Re:Balance -- Jim Peterson

Catastrophe for the Audit Firms ... and the Talk Goes On, and On, and On ....

Did anyone really think that the endless chatter about saving the system of privately-provided audits for large global companies would come to anything?

If so, that fantasy was dispelled on June 3, in the closing minutes of the latest meeting of the U.S. Treasury’s Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession – webcast here. In his summation, Co-Chairman Don Nicholaisen explicitly stated that, with an insubstantial exception, the Committee’s recommendations “do not address catastrophic risk” of the loss of the Big Four.

Why not? The Committee’s very mission is to “examine the sustainability of a strong and vibrant auditing profession” – here.

But if its members cannot face the potential for catastrophic failure of the Big Four, the Committee is serving no purpose. None of its other minutely examined but anodyne topics of inquiry – such as tweaking the standard for fraud detection or probing yet again the criteria for an accounting degree – will have any effect when another Big Four firm’s collapse takes down the entire business model.

Those durable enough for the entire webcast observed that the civility level of the dialog was frayed and degrading, even while the members spent the day largely talking past each other:

•    Testimony from the Big Four and the insurance industry provided the count of death-threat litigations: 27 cases with damage exposures above $1 billion, of which 7 exceeded $10 billion – with the estimated total between $100 and $140 billion. The large firms cling to their tactically sound but politically tone-deaf refusal to offer comprehensive data on their own financial condition, but the litigation potential to overwhelm their partners’ limited capital is unrebutted.

•    A committee member with a union background took the position that loss of another large accounting firm was an acceptable risk, asserting a risk comparison between an audit partner and a coal miner or a police officer. What he omitted was that while no single actor could threaten the entirety of the coal industry or the justice system, one more blown audit on the scale of an Enron or a WorldCom could end the deliverability of audits as known for 160 years.

•    Former SEC chief accountant and persistent critic of the profession, Lynn Turner, showed his hostility to the option of liability protection with the ring of a jury argument: “Do you believe that an auditor found to have been aware of financial reporting problems but never reporting them to the public should be the subject of liability caps or some type of litigation reform protecting them?” Yet Turner’s position that “this is about regulating a federally mandated and authorized cartel,” involving a “too big to fail” condition where market forces no longer work, is perilously close to a concession of how bleak the future is.

•    Committee member Gary Previts, historian of the profession and professor of accounting at Case Western University, put it in an academic’s genteel way: “I have often wondered if we aren’t trying to fix a business model … that is not subject to being fixed … if you started with a blank sheet of paper, whether we’d be organized the way we are today?”

The position that the Big Four must be left exposed to risks so dire that they could fail, clashes with the large firms’ showing of their inability to staunch the outflow of their limited resources in settlements of cases too large and dangerous to take to trial.

Further – so far as the availability of large company audits assumes the viability of the large audit firms themselves -- it is in conflict with the simultaneous view that the assurance function is so vital to investor interests that it must be preserved. Yet that is the very theme sounded in October 2007 by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in launching the Committee – that “a vibrant auditing profession is essential for a well-functioning financial reporting system (here).”   

So what is needed is a different cliché.

It’s not that the Big Four are “too big to fail.” Life is no safer for the survivors since the 2002 demise of the Andersen firm. They can fail. And the Committee’s co-chairman has now admitted that nothing is on the table to save them.

Rather, despite the lip service paid to the importance of audits to the capital markets, the regulators and politicians are themselves “too weak to stop failure.”

Put another way, those sincerely believing in the importance of large-company assurance are avoiding an election between two unappealing choices: Either put every effort to assure that the Big Four are insulated from the very catastrophic risks that the critics insist they must remain exposed to, or start the process of designing the new audit model that must arise after the collapse of the Big Four under the abdication of the Treasury Committee and its counterparts.

In the loud clanging of the Committee’s cognitive dissonance is the tolling of its usefulness. Chairman Nicholaisen’s concession of futility in the face of catastrophic risk says as much.

So the most the Committee can do is declare its one achievement – the comprehensive laying out of mutually-defeating antagonistic positions – and spare further contribution to the global level of greenhouse gasses.

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.

Insurance to Save the Auditors -- Yet Another Non-Starter

This column was originally published in the IHT on August 27, 2005. With other related work in the pipeline, I pick it up now mainly for archival reference, although -- with apologies for the anachronisms --  it remains just as current today as it was then.

Plot Twist Hits Reality

This has been a good summer for melodrama. First, there was Steven Spielberg's film "War of the Worlds," with its specter of alien invaders. Then there was "Attack of the Giant Liabilities," with the mega-settlements paid by banks in the Enron case - and the prospect of more to come in the cases of Parmalat, AIG and others.

The movie's hero was Tom Cruise. No similar savior exists for the Big Four accounting firms, beset by performance worries, liability overhang and structural threats to the viability of their core product, the standard audit.

But as part of a healthy debate over the future of the profession, a proposal was floated in July by a fellow columnist, Joseph Nocera of The New York Times -- here: Corporations would buy an optional "audit insurance," which their insurance companies would issue after a new and separate form of audit examination. This new coverage would, in theory, protect shareholders from losses resulting from faulty auditing.

An entertaining idea. But is it realistic? A few questions to explore:

Are there accounting firms available to do this new work?

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators are not willingly going to surrender their requirements for standard audit reports, so companies would have to find a second accounting firm with the skills and resources to perform the new audit. That, by definition, means another member of the Big Four: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, Deloitte & Touche and KPMG.

The problem is that most Big Four clients - after eliminating their current auditor and any firms of which they are consulting clients - will find there is at best only one other firm eligible to bid for new work. This was shown last autumn when Fannie Mae had nowhere to go but Deloitte after firing KPMG. The choice, already poor, threatens to become irreducible.

What about personnel?

The Big Four firms are already operating flat out, to the point of staff abuse, under the burden of work required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Law, and they are hiring workers as best they can to replace those they chew up. It is not a recipe for success to think that they could ramp up further, to perform a new, high-value service with workers hired from the next lower level of education and professional competence.

If the current audit firms took on a new role, what additional work would they do?

Auditors today already put their reputations and their survival on the line by issuing opinions that financial statements are free of material error. There simply is no more or different work they are competent to do - either to bolster that opinion, to manage their overhanging catastrophic litigation exposure, or to entice the insurance companies. Because if there were, they would be doing it.

Would the numbers work out?

As Nocera recognized, the problem is one of scale. Audit insurance would never cover an Enron-like debacle - namely, investor losses from a $67 billion bankruptcy. But in positing that the new coverage would be more than enough for shareholder losses from bad audit news, he misses two key points.

First, in the U.S. legal system the auditor can now be held liable for 100 percent of all investor losses, even in a large-scale debacle like Enron. Second, whether or not a shareholder suit ever comes to trial, the escalating size of the pretrial settlements - like those of the banks in Enron and WorldCom - threatens to eat up the accounting firms' total capital.

In other words, an incremental addition of small-scale insurance is a proposed solution for the wrong problem. It's the mega-cases, the ones threatening to kill the Big Four, that are running amok through the current legal system and its puny arsenal of defenses.

Would the insurers want to play?

The popular perception is that insurance capital is a rainbow pot of infinite size. The truth is that the role of insurance as a risk-spreading intermediary is constrained by competing demands on its limited capacity. The insurers, burned by a generation of bad experience, have already looked at the auditors' exposure and are devoting their resources to more predictably quantifiable disasters - like hurricanes and airplane crashes.

Audits of real value to investors can be done - but only with realistic and achievable standards, at higher cost, and with tolerable liability limits. The chances of getting there, with the engagement of all the necessary players, may be as unlikely as an invasion of aliens. The process has just begun.

The Accountancy Regulators -- Motion Is Not Progress

My last post, critical of the proposal from the SEC’s Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting for a “judgment framework” for accounting and audit decision-making, generalizes across the lack of substantive debate on the difficult state of financial reporting and the auditors’ threatened assurance franchise.

More public meetings are on the calendar – specifically, the US Treasury’s Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession meets on March 13 (here), the CiFIR itself meets the next day (here), and the US Chamber of Commerce's Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness holds its next annual summit on March 26 (here). The hot-air potential is high -- the optimism level is not. A catalog of inter-related issues remain completely unresolved, without any visible progress against an agenda laid out in this still-relevant column that ran in the IHT on April 22, 2006:   

Solutions That Are Not

There's no finding solutions without a proper focus on the problems. Think of the guy in the dark of night, searching under the street lamp for his keys. The beat cop asks, "If you say they were lost over in that dark alley, why are you looking here?"

"Because the light's better here," the poor guy responds.

Which pretty much describes the January, 2006 report of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, joining the dialog on the survivability of the large accounting firms under the stunningly obvious title, "Auditing: A Profession At Risk" -- here.

With its heart in quite the right place, the group says "action must be taken" so that companies might retain "access to high-quality, reasonably priced auditing services."

Whereupon, sadly, the report loses its focus and its way, bumping dimly down the dark streets from one missed opportunity to another.

Here are six of them:

First, the chamber gamely recognizes that the audit profession has become effectively uninsurable in the face of litigation costs that threaten immediate destruction of partners' limited capital and their long-term inability to hire and retain personnel.

Yet its limp observation that legal reform "may be needed" misses the crucial point. Auditor insurability requires the ability to predict, quantify and limit the insured risk - conditions impossible to fulfill under unlimited liability hazards.

Second, the chamber repeats the familiar if unhelpful refrain that auditors should not be held liable for failure to detect or prevent cleverly designed collusive fraud.

That's fine, as far as it goes. But what about the many corporate frauds that aren't that clever or well concealed, but that repeat shenanigans perpetrated for generations? And what about all the "fraud" that consists of aggressive use of permissive accounting standards set under the influence of corporate interests themselves?

Also, what about auditors who, faced with a crushing liability overhang, are forced to settle their mega-cases without going to trial?

Third, the chamber proposes that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the U.S. industry regulator, should promulgate a "safe harbor" standard for fraud detection, to protect the auditors if they can show they fulfilled steps issued by a bureaucracy.

Yet it is this very "check the box" approach to the control assurance requirements that is the Achilles heel of the Sarbanes-Oxley law. Companies whose stock trades on U.S. exchanges, and therefore must register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, are furious at the escalated cost and diminished effectiveness of auditor performance because of the Sarbanes-Oxley requirements - to the point of avoiding or fleeing U.S. listings altogether if they can.

Fourth, the chamber serves its own broad constituency of small businesses by suggesting that the audit profession's doubtful viability is not helpful to new companies that may be innovative but unfamiliar to the capital markets.

Trouble is, that's not where the real threats lie. It's not the unknowns with the biggest and most costly claims in this decade, but household names: Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Xerox and Parmalat.

Fifth, understandably exercised over the mortal blow of the indictment of Arthur Andersen over its work for Enron, the chamber calls for legislation to "rein in" the process of indicting whole enterprises.

Here the problem is that unless world trade and commerce unexpectedly achieve an as-yet unknown state of grace, society will expect its law enforcement officers to indict and prosecute where indicated by the facts.

Sixth, the chamber joins a chorus of concern over the shrinkage down to the Big Four, who together audit virtually all of the world's largest companies. But the relocation to smaller firms of non-audit work is once again off point: Those are not statutory compliance services, where the real legal risks and fatal exposures lie.

To be fair, though, the chamber may be so turned around because it started from a faulty bearing - that auditing is central to public confidence in the capital markets. When the next big auditor disintegrates amid litigation, it will become obvious that the delivery of services by a noble profession in the process of collapse will not be something anyone will be able to preserve.

In the small pool of light cast in this darkness, that much is right out in plain sight.