of Day 2, PCAOB SAG Meeting [FEI Financial Reporting Blog]
Auditors, The PCAOB Still Doesn’t Think Too Highly of the Job You’re Doing
The PCAOB is considering telling auditors how to do their jobs issuing guidance on communication with audit committees and a new auditing standard on related parties, according to Compliance Week. Not to worry though, they’re going to ask the bigwigs on the Standing Advisory Group for their $0.02:
The PCAOB also plans to bounce some ideas off the advisory group for a new standard to govern how auditor should communicate with audit committees, in part to establish some new guidance regarding communication about management judgments and estimates. According to a briefing paper provided to SAG members, PCAOB is looking for ideas on how to get past boilerplate dialogue to achieve more effective, robust communications between auditors and audit committees.
Auditors? Boilerplate dialogue? Is the PCAOB questioning your ability to ask substantive questions? For shame. Obviously Peekatboobs will be able to develop much better, non-boilerplate questions than you and then you’ll be required to ask those questions of the audit committee. That’ll get the job done.
Likewise, auditors, you’ve simply dropped the ball on related parties since, “financial relationships with related parties have proved important in recent corporate scandals, and the board’s inspection and enforcement actions suggest some auditors aren’t skeptical enough when evaluating such relationships and transactions.”
The infinite wisdom of the PCAOB is clearly on display here. Auditors, it’s going to become necessary that your skepticism is going to reach a physical level or at least the threat of such. Your skepticism in words and on paper is simply not getting the job done.
You’ll have to get Chuck Liddell to beat some people down or simply laying heat out on the conference table during discussions to get your point across, otherwise, clients are going to just keep taking advantage of you.
This will be the plan until the next financial crisis of course when the PCAOB will assess that the questions and methods developed now turn out to be boilerplate and ineffective and it’ll be back to the drawing board again. Don’t get too comfortable.
PCAOB Considers Rules on Communication, Related Parties [Compliance Week]
(UPDATE) Is the PCAOB Going the Way of the Dodo?
Who knows? Our separation-of-powers principles knowledge is pretty much zilch. However, the PCAOB is currently “doubly insulated from both political pressure and presidential oversight” which some – including the Plaintiff in the case, First Free Enterprise Fund – think is unconstitutional.
The case, First Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, will be argued during the new session of the U.S. Supreme Court on December 7th. Here’s the take of our sister site, ATL, last year when the possibility of the SCOTUS hearing the case first came up.
More, after the jump
We won’t rehash the whole immaculate conception of the PCAOB, as you’re all familiar with that story. First Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, however, could make things interesting: “This case has the potential to undo the SOX accounting and auditing reforms. As such, the result may impact not just the auditing profession, but also every public company as well as the users of financial statements of those companies.”
‘Undo SOX accounting and auditing reforms’? That sounds kinda serious. We won’t go so far as to suggest that you start forgetting everything that you’ve been trying to get your heads around for the past seven years, but there’s at least a possibility that the PCAOB could become extinct. That could be exciting, or it could make you completely f*cking miserable again.
New Court Term May Give Hints to Views on Regulating Business [NYT]
The Supreme Court Term – Significant Cases for Business [SEC Actions via JDA]
Supreme Court Obsessed With Business This Session [Law Review]
The PCAOB Wants You to Know That the New Accounting Standards Codification is Not Optional
The PCAOB would like all of you auditors to know that you better learn how to use this Codification thing and quit your bitching about how you don’t like it because they can hear you screeching about how much it sucks.
Nevermind that the P is already making your lives difficult with new rules and leaving lame ducks on their board.
Seriously. Get with the program.
PCAOB Appears to Be Taking After Big Brother
The SEC has been setting a bad example for everyone. Now the Commission’s sloth-like urgency to appoint a chief accountant seems to have led the PCAOB to think that finding new board members really isn’t a big deal.
Chuck Niemeier announced that he will be leaving his position as a board member of the P very soon, even though his term ended almost a year ago. The PCAOB’s board members are allowed to stay on the board after their terms have ended until a replacement is found.
We suppose that you could give the P credit for having the foresight to write this rule in, as it’s pretty obv that no one really wants this job. Doesn’t make much difference anyway, as it’s not really clear just what the hell they’re doing over there, except making auditors’ lives more difficult and possibly ignoring independence violations.
IFRS Critic to Leave Accounting Firm Regulator [CFO]
The Day the Audits Died
I will refrain from expressing my opinions on the PCAOB and do my best to keep this neutral, I swear.
Accounting Onion pointed out in 2007 that “more than half of the PCAOB’s inspection resources (> $65 million) are protecting the public against the equivalent of a flea bite on the hindquarters of a bull (market),” meaning a bunch of overpaid auditors are inspecting 1% of public company revenue. 1%! What do we need them for?
More, after the jump
And it gets worse. The PCAOB and SEC have decided as of August 13, 2009 that auditors need a whole lot more on their plates including but not limited to increased disclosures for:
• An audit firm withdrawing an audit report
• Any time a firm’s name is used in an unauthorized manner by an issuer without the firm’s consent
• Any time new hires are brought into the firm with a history of disciplinary sanctions
• Anytime professional licenses are revoked, suspended, or subject to conditions or sanctions.
The last one is my personal favorite. Watch your Ps and Qs out there kids, they’re coming for you.
Let’s hope State Boards of Accountancy aren’t as broke as the states they belong to (this means you, California BoA, with your 3 furlough Fridays a month and ELEVEN WEEK WAITING TIME to process CPA exam applications!) otherwise there might be monetary incentive for state licensure authorities to put more bad accountants in the back of their monthly pub just so firms can avoid as many of these reports as possible.
As of October 12, 2009, firms will be required to make these reports to the PCAOB, who will then disseminate the information to the unwashed masses as it sees fit.
The same PCAOB of which Skeptical CPA speaks so highly on June 4, 2009:
Another PCAOB triumph. Does the PCAOB think say KPMG is unaware of problems at Citigroup? Or is the PCAOB aware that it is? How can anyone take the SEC and PCAOB seriously? Is Spokane more fraud plagued than Wall Street? Or just less well connected? Now if Goldman Sachs moved its offices to Spokane …
Check out the article for the backstory.
The SEC is having trouble seducing accountants to its team because of the competitiveness of PCAOB salaries. So what, let them get the scraps? You hear that, soon-to-be-grads? Why are you at Meet the Firms when you could be off getting wined and dined by the PCAOB? Sounds like fun, right?
The Maryland Association of CPAs’ CPA Success made the new reporting requirements sound much tamer, as if it were just a polite, albeit groundbreaking request from the PCAOB.
Perhaps it is a benign request. But this appears to be a PCAOB power grab to me, not to mention a costly one.
Just my $0.02. Do I have to report that to the PCAOB?
The PCAOB Doesn’t Care for the Flagrant Disregard of Their Rules
Having never been part of a PCAOB investigation, we’re not able to attest to the uncomfortable violated feeling one must have when you have a government foot soldier crapping all over your work.
That being said, if you can at least make an argument for your shoddy work, you’ve got something to throw at them. The same cannot be said when you have no discernible argument whatsoever that will allow you to look yourself in the mirror and call yourself an auditor.
Enter Moore & Associates and its President, Michael J. Moore:
Poor auditing, after the jump
After M&A registered with the Board in October 2004, Moore began auditing
the financial statements of public companies for the first time in more than ten years.
Over the next three years, M&A accepted nearly 300 public audit engagements, with
Moore serving as the auditor with final responsibility on each of them. Respondents
added new clients at a nearly exponential rate while the audit staff was comprised of
inexperienced staff members overseen by one professional. M&A staffed the audits
with assistants who had no accounting or auditing education, experience or training.
These unqualified audit assistants planned and executed the audits with little or no
supervision from Moore.
So, you’re back in the audit game after a ten years on the bench and you really don’t have the resources to pay anyone that has any accounting background. Not being one to shy away from adversity, you go out and find whatever warm bodies you come across at the Greyhound station. Eventually you get the call that the PCAOB is on to your little game and you’ve got to think that the jig is up.
Nah. Keep rolling with it:
Respondents also failed to cooperate with the Board’s investigation…Respondents created false work papers that did not accurately reflect the work performed on the relevant audits and produced those false work papers to the Board’s Division of Enforcement and Investigations. Moore also falsely testified that these work papers produced by Respondents were true and accurate audit work papers completed during the audit, when he knew they were not.
Nothing like going down in flames. For his incredibly diligent dishonesty and disregard for the PCAOB’s rules, Moore has been banned to the CPA darkness.
Moore & Associates, Chartered, and Michael J. Moore, CPA (8/27/2009) [PCAOBUS.org]
PCAOB, We are Paying Attention
Public accounting could learn a thing or two from Wall Street. What if we treated the PCAOB like Goldman Sachs does the CFTC and the Treasury? Can you imagine PwC partners dispatched into high-profile regulatory positions doing the dirty work for them? We’d save millions in intern fees (oh wait) since no one would have to run a single shredder.
Case in point, the head of the CFTC (who used to work at Goldman) says, “I believe that position limits should be consistently applied and vigorously enforced. Position limits promote market integrity by guarding against concentrated positions.” And what does he do? Block GS competitors with federal limits while letting his friends run wild in commodities futures. We need one of those on our team!
More, after the jump
Oh wait a minute, we already have that! And it gets better, not only does his work history read “E&Y”, he used to be on Fed payroll as well. Double winner – this is the guy you want heading up the audit board? That’s laughable.
Remember?
Mark W. Olson was recently appointed head of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board by Chris Cox, SEC Commissioner. This ends months of uncertainty about leadership at the PCAOB or Peekabo as it is popularly known. Mr. Olson was a Governor at the Federal Reserve Board.
In fact, the PCAOB chair’s wife probably hangs out with Goldman wives. A quick glance at his resume reveals the sorts of circles Mr Olson travels in; future partners of Big 4 firms might start setting their goals right about now if they’re trying to out-schmooze this guy.
So if you believe Wall Street and the auditors are that different, you’re wrong. No one is going to call Deloitte the vampire squid but it might be a good idea if we started looking at our own questionable regulatory ties. Perhaps accounting can learn a thing from Wall Street before it hits us like it has them?
And who is letting things go to hell?
Now that Olson has abandoned the PCAOB for bigger and better things, we can only hope his mustachioed replacement and those who come after continue the tradition of questionable business associations set forth by our friends at Goldman Sachs and of course the Big 4. Life just wouldn’t be the same without it.
Do You See What Happens?
The PCAOB was kind enough to issue a couple of examples this week of what happens when you don’t take your role as auditor seriously.
We wouldn’t dream of putting them both in one post so we’ll give you one in the morning to ponder and save the second for later right about the time you’re ready to flip out, so hang in there.
We’ve also done you the courtesy of reading (sort of) both of the orders so that you can remain fully chargeable (not counting the time you take to read this post of course):
Thomas Linden was a partner in the Chicago office of Deloitte and lead engagement partner on Navistar Financial Corporation (NFC). At the 11th hour, prior to filing the fiscal year 2003 10-K, the engagement team realized that assets, revenues, and net profits were overstated by $19.7 million.
Check out the rest, after the jump
Having a typical over-confident management team, NFC had already taken the liberty of announcing the fourth quarter earnings prior to filing the 10-K.
Because Tom Linden was a Big 4 Partner and thus impervious to any challenge he encounterd, he took the following action (all our emphasis):
• Initiated an increase of approximately 50 percent in Deloitte’s planned tolerance for misstatements in NFC’s reported financial results
• Authored, with the assistance of a member of the NFC engagement team, an NFC auditwork paper that inaccurately characterized the reasons for and circumstances surrounding the increase
• Failed to evaluate adequately the risk that NIC’s financial statements were materially misstated due to error or fraud
• Otherwise failed to act with the requisite due professional care and professional skepticism
Okay, so the last two are boring but the first two kinda, sorta give us this impression of what happened:
Dude finds out the numbers are bunk, client isn’t cool with telling their analysts (who NFC told that they had a kick ass quarter) that said numbers are bunk, so Dude up and decides to ABBACADABRA make the tolerance for misstatement 50% higher than it was for the entire audit (read: that’s a lot).
Then, after probably putting the proverbial (or possibly literal) gun to head of the “member of the NFC engagement team”, they wrote a workpaper that supposedly explained why the tolerance was all of sudden 50% higher but the rationale was something to the effect of “because we said so”.
So for all that tomfoolery (snap!), Linden gets fined $75,000 and can’t be associated with a registered accounting firm for two years and which point he can petition to be to be reinstated. Yow-za. To better times, Tom.
ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS In the Matter of Thomas J. Linden, CPA, Respondent. [PCAOB]