Re:Balance -- Jim Peterson

Which Large Accounting Firm Will Be "Next to Fail"? It's the Wrong Question

When was there ever so concentrated a burst of public speculation on “which Big 4 audit firm is the next to fail”?

Within a single week, Accountancy Age predicted it would be Ernst & Young; in the blogosphere, Francine McKenna’s wager with Dennis Howlett fingered her ex-employer and bête noire, PwC; and ProPublica reached into the remains of the second tier to round on McGladrey and BDO.

All for very serious reasons, ample to cause sleepless nights among the profession’s leaders. But the voyeuristic speculation as to “which one” is a pointless and mis-directed exercise, because each of these firms – but also Deloitte and KPMG, and Grants too, for good measure – faces multiple overhanging threats on a mortal scale.

All the chambers are loaded in this losers’ game of Russian roulette. So it is an unanswerable question, where the weapon may be pointing when the hammer falls next. It’s also an irrelevant query, too – because it depends entirely on the judges’ docket management on Parmalat, Satyam, New Century, AIG, Bankest, Refco, Sentinel, the Madoff feeders and all the other ticking time bombs.

Instead, the real question should be, “What next?”

On this, for grown-up dialog to occur, two fundamental misconceptions – both lurking in the Accountancy Age article – have to be killed off, once-for-all:

The first is that the large firms’ survival will somehow be assured by government, on the assertion that global-scale companies “will invariably have a legal requirement for an audit.”

If there is any logic here, it is seriously inverted. The regulators long ago conceded that they would be powerless to stop the disintegration of a large firm that reached a tipping point – here and here. Further, when that next step takes down the other three, and unravels the entire suppliers’ market, legislative mandates that there be audits would be as futile as a requirement that all trains be hauled by steam locomotives. No more suppliers: no delivery. Period.

The second fallacy, conspicuous even in an article that displays a truly stunning lack of comprehension of the profession’s structural issues, is that a Big Three would survive the loss of a fourth.

Won’t happen. The uneven concentrations of industry expertise around the world’s large economies, the politically-imposed constraints on auditor choice, and the post-Andersen fragility of the international networks are alone sufficient to show that the Big Four are already down to an irreducible tipping point. One more, and they all go.

While no insider will say so in public, senior risk managers acknowledge that in the coming turmoil of another Big Four failure, the prospect that three survivors would stay in today’s business by accepting further concentration of exposure and liability will be untenable.

That a fundamental re-structuring of the profession will occur is beyond debate – and is nothing new – although answers will only lie in the readiness of all interested parties to get past the posturing to offer constructive, achievable solutions.

Trouble is, none of the critics have either the vision or the authority to lead. There is no available government intervention, to “save” a privately-capitalized Big Four partnership once slipped into a death spiral – here. Nor can the large firms’ collective survival be enabled by statutory requirements that there be audits; if a firm goes down and takes the others, it is as futile as King Canute’s attempt to order the tides, to require delivery of an audit report when the providers are all out of business.

The only alternative to a highly-disruptive disintegration of the large firm networks – and a long shot wager indeed, requiring the most wild optimism to imagine – would be the emergence of Big Four leadership prepared to engage, for the sake of their future, in the “creative destruction” brought forward in 1942 by economist Joseph Schumpeter:

•    To forswear the currently outmoded auditors’ report, which provides no value to the market and is toxic to the sustainability of the firms’ business model.

•    To cut to the heart of the critics’ animosity, by the deep finesse of voluntarily turning the task of issuing low-value “compliance assurance” over to nationalized agencies.

•    To allow the capital and investor markets to ascribe to “compliance audits,” performed by huge cadres of conscripted civil servants, the nominal value they would deserve.

•    To empower the surviving firms to invent, sell and deliver new forms of assurance that companies will buy, and the markets will pay for, under sustainable limits on liability and free of the life-threatening legal exposures as wielded by the class action plaintiffs.

•    To break the antiquated shackles of the compliance-driven limitations of “independence,” so as to build or acquire whatever professional services capabilities may be congruent with the new forms of assurance – whether in systems or technology consulting, finance, law or otherwise.

Starting down such a road would require envisioning an entirely new set of directions for the profession – beginning with the acknowledgment that the current race is going around a one-way track to a dead end. 

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

Another Blow to Limited Auditor Liability -- A Non-Surprise from the SEC

As reported in the on-line Financial Times for March 10 – here – the Securities and Exchange Commission has declared that financial statements are unacceptable for US purposes, where UK companies have followed that country’s recent rules permitting negotiated agreements for the proportionate liability of their auditors.

The only surprise about the SEC’s position – which effectively slams the door on the world’s only remotely influential action affecting the large auditors’ deadly litigation exposure – is that it took so long to arrive.

The British initiative was uncertain enough from the outset, but was bound to be dead on arrival. It is not just that Washington’s attitude toward British rule has been revolting since 1776. London had every reason to see the SEC’s hostility right out in broad daylight.

For as I wrote last July – here – the new UK rules were “hostage to the unremitting hostility of the SEC to any attempts to reduce unlimited auditor liability exposure, as well as the uncertain application by US judges of limits contracted under foreign laws.”

Since the 1860’s, when Mr. Deloitte himself led the Victorian-era pioneers of independent audit in fighting off potential government take-over of their newly defined function, the principle has been established that auditor engagement and payment directly by clients were acceptable.

Despite endless futile debates since, no intellectually certain or solid basis has emerged upon which to measure the elusive and ever-shifting “appearance” of impaired independence (see here). So the SEC’s passionate history of opposition to auditor liability limits is matched only by its irrationality.

Which should be a signal to the stiff upper lips in London, whose fallback proposal is to seek the same package via British legislation: Forget it. Fold the hand.

Because the SEC is not about to accept limitation agreements, even in the doubtful case that the UK profession might succeed in shepherding an enabling law through Parliament, it is an immovable opponent. So move on to something productive.

Trans-Atlantic struggles over conflicting regulatory schemes are the common stuff of impasse. Look only at the state of extra-territorial examinations by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, still close to immobilized, nearly seven years after the passage of Sarbanes/Oxley, by cross-border conflicts over secrecy laws and client confidentiality. Or listen to the inflamed rhetoric with which UBS is opposing the identity disclosure of 25,000 of its clients – banking secrecy being one of the few topics to arouse observable dudgeon among the phlegmatic Swiss, even with the early signs of reluctant easing.

More importantly, even a UK “success” would be hollow. Proportionate auditor liability – along with its companion, monetary liability caps – are both politically unachievable in the US and, in any event, are ineffectual to solve the fundamental problem, namely the crying fragility of the auditors’ financial capacity to answer litigation claims of death-blow magnitude.

The capital structure of the Big Four partners can be calculated to have upper limits on a worst big case of under $2 billion – here. Yet the size of the recent failures that embroil the auditors extend from the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, where with $635 billion of assets there is an estimated quarter-trillion dollar recovery shortfall, to the ever-shifting $50 or $67 billion involving the feeder funds to now-jailed Bernard Madoff – and lists of other claims, complex to maintain but readily accessible (here). 

With those numbers over-hanging, no reasonable Big Four chief executive could with confidence send a team of trial lawyers into court, with the life of his firm in their hands, but depending for survival on achieving a jury’s fault allocation at a percentage in the low single digits.

So – taking note of the dictionary definition of a chimera as “an impossible or foolish fancy” – the SEC’s entrenched if churlish animosity should inspire the large audit firms to re-deploy the well intentioned but misdirected resources they have devoted to this futile exercise.

For the large firms, “liability caps” is a losing position – whether as skirmish, battle or campaign. Better to select a ground for change on which there is some non-zero possibility for success.  

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with your friends and colleagues. If not a subscriber, join by e-mail at the Home page – easy, free and non-commercial.

 

If the Banks are Nationalized -- Why not the Auditors?

I’ve been in a lively exchange with Francine McKenna (Re: The Auditors) – she of the stiletto heels and equally sharp tongue – especially about her tart message last week to Senate banking committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.):

“Demand PwC be fired as AIG’s auditors, and get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac auditors (Deloitte and PWC, respectively). Have the PCAOB audit them directly.”

Take Francine’s position (elaborated here) for discussion, without necessarily agreeing, that the Big Four should be stripped of their engagements for the large financial institutions subject to government rescue or take-over. At the heart of the concern: with all the Big Four carrying death-penalty litigation into the current mess, and all being targets of new mega-claims, there are no available private alternatives.

Her interesting view is that with Fannie and Freddie taken over – and with the government’s controlling interest in AIG and about to invest in nine of the country’s largest banks -- its interests and those of taxpayers are best looked after by a government-run audit function as well.

Expand the PCAOB’s current remit, she says, or create a new form of inspector general.

Despite a skeptical first reaction, this may be the plausible path to the re-engineering of the model of private assurance -- which I’ve been arguing (for example, here) is inevitable with a litigation-driven collapse of the Big Four themselves.

Here’s why:

First, Francine sees no problem in building a federal audit agency. Currently the PCAOB has 500 staff. To build a remotely credible capability, it would have to grow by orders of magnitude, at all experience levels and in world-wide locations. But personnel will be available: The wave of bank failures, bail-outs and mergers is drastically reducing the population of surviving institutions, so the net loss of clients among the Big Four is about to put small armies of bean-counters on the streets.

While it is depressing to think of the creation of yet another vast bureaucracy, the civil service manpower needed through the years of the trillion-dollar bailout reduces opposition to a quibble. It does require noting, however, that the hiring will be of those unable to migrate their stature and compensation in the private sector – namely, the superannuated and the second-rate – not exactly a recipe for staying ahead of a sector of mind-bending complexity.

It bears asking, also, how the concepts of independence and avoidance of conflicts could be squared with the appearance of one agency auditing another. But since the intellectually sound argument for “independence in fact” gave way decades ago with the rationalized acceptability of “client pays,” it would be an easy step to condone a cross-Washington audit function.

As for the questionable value in the market place of an report both by and for the government, the current one-page “pass-fail” audit report is already a no-value anachronism (see here), useful only for statutory compliance but of no useful purpose to investors. So it could as well be done by a collection of civil servants, with the diminished level of attention and respect it would deserve.

Government assumption of audit responsibility opens this tempting door:

Even under state ownership, the huge and complex financial institutions will have undiminished future needs for sophisticated and specialized assurance – in such areas as financial product design and evaluation, process execution and operational soundness – which the Big Four should be both able and enthusiastic to design and deliver.

Freed from delivery of low-value but litigation-laden audits, they should in reason be evolving their services -- only under contractual terms unburdened by the threat of investor claims.

To be sure, for the sake of transparency and accountability of public funds, the banks themselves might well choose to offer to the outside world the reports they would obtain from the Big Four (or the niche providers who would no doubt arise by spin-off or new growth) – but this would be under strict limitations of warranty and liability. 

Tasting both the potential stream of new revenue and the liability relief offered under such a model could be heady for the Big Four, who might well see the potential to extend the model across the entire spectrum of public companies.

In practice, they could tender to a new audit agency the keys to their now-outmoded franchise – thereby finally unshackling themselves from its unsustainable burden. By evolving into sources of real user value, they would escape the looming fate of catastrophic collapse.

Senator Dodd has not given Francine the courtesy of a response – which seems a little ungracious, for a politician savvy enough about the new media to run his own blog and subscribe to an instant message platform.

Especially when she has lit the fuse on an issue ripe for political leadership. By taking up this opportunity, under Dodd’s sponsorship, the large firms could be enabled to survive --- to re-design their assurance products, to re-discover relationships with their clients, and to restore their purpose. 

Thanks to readers for joining this dialog; your comments are welcome, and if not a subscriber you are invited to sign on at the Home page – easy, free and non-commercial.

The Future of Auditors as Gate-Keepers -- A Glossary of The Non-Solutions

Do investors get real value from their gate-keepers? It was a main question at a conference of international investment managers where I spoke last week.

This group -- who sit over funds across the spectrum from public employee and union pensions to hedge funds and private equity – had common concerns: corporate governance, ethics, compensation and performance, and the quality and reliability of the third-parties – the analysts, rating agencies and outside auditors.

On the subject of the auditors, I had a brief opportunity to offer this three-fold view – familiar enough to regular readers here, but beyond orthodoxy to many in the audience (and with thanks to Mark Cobley at Financial News Online for the uptake):

•    That the traditional form of auditor’s report is obsolete and provides no investor value, especially compared to the possible forms of assurance that are impossible under the current model -- here;

•    That the overwhelming pressures on the Big Four firms render their current business model unsustainable, and their litigation-based exposure makes disintegration inevitable, absent a radical and comprehensive re-engineering – here;

•    That the current dialog on achievable solutions is vapid and sterile, due to denial, blame-shifting and the limited vision of all of the interested constituencies -- here and here.

In the ensuing barrage of panelists’ skepticism, audience questions and post-session follow-up, I was challenged to answer in single sentences to all the standard one-dimensional “solutions” to the fragility of the current Big Four structure.

Bringing those exchanges together here, with links to their more extensive treatment elsewhere, seems worthwhile – even if only in sound-bite form: 

•    Q: Why isn’t the litigation threat to the Big Four well handled by insurance?

A: Having learned from the savings & loans in the 1980’s the expensive lesson that auditor liability fails the basic criteria for insurability – diversification, predictability and quantification – the insurance industry has voted with its feet -- here.  

•    Q: If lack of auditor choice is the issue, how about creating competitors by splitting up the Big Four?

A: For starters there’s no workable legal theory. Either industry and geographic expertise would stay concentrated, in which case nothing is achieved, or they would be so split up that today’s talent level would be severely diluted.

•    Q: Can’t the issue of Big Four concentration be solved by built-up competition from the smaller firms?

A: The size gap is just too large to bridge – see here – and the smaller firms are if anything even more at litigation risk – see here. Anyway, smart risk managers in those firms would avoid global-scale engagements for which they lack either the skills or the risk appetite.

•    Q: If the rules on audit firm ownership were relaxed, wouldn’t outside capital both strengthen the Big Four firms and support new competitors?

A: The Big Four don’t want or need extra capital to run as they do – here. And the bankers have shown they are smart enough not to sacrifice new money that would only fuel the litigation fires.

•    Q: How about improving audit quality by requiring the rotation of auditors?

A: Italy being the only large country to mandate changes in auditors, experience provides a one-word rebuttal: “Parmalat.”

•    Q: Doesn’t a system of joint or dual audit promote higher quality of performance?

A: Proponents in France, which has almost no history of auditor liability litigation, would quickly change their tune when joint auditors became subject to 100% joint and several liability in the courts of other countries.

•    Q: Isn’t the problem of impaired audit independence the fact that it’s the clients who pay the bills?

A: Consider the alternative: funding audits through an agency or regulator amounts to nationalization – and no one makes the case for audits by government civil servants. 

•    Q: How about caps on litigation liability – either money limits or percentage allocation of fault?

A: Because the size of claims arising out of large corporate failures so completely dwarfs the limited financial capability of the Big Four – here – the political process cannot set a survival bar so low as to ensure the stability of a large firm under serious litigation threat.  

•    Q: Wouldn’t performance standards based on principles rather than rules recognize the judgmental nature of auditing?

A: Standard-setters cannot reduce the liability threat, so long as it is courts and juries who assess auditor fault and liability, unless there is the readiness – so far unseen – to enact “safe harbors” to protect the auditors’ judgments.  

•    Q: If another Big Four firm were failing, couldn’t regulators waive the scope of service limitations so that another firm could step in?

A: Even if the large firms weren’t so ostracized already that this solution is politically untenable, they are already fully-stretched and without resource capacity, so that when another firm crashes, the three survivors could not possibly pick up the pieces out of the wreckage. 

•    Q: If another firm is threatened with disintegration, how about replacing its tainted management with a credible outsider?

Q: As shown by the failure of Arthur Andersen despite Paul Volcker’s well-meaning initiative, the speed and complexity of a disintegration would out-strip any outsider’s powers or resources – see here.   

•    Q: In the end, won’t the regulators act to prevent the collapse of another global audit firm?

A: There is no more candid response than the concession of William McDonough as he neared the end of his term as chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board: as to what the regulators would do about another disintegration threat, “they don’t have a clue.”

These are sound-bites only, as I said, and I may have missed a point or two. Either way this compilation should be a good reference point. Please don’t hesitate to write with your reactions and suggestions.

Independent Auditors' Reports -- If They're Obsolete, What's the Alternative?

On March 27 I posted an earlier column from the IHT -- here -- which suggested that the concept of auditor independence is providing no value to either auditors or users of financial information, but is worthy only to be scrapped. The follow-up column summarized broad reader concurrence, and opened the question what should replace the now-obsolete one page report.

Auditing on the Brink

Originally published in the International Herald Tribune on April 8, 2006

I recently put forth the argument that, because of the doubtful prospects for survival of the global accounting firms, the rules of auditor independence should be scrapped and the auditors freed to solicit whatever business they liked.

I expected to be treated as if I had impugned the combined athletic divinity of Pelé, Joe DiMaggio and Tiger Woods. But no, the responses were both positive and supportive. From a reader in Belgium, "Auditor independence is not only killing knowledge, it is killing business." From France, "Leaving ethics to the auditors' conscience should suffice."

To go the next step, a comment from Britain - "the key issues are the integrity of the auditor and the transparency and completeness of the audit conclusions" - pairs up with the poignant view of a retired partner in a Big Four global accounting firm that the code, rules and constraints of independence are worth preserving as "the very essence of what the auditors are selling."

But these views lie at the heart of the problem, which is the dirty little secret of the auditing game: The auditors' core product - the one- page report with its opinion that financial statements are fairly stated and free of material error - is providing no value to investors or other users. No one reads it or pays attention to it. If not for the deeply embedded compliance requirements of the securities regulators, no rational chief financial officer would engage outside auditors to produce it.

The presumptive value of the independent audit report, which has come down to us from the Victorian era, has been one of those Jeffersonian verities - manifest, unexamined and immune from critical challenge. But the evidence of its irrelevance is compelling.

The most sophisticated investors have long since stopped relying on audit reports. This is shown by the fact that, in the past 20 years, no lawsuits against auditors have been brought by the really smart guys - the venture capitalists, the managers of private equity or the financiers of leveraged recapitalizations. These users look at the cover of an annual report, yawn, and go about their real diligence.

Less sophisticated investors also ignore auditor reports, as shown by the complete disconnection, during the bubble years of the 1990s, between share values and audited financial results. Soaring share prices were supported by neither assets nor earnings under generally accepted accounting principles - nor, in time, even by revenue. The analysts herded their clients, and each other, down roads paved with airy business plans, empty promises and inflated expectations. At the point of collapse, the audit report provided only a ticket to the courthouse.

That audit work of real value could be delivered to users who would be prepared to pay handsomely is a proposition that deserves to be tested.

Here, off the top of my head, are examples of special audit reports that a savvy post-Enron chief financial officer would commission:

Focused attention, after Shell, on the procedures for evaluating petroleum reserves and the results of that evaluation.

Line-by-line scrutiny, after Parmalat and Bawag PSK, on the operations of Cayman Islands subsidiaries and Caribbean trading partners.

Detailed portfolio scrutiny, after Fannie Mae and American International Group, on complex financial instruments like derivatives and finite insurance.

Investment banks and investors in search of best-in-class assurance would line up for such information, and on contract terms that would eliminate ruinous auditor liability. And they would not give a tinker's damn for auditor independence. Their focus, and expectation, would be top qualifications and good-faith performance.

But not today. The combination of ossified compliance requirements, obsolete practice restrictions and runaway liability mean that auditors today could not sell such products even if they wanted to.

Those who pine for the days when an auditor earned broad professional respect by detailed examinations of the distinct items in corporate accounts are entitled to mourn. What they cannot avoid, however, even through the best-intentioned sentimental wishes, is the inevitable evolution that has taken the profession to the brink.

Valuable forms of financial statement assurance remain to be created and brought to market. What form the profession will take that will do so remains a vital question. The only certainty is that the structure will be different from the one that exists today.

Auditor Independence -- If There's No Value, What's the Point?

The latest example of finger-pointing in the credit market turmoil is the examiner’s report placing blame for the bankruptcy of subprime mortgage lender New Century Financial upon its auditor, KPMG. Released yesterday, and available here, the report echoes the drubbing that fell upon Andersen over Enron – a no-win subject for the auditors: “By which are you more corrupted – your breadth of client relationships, or your fee levels in general?”      

Public discussion is finally beginning to focus on the reality that the familiar model for auditor assurance on large-company financial statements is flawed to the point of requiring fundamental re-structuring. Especially in the absence of coherent and achievable solutions, however, one element deserving attention is the obsolete and over-valued concept of auditor independence.

So this column, originally published in the International Herald Tribune on March 24, 2006, retains its relevance.

Setting Free the Auditors

The American writer Dorothy Parker, who never shied from afflicting the comfortable, put it this way: "If you can't say something nice, come over and sit by me."

Parker would have been aghast at the self-congratulatory atmosphere among the regulators of the world's securities markets. According to them, the problem of dubious corporate accounting has been solved by strictly limiting the kinds of services the auditors can provide to clients.

There is nothing more sacred in auditor-client literature than the notion of auditor independence, which dates from the founding of the profession in the 19th century.

Yet with auditors today stumbling under the weight of litigation - each of the surviving Big Four accounting firms having a list of cases large enough to be fatal - this unexamined burden has become yet another millstone. And a proposed solution circulating in the halls of Washington - involving a waiver of the Sarbanes- Oxley rules limiting the scope of auditor services to clients - is a political nonstarter.

So I say it is time to stop making nice and to discard a 150-year-old piece of conventional wisdom. The concept of auditor independence does not serve the interests of investors.

Audit performance - and more immediately, the survival of the large firms to serve their global clients and the capital markets - would be better achieved if the current independence requirements and constraints were scrapped altogether.

Auditors should be free to provide their clients with any services within their skills. The only thing that should be required is comprehensive disclosure of all relationships, to be evaluated and decided by the voting power of the marketplace.

Some will be scandalized by the suggestion that the sacred cow of auditor independence should be led off and humanely put out of its misery. But there's a reason it should be done.

Regulators confess to being clueless about what will happen when the next of the Big Four accounting networks disintegrates under the combined pressures of hostile law enforcement and overwhelming shareholder litigation. (Think it can't happen? After Enron and Arthur Andersen - and the $456 million fine over questionable tax shelters paid by KPMG to escape indictment? It's Russian roulette out there, and the gun is full of bullets.)

The purest argument for driving the profession back to audit-only basics has always been that as clients pay the fees, for services of any type, auditor independence is inevitably subject to compromise.

But to finish that thought, in a system so inherently subject to corruption, auditors should never take any fees from their clients. So who will pay? Inserting a government-run fee and license structure amounts to nationalizing the audit function - an idea that figures nowhere in rational dialogue. And there are no other volunteers around.

Likewise, the argument that consulting fees corrupted auditor behavior was always a bit stretched. Heady as that stream of revenue was, it was the money itself, not the source. It could be said, in fact, that auditors who depend on audit fees alone are under even more pressure to accommodate client wishes. And whenever that accommodation has turned ugly - Andersen's travails with Enron being only the most egregious example - it's the firms that pay. As recent history shows, they have neither the reputation nor the capital to bear the terrible cost.

Clearly, the accountants garner neither respect nor liability protection by complying with these enforced codes of independence. They, and their clients, would deliver better value if audits were based on a comprehensive understanding of and involvement with the business. In other words, auditors need to be closer to their clients, not farther away.

Who better to ensure that financial statements are free of error than a professional who designs, installs, operates and maintains the system that accounts for the transactions of an enterprise - the very services from which today's auditors are barred?

This does not dismiss the importance of accountability or of oversight. Regulators have their place - but only under systems of liability that address the reality of today's deadly threats.