Re:Balance -- Jim Peterson

Market Concentration of the Big Four Audit Firms: The Feasibility of a Suggested Trade -- Divestiture for Liability Limitations

“No such thing as a failed experiment …. only experiments with unexpected outcomes.”-- American engineer-architect R. Buckminster Fuller

 Is the Big Four’s concentrated control of large company audits a real problem? Persistent voices of concern and attention extend back at least to the 2006 study for the Financial Reporting Counsel (here), recently joined by global leadership of BDO and Grants (here and here).

If so, is there a credible case to incentivize their exchange of market dominance for liability limitations?

Those issues were addressed this month in a paper from the American Antitrust Institute – here. In an all-too-rare burst of clarity, the AAI forthrightly recognizes that:

With pending claims totaling billions of dollars, the Big 4 audit firms face serious threats to their survival…. (L)iability exposure substantially exceeds the combined partner capital of the Big 4 firms… (They) contend that liability limits are necessary to prevent the loss of another Big 4 firm, which would throw the global financial system into chaos. (footnotes omitted)   

The AAI’s suggestion would be a legislated trade-off: “government incentives to break up the Big 4 into smaller, more competitive firms” – namely, a liability cap conditioned on a firm divesting itself of, say, 20% of its domestic revenue and the personnel serving the surrendered clients.

Can’t work – because of the many problems with the underlying but unachievable assumptions. 

But before getting there -- the AAI deserves credit at least for recognizing the completeness of the Big Four’s market dominance – auditing “nearly all of the world’s public companies with annual sales over $250 million” (emphasis in original) – with even tighter limitations on auditor choice in such industries as metals and mining, energy, air transportation and financial services.

Start with the political unacceptability of liability capping at a level that can assure Big Four survival. I have spelled out before (here) the financial limits of the large firms’ private partnership structure and their membrane-thin working capital, under which they cannot withstand litigation shocks above the $1 - $2 billion range – a tiny fraction (by either amount or percentage) of the exposures in their pending lawsuit inventory.

As the AAI paper summarizes, critics of liability protection point to the firms’ average litigation payouts, as a percentage of revenues and as compared to the far larger total of alleged damages. They fail to recognize – as do the arguments for capping from the profession itself -- that averages are meaningless when the “outlier” of a single verdict, falling outside the misleading comfort zone of a bell-curve model, could and would be devastating.   

So: because American politics offers no cover for protection at those levels, that side of the proposed AAI bargain is no solution. What of the other side -- the plausibility of large-scale competitors emerging from the suggested divestiture program? The facts dictate otherwise.

First, an abundance of small practices already exist. Why they have not coalesced into global-scale practices is a long-familiar story of limited geographic scope, expertise, risk appetite and readiness to invest.

Second, the smaller sector does not inspire confidence in its strength or capacity for quality growth to global scale. Of the largest, BDO’s Seidman firm in the US is on a deathwatch, facing the post-appeal enforceability of its $521 million jury verdict in Miami. Grant Thornton – not yet fully disengaged from the Refco matter in which lawyer Joe Collins just received a seven-year prison sentence – now faces the fall-out of being fired by Koss, its public but family-dominated Milwaukee client, whose CFO managed for years to steal amounts in excess of the company’s total net revenue (on which, to read Francine McKenna in unusually high dudgeon, see Re:The Auditors.)

Third, as a practical matter, how would global-scale competition emerge? If a Big Four firm were to hive off a small geography-based practice, that newcomer would suffer handicaps of capacity and expertise no different that those of the current smaller firms.  If a large firm were to shed an entire industry practice, no new competition is added to serve that industry. And if instead, it were to divide a viable large-scale practice, then each of the two sub-practices would be burdened with shortages of expertise, personnel and the capital strength necessary to build to scale and withstand their risks.

In summary, the AAI’s aspirations fall victim yet again to the Nirvana Fallacy – the defect in logic I described (here) in the comparison of a failing situation against an idealized state, without recognizing that the assumed achievement is impossible under real-world limits, flaws and constraints.

The large firms grew that way for service-based reasons. And dreams of expanding the population of pygmies do not, sadly, increase the likelihood of evolving a giant.

At bottom, the AAI’s most seriously under-examined assumption is that the “catastrophic” disintegration of another Big Four firm “would throw the global financial system into chaos.”

Why so? To the contrary, if the now-standard auditors’ report were suddenly not to be obtainable from any source, who would miss it?

Regulators and politicians would have convulsions, to be sure. But as the financial crisis itself has shown, that is daily practice for office-holders in the hermetic confines of Washington and London and Brussels.  

Should the stock exchanges be closed, if a Big Four failure meant that one-quarter of the large listed companies lacked an audit report? Could those companies’ securities be barred from trading? Unthinkable. Out where capital really flows and trade is actually engaged, the world’s markets would shrug, start the process of designing new forms of assurance from a blank page, and move on.

And the splintered pieces of the former Big Four would provide ample building blocks for a new assurance structure – without, pace the AAI, any need or use for the unintended and unpredictable hazards of another failed experiment.

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign on at the Home page. 

Auditors Missing in the Financial Crisis -- Readers Offer their Thoughts

To greet the new year, instead of a backwards look at a dreary 2009, this will revisit last month’s lively exchange, initiated by Francine McKenna’s provocative post of December 7, “They Weren’t There: Auditors and the Financial Crisis.” My response of December 13 is here, and hers of the 14^th is here.

Highly compressed, the gist of our mutual concern is, as Francine put it, “the auditors’ failure to be a force either before, during, or after the financial crisis.” The depressing explanation, said I, 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.”

Our invitation to a conversation drew forth an exceptional level of reader interest and a cascade of comments. They ranged from the acute and perceptive to the callow and credulous – but all were seriously intended and deserve broader exposure and responses.

So picking a sample of some half dozen, and inviting the discussion to continue: 

PF noted to Francine that “the idea has been floated of having each exchange traded company purchase insurance against the financial impact of future restatements or fraud, but for that to work you would merely replace the auditors with the insurance industry, who would need to do their own “audits” before they would agree to underwrite such large risks.”

And David wrote similarly, that, “maybe each firm performing audits should have to put up a bond that would be available to creditors in the event of malpractice lawsuits. Let’s say that bond was equal to at least two years of the firm’s audit revenues. … You could even have an experience rate type of adjustment….”

Sorry – we've been there. If feasible, the idea of outside sureties would already be in place by now (here). The marketplace reality is that the insurance industry – which suffered massive losses on its coverage of the accountants during the savings & loan debacle of the 1980’s – learned enough to avoid a repetition.

It’s not just that the Big Four tetrapoly fail the essential tests of insurability, although they do – because of sector concentration, unpredictability of losses and inability to quantify exposures. It’s also that if any such “super-audits” actually existed, the auditors would surely be performing them already. The sad fact, instead, is that the poor profession is operating today to the best of its unfortunately limited capability.

On user expectations, Robert accurately observed that, “an audit is supposed to provide reasonable assurance, not absolute. An audit firm has many engagement teams…some good…some bad. The whole system can’t be vilified because of isolated events.”

“Vilified” – perhaps not. But it is precisely the isolated events – highly-consequential and destructive as they can be – that will bring down another large firm.

On this there are two points: First, because the accounting profession lacks an effective forum by which to scrutinize and learn from its failures and short-comings, it has been unable to avoid repeating the same performance deficiencies from one generation to the next. It's a failure in historical perspective, to miss the instructive comparisons between Parmalat, say, and Equity Funding – or between Satyam and ZZZBest.

Second, the community of financial statement users is unimpressed by the profession’s proclamations of its successes. Virtue is not preserved by an accumulated preponderance of generally good behavior – rather, it is dissipated and lost altogether by individually corrosive, culpable acts. For most of their life spans, John Edwards and Tiger Woods were credibly decent – as were Jimmy Cayne and Dick Fuld and even Conrad Black and Bernie Ebbers -- except for certain nasty instances when they were not.   

I had this note from JD: “The auditors were there and just got it wrong. They will feel the pain from this trying to defend the lawsuits. Whether they can be successfully sued is another matter. If one or more big firms fail as a result then so be it. In the long run there are enough other audit firms who will eventually step up.”

The problem is the last sentence. Under the large firms' presently dysfunctional model of litigation exposure, independence constraints, limited capital and concentration of resources and expertise, it is just not the case that alternative providers might emerge to replace a failed Big Four firm. That discussion can be expanded at greater length, and has been, but the only answer is "no way."

Francine had this interesting proposition from TT:  “the first firm to focus on quality, and to deploy and consistently follow standards that enforce quality regardless of other factors and metrics, will rise above the others. … But the sad fact is right now that the clients don’t perceive any differences between the firms, and it would take a significant difference to catch the clients’ attention.”

The standard audit report now being an undifferentiated commodity, TT’s point was answered by Geoff, who wrote that, “From 1933 until now, there hasn’t really been a evaluation of the core assumptions around audited financials. The requirements have evolved and become more detailed, stringent, as we go through the motions of continually fighting the last war. Add to it the institutionalization of the main players (audit firms, regulators, accounting designation self-regulatory bodies), and it’s easy to see how we’ve lost the plot.”

To conclude, the widespread inchoate desire for “something better” resounds in Esa’s plaintive note:

If you know of a better model that allows us to hold someone responsible for unforeseen future events, I’m all ears but that’s not a job I want.

A lot of people think the model is relevant though it certainly has flaws. The SEC, institutional investors, financial analysts, etc. all think the model requires tweaking but none suggest wholesale changes.

If fact, I haven’t heard anyone propose something that even comes close to a reasonable alternative that is actually feasible. If you have ideas on that front, please share them.

That’s an echo of the call from Francine and me. Progress will come neither from the self-interested parties' reticence to “suggest wholesale changes,” nor their continued pointing of fingers and weapons. Instead, as a first step at least, let the wide-open conversation continue.

Thanks for joining this discussion. Please share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign on at the Home page.

Previewing 2010 -- And a Note of Thanks

As the old year winds down to the winter solstice and all those rituals by which we mark the holiday season, a brief look ahead.

Depending on reckoning, the New Year will either end an old decade or begin the next one. Whichever, here are a few events that will feature in 2010 among the on-going challenges to the global structure of large-company assurance:

• The Supreme Court in the US may well declare the PCAOB to have been illegally constituted (here or here). If so, predictable spasms of re-enactment and ratification by the SEC cannot successfully encompass such issues as the viability of pending investigations, the legitimacy of past inspection reports, or the need to re-register all the foreign accounting firms.

In the context of those issues of contention, the legislative mischief to be wrought by a Congress offered a blank page on which to re-debate the Sarbanes/Oxley law can scarcely be imagined.

• The fits and starts of accounting standards convergence will have no more traction than a pig on roller skates. The announced retirement of Sir David Tweedie as head of the IASB (here) will take one prickly personality off-stage, but will not solve the antagonisms among competing country and industry level interests. And as the scope of complexity and judgments within both GAAP and IFRS figure to be as significant as those between reporting systems, the achievability of comparability and comprehension will remain as elusive as ever. 

• Attempts to impose liability on the large accounting firms’ international structures will continue apace. The success of BDO International in confining the Bankest verdict in Miami to the Seidman firm alone (here) means that if that $521 million exposure becomes enforceable, BDO may need to find a new US member firm – a tactic painful enough for that organization but which none of the Big Four could achieve under like conditions.

Flashpoints for structural threats will include the Madoff-related feeder funds litigations, concentrated in the US but also spread around the world, and PwC’s exposure on Satyam.  And with PwC’s Indian partners on Satyam about to observe their first full year of local imprisonment, that network's attempts to extract itself from class action exposure in the American court system (here) raise the interesting question whether submission to Indian justice is really a preferred strategy.

• Tempting as it might be to be lured into the speculation about identifying which of the Big Four firm is most likely to disintegrate under the combined pressures of litigation and government threat, in 2010 or otherwise (here), I will decline – since the determining factor is the unpredictable timing of the cases themselves. Specify the judges’ scheduled trial dates for the 25 biggest cases hanging in Damoclean fashion over the large firms – and only then would I be able to offer a view.

• More broadly, strategic decision makers in the world of financial information will continue to confront the volatility of government conduct – an under-recognized factor in their overall risk assessment methodologies.
  

The reactive nature of public officials has been marked in recent years by an ad hoc cascade of unpredictable and unintended consequences – ranging in scope and scale from the back-of-envelope bank bail-out schemes to the bonus supertax in the United Kingdom to the first-ever invention in Dubai of a default-driven debt reorganization scheme of uncertain application or reliability.

So life in the forthcoming year will not be boring. 

Meanwhile, in this space, Re:Balance observes its second birthday. Launched in January 2008, this venture was the evolution from “Balance Sheet,” the column I had the six-year privilege and good fortune to write for the International Herald Tribune.

The challenges have been fascinating, starting with the anxiety-inducing migration from old-style print. No less than the accounting firms, the IHT itself -- like the other newspapers -- pursues its fading struggle in search of a sustainable niche business model. While in the world of rapidly mutating media platforms, the near-term impact of the likes of Twitter, Facebook and Kindle will continue at a dizzying pace to re-define the information landscape.  

It has been most gratifying over these two years, both to participate in community with an expanding group of smart and incisive commentators, and to experience steady growth in readership and especially in subscribers.

For these opportunities, I thank you all for your interest, your insights and your inputs.

Merry Christmas -- best holiday wishes -- and a healthy, peaceful and prosperous New Year to all. 

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign on at the Main page.

Invitation to a Conversation: If the Auditors Were Missing from the Financial Crisis -- Let's Ask Why

 

Last night I saw upon the stair

A little man who wasn’t there

He wasn’t there again today

Oh, how I wish he’d go away

 -- Hughes Mearns, 1899

 An under-appreciated power of the bloggers is the capacity for a two-way conversation, right out in full public view.

 That was my reaction, anyway, to Francine McKenna’s December 7 post, “They Weren’t There: Auditors and the Financial Crisis” – the gist of which is that the Big Four firms, who audited every one of the institutions complicit in the financial crisis, have been absent not only from visible influence on the catastrophe, but also from the post-mortem recriminations and accountability.

 Any regular reader here should also be subscribing to Re:The Auditors, where Francine airs a central theme:

“The auditors should have been there, as a last stop, where the buck should have stopped, as gatekeepers, watchdogs, advocates, and the last bastion of standards and expected values shareholders can look to.”

Here – in response to the always tart-tongued Francine -- is why the auditors weren’t there:

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 (here). 

If that single page disappeared from corporate annual reports, no honest user of financial information would admit to missing it. Nor, offered the choice, would any rational CFO pay the fees to obtain it.

There is plenty of assurance that users would value and pay for – that much is clear from the debates about the largely unrealized usefulness of reports on governance, sustainability and intangible assets outside the scope of historical cost-based reporting (for specifics, this column of mine goes back to April 2006).

But not in the current liability environment, where the large accounting firms are captive to their business model and paralyzed from innovation by their twinned lack of vision and influence.

On the other side, the regulators’ mantra that “audits are essential” is no more than the unexamined and self-reflexive assumption that audit reports will simply and always be there – like air or water or electricity. Whereas, if another fragile Big Four firm does trip into disintegration, nothing within the capacity of any regulator on earth will be able to put the shattered networks back together again, or compel the delivery of audits when there is nobody left to perform them.

If there is to be an adult conversation around this issue -- and along with Francine, there are real participants -- for general examples, Tom Selling's stimulating Accounting Onion, Dennis Howlett's acerbic AccMan, or Richard Murphy's Tax Research UK -- there are at least three other chapters to be aired, at whatever length is needed for credibility:

First, it is past time to put final closure to the talk of unachievable structural “solutions” to the Big Four’s complete dominance of large-company global audits. None of these can happen – as sketched out here – whether it be growth to competitive scale of a Five or Six, break-ups to restore a new but even further weakened Eight, mandatory rotation, new insurance or outside capital, liability limitations, or government take-over of the entire function.

Second, the financial structure of the private Big Four partnerships must be recognized as too weak and limited to sustain their current exposure -- here. Unlike the banks, their franchise is not “too big to fail” – the question is whether there is a better cliché than “too weak to survive.”

Finally, as a message to the Big Four leadership who have no choice but to get out in front, the private sector must acknowledge that no help will be forthcoming from government. Legislators – whose essential DNA bars them from any activity other than belated over-reaction – cannot be counted on for anything other than interference (here).

Worse, coordinated regulatory strategies are impossible at the global level – witness the floundering over GAAP / IFRS convergence as a simple example – while in the United States, a populist-oriented administration is not about to provide relief to a white-collar profession perceived to be overpaid and under-performing.

So there is no falling back upon the fallacious assumption that “’they’ won’t let another firm fail.” There is no “they” – no regulator or politician with the vision, interest or authority to prevent a debacle.

Francine’s massive army of readers is a potential force to be reckoned with – and has plenty at stake, whether as practitioners with careers-at-risk or users in search of better quality financial information. 

With their engagement, the evolution to a sustainable, achievable new model of reporting and assurance is possible – however unlikely, absent real commitment to a fresh and holistic approach.

But the dialog has to move beyond whiny finger-pointing, and the simplistic recitation of unrealistic “solutions.

And the sooner, the better.  

Thanks for joining this dialog. Your comments are welcome either here or to Francine. Please share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to join at my Main page.

 

Re-Posting -- Internal Control Reports Under Sarbanes-Oxley: Hazards Out of Washington

In my first job in journalism, back on a small-town newspaper, the last critical deadline risk was a break-down of our creaky old press. Now it's that the elves of the internet somehow got Monday's post out via Twitter and my news groups, but failed to feed it to e-mail subscribers.

This re-posting is with my appreciation to all, and my apologies for either the delay or the duplication.

What’s in store for reporting on internal controls under the Sarbanes-Oxley law? The most important Washington development was not last week’s legislative merry-go-round over possible small-company exemption.

As discussed here, the SEC had earlier pushed back its deadline under Section 404(b) for auditor reports. Impelled by White House Chief of Staff Raum Emanuel, the House Financial Services Committee responded with approval of a permanent exemption, as proposed by Representatives Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and John Adler (D-NJ) (teed up in Edith Orenstein’s post of November 4 on her FEI Blog).

What may yet emerge from Congress is anybody’s guess – considering the opposition of Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass) and SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro and Commission Luis Aguilar. Their view is championed by Floyd Norris of the New York Times, quoting ex-SEC chief Arthur Levitt – here – in whose hyperbolic antagonism the climb-down on Section 404 would rank with repeal of the Bill of Rights or perhaps the Ten Commandments.  

Much more ominous, across the country in Seattle, was the October 27 opinion and order of federal district judge Marsha Pechman. As discussed by Kevin LaCroix (D&O Diary), Judge Pechman has sustained most of the shareholders’ class lawsuit against fallen home lending giant Washington Mutual, along with its senior executives and Deloitte, its auditors.

The case is based not only on the usual array of claimed false financial and other statements, but on WaMu’s allegedly defective internal controls and the opinions of management and the auditors – claims that WaMu “misrepresented the state of its internal controls, which were weakened in order to facilitate WaMu’s reckless lending practice,” and that Deloitte “made the false and misleading statement that its internal control reports were audited ‘in accordance with the PCAOB’s standards’.”

From the very passage of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002, its requirement for opinions on internal controls has been an under-appreciated time bomb. Under Judge Pechman’s Order, the fuse is now lit, live and sparkling.

WaMu presents a major survivability hazard for Deloitte -- and by extension, for the viability of the entire big-firm assurance franchise. The investor claims involve securities totaling more than $ 4 billion -- well above the destruction threshold of Deloitte or any of the large accounting firms (see here).

And the plaintiffs are represented by the veteran law firm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman – reported to have achieved five of the ten largest securities fraud recoveries in history, and to have collected over $ 20 billion on behalf of investors – here – thus no strangers to the extraction of serious amounts from their adversaries.

In the early years of Sarbanes-Oxley, while the accounting firms were reaping major revenues from their work on big-client compliance, two topics largely dominated the discourse: whether the cost was actually achieving any real value to the capital markets, and whether there could be a screwing down of the escalated fee increases felt to be windfalls to the large firms.

Two other themes were either lost or absent in the discussion. The first was that Section 404 reports and opinions comprised a new class of publicly-accessible statements on which investors might claim reliance to their detriment – no less than traditional financial statements and audit reports – a chicken now come home to roost in Seattle.

The second was the ultimate but eventual day of reckoning, with the certain arrival of large internal control failures. There a crucial mis-alignment lay concealed: the accounting profession’s cash-based business model involves immediate profit distribution to reward current partners, while the related litigation burden lies inchoate and deferred until inflicted years later on succeeding generations.

This kind of disconnect is broadly familiar:

• ·      The immediate benefits of large public works are consistently over-stated, for failure to recognize, for example, the future radioactive waste disposal costs of a de-commissioned nuclear plant, or the environmental disaster of a strip mine or a silted-up hydroelectric project.
• ·      Only now are the re-cycling impacts of consumer goods becoming visible – whether in the recoverability of scrap auto components or the packaging of home appliances or the extraction of metals and chemicals from old computers and refrigerators.
  
• ·      Closer to home, it’s a fair bet that the strategists in the law and accounting firms responsible for the tax shelter strategies so aggressively sold to their clients a decade ago did not include in their business plans the costs of their legal defenses, criminal trials, fines and civil settlements.
• ·      And nowhere is the timing mis-match more acute than in the legislative arena, where the sleight-of-hand calculations for health reform proposals or military hardware procurement or tax code revisions are fanciful exercises in advocacy.

In the same way, it is no small understatement that the profitability of the Big Four’s Sarbanes-Oxley compliance work would have been unpleasantly re-calculated, when the law was enacted in 2002, if future litigation exposures running into WaMu’s billions had been taken into account.

So concerning the yes-or-no desirability of Sarbanes-Oxley 404 for smaller companies, there is this interesting question:

With the potentially catastrophic impact of a WaMu trial now pending, and claims among the roster of failed financial institutions lurking in the background – why would a young partner in a Big Four firm think that more such expanded Sarbanes-Oxley work is a good idea?

Those who may think so are invited to explain why – especially to their dependents and their creditors.  

 

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with your friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign on at the Main page – easy, free and non-commercial.

Internal Control Reports Under Sarbanes-Oxley: Hazards Out of Washington

What’s in store for reporting on internal controls under the Sarbanes-Oxley law? The most important Washington development was not last week’s legislative merry-go-round over possible small-company exemption.

As discussed here, the SEC had earlier pushed back its deadline under Section 404(b) for auditor reports. Impelled by White House Chief of Staff Raum Emanuel, the House Financial Services Committee responded with approval of a permanent exemption, as proposed by Representatives Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and John Adler (D-NJ) (teed up in Edith Orenstein’s post of November 4 on her FEI Blog).

What may yet emerge from Congress is anybody’s guess – considering the opposition of Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass) and SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro and Commission Luis Aguilar. Their view is championed by Floyd Norris of the New York Times, quoting ex-SEC chief Arthur Levitt – here – in whose hyperbolic antagonism the climb-down on Section 404 would rank with repeal of the Bill of Rights or perhaps the Ten Commandments.  

Much more ominous, across the country in Seattle, was the October 27 opinion and order of federal district judge Marsha Pechman. As discussed by Kevin LaCroix (D&O Diary), Judge Pechman has sustained most of the shareholders’ class lawsuit against fallen home lending giant Washington Mutual, along with its senior executives and Deloitte, its auditors.

The case is based not only on the usual array of claimed false financial and other statements, but on WaMu’s allegedly defective internal controls and the opinions of management and the auditors – claims that WaMu “misrepresented the state of its internal controls, which were weakened in order to facilitate WaMu’s reckless lending practice,” and that Deloitte “made the false and misleading statement that its internal control reports were audited ‘in accordance with the PCAOB’s standards’.”

From the very passage of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002, its requirement for opinions on internal controls has been an under-appreciated time bomb. Under Judge Pechman’s Order, the fuse is now lit, live and sparkling.

WaMu presents a major survivability hazard for Deloitte -- and by extension, for the viability of the entire big-firm assurance franchise. The investor claims involve securities totaling more than $ 4 billion -- well above the destruction threshold of Deloitte or any of the large accounting firms (see here).

And the plaintiffs are represented by the veteran law firm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman – reported to have achieved five of the ten largest securities fraud recoveries in history, and to have collected over $ 20 billion on behalf of investors – here – thus no strangers to the extraction of serious amounts from their adversaries.

In the early years of Sarbanes-Oxley, while the accounting firms were reaping major revenues from their work on big-client compliance, two topics largely dominated the discourse: whether the cost was actually achieving any real value to the capital markets, and whether there could be a screwing down of the escalated fee increases felt to be windfalls to the large firms.

Two other themes were either lost or absent in the discussion. The first was that Section 404 reports and opinions comprised a new class of publicly-accessible statements on which investors might claim reliance to their detriment – no less than traditional financial statements and audit reports – a chicken now come home to roost in Seattle.

The second was the ultimate but eventual day of reckoning, with the certain arrival of large internal control failures. There a crucial mis-alignment lay concealed: the accounting profession’s cash-based business model involves immediate profit distribution to reward current partners, while the related litigation burden lies inchoate and deferred until inflicted years later on succeeding generations.

This kind of disconnect is broadly familiar:

• ·      The immediate benefits of large public works are consistently over-stated, for failure to recognize, for example, the future radioactive waste disposal costs of a de-commissioned nuclear plant, or the environmental disaster of a strip mine or a silted-up hydroelectric project.
• ·      Only now are the re-cycling impacts of consumer goods becoming visible – whether in the recoverability of scrap auto components or the packaging of home appliances or the extraction of metals and chemicals from old computers and refrigerators.
  
• ·      Closer to home, it’s a fair bet that the strategists in the law and accounting firms responsible for the tax shelter strategies so aggressively sold to their clients a decade ago did not include in their business plans the costs of their legal defenses, criminal trials, fines and civil settlements.
• ·      And nowhere is the timing mis-match more acute than in the legislative arena, where the sleight-of-hand calculations for health reform proposals or military hardware procurement or tax code revisions are fanciful exercises in advocacy.

In the same way, it is no small understatement that the profitability of the Big Four’s Sarbanes-Oxley compliance work would have been unpleasantly re-calculated, when the law was enacted in 2002, if future litigation exposures running into WaMu’s billions had been taken into account.

So concerning the yes-or-no desirability of Sarbanes-Oxley 404 for smaller companies, there is this interesting question:

With the potentially catastrophic impact of a WaMu trial now pending, and claims among the roster of failed financial institutions lurking in the background – why would a young partner in a Big Four firm think that more such expanded Sarbanes-Oxley work is a good idea?

Those who may think so are invited to explain why – especially to their dependents and their creditors.  

 

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with your friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign on at the Main page – easy, free and non-commercial.

Sarbanes-Oxley 404(b): Auditors' Reports on Internal Controls -- A Shot in the Arm, or a Poke in the Behind?

What’s to be made of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s grant, on October 2, of yet another extension of its deadline for small companies to have reports on their internal controls by their independent auditors? (See Edith Orenstein’s FEI Blog – here and here.)

As the autumnal season for influenza raises alarmist cries of epidemic, the comparison with an improved but experimental vaccine seems apt.

The mandate of section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley law is criticized as a boondoggle for the accounting firms, or worse, by Tom Selling (The Accounting Onion), and the whole issue of auditors' work on controls is thoroughly raked over by Francine McKenna (Re:The Auditors). And there were short-lived legislative moves in Washington to extend or make permanent the small-company compliance exemption -- see the October 30 Compliance Week.

In this context, there is much to contemplate.

To start – just as with the question whether to submit to a shot against uncertain exposure to a new type of swine flu – is there any real upside?

Veteran readers here know my deeply skeptical view that Sarbox was never more than a knee-jerk political feel-good exercise – going back to my July 20, 2002 column in the International Herald Tribune: “any legislation receiving the bipartisan margin of 97-0 is bound to be fundamentally defective.”

In the general population, most will never even catch the flu at all, or at worst will spend a few days of bed-ridden discomfort. Most public companies, likewise, operate honestly and with generally satisfactory controls, or require only modest treatment of their symptoms in order to return to good corporate health.

There are sectors at special risk, to be sure. With new vaccines, officials struggle to identify and set priorities and to deliver to the right targets – the elderly, the infirm, the weakened. That’s tough enough, for expert epidemiologists and public health professionals. Errors and oversights are unavoidable, as with any system under human design, and there will be casualties.

No less, the episodic outbreak of corporate malfeasance is unpreventable, and will strike a percentage of the most exposed. But no regulatory system yet conceived has been able to identify the “at risk” targets or find a way to avoid a non-zero victim count.

Secondly, there are the false negatives. Just as no vaccine provides protection against all strains, especially the newly emergent and opportunistic, the large-company experience with Section 404 has shown that Sarbanes-Oxley has failed to inoculate the corporate world against continued out-breaks of business dishonesty.

Attempts to legislate virtue have been no more effective than a mandatory vaccination program – whether among foreign companies with US-traded securities (Parmalat and Satyam), or individual perpetrators (the convicted Bernie Madoff, the accused Alan Stanford, and the recently-charged Raj Rajaratnam), or the long list of fallen financial institutions (Bear, Citi, Lehman, AIG, Merrill, etc.) whose cleanly-reported controls did not protect them from the fatal infection of the credit market collapse.

Third and most pernicious, there are the inevitable side effects.

It is mis-directed and erroneous to ask whether corporate behavior has improved since the post-Enron legislative spasm of 2002. Rather, Sarbox has never been fairly measured for its negatives – extravagant costs, severe disruption of the auditor-client dialog and relationship, and diminution of real value contributed by the assurance process. Just as most flu victims recover full good health, whether treated or not, the proper question is how the side effects of Sarbox weigh against the evolved corporate governance and controls that would have emerged in the normal cycle, had the law never been enacted at all.

Discussion of the Sarbox cost-benefit analysis typically omits recognition that the equivalent of “good health” practices was always in place. Just as preventive hand-washing and use of Kleenex will fend off most routine contagions, the prohibitions on false statements to investors under the American securities laws have a long tradition of deterrence – imperfect, to be sure, but nothing is. So the proper question is whether imposition of a universal requirement for additional measures under Sarbox could justifiably alter the prevention calculus for the better.

To conclude -- leave for another day, and soon, scrutiny of the potentially devastating litigation exposures run by small companies and their auditors when the next round of control failures show up in a renewed wave of investor litigation.

For now, compare with a health-delivery marketplace where individual choice still counts. Conscientious consumers can weigh the potential benefits of an experimental new vaccine. They can consider the risks of side effects and possible false comforts, absorb the publicity from a profit-driven drug industry, and decide accordingly.

With Sarbox 404(b), by contrast, unless a re-evaluation occurs while this latest deadline extension is pending, small listed companies will have no choice but to bend over and offer a fat and juicy target – to be stuck by a needle-wielding bureaucrat with the fear-inducing cry, “I’m from the SEC, and this shot is for your own good.”

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, please join at the Main page – easy, free and non-commercial.

On the Calendar: What Every Auditor Should Know About Litigation

The fall speeds on, and the calendar is packed. I am looking forward with enthusiasm to being at Baruch College in New York on Wednesday, December 2, for the Robert Zicklin Center for Corporate Integrity's 4th Annual Audit Conference, "Ensuring Integrity."

Information on the agenda and registration is here. It will be an interesting day, led by Professor Doug Carmichael and including senior staff members of the SEC and the PCAOB as well as representatives of the large firms.

I will be on the last panel of the day -- deliberately scheduled, I suspect, so as not to put anyone off their lunch -- "What Every Auditor Should Know About Litigation." Professor Carmichael will moderate, and I will be joined by Jim Sabella of the hot plaintiffs-oriented law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner Mike Young, probably the accounting profession's best-known adviser/spokesman.

The content for our panel will be under development in the next few weeks. I have some ideas of my own -- but I invite you to write with your thoughts. What would you like to have addressed? On what litigation topics should auditors know more -- or other than -- they do now? For that matter, to bend the topic a bit, what should other constituencies know about auditor litigation.

I'll welcome and take up your suggestions -- and will report back later with more to say.

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, please sign on at the Main page -- easy, free and non-commercial.

 

     

The Big Four Accountants and the Specter Bill to Reverse "Stoneridge": Please Don't Throw Me in that Briar Patch!

Because “dumbed down” education is a poor trade-off for political correctness, it is unfortunate that the Uncle Remus stories no longer flow through children’s literature into popular culture.

A favorite from my childhood involved the wily Br’er Rabbit, who was caught up by Br’er Fox’s tar baby, but duped his nemesis by imploring, “Please, don’t throw me in that briar patch.”

Even though my father’s rural twang made strange work of the concocted plantation dialect of Joel Chandler Harris and his 1880’s adaptation of African-American folktales, the didactic moral in the rabbit’s witty strategy was clear – the briar patch was where escape and safety lay.

It’s the same today for the large accounting firms in the United States, who confront a dilemma in the legislation proposed by Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) to overturn the January 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in the Stoneridge case (here), so as to broaden and extend civil liability claims against gate-keepers and other secondary actors for violation of the American securities laws. (For a very nice and concise summary, see Kevin LaCroix’s D&O Diary.) 

The auditors’ position is particular. Despite blizzards of careless commentary, their litigation risk in the classic big-ticket shareholder actions was unaffected by Stoneridge, since the public availability of their reports distinguished them from the equally essential but backroom roles of the bankers and the lawyers -- for whom the Specter proposal offers a clear and present threat of massive new liability.

So the lobbying will be focused and furious. But like Br’er Rabbit, if the auditors are well advised they will recognize the opportunity that lies in amendments suggested by Columbia Law Professor John Coffee (here) – offering the auditors a briar patch within which they might at last find relief for their threatened survival.

As a bone to the considerable influence of the lobbies of potential new defendants, Br’er Coffee suggests liability limits for secondary actors – a concept that for the auditors is essential (if not sufficient – see here) if they are to attain survivability in the face of their over-hanging and potentially ruinous litigation exposures.

Not that Professor Coffee has his dollar formula remotely within politically achievable limits. With the recent generation of schemes and corporate failures measuring well into the hundreds of billions, investor representatives will rail that damage ceilings of $ 2 million for individuals and $50 million for corporations are off by at least two orders of magnitude. 

Coffee does go on to suggest a “wealth ceiling” of ten percent of income, net worth or market capitalization. This is a test that the Big Four accounting firms could survive – if based on the $ 10 billion that is the roughly-averaged 2008 income of their practices in the US-dominated American region. (And interestingly, a $ 1 billion damages ceiling for US exposure would also be consistent with Big Four survivability under research done for the European Commission – here. ) 

Could the Big Four persuade Br’er Specter to throw them into that liability patch? Several reasons would indicate skepticism:

There is the challenge of vision. Leadership of the profession has been notoriously squeamish, and several vials short of the testosterone level needed to propel them forward in support of a holistic legislative program for their own survival.

Further, the complex political calculus in Washington suggests that the administration of President Barack Obama will toss something to its left side. If so, lobbying dexterity will be tested to the extreme to insert and maintain liability limits into the Specter plan. In this process the accountants will need to align forces with the other gate-keepers – a logical if historically rare occurrence.

Put another way, there is the simple matter of legislative effectiveness, at which the accounting profession’s dismal track record is perhaps best cited to the description given by Crash Davis (Kevin Costner) in the 1988 baseball classic, Bull Durham: “Couldn’t hit water if they fell out of the (freaking) boat.”  

Inaction and passivity will leave the large firms where they are -- stuck to the tar baby of their litigation exposure. Initiative, subtlety and cunning may not be in long supply, on the other hand – but in the animal kingdom of Washington, they offer a best hope.

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. If not a subscriber, you are invited to the Main page -- easy, free and non-commercial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Happy Times for the Big Four Accounting Firms? It's All in Whom You Read

The familiar formula for measuring forward-looking attitudes has an update:

The optimist sees a glass half full.

The pessimist sees a glass half empty.

Whereas -- the consultant sees a glass that’s twice as big as it needs to be.

Varying spins are given to the report just issued by the flagship firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers in the United Kingdom, for its year ended in June – 72 pages of sunshine about its £2.25 billion in revenue, profitability that works out to a 34 percent profit margin, and £770 thousand average profits per partner.

The Lex column of the Financial Times cheerily bought in – here. The pink color of the FT’s pages infuses the lenses through which it sees two themes:

“First, firms and their auditors have become more conservative since the Enron and WorldCom debacles. Second, Sarbanes-Oxley in the US and harmonized reporting standards elsewhere have forced greater disclosure requirements.”

The always-acerbic blogger Dennis Howlett begs to differ – here - with a link to the PwC report itself. His focus is on the structural impact of the decline in PwC’s audit and tax revenues, as offset by its rise in advisory practices, with notable emphasis on the £100 million derived from PwC’s work on the Lehman administration: 

“PwC UK may be doing very well at the moment but you can see where it is going. I anticipate that over time, it will continue to reduce its dependency on assurance services as the engine for growth but with it will come renewed criticism of its conflicted advisory position.”

The FT manages with a straight face to say that “the most important asset the accountants have maintained in this recession is their reputation” – a rosy view, not even shared by Floyd Norris of the New York Times (here), and suffering two-fold difficulties:

First, it is hard to see the recent years as a Goldilocks era for the accountants, post Enron and Sarbox, with the lengthy list of financial institutions that have fallen to collapse, shotgun mergers or government control – all of them flagging clean reports on their financial statements and their controls even as they plunged over the cliff to ruin.

It is more likely proved once again that the capacity for scandal-driven public outrage is both limited and finite, the only variable being the number of targets at which insults are sprayed.

That is, the energy and attention demands of the various stimulus and rescue efforts, and the related demonizing of the institutions and their high-bonus leaders – screeched by politicians, regulators and media alike – have in effect given the auditors at least a temporary pass from hostile scrutiny.

Second, there is the FT’s remarkable proposition that “the downturn has not notched up a big accounting scandal.” That’s as may be, but only if from its London base the vision stops at the shores of the sceptered isle.

Because the rest of the world will not disregard the inclusion of auditors in claims directly associated with the collapsed financial institutions (tracked and summarized by Kevin LaCroix at the D&O Diary), the massive claims involving the audits of the Madoff feeder funds (here) or the existential threat posed by the Satyam fraud in India to PwC’s practice in that country or the on-going criminal prosecution of its personnel there – the last flagged by Howlett although ignored by the FT and indeed by the PwC UK report itself.

Solutions to the multi-faceted antagonisms that ensnare the Big Four and put their survivability at risk will not be brought forward under the dewy pandering of the Financial Times. But it’s not that Howlett gets a complete pass either.

Howlett may be signaling that PwC is his entry in the commentators’ pool on the next of the Big Four to catch a fatal bullet – here. The near future will test the marker he puts down, to “watch for a potential breakup a la Arthur Andersen in years to come. Especially if they get nailed on Satyam.”

But he is experienced, skeptical and critical enough of the large firms’ exposed position to contribute above the unhelpful one-dimensional finger-pointing ordinarily delivered by the profession’s usual cast of critics. The sharp point of his pen could constructively jab at an issue much more challenging than the Big Four’s public relations exercises – such as this:

“If the large-company audit structure collapses, what takes its place?”

That’s a discussion yet to start.   

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to join at the Main page.  

 

The Weekend Press: "Billion-dollar Lawsuit Could Destroy Top Accountancy Firms"

The Finance section of this Sunday's edition of the London Telegraph carried a piece by Sean Farrell, under the evocative and self-explanatory headline, "Billion-Dollar Lawsuit Could Destroy Top Accountancy Firms."

It can happen. Attention should be paid.

Farrell captures the essence of the structural weakness of the current model for the delivery of audit services to the world's large global companies, as demonstrated by the speed with which the Andersen firm disintegrated in 2002 under the stress of the Enron debacle:

"Andersen's collapse highlighted the fragility of a global accountancy partnership. As soon as the extent of the fraud was made public, Andersen's international divisions and partners not involved in the scandal detached themselves from the firm, making it impossible for Andersen to survive. The nightmare scenario for the big four – PwC, KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst & Young – is to be caught out by the next Enron." 

I talked at length with Farrell last week, while his story was in preparation -- and was gratified to see his uptake on the under-appreciated research done on the limited financial capacity of the Big Four to resist or withstand large-scale litigation claims, because as private partnerships they lack access to the outside investor capital available to public-company corporate structures:

"A London Economics study for the European Commission three years ago calculated that the biggest claim a London arm of a big firm could bear after the exhaustion of insurance was €540m (£474m). The report says: 'As firms have practically no assets of their own which could be mobilised, the partners of the firm would in such a case bear the cost of the adjustment. At issue is the size of the financial burden that partners would be willing to bear before the firm collapses'."

I've written on this subject before. See here and here for calculations of the "tipping point" numbers on the Big Four's exposure to litigation in the US -- where the largest threats are lurking -- numbers that should be eye-opening because they are miniscule compared to the firms' exposures. 

Farrell quotes me:

"(A)ccountants already face pressures from incoherent international accounting standards, huge potential litigation liabilities and their own failure to meet the standards expected of them. He says on top of these recurring problems firms now face mounting litigation connected with Madoff.

"Peterson says: 'What is not generally appreciated is that most accounting firms work with a level of capitalisation supplied by their partners that is woefully thin... There is no big four firm that could survive a judgment as high as $2bn'.

"He argues the fall of one more big four firm could cause the system to collapse because rules on conflicts and the big four's patchy geographic strength would prevent the remaining firms from mopping up the business as happened after Andersen's blow-up."

Critics of the accounting profession will have their say, as they well should. But no discussion agenda on the future of the large-company audit franchise is either complete or credible unless it includes the unsustainable nature of the current regulatory and legal structure, within which the business model of the Big Four firms is at mortal risk.

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, please sign on at the Home page.   

Forecasting the Survival of the Big Four: Does a Black Box Model Hold the Answer?

If the global tumult of the last two years has taught us nothing else, it’s that reliable forecasts on complex issues are damnably hard to come by.

So where can wisdom be found today, on the vexed and pressing question of the survivability of the Big Four accounting firms and their franchise to audit the world’s large companies? Arrayed in an existential threat are the aggregated forces of unachievable performance expectations, unrelenting regulatory hostility and devastating litigation exposure – against which, what are their chances?

The question about the presumptively available but failed sources of advice and prognostication is not whether the recent performance of model-builders and risk managers has failed to provide actionable guidance – plainly it has not, as credit markets seized up and venerable institutions toppled -- but how extensive were their own contribution and culpability.

A possible source came on the screen last week. Clive Thompson’s article in the New York Times magazine for August 16, “Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?” features the “black box” prediction methodology of a New York University professor and Hoover Institution fellow. Bruce Buena de Mesquita’s forecasts on the complex interactions of variously influential parties are applied in contexts ranging from the business strategies of large companies to geopolitical hot spots for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Bruce’s method starts with identification of those with interests – whether the conflicting constituencies in the ever-shifting landscape of Iranian politics, or the negotiating partners in a potential corporate merger. He assigns values to their respective goals, commitments and capacity for influence – numeric inputs which are then processed by his proprietary (and opaque) computer model in an iterative series of scenarios, eventually leading to a conclusion as to the outcome.

Here’s the thought: an identifiable set of inter-locking antagonists are now in mutually-reinforcing paralysis on the fate of the large accounting firms – each with deeply committed self-interests being served, and all suffering limitations of vision and authority:

That roster includes -- along with the issuers of financial information and their auditors themselves -- the banks, investors and other users; the professional standard-setters, regulators and politicians; and the several-faceted machinery of law enforcement including prosecutors, judges and lawyers – as well as, probably for completeness, the communities of academics, critics and other observers.

Bruce’s techniques of inputting stakeholder interviews into a multi-scenario decision algorithm yield predictions that are valued and used at the level of global intelligence agencies, regarding issues on the scale of nuclear deterrence policy or the evolving role of the BRIC economies. So he should find it a piece of cake to crank up a view on a question as straightforward as whether the Big Four and their one-page auditors’ report have a viable future.

Considering that the present models underlying the use of Value-at-Risk, dynamic hedging and complex derivatives valuations have been shown no more robust than old-fashioned consultations with the oracle at Delphi or the entrail-reading of a Roman haruspex – or for that matter, turning over today’s desk-top 8-Ball -- Bruce’s approach might well be of great value.

Or at least, shouldn’t somebody think it an undertaking worthy to be engaged and widely shared?

Let me know if you think so.

Please share with your friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign on at the Main page – easy and convenient.

 

How Valuable is Today's Audit Report? Military History's Metaphor for "Expensive, Obsolete and Irrelevant"

The dog days of summer. I’d rather be under a beach umbrella, doing teaching outlines for the fall semester with the facilitating aid of something cold and rum-based. Instead I am in deep dialog on tough issues with one of the world’s thoughtful accountancy regulators.

A very small group, that. “Thoughtful accountancy regulator” being as oxymoronic as “Italian justice system” or “effective Belgian government,” their entire convocation could be booked in a telephone booth with room to spare.

On our table was one of my persistent themes, under the rubric of the threatened survivability of the Big Four and their nearly exclusive franchise to audit large global companies – only one major shock away from disintegration, which once started will be unstoppable not least because of the limited vision and authority of the political and regulatory classes.

Namely, there is no real chance to get ahead of this destructive tidal wave without explicit confrontation of the obsolete and anachronistic nature of the audit report in its current form.

To this proposition, my correspondent suggests there is at least some chance of traction under cover of the legislative debates on the question why auditors did not do more in relation to the credit and banking crisis of the last two years.

Possibly. But because the lawmakers’ limited attention span is focused elsewhere – on executive pay schemes and bank survival subsidies and constraints on short sales and flash trading -- I doubt it.

Our exchange calls to mind a recent holiday, and the moving experience of touring one of the surviving fortresses of the Maginot Line – the defensive installations named for France’s Minister of Defense, built in the 1930’s and left largely unscathed when the invading Germans simply and speedily flew their planes and drove their tanks over and around.

Dug deep into the Alsatian hills, these brutal piles of 1920’s military technology – built for 3 billion francs and among the largest public projects in France since the construction of the Gothic cathedrals – are derided by history as a strategic failure, because they were rendered irrelevant by the German circumvention.

Yet consider the success -- in terms, the Line did its job. It was evaded, rather than destroyed by direct attack; surrendered largely whole, rather than bombarded; and only thereafter abandoned by government to the effects of rust, decay and amateur tourism.

It’s much the same for the modern-era audit report: Conceived in an earlier and simpler time, oriented to the avoidance of problems no longer meaningful, and now ignored by aggressors with superior tools in their armory. Consuming vast sums of defensive budgets, engaging battalions of trained and expensive manpower in an endeavor of questionable value, and achieving no obvious deterrence against threats on a scale of systemic corporate collapse.

Life for the French garrisons would have been misery: cramped underground in caves of steel and concrete; enclosed by machinery, ducts and wiring; ventilators struggling with the confluent mixture of petrol, dangerous explosives and close human quarters. Happily, except for times of drills and alerts, they were often able to emerge into the French forests, to hunt the birds and rabbits that relieved their military rations. 

Contrast the modern audit engagement team – inflicting vast costs on their clients for a marginal purpose, toiling away to tick the boxes required by Sarbanes/Oxley and its equivalents, facing a hostile world through the narrow visor of inflexible reporting requirements and a crude and outmoded arsenal of opinion language, and exposed to being out-flanked or over-run without warning by antagonists of superior mobility and strategic imagination.

Just as the Maginot Line proved its worth as a sublimely ironic success against invasion that never came, the current audit report stands as a bulwark effective only against the kind of assaults about which no one cares.

Instead, just as the hapless French troops were obliged to surrender without a struggle when overtaken from the rear, the modern system of assurance has been revealed as dug in and powerless against such invasive forces as the exotic financial derivatives of the credit crisis or the guerrilla tactics of a Bernie Madoff or an Alan Stanford.

And to what end? The metaphor can be pressed one step further. By surrendering the Maginot Line’s indefensible position, the French cut losses that would otherwise have been catastrophic, and survived to be joined by their allies in a strategic re-grouping.

As with supplanting the dimly mis-guided André Maginot, can the regulators find in their weary ranks the likes of a Churchill or Roosevelt or DeGaulle?

Cometh the hour, cometh the man? The future of the profession can only hope.  

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please feel free to share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, please sign on at the Main page – easy, free and non-commercial.

A Scandal Erupts in Islamic Finance: The Algosaibi / Saad Dispute -- And is Anyone Surprised?

An exchange of lawsuits escalated late last month between Saudi Arabia’s Algosaibi family companies and the Saad group’s Maan al-Sanea.

Misappropriations rising to $10 billion are claimed, based on an alleged series of foreign exchange transactions in a workers’ remittance unit, by which riyal-for-dollars deals were rolled over and diverted through the use of forged documents and phony confirmations (here).

At the end of last week, a court in the Cayman Islands even presumed to order a worldwide asset freeze against al-Sanea (here) – an exercise of jurisprudential hubris worthy of the Grand Duchy of Fenwick in Peter Seller’s 1959 “Mouse That Roared.”

So another prediction promptly comes good: my call on June 8 – here – that “accounting scams pose risks to Sharia finance.”

From allegations in a New York court filing, the basics of my predictions are confirmed:

•    With lawsuits proliferating in the US and the UK, by bankers exposed on the debt securities of both sides of the Saudi feud, another multi-national financial scandal spreads across a borderless world of disputes.

•    The securities of both the Saad group and the Algosaibis – “sukuk” in the Sharia-compliant terminology – are trading at default levels, despite the demand for compliance with Islamic law, that repayment be assured by way of especially-designated collateral.

•    And so, as the spiritual basis for Islamic finance is overcome by the victims’ drive for secular accountability, the illusory pretense that “we’re different” and “it’s not done that way here” give way again, in the Gulf as it has elsewhere throughout history, when the veils of naïveté and denial are torn away.

One aspect yet to emerge from the Islamic dust-up is the finger-pointing at the gatekeepers. With aggressive advocates now driving claims that the string of unfulfilled financial commitments extended over four years, it is to be expected that the questions will be pursued: “Where were the lawyers?” and “Where were the auditors?”

Which will make for ominous times among the professionals.

The July 11 criminal conviction of Chicago lawyer Joseph Collins, for his role in the transactions by which now-jailed Refco chief Philip Bennett fleeced his shareholders and investors, puts a darkened color to the on-going civil litigation exposure of both lawyers Mayer Brown and accountants Grant Thornton.

And it appears that David Friehling, held out as Bernie Madoff’s long-time auditor, is in negotiations for a criminal plea deal – although in context of the 150-year sentence dealt out to Madoff himself, a deal would seem unlikely unless it spares Friehling the greater part of the maximum 105 years he faces.

For an informative if unsurprisingly defensive apologia for Mr. Collins, from a fellow lawyer, see here.

The Collins conviction may signal a new era of exposure for the bar, considering that their brethren among the accountants have been unsuccessful for years in selling the “pure heart – empty head” defense. The lawyers have long relied on their client privilege and a jealousy-guarded “duty of advocacy” behind which to manufacture and supply the tools of felonious monkey business. But if the duties and accountability of the two professions are seeming to converge, as the Friehling negotiations and the Collins verdict would suggest, the lawyers’ pain will be palpable.

Meanwhile -- from Refco to Madoff to Saad/Algosaibi, commodities options to Ponzi-style fictions to Sharia-based forex -- the repetitive pattern of window-dressed accounts that serve to conceal the predations of the principals -- facilitated or over-looked by those chargeable with detection and prevention oversight – continues to roll around the globe.

And only one thing is knowable for certain: the latest Saudi mis-adventure – immediate proof that Islamic finance is no more virtuous or scandal-proof than its Western equivalents – will not be the last.

Thanks for joining this dialog. Your reactions and suggestions are most welcome. Please share with your friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign up at the Main page -- easy, free and non-commercial. 

 

A Summer Lull for the Accountants? Sez Who?

We ought by rights to be in the summer doldrums – those still doing real jobs are taking a break in the country or at the beach, and the rest are hunkered down till the headhunters come back to town in the fall. But there’s a sudden flurry of attention and activity around the world of the large accounting firms.

And while human societies are good at generating coincidental events that don’t really add up to a pattern, a little reflection indicates some possible common threads:

Item: Joining the expanding list of observers giving scrutiny to the business models and exposures of the large audit firms, comes the launch of Breaking Media’s new blog, “Going Concern” – dedicated, says its introduction, to “making accounting sexy.”

Well, maybe. Many of the large firms’ wounds are indeed self-inflicted. Still, snarky tabloid gossip that trades on the displays of venality and shortness of leadership vision will not advance the search for solutions to the profession’s lessening relevance and doubtful survivability. The issues are too nuanced and multi-faceted for that.      

But if it is facile to deliver easy jabs, even the kings of lore and legend engaged their court fools, so that hard truths could be wrapped in the wisdom of a laugh or two.

So welcome to Caleb Newquist’s new effort. Godspeed, and let the dialog expand. 

Item: The incongruous conjoining of “sexy” and “auditor” in the same sentence does seem like an effort for the scriptwriters of Monty Python -- proved again by the publicity last week around the presentation by Audit Analytics, “Accounting Professional Liability: Scorecards and Commentary.”

Variously describing the large firms’ litigation exposures as “a serious and growing problem,” or more gravely as “a breathtaking number,” the data for the Big Four firms should be a splash of cold water to awaken on the gravity of their exposure threat -- but in fact have yet to reach the level of public consciousness sufficient to kick-start a serious debate on the threatened viability of the large firms’ basic assurance franchise.   

Not that life is any more pleasant beneath the Big Four level:

Item: Up in the normally understated Scandinavian territory of Minneapolis, the McGladrey Pullen firm’s attempt to extricate itself from its entangled business venture with H&R Block and the RSM network was promptly met with a retaliatory lawsuit (here).

Among the more subtle lessons learnable from the break-up of the Andersen organization and the departure of its consulting practice to become Accenture was the potential for the distraction of management time, focus and strategy.

In that case the cleavage between practices made for at least reasonable clarity in the allocation of personnel, systems, methodology and real estate. Whereas in the McGladrey/RSM context, by contrast, reverse-engineering their constituent practices into separate and discrete post-divorce portions will be a little like manufacturing tomato juice by starting with V-8.    

Item: On the BDO front, where the Seidman firm in the United States faces the survival challenge of the adverse jury verdict of $521 million in the Bankest matter in Miami (here), the network’s UK form, Stoy Hayward, announced last week its process for making redundant a full 10% of its partners (here).

Even in good times the strategy is fraught with peril of “shrinking to success.” And here, a decimation of the crowd whistling past the litigation graveyard might be thought to leave the survivors even a little more lonely and anxious. Although BDO’s international firm has been relieved of legal exposure to the Bankest verdict, it is hard to see how an organization in down-sizing mode is thereby made more robust against the business challenge of a devastating financial shock to its US firm.

Item: And back at the biggest firms, the announcements of shortened work weeks, employee furloughs and deferred job offers continue apace – hardly the brightest news for anyone concerned for the gold content of the litigation eggs sought for gathering by investor plaintiffs from the Big Four geese.

Much ink is being spilled in the search for trends and indicators in the profession’s lawsuit case count – noted above – but the exercise in fruitless and misleading. The profession itself has consistently mis-analyzed its fundamental risks, by taking the approach of “we dodged that bullet, and we still do lots of good work.”

The inductive flaw is basic: it’s not the average settlement amounts or the successful engagements that are deadly, or the close calls that are survived. So long as worst-case auditor exposures are measured in the billions of dollars, by legal and regulatory systems that pit unachievable standards against the firms’ inevitable lapses in performance quality, the Big Four and their smaller brethren as well will be hostage to the one last explosion that will start the final destructive chain reaction.

So let the media commentaries roll on. But let at least some of it treat serious issues with the gravity deserved. 

Thanks for joining this discussion. Please share with your friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign on at the Main page -- easy, free and non-commercial.