Did Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibnitz Plagiarize?
Dr George Gheverghese Joseph from The University of
Manchester says the 'Kerala School' identified the 'infinite series'- one of the
basic components of calculus - in about 1350. The discovery is currently - and
wrongly - attributed in books to Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibnitz at the
end of the seventeenth centuries. The team from the Universities of Manchester
and Exeter reveal the Kerala School also discovered what amounted to the Pi
series and used it to calculate Pi correct to 9, 10 and later 17 decimal places.
And there is strong circumstantial evidence that the Indians passed on their
discoveries to mathematically knowledgeable Jesuit missionaries who visited
India during the fifteenth century. That knowledge, they argue, may have
eventually been passed on to Newton himself. Dr Joseph made the revelations
while trawling through obscure Indian papers for a yet to be published third
edition of his best selling book 'The Crest of the Peacock: the Non-European
Roots of Mathematics' by Princeton University Press.
"Indians predated Newton 'discovery' by 250 years ," PhysOrg, August 14,
2007 ---
http://physorg.com/news106238636.html
Bob Jensen's threads on
plagiarism are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Plagiarism.htm
Question
Guess which parents most
strongly object to grade
inflation?
Hint: Parents Say Schools
Game System, Let Kids
Graduate Without Skills
The Bredemeyers represent a
new voice in special
education: parents
disappointed not because
their children are failing,
but because they're passing
without learning. These
families complain that
schools give their children
an easy academic ride
through regular-education
classes, undermining a new
era of higher expectations
for the 14% of U.S. students
who are in special
education. Years ago,
schools assumed that
students with disabilities
would lag behind their
non-disabled peers. They
often were taught in
separate buildings and left
out of standardized testing.
But a combination of two
federal laws, adopted a
quarter-century apart, have
made it national policy to
hold almost all children
with disabilities to the
same academic standards as
other students.
John Hechinger and Daniel
Golden, "Extra Help:
When Special Education Goes
Too Easy on Students,"
The Wall Street Journal,
August 21, 2007, Page A1 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118763976794303235.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
Bob Jensen's threads on
grade inflation are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Assess.htm#GradeInflation
Dirty Tricks Played on
Job Seekers
Job
hunters using Monster.com,
the employment Web site
owned by Monster Worldwide,
received fake job offers by
e-mail that asks for their
Bank of America account
information. The e-mail
contains personal
information collected when
hackers tricked Monster.com
customers into downloading a
virus in a fake job-seeking
tool, according to
researchers at Symantec, the
world's biggest maker of
security software.
Rochelle Garner, "Monster.com
Users Get Fake Offers And
Request," The Washington
Post, August 23, 2007,
Page D04 ---
Click Here
Question
Where are the next frontiers of installing malicious viruses on your computer?
What video sites are the most likely places to catch these bad viruses?
Answer
Since email users have become more cautious about opening email, the next
frontiers are bound to be popular downloads outside of email. These include
videos and wikis. The most likely place to catch these bad viruses are porn
sites, particularly the many porn sites maintained by Russians and former
Eastern Bloc countries. But there are many other dangerous porn sites as well.
"Online video players could become new vehicle for malicious code," MIT's
Technology Review, October 2, 2007 ---
http://www.technologyreview.com/Wire/19469/?nlid=578
Online videos aren't
just for bloopers and
rants -- some might also
be conduits for
malicious code that can
infect your computer.
As
anti-spam technology
improves, hackers are
finding new vehicles to
deliver their malicious
code. And some could be
embedded in online video
players, according to a
report on Internet
threats released Tuesday
by the Georgia Tech
Information Security
Center as it holds its
annual summit.
The summit is gathering
more than 300 scholars
and security experts to
discuss emerging threats
for 2008 -- and their
countermeasures.
Among their biggest foes
are the ever-changing
vehicles that hackers
use to deliver
''malware,'' which can
silently install
viruses, probe for
confidential info or
even hijack a computer.
''Just as we see an
evolution in messaging,
we also see an evolution
in threats,'' said Chris
Rouland, the chief
technology officer for
IBM Corp.'s Internet
Security Systems unit
and a member of the
group that helped draft
the report. ''As
companies have gotten
better blocking e-mails,
we see people move to
more creative
techniques.''
With computer users
getting wiser to e-mail
scams, malicious hackers
are looking for sneakier
ways to spread the
codes. Over the past few
years, hackers have
moved from sending their
spam in text-based
messages to more devious
means, embedding them in
images or disguised as
Portable Document
Format, or PDF, files.
''The next logical step
seems to be the media
players,'' Rouland said.
There have only been a
few cases of
video-related hacking so
far.
One worm discovered in
November 2006 launches a
corrupt Web site without
prompting after a user
opens a media file in a
player. Another program
silently installs
spyware when a video
file is opened.
Attackers have also
tried to spread fake
video links via postings
on YouTube.
That reflects the
lowered guard many
computer users would
have on such popular
forums.
''People are accustomed
to not clicking on
messages from banks, but
they all want to see
videos from YouTube,''
Rouland said.
Another soft spot
involves social
networking sites, blogs
and wikis. These
community-focused sites,
which are driving the
next generation of Web
applications, are also
becoming one of the
juiciest targets for
malicious hackers.
Computers surfing the
sites silently
communicate with a Web
application in the
background, but hackers
sometimes secretly embed
malicious code when they
edit the open sites, and
a Web browser will
unknowingly execute the
code. These chinks in
the armor could let
hackers steal private
data, hijack Web
transactions or spy on
users.
Tuesday's forum gathers
experts from around the
globe to ''try to get
ahead of emerging
threats rather than
having to chase them,''
said Mustaque Ahamad,
director of the Georgia
Tech center.
They are expected to
discuss new
countermeasures,
including tighter
validation standards and
programs that analyze
malicious code. Ahamad
also hopes the summit
will be a launching pad
of sorts for an informal
network of
security-minded
programmers.
"Online Videos May Be
Conduits for Viruses," by
Greg Bluestein, The
Washington Post, October
2, 2007 ---
Click Here
Online
videos
aren't
just
for
bloopers
and
rants
_
some
might
also
be
conduits
for
malicious
code
that
can
infect
your
computer.
As
anti-spam
technology
improves,
hackers
are
finding
new
vehicles
to
deliver
their
malicious
code.
And
some
could
be
embedded
in
online
video
players,
according
to a
report
on
Internet
threats
released
Tuesday
by
the
Georgia
Tech
Information
Security
Center
as
it
holds
its
annual
summit
The summit is gathering
more than 300 scholars
and security experts to
discuss emerging threats
for 2008 _ and their
countermeasures.
Among their biggest foes
are the ever-changing
vehicles that hackers
use to deliver
"malware," which can
silently install
viruses, probe for
confidential info or
even hijack a computer.
"Just as we see an
evolution in messaging,
we also see an evolution
in threats," said Chris
Rouland, the chief
technology officer for
IBM Corp.'s Internet
Security Systems unit
and a member of the
group that helped draft
the report. "As
companies have gotten
better blocking e-mails,
we see people move to
more creative
techniques."
With computer users
getting wiser to e-mail
scams, malicious hackers
are looking for sneakier
ways to spread the
codes. Over the past few
years, hackers have
moved from sending their
spam in text-based
messages to more devious
means, embedding them in
images or disguised as
Portable Document
Format, or PDF, files.
Continued in article
Storm Worm: The Perfect Email Storm
"The Worm That Roared," by Lev Grossman, Time Magazine, September 27,
2007 ---
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666279,00.html
During the week of Jan.
15, an innocuous-looking
e-mail appeared in
thousands of inboxes
around the world. Its
subject line read, "230
dead as storm batters
Europe." The e-mail came
with a file attached,
bearing a
plausible-sounding name
like Full Story.exe or
Read More.exe. Plenty of
people clicked on it.
After all, storms really
were battering Europe at
the time; that week high
winds and rain had
killed 14 in the U.K.
alone. But all great
cons have a grain of
truth in them somewhere.
The file that arrived
with the e-mail was, of
course, a computer
virus, immediately
christened the Storm
Worm by the Finnish
computer security firm
F-Secure, which was
among the first to spot
it. Since then, the
Storm Worm has proved
remarkably hard to kill.
Nine months later, it's
still out there,
infecting something like
a million computers
worldwide. It's not the
most damaging virus in
history, but it may be
the most sophisticated.
Whoever created it is to
viruses what
Michelangelo was to
ceilings.
The Storm Worm is a
marvel of social
engineering. Its subject
line changes constantly.
Whoever produced it--and
its many later
variants--has a lively
feel for the seductive
come-on and a thorough
grounding in human
nature. It preys on
shock ("Saddam Hussein
Alive!") and outrage ("A
killer at 11, he's free
at 21 and ...") and
prurience ("Naked teens
attack home director")
and romance ("You Asked
Me Why"). It mutates at
a ferocious rate,
constantly changing its
size and tactics to
evade virus filters, and
finds evolving ways to
exploit other online
media like blogs and
bulletin boards. Newer
versions might contain,
instead of a file, a
single link to a fake
YouTube page, which
crashes your browser
while quietly slipping
the virus into your
computer. "I've heard
people talk about this
like virus 2.0, just
like people talk about
Web 2.0, because it's so
different from the
traditional attacks,"
says Mikko Hypponen,
chief research officer
of F-Secure. "It's
probably the largest
collection of infected
machines we've ever
seen."
Like any good parasite,
the Storm Worm doesn't
kill its host. In fact,
most of the
victims--some of whom
are undoubtedly reading
this article--will never
know their machines are
infected. It doesn't
cripple your computer
(and can be removed once
identified), but the
Storm Worm does give its
authors the power to
quietly control your
computer. What do they
do with this power?
Mostly they send out
spam. Back in the day,
computer viruses were a
relatively innocent
affair, written as
pranks by teenagers with
too much time on their
hands between Star Wars
sequels. Now they're
written by organized
criminals looking to
make money from fake
offers.
Nobody knows who's
behind the Storm Worm.
F-Secure suspects a
group based in Russia,
but there's no way to be
sure, and recent Storm
Worm subject lines
referring to Labor Day
and the start of the
football season suggest
that those involved have
an American connection.
What is certain is that
they are very
smart--prodigious
innovators engaged in a
cat-and-mouse game with
security firms that so
far they're winning. "I
don't think these guys
have day jobs," says
Hypponen. "They're
really active and really
closely watching us. I
don't see them stopping
anytime soon."
It's also clear that
they've been pulling
their punches. Right now
the Storm Worm gang
controls a massive
amount of computing
power, as much as some
of the world's largest
supercomputers, and all
they do with it is send
out spam and conduct the
occasional
denial-of-service attack
(bombarding a specific
server with traffic
until it shuts down).
We're lucky: so far they
haven't gone in for more
lucrative, damaging
activities like online
gambling, stock scams
and stealing passwords
and credit-card
information. Is it
possible that even a
worm can have a
conscience?
Bob Jensen's threads
on computing and networking
security are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ecommerce/000start.htm
Bob Jensen's best
advice at this point in time
--- Buy a Mac!
Question
Why has whistleblower
protection under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Law failed so
miserably?
Sarbox's whistleblower
provisions were intended "to
prevent recurrences of the
Enron debacle and similar
threats to the nation's
financial markets" by
protecting those who report
fraudulent activity that
could damage innocent
investors. That was the
intent, at least. The
reality is something else.
About 1,000 whistleblowing
claims have been filed under
Sarbox. Only 17 were
determined after federal
investigation to have merit
and only six of this group
have kept their wins after
full evidentiary hearings
before administrative law
judges. Nevertheless, the
plaintiffs bar and others
have ready answers for this
extremely poor batting
average. Critics assert that
the 90-day statute of
limitation for filing
whistleblower claims is too
short, the burden of proof
placed on complaining
employees is too high, that
judges are reading the law
too narrowly, or even that,
as one law professor
testified, the whistleblower
provisions have "has failed
to protect the vast majority
of employees who file a
Sarbanes-Oxley claim"
because they rarely win.
Michael Delikat, "Blowing
the Whistle on Sarbox,"
The Wall Street Journal,
August 23, 2007; Page A10
---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118783189154206113.html
Bob Jensen's threads on the sad state of whistleblower protections are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#WhistleBlowing
Question
Why is SAS 99 fundamentally changing the role of the external auditor in
detecting and disclosing fraud, including fraud that may not pass the
materiality test as far as the aggregate financial statements are concerned?
Recent professional
guidance, such as SAS 99,
Consideration of Fraud in a
Financial Statement Audit,
and Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board
Auditing Standard 2, has
brought more attention to
the auditor's responsibility
to uncover the warning signs
of fraud, but there is still
some ambiguity about where
the auditor's responsibility
ends and the fraud
examiner's begins.
AccountingWeb,
September 2007 ---
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=104036
Consider this scenario:
A staff auditor reviewed
various accrual accounts
during a routine audit.
He uncovered 10 manual
entries made after the
quarter's close that
lacked sufficient
supporting documentation
and that significantly
reduced the reserve
balance for each
account. The auditor
reviewed the entries in
the system and found the
same explanation for
each reduction: "reduce
accrual by $1.5 million,
per John Davies,
corporate controller."
The total amount of
reductions came to $15
million, and was
material to the
financial statements of
the company.
The auditor brought this
information to the audit
manager, who advised him
to discuss the entries
with the corporate
controller. The
controller provided
verbal support for each
entry. The auditor had
no reason to disbelieve
the controller, so he
cited the lack of
supporting documentation
as an audit finding and
completed the report.
Six months later, news
came out that the
controller was adjusting
various accrual accounts
to manipulate earnings.
The auditor was
distraught about the
situation, and
questioned his or her
conduct and the audit
procedures. The audit
manager was asked to
explain why the audit
team did not pursue the
findings and press for
supporting
documentation. The
controller was
terminated, and the
company underwent an
investigation by the
Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). The
auditor continued to
wrestle with himself:
"I'm an auditor, not an
investigator….right?"
Auditors and forensic
accountants share common
attributes, but their
roles differ
significantly. Sometimes
it can be difficult for
auditors to understand
their responsibilities
for fraud detection,
investigation, and
prevention. Generally,
companies call in a
fraud examiner to
conduct an investigation
once fraud is suspected,
but the auditor is the
person who initially
finds the red flags of
potential fraud.
The auditor's role in
fraud detection has a
long history of
confusion and
controversy. In 1892,
the widely used auditing
textbook A Practical
Matter for Auditors, by
Lawrence Dicksee,
expressed the view that
the objective of an
audit was the detection
of fraud, technical
errors, and errors of
principle. It stated,
"the detection of fraud
is the most important
portion of the auditor's
duties." Shortly
thereafter, the
auditor's role in fraud
detection started to
evolve. In an 1895
British court case
(London and General
Bank), the court ruled
that it was the
auditor's responsibility
to report to
shareholders all
dishonest acts, but that
the auditor could not be
expected to uncover all
fraud committed in a
company, although they
should conduct all
audits with reasonable
care. Fast-forward to
the 21st Century. The
nature of the auditor's
responsibility to detect
fraud is still the
subject of confusion.
For example, a 2003
study of prospective
jurors conducted by
Camico, a provider of
CPA malpractice
insurance, found that 74
percent of respondents
believe audits are
designed to uncover all
types of fraud. In fact,
according to a 2006
Association of Certified
Fraud Examiners (ACFE)
Report, Report to the
Nation on Occupational
Fraud and Abuse, only 12
percent of fraud is
initially detected by
external auditors, while
50 percent came from
employee tips, 20
percent came from
internal audits, and 19
percent was detected by
internal controls.
Responsibilities
The management of public
companies is required by
PCAOB Auditing Standard
2 to develop and
implement internal
controls to prevent,
detect, and deter
incidents of fraud in
financial reporting, and
Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act
requires management to
assess and report on the
effectiveness of those
internal controls on an
annual basis.
Continued in article
Jensen Comment
External auditors are not
even close to being the main
source of initial detections
of frauds. A much better
source for early on fraud
detection is a whistleblower
within the organization
being audited. The
Sarbanes-Oxley Law in theory
affords some protection for
whistleblowers, but in
reality SOX has been lousy
at protecting whistleblowers
---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#WhistleBlowing
Also see
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ecommerce/eitf01.htm#BillAndHold
In general fraud
examination is still
fundamentally different from
auditing in spite of SOX ---
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Fraud-Examination-Joseph-Wells/dp/0471517089
Bob Jensen's threads on
the professional
responsibility of auditors
are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#Professionalism
"The Six Signs of
Internal Fraud," by
Peter Goldmann ---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x59050.xml
However, we can see the
signs of fraud, Albrecht
said in a speech at the
18th Annual ACFE Fraud
Conference. There are
six signs in all
organizations. By
understanding them and
looking for them, we
significantly improve
our chances of detecting
and reporting fraud.
Accounting
anomalies—representing
such countless red flags
as inventory shortages,
unrecorded transactions,
unusual levels of
returns, etc.
Internal control
weaknesses. These equate
to opportunities for
insiders to commit
fraud. If you identify a
weakness, chances are
that someone will
exploit it if they
haven’t already.
Analytical symptoms.
When a business function
occurs at the wrong
time, or is conducted by
the wrong person or a
similar operational
anomaly occurs, chances
are it is a sign of
fraud.
Lifestyle symptoms.
Employees living beyond
their means is the most
common. Smart internal
fraudsters would steal
and save. But most steal
and spend. When you
notice signs of
extravagant lifestyle,
you’re most likely
looking at a sign of
fraud.
Behavioral symptoms.
People who stop looking
you in the eye, sweat
more than usual, come in
earlier than usual
and/or stay late should
be monitored as
potential fraudsters.
Tips and complaints.
When employees report
actual or suspected
incidents of fraud among
their co-workers or
bosses, you’ve got good
reason to start
following up with a
search for hard evidence.
Bob Jensen's threads
on fraud detection and
reporting are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudReporting.htm
Bill-and-Hold Revenue Recognition Tale
Anthony Menedez phoned me several times indicating that he thinks his tale would
be interesting for accounting students to study. I think it would be an
interesting series of events for a case writer to put into an educational case.
The focus of the case, in my viewpoint, should be on a comparison of the KPMG
article (quoted below) with the actual bill-in-hold transactions at Halliburton
to force students to decide whether KPMG auditors and Halliburton did or
did not violate GAAP on these issues.
A financial press article is also quoted below:
Jonathan Weil,
"Halliburton's Accounting Might Make You Wonder," Bloomberg News, July
21, 2007
The case has two really interesting questions:
- What is the proper accounting (and auditing) for these transactions?
- Is "whistleblower protection" under the Sarbanes-Oxley law an
oxymoron?
June 24, 2007 message from Anthony Menendez
[menendez.anthony@gmail.com]
Professor Jensen-
Hello. My name is Tony Menendez. I have enjoyed
much of the information you have so generously provided on the web covering
accounting issues and financial fraud. I thought you might find my
Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower case interesting. Just in case you have extra
time and an interest, I am providing you with my contact information and
links to some information concerning my case. I hope you are enjoying
retirement but have not given up providing your insight into the ever so
important area of accounting and financial fraud.
Sincerely,
Tony (713) 822 3764
Here are a few links to information you can find on
the web concerning my case:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_weil&sid=am_McfuM6i4o
You can read Menendez's complaint in three parts
(I,
II,
III) on the following website:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003500.php
Question
In accounting, what do the following terms mean and in what context?
bill-and-hold?
Ship-in-Place?
Answer
"Bill-and-Hold Transactions in the Oilfield Services Sector," John C.
Christopher, KPMG LLP ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/BillandHold.pdf
Determining and defining appropriate revenue
recognition has been a primary focus of companies, regulators, standard
setters, and auditors in recent years. Improper revenue recognition has been
one of the leading causes of financial statement restatements. Perhaps no
area of revenue recognition has received as much scrutiny as "bill-and-hold"
transactions. Also known as "ship-inplace" transactions, these transactions
generally refer to scenarios where revenue is recognized after a seller has
substantially completed its obligations under an arrangement, but prior to
the buyer, or a common carrier, taking physical possession of the goods.
Background In a recent interview, former SEC
Chairman Arthur Levitt referred to recognizing revenue on bill-and-hold
transactions as "hocus pocus accounting."
He said, "Companies try to boost revenue by manipulating the recognition of
revenue. Think about a bottle of wine.You wouldn't pop the cork on that
bottle until it was ready. But some companies are doing this with their
revenue --- recognizing it before the sale is complete, before the product
is delivered to the customer, or at a time when the customer still has
options to terminate, void, or delay the sale.
Although the bill-and-hold transaction is not a
GAAP violation, unfortunately it has long been associated with incidents of
financial fraud. In its October 2002 Report, the General Accounting Office
(GAO) said that revenue recognition is the largest single issue involved in
restatements. More than half of financial reporting frauds involve the
overstatement of revenue, and restatements for revenue recognition have
resulted in the largest drops in market capitalization compared with any
other type of restatements. There remains an intense scrutiny around a
company's revenue recognition principles for these types of transactions,
and management and auditors should be unusually skeptical about the
appropriateness of recording revenue for these transactions.
Bill-and-hold scenarios frequently arise in the
oilfield services sector. It is important to note that the form. of these
transactions is neither illegal nor unethical. In fact, most have very good
business or economic purposes. For example, there is currently a trend in
the oil and gas industry towards developing fields in the deep waters toward
the Gulf of Mexico or other more remote locations throughout the world.
Development plans for these large deepwater offshore fields. as well as
remote onshore fields throughout the world, will commonly have long
timelines; therefore, the oilfield service companies have long lead times
for delivery of equipment and products. As the development plan gets under
way, many of the original timelines and milestones will change along the way
as information about the reservoir becomes better. However, many of the
products that the oilfield services companies manufacture and deliver are
extremely capital intensive and will be manufactured and ready for their
fixed delivery dates without regard to any changes in the development plan.
These products are generally very large built-tosuit equipment such as
wellhead connection equipment and completion products.
There are certain criteria that companies must meet
in order to recognize revenue on bill-and-hold transactions. These criteria
relate to the risks of ownership. the commitment and request on the part of
the buyer, the business purpose of the transaction, the delivery date, and
the performance obligations, among others (these criteria are discussed in
more detail in the next section). As an example, an oilfield services
company may complete the manufacturing of the customer's requested products,
have them shipped to a company-owned warehouse, determine a fixed delivery
schedule to the customer's well site, obtain a legal acknowledgement from
the customer that the risk of loss has been transferred, and have no
additional obligations to perform such as installation of the equipment. All
of this may take place prior to the particular point in the well development
plan that calls for the installation of the product. In this example, the
oilfield services company might (although only based on careful analysis of
the SEC and FASB guidance related to bill-and-hold transactions) be able to
recognize revenue immediately upon completing the manufacturing process and
meeting all of the bill-and-hold revenue recognition criteria.
SEC and FASB Guidance on Revenue Recog'nition
and Bill-and-Hold Arrangements
EITf- lssue 00.21: Multiple Elements in a bill-and-hold Arrangement
Companies must first apply the separation model
described in ElTF lssue 00-21 , Revenue Arrangements with Multiple
Deliveries, to determine the number of units of accounting in the
bill-and-hold arrangement. Bill-and-hold arrangements in this industry can
include both the sale of products and the performance of certain services,
such as warehousing for the product if it is shipped to a company-owned
warehouse. If the SEC staff's revenue recognition criteria (discussed in the
next section) are met for the product element in the bill-and-hold
arrangement, revenue may be recognized on the product element when the
company has completed the product only if it is a separate unit of
accounting, or if there are any services involved in the transaction (e.g.,
warehousing), and those services are inconsequential or perfunctory to one
unit of accounting. The company may need to consider whether the services
are a separate unit of accounting, if they are inconsequential or
perfunctory, and whether there are other performance obligations yet to be
performed in determining the appropriate revenue recognition policy for the
entire arrangement.
Inconsequential or Perfunctory Element
According to SAB No. 104, Revenue Recognition, if
the-undelivered element is both inconsequential or perfunctory and not
essential to the functionality of the delivered element, it would be
appropriate to recognize revenue on the arrangement at the time of delivery
and accrue the cost of providing the services related to the undelivered
element. However, if the undelivered element is neither inconsequential nor
perfunctory or is essential to the functionality of the delivered element,
the revenue for the delivered element should be deferred and recognized
based on the accounting requirements of the undelivered element. The SEC's
guidance on the determination of whether an element is inconsequential or
perfunctory is related to whether that element is essential to the
functionality of the delivered products.
In addition, remaining activities would not be
inconsequential or perfunctory if failure to complete the activities would
result in the customer receiving a full or partial refund or rejecting, or a
right to a refund or to reject the products delivered. The SEC provided the
following factors in SAB No.104, which are not all-inclusive, as indicators
that a remaining performance obligation is substantive rather than
inconsequential or perfunctory:
- The seller does not have a demonstrated
history of completing the remaining tasks in a timely manner and
reliably estimating their costs.
- The cost or time to perform the remaining
obligations for similar contracts historically has varied significantly
from one instance to another.
- The skills or equipment required to complete
the remaining activity are specialized or are not readily available in
the marketplace.
- The cost of completing the obligation, or the
fair value of that obligation, is more than insignificant in relation to
such items as the contract fee, gross profit, and operating income
allocable to the unit of accounting.
- The period before the remaining obligation
will be extinguished is lengthy.
- T he timing of payment of a portion of the
sales price is coincident with completing performance of the remaining
activity.
. . .
SEC Bill-and-Hold Criteria
The SEC has established specific criteria codified
in SAB No. 104 that a seller of goods or equipment must meet to recognize
revenue for a bill-and-hold transaction, including:
- The risks of ownership must have passed to the
buyer.
- The buyer must have a commitment to purchase,
preferably in written documentation.
- The buyer, not the seller, must
originate the request that the transaction be on a bill-and-hold basis.
- The buyer must have a substantial business
purpose for ordering the goods or equipment on a bill-and-hold basis.
- Delivery must be for a fixed date and on a
schedule that is reasonable and consistent with the buyer's purpose
(this requirement will generally be difficult for an oilfield services
company to meet due to the variable nature of the movement of timelines
and milestones for oilfield development).
- The seller must not retain any significant
specific performance obligations under the agreement such that the
earnings process is not complete. The goods or equipment must be
segregated from the seller's inventory and may not be subject to being
used to fill other orders.
- The goods or equipment must be complete and
ready for shipment.
The SEC emphasized that that the above criteria are
not a simple checklist. A transaction might meet all of the criteria and
still fail the revenue recognition guidelines . . .
Continued in article
Jensen Comment
Tony Menendez, while working for Halliburton, encountered what he considered a
classic violation of GAAP for bill-an-hold transactions in Halliburton's
oilfield operations. He says he first confronted his superiors in the company
and then a KPMG auditor, who purportedly agreed with Tony on this issue. But
Halliburton countered by saying that since "title passed," revenue could be
recognized. The amount in terms of dollars was material in amount.
Since
Halliburton did not restate its financial statements, or purportedly, its
subsequent accounting for these transactions, Tony then took the added step of
blowing the whistle with the SEC. The SEC purportedly turned it back to
Halliburton for further internal investigation. Soon thereafter Tony Menendez
became an unemployed whistle blower
Bill-and-Hold Revenue Recognition Tale
Anthony Menedez phoned me several times indicating that he thinks his tale would
be interesting for accounting students to study. I think it would be an
interesting series of events for a case writer to put into an educational case.
The focus of the case, in my viewpoint, should be on a comparison of the KPMG
article (quoted above) with the actual bill-in-hold transactions at Halliburton
to force students to decide whether KPMG auditors at Halliburton did or did not
violate GAAP on these issues.
By the way, Mr. Menedez is currently still
unemployed and is considering applying for doctoral study in accountancy.
August 8, 2007 message from Anthony Menendez
[menendez.anthony@gmail.com]
Please see attached. The very examples described by
KPMG as bill-and-hold transactions at a company like Halliburton, were the
same transactions, I also believed were bill-and-hold. Interestingly,
Halliburton apparantly claims, that these transactions, are not, in fact
bill-and-hold and thereby avoiding the bill-and-hold hold criteria which
requires that the equipment is ready for its intended use, a fixed delivery
date exists for the equipment, and that there are no ongoing obligations on
the part of Halliburton ( e.g. installing the equipment and performing the
necessary oilfield services, the typical services provided by an "oilfield
service" company. Personally, I believe that Halliburton's claim is the most
absurb argument I have ever seen and worse yet, I struggle to see how KPMG
allows Halliburton to deviate from the very guidance it suggests to
companies that are not "Halliburton" should apply. Enjoy.
Best Regards,
Tony
You can read
Menendez's complaint in
three parts (I,
II,
III)
on the following website:
---
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003500.php
Bob Jensen's threads
on whistle blowing are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#WhistleBlowing
Bob Jensen's threads
on revenue reporting and
frauds can be found at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ecommerce/eitf01.htm
Here's an older
example of bill and hold
fraud
Death by Accounting
To
get companies to participate
in a flu vaccine stockpile
the government is dangling
tons of new funding. Cash in
hand is usually a very
strong incentive. But a
Clinton administration SEC
policy prevents the vaccine
makers from recognizing the
revenue until the vaccine is
delivered to the doctors,
countering the very purpose
of a stockpile. The
Department of Health and
Human Services' National
Vaccine Advisory Committee
concluded in early 2005 that
for the stockpile program to
be successful, "the revenue
recognition issue must be
resolved as soon as
possible." It all began in
late 1999, when the SEC
issued "Staff Accounting
Bulletin 101," which it
painted as a modest
clarification "not intended
to change current guidance
in the accounting
literature." But in reality
it was a radical change to
the way companies could book
revenue from "bill and hold"
orders. This change would,
at its least, lead to
hindrances for innovative
new companies. At its worst,
it would discourage
production of lifesaving
products like vaccines.
John Berlau, "Death by
Accounting?" The Wall
Street Journal, October
21, 2005 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112985642561675193.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
SEC SAB 101 "Revenue
Recognition in Financial
Statements" ---
http://www.sec.gov/interps/account/sab101.htm
Anthony Menendez, who was Halliburton's director of
technical accounting research and training, has accused the world's
second-largest oilfield-services company of using so- called bill-and-hold
accounting and other undisclosed practices to ``distort the timing of billions
of dollars in revenue.'' In short, Menendez
says this allowed Halliburton to book product sales improperly, before they
occurred.
Jonathan Weil, "Halliburton's Accounting Might Make You Wonder," Bloomberg
News, July 21, 2007 ---
Click Here
The allegations are part of a 54-page complaint
Menendez filed against Halliburton with a Labor Department administrative-
law judge in Covington, Louisiana, who released the records in response to a
Freedom of Information Act request. Menendez, who resigned last year and is
seeking unspecified damages, says Halliburton retaliated against him in
violation of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act's whistleblower provisions after he
reported his concerns to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
company's audit committee.
Halliburton has denied the allegations. A company
spokeswoman, Cathy Mann, says Halliburton's audit committee ``directed an
independent investigation'' and ``concluded that the allegations were
without merit.'' She declined to comment on bill-and-hold issues, and
Halliburton's court filings in the case don't provide any details about its
accounting practices.
Menendez, a 36-year-old former Ernst & Young LLP
auditor, filed his complaint in December, shortly after a Labor Department
investigator in Dallas rejected his retaliation claim. Mann says the company
expects to prevail at trial.
Cause of Concern
Investors, of course, will care more about the
reliability of Halliburton's numbers than whether Menendez wins. And a look
at internal Halliburton documents Menendez filed with the court suggests
there's reason for concern.
Here's how Menendez, who reported to Halliburton's
chief accounting officer, summed up the bill-and-hold issue in his
complaint:
``For example, the company recognizes revenue when
the goods are parked in company warehouses, rather than delivered to the
customer. Typically, these goods are not even assembled and ready for the
customer. Furthermore, it is unknown as to when the goods will be ultimately
assembled, tested, delivered to the customer and, finally, used by the
company to perform the required oilfield services for the customer.''
If true, that would violate generally accepted
accounting principles. For companies to recognize revenue before delivery,
``the risks of ownership must have passed to the buyer,'' the SEC's staff
wrote in a 2003 accounting bulletin. There also ``must be a fixed schedule
for delivery of the goods,'' and the product ``must be complete and ready
for shipment,'' among other things.
`Terribly Flawed'
Shortly after joining Halliburton in March 2005,
Menendez says he discovered a ``terribly flawed'' flow chart on the
company's in-house Web site, called the Bill and Hold Decision Tree. The
flow chart, a copy of which Menendez included in his complaint, walks
through what to do in a situation where a ``customer has been billed for
completed inventory which is being stored at a Halliburton facility.''
First, it asks: Based on the contract terms, ``has
title passed to customer?'' If the answer is no -- and here's where it gets
strange -- the employee is asked: ``Does transaction meet all of the `bill
and hold' criteria for revenue recognition?'' If the answer to that question
is yes, the decision tree says to do this: ``Recognize revenue.'' The
decision tree didn't specify what the other criteria were.
At Odds
In other words, Halliburton told employees to
recognize revenue even though the company still owned the product.
You don't have to be an accountant to see the
problem.
``The policy in the chart is clearly at odds with
generally accepted accounting principles,'' says Charles Mulford, a Georgia
Institute of Technology accounting professor, who reviewed the court
records. ``It's very clear cut. It's not gray.''
Bill-and-hold was at the heart of Sunbeam Corp.'s
collapse in the late 1990s, and later blowups at Qwest Communications
International Inc. and Nortel Networks Corp.
It is possible to use bill-and-hold and comply with
the rules. But it's hard. The customer, not the seller, must request such
treatment. The customer also must have a compelling reason for doing so.
Customers rarely do.
SEC Inquiry
Menendez, who now works as a consultant, also
accuses Halliburton of improper accounting for income taxes, off-balance-
sheet entities and foreign-currency adjustments. Court records show he first
alerted the SEC's enforcement division in November 2005, three months before
he complained to Halliburton's audit committee.
In a Jan. 3 court filing, Halliburton said the SEC
had closed its inquiry into the company's accounting practices.
Menendez told me, though, that he met with SEC
investigators at the agency's Fort Worth, Texas, office as recently as March
28. He also shared a March 14 letter from an enforcement-division attorney
there, which shows the travel itinerary the SEC arranged for him to attend
that meeting. Mann, the Halliburton spokeswoman, declined to comment on
whether the company has been notified of further SEC inquiries into
Menendez's allegations.
Halliburton seemed to quell doubts about its books
back in August 2004, when it paid $7.5 million to settle a two-year SEC
probe. The agency faulted Halliburton's disclosures, but not its accounting.
As long as investors trust a company's profits, they generally don't care
how the company earns them. If they begin to suspect they shouldn't, though,
look out.
Bob Jensen's threads on whistle blowing are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#WhistleBlowing
Bob Jensen's threads on revenue reporting and frauds can be found at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ecommerce/eitf01.htm
SEC SAB 101 "Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements" ---
http://www.sec.gov/interps/account/sab101.htm
Question
Why doesn't Section 401 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act apply to attestation of internal controls in the World
Bank?
"World Bank Reckoning,"
The Wall Street Journal,
September 13, 2007; Page A16
---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118964274677625838.html
Since we're talking
about the world's second
most out-of-control
international
bureaucracy -- no prizes
for guessing the first
-- we shouldn't get our
hopes up. But in the
past week some prominent
outsiders have been
forcing the World Bank
to reckon with the alien
concept of
accountability. Now it's
up to new bank President
Robert Zoellick to see
that their efforts bear
fruit.
First up is former
Federal Reserve Chairman
Paul Volcker. For the
past five months, Mr.
Volcker and a panel of
international experts
have been conducting an
independent review of
the Department of
Institutional Integrity,
the bank's
anticorruption unit
known internally as the
INT. Their report, which
readers can find on
OpinionJournal.com, is
being released to the
public today.
In
sober and measured
terms, Mr. Volcker's
report provides a
devastating indictment
of what it calls the
bank's "ambivalence"
toward both corruption
and its own
anticorruption unit.
"There was then, and
remains now, resistance
among important parts of
the Bank staff and some
of its leadership to the
work of INT," the report
says (our emphasis).
It
goes on to say that,
"Some resistance is more
parochial. There is a
natural discomfort among
some line staff, who are
generally encouraged by
the pay and performance
evaluation system to
make loans for promising
projects, to have those
projects investigated ex
post, exposed as rife
with corruption,
creating an awkward
problem in relations
with borrowing clients."
To put it more plainly,
the report is saying
that every incentive at
the bank is to push more
money out the door, and
bank employees hate the
anticorruption effort
because it interferes
with that imperative.
The report endorses the
work of the INT, which
was created a mere six
years ago and which has
been under what it calls
a "particularly strong"
institutional attack
ever since. The INT, the
Volcker panel says, "is
staffed by competent and
dedicated investigators
who work hard and long
hours with
professionalism" and
deploy "advanced
investigative methods to
detect and substantiate
allegations of fraud and
corruption." And it goes
on to recommend that the
anticorruption crusaders
"should be nurtured and
maintained as an
exemplary investigative
organization" within the
bank.
In
a phone interview
yesterday, Mr. Volcker
added that he gives
"high marks" to current
INT director Suzanne
Rich Folsom. Mr.
Volcker's endorsement
should stop cold the
recent attempts by some
in the bank's entrenched
bureaucracy to run Ms.
Folsom out of the bank,
as they did Paul
Wolfowitz.
The bank is also being
put on notice by the
U.S. Senate through
provisions in its
foreign operations
appropriations bill. The
provision threatens to
withhold 20% of U.S.
funds to the bank's
International
Development Association
arm (which provides
interest-free loans to
the world's poorest
countries) until it is
assured that the bank
"has adequately staffed
and sufficiently funded
the Department of
Institutional
Integrity." The bill
also demands that the
bank provide "financial
disclosure forms of all
senior World bank
personnel." Now, that
will get the
bureaucracy's attention.
Notably, it's a Democrat
-- Evan Bayh of Indiana
-- who's taken the lead
on this issue. Mr. Bayh
has ordered a Government
Accountability Office
report on the
effectiveness of IDA
loans and their
susceptibility to
corruption, the bank's
procurement procedures,
as well as the legendary
pay packages enjoyed by
its senior management.
"There's a tendency [at
the bank] to say 'just
give us the money and go
away,'" the Senator told
us by phone yesterday.
"Until there are some
tangible consequences,
they won't take us
seriously. We shouldn't
let that happen."
Continued in article
Bob Jensen's "Rotten
to the Core" threads are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudRotten.htm
Note that there's a
pretty good summary of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley
Graft in Military Contracts Spread From Base
Less than 24 hours later Major Cockerham was behind
bars, accused of orchestrating the largest single bribery scheme against the
military since the start of the Iraq war. According to the authorities, the
41-year-old officer, with his wife and a sister, used an elaborate network of
offshore bank accounts and safe deposit boxes to hide nearly $10 million in
bribes from companies seeking military contracts. The accusations against Major
Cockerham are tied to a crisis of corruption inside the behemoth bureaucracy
that sustains America’s troops. Pentagon officials are investigating some $6
billion in military contracts, most covering supplies as varied as bottled
water, tents and latrines for troops in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ginger Thompson and Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, September 24, 2007
---
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/world/middleeast/24contractor.html
While it won't sue
Apple for Nancy Heinen's
alleged backdating of
options, the SEC does want
to talk to CEO Steve Jobs,
most likely about the timing
of events
Though
Apple (AAPL) was given a
clean bill of health by
regulators over its
involvement in the
backdating of stock options,
the investigation of a
former executive continues
to dog Chief Executive Steve
Jobs. Securities & Exchange
Commission lawyers suing
former Apple General Counsel
Nancy Heinen over her
alleged role in the matter
have issued subpoenas to
Jobs. The SEC has said it
won't sue Apple over the
backdating of grants,
praising the company for its
cooperation with the
investigation. Attorneys say
the company and current
executives are unlikely to
face criminal charges from
the Justice Dept. or civil
charges from the SEC.
Arik Hesseldahl, "SEC
Subpoenas Jobs On
Backdating," Business
Week, September 20, 2007
---
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2007/tc20070920_913875.htm?link_position=link2
Bob Jensen's threads on
options backdating are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/theory/sfas123/jensen01.htm
IRS "Member
Satisfaction Survey" is a
Scam
The
Internal Revenue Service has
issued a consumer alert
regarding a new, two-step
e-mail scam that falsely
promises recipients they
will receive $80 for
participating in an online
customer satisfaction
survey. In the scam, an
unsuspecting taxpayer
receives an unsolicited
e-mail that appears to come
from the IRS. The e-mail
contains a URL linking to an
online "Member Satisfaction
Survey."
AccountingWeb, August
31, 2007 ---
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=103950
August 31, 2007 reply
from Ganesh M. Pandit,
[profgmp@HOTMAIL.COM]
Today I received an
email asking me to log
on to a site in order to
claim my income tax
"refund"...$109.30! Just
for fun, I clicked on
the link given and was
taken to a screen that
asked for my name, SSN,
birthdate, debit card
number, PIN, expiration
date and secret 3-digit
code on the back of the
card! :)
Of
course, if you put your
cursor over the link
given in the scam email
message, you can see the
underlying "fake" web
site location.
Ganesh
Bob Jensen's threads
on tax scams are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudReporting.htm#TaxScams
Bob Jensen's tax helpers are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Bookbob1.htm#010304Taxation
CPA auditors have always considered their primary role as attesting to
full and fair corporate disclosures to investors and creditors under Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Now it turns out that this extends,
perhaps unexpectedly, to the government as well.
"How Accounting Rule (FIN
48) Led to Probe
Disclosure of Tax Savings
Firms Regard as Vulnerable
Leaves Senate Panel a
Trail," by Jesse Drucker,
The Wall Street Journal,
September 11, 2007; Page A5
---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118947026768923240.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
The probe, by the
Senate's Permanent
Subcommittee on
Investigations, appears
to have been sparked by
an accounting rule known
as FIN 48, which took
effect in January. The
rule for the first time
requires companies to
disclose how much they
have set aside to pay
tax authorities if
certain tax-cutting
transactions are
successfully challenged
by the government. The
disclosures require
companies to attach a
dollar figure to
tax-savings arrangements
they think could be
vulnerable.
Although intended to
inform investors, the
disclosures also serve
as a kind of road map
for government
authorities, guiding
them to companies that
may have taken an
aggressive stance on
tax-related
arrangements.
The probe, by the
Senate's Permanent
Subcommittee on
Investigations, appears
to have been sparked by
an accounting rule known
as FIN 48, which took
effect in January. The
rule for the first time
requires companies to
disclose how much they
have set aside to pay
tax authorities if
certain tax-cutting
transactions are
successfully challenged
by the government. The
disclosures require
companies to attach a
dollar figure to
tax-savings arrangements
they think could be
vulnerable.
Although intended to
inform investors, the
disclosures also serve
as a kind of road map
for government
authorities, guiding
them to companies that
may have taken an
aggressive stance on
tax-related
arrangements.
The FIN 48 disclosures
generally reveal how
much a company has set
aside in an accounting
reserve called
"unrecognized tax
benefits." The reserve
represents the portion
of the tax benefits
realized on a company's
tax return that also
hasn't been recognized
in its financial
reporting.
In
the letters, sent Aug.
23, Senate investigators
seek to obtain more
details about the
underlying transactions
in the FIN 48
disclosures. One letter
viewed by The Wall
Street Journal asks the
companies to "describe
any United States tax
position or group of
similar tax positions
that represents five
percent or more of your
total [unrecognized tax
benefit] for the period,
including in the
description of each
whether the tax position
involved foreign
entities or
jurisdictions."
The subcommittee, led by
Sen. Carl Levin (D.,
Mich.), has held
numerous hearings on tax
shelters, tax avoidance,
and the law firms and
accounting firms that
set up such structures.
The Senate's inquiry
also includes questions
about other tax-cutting
arrangements. For
tax-cutting transactions
on which companies spent
at least $1 million for
legal fees or other
costs, Senate
investigators are asking
companies to identify
the amount of the tax
benefit, as well as "the
tax professional(s) who
planned or designed the
transaction or structure
and the law firm(s) that
authored the tax opinion
or advice."
Continued in article
Tutorial: FIN 48 from different perspectives
Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation
No. 48 (FIN 48), Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, is intended to
substantially reduce uncertainty in accounting for income taxes. Its
implementation and infrastructure requirements, however, generate a great deal
of uncertainty. This feature provides an overview of FIN 48, addresses some of
its federal and international tax issues, as well as issues arising at the state
and local level.
AccountingWeb, June 2007 ---
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=103625
From The Wall Street Journal Accounting Weekly Review
on June 1, 2007
Lifting the Veil on Tax Risk
by Jesse Drucker
The Wall Street Journal
May 25, 2007
Page: C1
Click here to view the full article on WSJ.com ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118005869184314270.html?mod=djem_jiewr_ac
TOPICS: Accounting,
Accounting Theory, Advanced Financial Accounting, Disclosure
Requirements, Financial Accounting Standards Board, Financial
Analysis, Financial Statement Analysis, Income Taxes
SUMMARY: FIN
48, entitled Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes--An
Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, was issued in June 2006
with an effective date of fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2006. As stated on the FASB's web site, "This Interpretation
prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the
financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position
taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. This Interpretation
also provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest
and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and
transition." See the summary of this interpretation at
http://www.fasb.org/st/summary/finsum48.shtml As noted in this
article, "in the past, companies had to reveal little information
about transactions that could face some risk in an audit by the IRS
or other government entities." Further, some concern about use of
deferred tax liability accounts to create so-called "cookie jar
reserves" useful in smoothing income contributed to development of
this interpretation's recognition, timing and disclosure
requirements. The article highlights an analysis of 361 companies by
Credit Suisse Group to identify those with the largest recorded
liabilities as an indicator of risk of future settlement with the
IRS over disputed amounts. One example given in this article is
Merck's $2.3 billion settlement with the IRS in February 2007 over a
Bermuda tax shelter; another is the same company's current dispute
with Canadian taxing authorities over transfer pricing. Financial
statement analysis procedures to compare the size of the uncertain
tax liability to other financial statement components and follow up
discussions with the companies showing the highest uncertain tax
positions also is described.
QUESTIONS:
1.) Summarize the requirements of Financial Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes--An Interpretation of
FASB Statement No. 109 (FIN 48).
2.) In describing the FIN 48 requirements, the author of this
article states that "until now, there was generally no way to know
about" the accounting for reserves for uncertain tax positions. Why
is that the case?
3.) Some firms may develop "FIN 48 opinions" every time a tax
position is taken that could be questioned by the IRS or other tax
governing authority. Why might companies naturally want to avoid
having to document these positions very clearly in their own
records?
4.) Credit Suisse analysts note that the new FIN 48 disclosures
about unrecognized tax benefits provide investors with information
about risks companies are undertaking. Explain how this information
can be used for this purpose.
5.) How are the absolute amounts of unrecognized tax benefits
compared to other financial statement categories to provide a better
frame of reference for analysis? In your answer, propose a financial
statement ratio you feel is useful in assessing the risk described
in answer to question 4, and support your reasons for calculating
this amount.
6.) The amount of reserves recorded by Merck for unrecognized tax
benefits, tops the list from the analysis done by Credit Suisse and
the one done by Professors Blouin, Gleason, Mills and Sikes. Based
only on the descriptions given in the article, how did the two
analyses differ in their measurements? What do you infer from the
fact that Merck is at the top of both lists?
7.) Why are transfer prices among international operations likely to
develop into uncertain tax positions?
Reviewed By: Judy Beckman, University of Rhode Island
|
Bob Jensen's threads
on FIN 48 are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Theory01.htm#FIN48
Now Here is a Sad Example of Terrible Internal Control
A small South Carolina parts supplier collected
about $20.5 million over six years from the Pentagon for fraudulent shipping
costs, including $998,798 for sending two 19-cent washers to a Texas base, U.S.
officials said. The company also billed and was paid $455,009 to ship three
machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451
to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral,
Florida, Pentagon records show. The owners of C&D Distributors in Lexington,
South Carolina -- twin sisters -- exploited a flaw in an automated Defense
Department...
Tony Capaccio , "Pentagon Paid $999,798 to Ship Two 19-Cent Washers
to Texas," Yahoo News, August 16, 2007 ---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070816/pl_bloomberg/ajkoyhuchw0m
The company also billed
and was paid $455,009 to
ship three machine
screws costing $1.31
each to Marines in
Habbaniyah, Iraq, and
$293,451 to ship an
89-cent split washer to
Patrick Air Force Base
in Cape Canaveral,
Florida, Pentagon
records show.
The owners of C&D
Distributors in
Lexington, South
Carolina -- twin sisters
-- exploited a flaw in
an automated Defense
Department purchasing
system: bills for
shipping to combat areas
or U.S. bases that were
labeled ``priority''
were usually paid
automatically, said
Cynthia Stroot, a
Pentagon investigator.
C&D's fraudulent billing
started in 2000, Stroot,
the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service's
chief agent in Raleigh,
North Carolina, said in
an interview. ``As time
went on they got more
aggressive in the
amounts they put in.''
The price the military
paid for each item
shipped rarely reached
$100 and totaled just
$68,000 over the six
years in contrast to the
$20.5 million paid for
shipping, she said.
``The majority, if not
all of these parts, were
going to high-priority,
conflict areas -- that's
why they got paid,''
Stroot said. If the item
was earmarked
``priority,'' destined
for the military in
Iraq, Afghanistan or
certain other locations,
``there was no
oversight.''
Scheme Detected
The scheme unraveled in
September after a
purchasing agent noticed
a bill for shipping two
more 19-cent washers:
$969,000. That order was
rejected and a review
turned up the $998,798
payment earlier that
month for shipping two
19-cent washers to Fort
Bliss, Texas, Stroot
said.
The Pentagon Defense
Logistics Agency orders
millions of parts a
year. Stroot said the
agency and the Defense
Finance and Accounting
Service, which pays
contractors, have made
major changes, including
thorough evaluations of
the priciest shipping
charges.
A
review of paid shipping
invoices showed that
fraudulent billing is
``is not a widespread
problem,'' she said.
``C&D was a rogue
contractor,'' Stroot
said. While other
questionable billing has
been uncovered, nothing
came close to C&D's, she
said. The next-highest
contractor billed $2
million in questionable
transport costs, she
said.
Guilty Pleas
C&D and two of its
officials were barred in
December from receiving
federal contracts. A
federal judge in
Columbia, South
Carolina, today accepted
the guilty plea of the
company and one sister,
Charlene Corley, to one
count of conspiracy to
commit wire fraud and
one count of conspiracy
to launder money,
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Kevin McDonald said.
Corley, 46, faces a
maximum prison sentence
of 20 years on each
count and will be
sentenced in the near
future, McDonald said in
a telephone interview
from Columbia. Stroot
said her sibling died
last year.
Continued in article
Jensen Comment
I would certainly verify
that purported "death." She
might just be living it up
on some island paradise. For
the past several years. the
GAO has declared auditing of
the Pentagon a literal
impossibility.
Leader in TJX Fraud Gets 5-Year Sentence
Irving Escobar, a ring leader in a TJX Cos.-linked
credit-card fraud, was sentenced to five years in prison and has been ordered to
pay nearly $600,000 in restitution for damages resulting from stolen financial
information, Florida officials said. The sentencing follows a guilty plea by Mr.
Escobar, 19 years old, of Miami, to charges that he participated in a 10-person
operation that used counterfeit cards bearing the stolen credit-card data of
hundreds of TJX customers to purchase approximately $3 million in goods and gift
cards. The penalty is the stiffest handed down so far in the case. The thefts
were carried out at a string of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in Florida during
the second half of 2006, authorities said. Some of the merchandise was bought
with gift cards that had previously been purchased with the fraudulent credit
cards, a modern-day version of money laundering, officials said.
Joseph, Perira, The Wall Street Journal, September 14, 2007, Page B5 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118973246548127272.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace
IBM and PwC Settle With Government
International Business Machines Corp. and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP have agreed to pay nearly $5.3 million combined to
settle allegations that they made improper payments on government technology
contracts, the Justice Department said Thursday.
PhysOrg, August 16, 2007 ---
http://physorg.com/news106499155.html
Jensen Comment
The sad part about this is the promises made by PwC to abide by ethics and
professionalism after the scandals at the end of the last century.
Bob Jensen's threads
on PwC are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#PwC
Dell to Restate Results
for 4 Years as Audit Ends
Dell Inc said on Thursday it
would restate four years of
financial results, reducing
net income for the period by
as much as $150 million,
after a lengthy audit found
that top executives sought
accounting adjustments to
reach quarterly performance
goals. Dell said it expects
the restatements to also
reduce revenue by 1 percent
or less per year for the
period under review.
"Dell to Restate Results for
4 Years as Audit Ends ," The
New York Times, August
16, 2007 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-dell-accounting.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Creative Accounting by
Creative Michael Dell
Dell said yesterday that the
Securities and Exchange
Commission had started a
formal investigation into
its accounting practices,
but provided no other
details of the inquiry that
began in August. As a
result, the computer company
said it was delaying the
release of its third-quarter
financial results until the
end of the month. It had
planned to announce them
today after the markets
closed. The company said the
delay was not because of the
new status of the
investigation, but rather
because of the difficulty of
answering government
queries, conducting its own
inquiry and quickly
compiling complex financial
information.
Damon Darlin, "Dell
Accounting Inquiry Made
Formal by S.E.C.," The
New York Times, November
16, 2006 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/technology/16dell.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
From The Wall Street
Journal Accounting Weekly
Review on August 24,
2007
"Dell to Restate 4
Years of Results,"
by Christopher Lawton
and Don Clark
The Wall Street
Journal, Aug 17,
2007 Page: A3
Click here to view the
full article on WSJ.com
---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118729623365900062.html?mod=djem_jiewr_ac
TOPICS: Advanced
Financial Accounting,
Auditing, Financial
Accounting, Reserves,
Restatement, Revenue
Recognition, Software
Industry, Vendor
Allowances
SUMMARY: 'Dell Inc.
said it would restate
more than four years of
its financial results,
after a massive internal
investigation found that
unidentified senior
executives and other
employees manipulated
company accounts to hit
quarterly performance
goals." In August 2005
the SEC informed Dell,
Inc. that it was
investigating the
company's accounting and
financial reporting
practices. Dell
disclosed the
investigation in August
2006 with little
discussion of details
even as the
investigation progressed
through March 2007, "but
a company SEC filing
disclosed that the
investigation uncovered
issues about the way
Dell recognizes revenue
from selling other
companies' software,
amortizes revenue from
some extended
warranties, and accounts
for reimbursement
agreements with
vendors." The results of
the investigation
indicate that various
reserve and
accrued-liability
accounts were created or
improperly
adjusted-usually at the
close of the quarter to
give the appearance that
quarterly financial
goals were met.
CLASSROOM
APPLICATION: The article
can be used to help
students consider
materiality issues in
terms of both dollar
amounts and the nature
of the item in question,
indicating the problem
tone set by executives
at Dell because of their
actions. Demonstrating
understanding the
accounting for risky
accounts--accruals for
warranties and revenue
accounts--and combining
that understanding with
ideas on devising audit
steps also is required.
QUESTIONS:
1.) Define the term
"materiality". What
points about Dell Inc.'s
accounting issues
indicate that the items
in question are
material? What points
indicate that the issues
are not material?
2.) In what areas
must Dell Inc. restate
its results?
3.) Define the terms
"reserve accounts" and
"accrued liability
accounts." How do you
think these accounts are
used in relation to the
topics of revenue
recognition from sales
of other companies'
software and revenue
from extended
warranties?
4.) How might an
executive or manager use
the accounts described
above to meet quarterly
financial goals? In your
answer, also comment on
the types of goals that
an executive would want
to meet.
5.) Dell, Inc.
engaged a law firm and
an accounting firm who
used special software to
evaluate more than five
million documents and
then conduct extensive
interviews to undertake
investigation into these
accounting matters.
Describe one analysis
procedure and one
interview that you might
conduct if you were part
of the accounting firm's
team undertaking this
investigation.
Reviewed By: Judy
Beckman, University of
Rhode Island
"Dell to restate more
than 4 years of earnings,
says company manipulated
results to meet goals,"
MIT's Technology Review,
August 17, 2007 ---
http://www.technologyreview.com/Wire/19268/
Dell's independent auditor
in PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC) ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#PwC
Deloitte to Pay an
Added $167.5M in Adelphia Case
Officials at the trust formed after Adelphia went bankrupt claim the settlement
with Deloitte & Touche is among the largest between a public accounting firm and
a client.
Sarah Johnson, CFO.com August 06, 2007
---
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/9612110/c_2984378?f=FinanceProfessor.com
A
Deloitte spokesman
confirmed to CFO.com
that the accounting firm
has settled the case but
believes it would have
prevailed had the case
continued. "As part of
the settlement, Deloitte
& Touche denies any
wrongdoing," the firm
said in a prepared
statement, adding that
Deloitte "believes ...
that it was in the best
interests of the firm
and its clients to
settle this action
rather than to continue
to face the burden,
expense, and uncertainty
of further litigation."
Deloitte served as
Adelphi's audit firm
from the mid-1980s to
May 14, 2002, when
Deloitte suspended its
work on the audit for
the year ended December
31, 2001, saying
Adelphia's books and
records had been
falsified.
The Rigases were
convicted in 2004 on
several counts,
including securities
fraud, bank fraud, and
conspiracy to commit
bank fraud at what had
been the fifth-largest
cable company before its
collapse. Prosecutors
claimed that the two
executives hid nearly
$2.3 billion in Adelphia
debt from stockholders
to mask the company's
unhealthy financial
status.
Starting Monday, Timothy
Rigas will serve 20
years in prison, and his
father will serve 15. In
an interview with USA
Today published over the
weekend, 82-year-old
John Rigas said fraud
did not occur at
Adelphia. He went on to
say the government's
case against him was
based on the business
environment at the time,
amid other corporate
scandals like Enron,
WorldCom, and Tyco. "It
was a case of being in
the wrong place at the
wrong time," Rigas said.
"If this had happened a
year before, there
wouldn't have been any
headlines."
More than two years ago,
Deloitte settled charges
with the Securities and
Exchange Commission,
which claimed the
accounting firm had
"failed to detect a
massive fraud
perpetrated by Adelphia
and certain members of
the Rigas family" in its
fiscal 2000 audit.
Deloitte paid $50
million to settle the
case.
It was the
largest fine
ever imposed on
an auditing firm
Deloitte &
Touche LLP
incurred the
wrath of federal
regulators
Tuesday over
public
statements that
appeared to
shift the blame
away from the
auditing firm
for failed
audits of
Adelphia
Communications
Corp. and Just
for Feet Inc.
Deborah
Harrington, a
Deloitte
spokeswoman,
said regulators
requested that
the firm revise
the first press
release it put
out. The second
release omitted
some disputed
statements.
Deloitte, the
U.S. accounting
branch of Big
Four accounting
firm Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu,
Tuesday agreed
to pay $50
million to
settle charges
by the
Securities and
Exchange
Commission that
it failed to
detect fraud at
Adelphia. It was
the largest fine
ever imposed on
an auditing
firm.
"SEC Rebukes
Deloitte on
Adelphia Audit
Spin,"
SmartPros,
April 28, 2005
---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x48015.xml
From The Wall
Street Journal
Accounting
Weekly Review
on
April 29, 2005
TITLE: Deloitte
to Be Latest to
Settle in
Accounting
Scandals
REPORTER: Diya
Gullapalli
DATE: Apr 26,
2005
PAGE: A3
LINK:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111444033641815994,00.html
TOPICS:
Auditing,
Fraudulent
Financial
Reporting,
Securities and
Exchange
Commission
SUMMARY:
Deloitte &
Touche LLP
agreed to pay a
$50 million fine
to settle SEC
civil charges
related to fraud
at Adelphia
Communications
Corp. One
related article
discusses
Adelphia's fine.
A second related
article
discusses a
negative
reaction by the
SEC to
Deloitte's
statement about
Adelphia
executives
"deliberately
misleading"
their auditors
in its public
disclosure about
payment of the
fine.
QUESTIONS:
1.) The author
describes the
fine of $50
million paid by
Deloitte &
Touche as
resulting from
failure to
"prevent massive
fraud" as cable
company Adelphia
Communications
Corp. What is
the purpose of a
financial
statement audit?
Can an audit
"prevent"
fraudulent
financial
reporting? In
your answer,
define the
phrase
"fraudulent
financial
reporting."
2.) Refer to the
first related
article. Of what
failure did the
SEC accuse
Deloitte &
Touche?
3.) Given your
answers to #'s 1
and 2 above, how
can auditors
serve as
gatekeepers in a
line of defense
against fraud?
4.) Refer to the
second related
article. What
steps did the
SEC require
Deloitte to
undertake in
relation to its
fine regarding
Adelphia audits?
5.) Why was the
SEC concerned
about Deloitte &
Touche's
characterization
of the reason
for the failure
of the Adelphia
audit to detect
fraudulent
financial
reporting? In
your answer,
comment on the
intent of the
agreement
associated with
the payment of
the $50 million
fine.
Reviewed By:
Judy Beckman,
University of
Rhode Island
--- RELATED
ARTICLES ---
TITLE: Adelphia
to Pay $715
Million in 3-Way
Settlement
REPORTER: Peter
Grant and
Deborah Solomon
PAGE: A3 ISSUE:
Apr 26, 2005
LINK:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111445555592816193,00.html
TITLE: Deloitte
Statement About
Adelphia Raises
SEC's Ire
REPORTER:
Deborah Solomon
PAGE: C3 ISSUE:
Apr 27, 2005
LINK:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111456098308517768,00.html
|
Adelphia Communications Corp. agreed to a $715 million settlement
Adelphia Communications Corp. agreed to a $715 million
settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and Securities and Exchange
Commission to resolve claims stemming from the corporate looting and
accounting-fraud scandal that toppled the country's fifth-largest
cable-television operator.
Peter Grant and Deborah Solomon," "Adelphia to Pay $715 Million In 3-Way
Settlement," The Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2005, Page A3 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111445555592816193,00.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
Regas Father and Son in Club
Fed at Last
In
June, U.S. District Judge
Leonard Sand rescinded the
order allowing them to
remain free, giving the
father and son until Aug. 13
to report to prison. John
Rigas, 82, was sentenced to
15 years and Timothy Rigas,
51, to 20 years for their
role in the collapse of one
of the nation's largest
cable television companies
(Adelphia). The pair had
asked that they be allowed
to serve their time together
at a facility close to their
homes in Coudersport, Pa.
Instead, the federal Bureau
of Prisons sent them to the
Butner Federal Correctional
Complex, located about 45
minutes northwest of
Raleigh.
Martha Waggoner, "Adelphia's
Rigases Report to Prison,"
Forbes, August 13,
2007 ---
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/13/ap4014493.html
Bob
Jensen's threads on Deloitte
are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#Deloitte
Delphi Settles Lawsuits Over Accounting Fraud Charges
Delphi Corp. settled fraud lawsuits by investors,
including about 40,000 current and former employees and several pension funds,
who contended former managers fraudulently inflated financial results to make
Delphi more attractive. Participants in employee-retirement plans will get $24.5
million in allowed interest in Delphi's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case and $22.5
million in cash from insurance carriers. Buyers of Delphi's debt and equity will
get $204 million in combined allowed interest and about $90 million in cash from
other defendants and insurers.
"Delphi Settles Lawsuits Over Fraud Charges," The Wall Street Journal,
September 4, 2007; Page A9 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118887586498116651.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
Jensen
Comment
I think what's important
about this is that Deloitte
is the only one of the Big
Four that did not sell its
consulting division
(although those firms that
did sell have started up new
advisory services
divisions). It would seem
that Deloitte was still
auditing an information
system that it once
designed. However, some
other firms are probably
doing the same thing even
though they sold the
consulting divisions that
once designed the
information systems being
audited.
"Delphi
Investors Seek Deloitte's
Ouster as Auditor," by
Jonathan Weil, The Wall
Street Journal,
December 3, 2005; Page B13
---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113356891041013005.html?mod=todays_us_money_and_investing
A
group of large investors
has asked the judge
presiding over Delphi
Corp.'s bankruptcy
proceedings to
disqualify Big Four
accounting firm Deloitte
& Touche LLP from
continuing to audit the
auto-parts maker's
financial statements.
Delphi filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy-court
protection in October,
just months after
disclosing a litany of
accounting violations
involving hundreds of
millions of dollars. The
disclosures prompted a
series of government
investigations that are
continuing. Shortly
after filing for
bankruptcy protection,
Delphi asked the court
for permission to
continue using Deloitte,
its longtime outside
auditor.
In
their request Friday,
the Teachers' Retirement
System of Oklahoma, the
Public Employees'
Retirement System of
Mississippi and two
other large
institutional investors
asked U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge Robert D. Drain to
reject that application,
arguing that Deloitte
faces unmanageable
conflicts of interests.
"The more Deloitte were
to discover about
Delphi's past accounting
problems, the more it
would implicate itself
for having failed to
detect them at the
time," the funds wrote
in their court filing.
"In fact, Deloitte has
strong incentive to
conceal pre-petition
accounting and auditing
problems, and to
minimize its own
liability."
Those same investors are
the lead plaintiffs in a
lawsuit that seeks
class-action status
accusing Delphi,
Deloitte and several
other defendants of
misleading investors.
They also have filed
papers before Judge
Drain objecting to
potentially lucrative
pay packages that Delphi
has proposed for certain
key employees, including
senior Delphi
executives, while the
company reorganizes.
In
a statement, Deloitte
spokeswoman Deborah
Harrington said the
accounting firm "does
not believe it would be
appropriate to publicly
comment on a retention
application that is
currently pending before
the federal bankruptcy
court. However, any
allegations that
Deloitte & Touche LLP
acted improperly with
respect to its prior
audit engagements for
Delphi are untrue."
A
Delphi spokesman
declined to comment.
In
addition to auditing
Delphi's financial
statements, Deloitte
also designed and
implemented Delphi's
financial-information
systems following the
company's 1999 spinoff
from General Motors
Corp. In 2000, Delphi
paid Deloitte $6.6
million for its annual
audit and $50.8 million
for nonaudit services,
including $41.3 million
for the
information-systems
project; it paid
Deloitte an additional
$12 million related to
the project in 2001.
Since then, Delphi's
audit fees have risen,
while nonaudit fees have
declined. For 2004,
Delphi paid Deloitte $14
million in audit fees
and $1.7 million for
other services.
Continued in article
Bob Jensen's threads on Deloitte are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#Deloitte
Sarbanes-Oxley Lowers Corporate Fraud Lawsuits
After five years, the Sarbanes-Oxley law has reduced
corporate fraud. It was crafted to restore investor confidence with tighter
rules for audits and forcing executives to certify financial statements. Chris
Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, talks with Renee
Montagne.
NPR, August 2, 2007 ---
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12555895
A powerful argument for
Sarbox can be made simply by
examining the performance of
financial markets since the
landmark act was passed.
Though Sarbox certainly
can't take full credit, the
U.S. stock market (as
measured by the S&P 500) has
increased 67%, or about $4.2
trillion in market value,
between July 30, 2002 and
June 30, 2007. Even John
Thain, CEO of the New York
Stock Exchange (NYSE) and no
great fan of Sarbox,
concedes "There is no
question that, broadly
speaking, Sarbanes-Oxley was
necessary."
Thomas J.
Healey,
"Sarbox Was the Right
Medicine," The Wall
Street Journal, August
9, 2007; Page A13 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118662443703492573.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
Bob Jensen's threads on
SOX/Sarbox are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudProposedReforms.htm
Bob Jensen's fraud
updates are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudUpdates.htm
Internal
Control Breakdown at North
Carolina State University
A
state audit found that
$400,000 in funds from
vending machines at North
Carolina State University,
which was supposed to go to
student aid and reducing
campus debt, instead went to
a spending account for
then-chancellor James Renick,
the
Associated Press reported.
Renick, currently a senior
official at the American
Council on Education, then
spent the money on art work,
travel by his wife, and a
$150,000 annuity for an
unidentified faculty member,
the audit found. The AP was
unable to reach Renick but
he has previously defended
management at the
university. The audit also
found $500,000 in
questionable spending by a
fellowship program,
supported by federal funds,
for engineering faculty
members. According to the
AP, the audit said that the
program’s manager spent 41
nights in hotels at the
program’s expense in 2005-6,
at an average cost of $328 a
night.
Inside Higher Ed,
August 27, 2007 ---
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/27/qt
Bob
Jensen's threads on
accountability problems in
higher education are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/HigherEdControversies.htm#Accountability
Home Depot Fires
Employees Amid Probe of
Kickbacks
Home Depot, Inc. fired four
merchandise-purchasing
employees who allegedly
received kickbacks to ensure
certain flooring products
were stocked by the retailer
and put in prominent
positions, the company said
. . . The terminations
follow several months of
quiet in what has been a
turbulent year for the
retailer. In January, Bob
Nardelli resigned as chief
executive amid criticism
over his compensation, the
strategic direction of the
company and its stock price.
Ann Zimmerman, "The Wall
Street Journal, August
2, 2007, Page A2 ---
Click Here
Update on the ConAgra Case
Some questions were raised at a subsequent date about independence between
KPMG and head of ConAgra's Audit Committee who is a former CEO of KPMG ---
http://www.secinfo.com/drFan.z2d.d.htm
ConAgra Allegedly Cooks the Books
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil
complaint accusing three former ConAgra Foods Inc. executives of improper
accounting practices that helped pump up profit statements. The SEC named former
Chief Financial Officer James P. O'Donnell, former Controller Jay D. Bolding and
Debra L. Keith, a former vice president of taxes, as defendants in the complaint
filed in U.S. District Court. The complaint alleged improper accounting from
fiscal 1999 through 2001. The SEC filed a separate complaint against former
controller Kenneth W. DiFonzo, 55, of Newport Beach, Calif.
"ConAgra's Books Draw SEC Action," The Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2007;
Page A10 ---
Click Here
The Securities and Exchange
Commission has filed civil
charges against ConAgra
Foods, Inc., alleging that
it engaged in improper, and
in certain instances
fraudulent, accounting
practices during its fiscal
years 1999 through 2001,
including the misuse of
corporate reserves to
manipulate reported earnings
in fiscal year 1999 and a
scheme at its former
subsidiary, United Agri-Products
(UAP), in 2000 that
involved, among other
things, improper and
premature revenue
recognition. ConAgra is a
diversified international
food company headquartered
in Omaha, Neb. Linda
Thomsen, Director of the
Commission's Division of
Enforcement, said, "This
case again illustrates that
the Commission will take
strong action when a company
and its officers engage in
accounting fraud that
distorts the company's true
financial condition. The
facts here are particularly
troubling because of the
number of different
improprieties engaged in by
Con Agra, the length of time
over which they occurred,
and the fact that senior
management was involved in
the misconduct."
AccountingEducation.com,
August 9, 2007 ---
http://accountingeducation.com/index.cfm?page=newsdetails&id=145322
You can read more about KPMG at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#KPMG
Bob Jensen's fraud
updates are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudUpdates.htm
Another KPMG defendant
pleads guilty of selling
KPMG's bogus tax shelters
One
of the five remaining
defendants in the
government's high-profile
tax-shelter case against
former KPMG LLP employees is
expected to plead guilty
ahead of a criminal trial
set to begin in October,
according to a person
familiar with the situation.
The defendant, David Amir
Makov, is expected to enter
his guilty plea in federal
court in Manhattan this
week, this person said. It
is unclear how Mr. Makov's
guilty plea will affect the
trial for the remaining four
defendants. Mr. Makov's plea
deal with federal
prosecutors was reported
yesterday by the New York
Times. A spokeswoman for the
U.S. attorney in the
Southern District of New
York, which is overseeing
the case, declined to
comment. An attorney for Mr.
Makov couldn't be reached.
Mr. Makov would be the
second person to plead
guilty in the case. He is
one of two people who didn't
work at KPMG, but his guilty
plea should give the
government's case a boost.
Federal prosecutors indicted
19 individuals on tax-fraud
charges in 2005 for their
roles in the sale and
marketing of bogus shelters
. . . KPMG admitted to
criminal wrongdoing but
avoided indictment that
could have put the tax giant
out of business. Instead,
the firm reached a
deferred-prosecution
agreement that included a
$456 million penalty. Last
week, the federal court in
Manhattan received $150,000
from Mr. Makov as part of a
bail modification agreement
that allows him to travel to
Israel.
Paul Davies, "KPMG Defendant
to Plead Guilty," The
Wall Street Journal,
August 21, 2007; Page A11
---
Click Here
You can read more
about the history of this
case at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#KPMG
"Guilty Plea Seen," by Lynnley Brown, The New York Times,
September 11, 2007 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/business/11kpmg.html?ref=business
The government’s criminal case against promoters of questionable tax shelters took a step forward yesterday when an investment adviser at the center of the inquiry pleaded guilty and provided new details on those involved.The plea by David Amir Makov, 41, in Federal District Court in Manhattan is expected to bolster the government’s investigation of Deutsche Bank over its work with questionable shelters, including one known as Blips, whose workings Mr. Makov described in detail yesterday.
No charges have been filed against Deutsche Bank, and it was not named in court documents yesterday. In a statement that he read yesterday, Mr. Makov described his tax shelter work with Bank A, which people close to the case have identified as Deutsche Bank. A spokesman for the bank declined to comment.
Mr. Makov’s plea is also expected to help the government’s case against the four remaining defendants, who include three former employees of the accounting firm KPMG and an outside lawyer. Those four are scheduled to go to trial in October.
As part of the plea agreement, Mr. Makov agreed to pay a $10 million penalty; he will be sentenced at a later date. His lawyers declined to comment yesterday.
His guilty plea to conspiracy to commit tax evasion puts back on track a faltering case that had become, to the consternation of prosecutors, a referendum on the constitutional rights of white-collar defendants, rather than the largest criminal inquiry ever into abusive tax shelters.
Continued in article
Bob Jensen's threads
on KPMG's roses and thorns
are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#KPMG
"U.S. Prosecutors Plan New Indictment in Tax Shelter Case (against Ernst &
Young)," by Lynnley Brown, The New York Times,
September 11, 2007 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/business/12tax.html?ref=business
Federal prosecutors are
planning a fresh
indictment in a case
that involves tax
shelters sold by the
accounting firm Ernst &
Young, according to
defense lawyers in the
case.
Four current and former
partners of Ernst &
Young were indicted last
May in connection with
their tax shelter work
from 1998 through 2004.
The firm itself, which
has not been charged,
has been under
investigation since 2004
by federal prosecutors
in Manhattan, who have
been looking into its
creation and sale of
aggressive shelters.
It
was not clear whether a
superseding indictment —
which would include
previous charges as well
as new ones — would be
focused on additional
Ernst & Young employees,
either former or
current; on the firm
itself; or on other
firms or individuals.
Defense lawyers for two
of the Ernst & Young
defendants said that
Deborah E. Landis, the
federal prosecutor
overseeing the case,
told a hearing in a
Federal District Court
in Manhattan yesterday
that the government
expected to file a
superseding indictment
around mid-December. Any
decision to file new
charges requires
approval of the Justice
Department.
Yesterday’s hearing,
before Judge Sidney H.
Stein of United States
District Court in
Manhattan, was held to
discuss the schedule of
court events for the
four Ernst & Young
defendants. No trial
date has been set.
Asked about an impending
new indictment, a
spokesman for Ernst &
Young declined last
night to comment.
Continued in article
Bob Jensen's threads
on Ernst & Young roses and
thorns are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#Ernst
"Big Four accounting
firm KPMG LLP faces a class action lawsuit against
its Canadian division," SmartPros, September 10, 2007 ---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x59025.xml
The lawsuit, filed this
week in Ontario Superior
Court, claims overtime
compensation for
non-chartered accountant
KPMG employees who
worked more than 44
hours in a week, were
not paid overtime pay,
and are not exempt under
applicable regulation.
Chartered accountants,
who make up the bulk of
KPMG's staff, are
excluded from overtime
provisions.
The lead plaintiff,
Toronto resident Alison
Corless, was employed by
KPMG as a "technician"
between 2000 and 2004
and is seeking $87,000
in overtime pay for that
period. The lawsuit
filed this week seeks
$20 million for the
class.
This is the second
unpaid-overtime class
action lawsuit against a
major company in Canada,
following a lawsuit
against Canadian
Imperial Bank of
Commerce.
Bob Jensen's threads
on KPMG are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#KPMG
Control Overrides in
Financial Statement Fraud
Financial-statement fraud is
typically a collaborative
effort involving an average
of seven people, according
to a study conducted by the
Institute for Fraud
Prevention. The new study
reports that those seven
members can include CEOs,
CFOs, COOs and other senior
personnel. Study authors
Robert Tillman and Michael
Indergaard of St. John’s
University based their
analysis on a sample
collected by the Government
Accountability Office of 834
companies that issued
restatements between Jan. 1,
1997, and June 30, 2002. The
study, Control Overrides in
Financial Statement Fraud,
found that 374 companies, or
45%, were accused of
securities fraud and subject
to shareholder suits, SEC
enforcement action or both.
In those cases, an average
of seven individuals were
implicated, including CEOs,
CFOs, COOs, general counsel,
directors and internal and
external auditors.
AccountingEducationl.com,
August 1, 2007 ---
http://accountingeducation.com/index.cfm?page=newsdetails&id=145287
The link in the above summary did not work. A corrected link is shown
below:
http://www.theifp.org/research grants/tillman final
report_revised_mac-orginal-EDITED.pdf
A federal judge on Friday
sentenced Joseph P. Nacchio,
the former chief executive
of Qwest Communications
International, to six years
in prison in what
prosecutors called the
largest insider-trading case
in history.
Dan Frosch, The New York
Times, July 28, 2007 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/business/28qwest.html
Bob Jensen's Rotten to
the Core threads are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudRotten.htm
More on Revenue Round Tripping Fraud
BA’s recent revenue growth
and forecasts are highly
impressive but scarcely
credible as genuine business
activity. Growth is nearly
entirely based on
transactions involving their
Malaysian joint venture,
transactions that might be
described kindly as
economically dubious and
unkindly as appearing to be
a revenue round-tripping
accounting device that
inflates reported sales. IBA
are now forecasting a
US$33.2m second half (they
report on 27 August) well
over half of which is likely
to spring from their joint
venture in Malaysia.
"IBA Health: At least Del
Boy sought profit,"
Capital Chronicle,
August 20, 2007 ----
http://alzahr.blogspot.com/2007/08/iba-health-at-least-del-boy-sought.html
This link was forwarded by
Charlie Jutabha
[cjutabha@primelink.co.th]
First half 2007: more of
the same IBA’s 2007 half
year numbers were
announced on 26 February
this year. IBA trumpeted
123% growth (US$12.6m)
versus the prior period.
The accompanying text
says little of
quantifiable substance
to account for this.
However, the only
material announcements
(in September, October
and November 2006) to
the ASX that can explain
it are all related to
the Malaysian JV:
US$33.5m of orders from
SP. That does not leave
much time to install,
sign-of with the
customer and record the
revenue before the 31
December 2006 cut-off.
However, IBA’s revenue
recognition policy is
such that it allows
itself to book delivery
and implementation
revenues separately.
That would provide the
accounting latitude
required to score these
SP orders swiftly. They
appear, therefore, to
compose most of the 123%
first half rise with the
remaining US$20m or so
ready to stick into the
second half.
Which would look just
about passable were it
not for the ASX
announcement in June, 3
days before full year
2007 closing, that IBA
had bought the remaining
51% of the JV for
US$23.2m. Thus another
transaction was made
completing an exercise
that again bears a very
striking resemblance to
revenue round tripping.
In
total, consideration
paid into or for the SP
JV in just over a year
comes to US$43.8m of
which cash was US$39.1m.
The outright revenue
value of the SP hospital
concession, on IBA’s own
ASX data, is US$43.3m.
These are contextually
interesting transactions
with fortuitous timings;
and spotting the
economic value in the
circles is not obvious.
The accounting value, on
the other hand, is
immense and boosts the
top-line on the P&L
whilst masking the
associated expense as an
‘investment’ in the
balance sheet. Whilst it
is always possible (if
not probable) that the
profit contribution from
the SP JV is strongly
positive at the 2007
full year at the half it
was negative.
Looks a lot like a
failure to disclose a
material event In April
and March 2006 IBA
announced it had
partnered with FSBM
Holdings Berhad and won
a contract (beating 22
rivals) from the
University Malaya
Medical Centre (UMMC).
The IBA share of this
was touted at US$8m.
This win was featured in
ASX announcements, press
releases, analyst
presentations and the
2006 accounts published
in August last year. An
Australian Parliamentary
Secretary even waxed
lyrical on it. Clearly
it is material, has
political value and
represented a
prestigious reference
for future IBA bids.
Unfortunately, IBA were
subsequently removed
from the deal by FSBM at
the start of 2007 in
favour of iSoft plc. Did
IBA try a bait and
switch, vapour-ware
strategy over-promising
more functionality than
their suite (or that of
their acquired Indian
firm Medicom) actually
had?
Whatever the reason, it
appears IBA are
neglecting to disclose a
material fact to
investors (find any ASX
announcement on the loss
if you can) and also its
other Malaysian clients
for, perhaps,
negotiating purposes.
Concurrently the company
is forecasting
ever-better revenue
numbers. Is it
conceivable that IBA
hoped a successful bid
for iSoft would simply
buy back what they
already announced and
allow it an escape from
its obligations to the
market and customers?
Finally In light of the
ASX's 10 Principles
aimed at establishing
corporate governance
best practice one might
ask what have the Audit
Committee at IBA been up
to. Two of its three
members have strong
financial backgrounds
and the appropriate
surnames for the role
(Sherlock and Wise)
whilst the other is a
Professor of medicine
and practicing GP. Are
they content that the
committee has discharged
its stated duty to:
"review accounting and
disclosure policies,
financial and management
accounting reporting
practices" [p. 23, 2006
IBA Annual Report]
Bob Jensen's threads on
revenue round tripping are
at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ecommerce/eitf01.htm#RoundTripping
Question
Why have "new" concerns arisen over naked short selling?
From The Wall Street
Journal Accounting Weekly
Review on July 13, 2007
"Blame the 'Stock
Vault'?" by John R.
Emshwiller and Kara Scannell,
The Wall Street Journal,
July 5, 2007, Page: C1
Click here to view the full
article on WSJ.com
TOPICS: Accounting
SUMMARY: The Depository
Trust & Clearing Corp. (DTCC)
"...is the middleman [for
all U.S. stock trade
transactions] that helps
ensure delivery of shares to
buyers and money to
sellers." Rather than
physically exchanging shares
of stock and cash for their
clients' trading, brokerage
houses maintain bank-like
accounts of "securities
entitlements" at the DTCC;
"almost all stock is now
kept at [the DTCC's] central
depository and never leaves
there." The SEC requires
that trades be completed
within 3 days, but "if the
stock in a given transaction
isn't delivered in the
three-day period, the buyer,
who paid his money, is
routinely given electronic
credit for the stock." This
mechanism essentially
provides cover for naked
short-selling. Though it is
an illegal practice, the SEC
has no procedure to enforce
the three-day requirement
and thus eliminate the
possibility of naked
short-selling. "Critics
contend that DTCC and the
SEC have been too secretive
with delivery-failure data"
and thus are not upholding
laws requiring "a free and
transparent market."
QUESTIONS:
1.) What is the Depository
Trust & Clearing Corp. (DTCC)?
Why was it established?
2.) Based on the
information in the article,
describe the organization of
the DTCC in terms of a
balance sheet equation. What
assets does the entity hold?
What are its liabilities?
Hint: think in terms similar
to a bank which holds cash
for its customers and which
shows demand deposits on its
balance sheet as
liabilities.
3.) Refer to your answer
to question 2 and to the
statement in the article
that the DTCC credits stock
buyers' brokerage accounts
with "securities
entitlements", which then
can be sold to another stock
buyer. Is the term "credit"
used in the same way as the
description of a credit
balance in a balance sheet
equation? Support your
answer.
4.) What is naked
short-selling? Why do you
think this practice is
illegal?
5.) According to the
description in the article,
how do DTCC practices allow
for naked short selling?
6.) What is
"transparency" in a market?
How could improvements to
DTCC reporting help to
improve the transparency in
U.S. securities markets?
7.) How is the issue of
transparency in reporting by
the DTCC similar to
transparency in financial
reporting by corporate
entities?
8.) What actions are the
SEC and the DTCC considering
to respond to the claim of
insufficient transparency in
this area?
Reviewed By: Judy
Beckman, University of Rhode
Island
"Blame the 'Stock
Vault'?" by John R.
Emshwiller and Kara Scannell,
The Wall Street Journal,
July 5, 2007, Page: C1
Click here to view the full
article on WSJ.com
At
issue is a nefarious
twist on short-selling,
a legitimate practice
that involves trying to
profit on a stock's
falling price by selling
borrowed shares in hopes
of later replacing them
with cheaper ones. The
twist is known as "naked
shorting" -- selling
shares without borrowing
them.
Illegal except in
limited circumstances,
naked shorting can drive
down a stock's price by
effectively increasing
the supply of shares for
the period, some people
argue.
There is no dispute that
illegal naked shorting
happens. The fight is
over how prevalent the
problem is -- and the
extent to which DTCC is
responsible. Some
companies with falling
stock prices say it is
rampant and blame DTCC
as the keepers of the
system where it happens.
DTCC and others say it
isn't widespread enough
to be a major concern.
The Securities and
Exchange Commission has
viewed naked shorting as
a serious enough matter
to have made two
separate efforts to
restrict the practice.
The latest move came
last month, when the SEC
further tightened the
rules regarding when
stock has to be
delivered after a sale.
But some critics argue
the SEC still hasn't
done enough.
The controversy has put
an unaccustomed
spotlight on DTCC.
Several companies have
filed suit against DTCC
regarding delivery
failure. DTCC officials
say the attacks are
unfounded and being
orchestrated by a small
group of plaintiffs'
lawyers and corporate
executives looking to
make money from lawsuits
and draw attention away
from problems at their
companies.
Historic Roots
The naked-shorting
debate is a product of
the revolution that has
occurred in stock
trading over the past 40
years. Up to the 1960s,
trading involved
hundreds of messengers
crisscrossing lower
Manhattan with bags of
stock certificates and
checks. As trading
volume hit 15 million
shares daily, the New
York Stock Exchange had
to close for part of
each week to clear the
paperwork backlog.
That led to the creation
of DTCC, which is
regulated by the SEC.
Almost all stock is now
kept at the company's
central depository and
never leaves there.
Instead, a stock buyer's
brokerage account is
electronically credited
with a "securities
entitlement." This
electronic credit can,
in turn, be sold to
someone else.
Replacing paper with
electrons has allowed
stock-trading volume to
rise to billions of
shares daily. The cost
of buying or selling
stock has fallen to less
than 3.5 cents a share,
a tenth of paper-era
costs.
But to keep trading
moving at this pace, the
system can provide cover
for naked shorting,
critics argue. If the
stock in a given
transaction isn't
delivered in the
three-day period, the
buyer, who paid his
money, is routinely
given electronic credit
for the stock. While the
SEC calls for delivery
in three days, the
agency has no mechanism
to enforce that
guideline.
'Phantom Stock'
Some delivery failures
linger for weeks or
months. Until that
failure is resolved,
there are effectively
additional shares of a
company's stock rattling
around the trading
system in the form of
the shares credited to
the buyer's account,
critics say. This
"phantom stock" can put
downward pressure on a
company's share price by
increasing the supply.
DTCC officials counter
that for each
undelivered share there
is a corresponding
obligation created to
deliver stock, which
keeps the system in
balance. They also say
that 80% of the delivery
failures are resolved
within two business
weeks.
There are legitimate
reasons for delivery
failures, including
simple clerical errors.
But one illegitimate
reason is naked shorting
by traders looking to
drive down a stock's
price.
Critics contend DTCC has
turned a blind eye to
the naked-shorting
problem.
Denver Lawsuit
In
a lawsuit filed in
Nevada state court,
Denver-based Nanopierce
Technologies Inc.
contended that DTCC
allowed "sellers to
maintain significant
open fail to deliver"
positions of millions of
shares of the
semiconductor company's
stock for extended
periods, which helped
push down Nanopierce's
shares by more than 50%.
The small company, which
is now called Vyta
Corp., trades on the
electronic OTC Bulletin
Board market. In recent
trading, the stock has
traded around 40 cents.
A Nevada state court
judge dismissed the
suit, which prompted an
appeal by the company.
Continued in article
Bob Jensen's "Rotten
to the Core" threads are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudRotten.htm
"Fraud Cases Nab Scads
of Corporate Heads," by
Lara Jakes Jordan,
SmartPros, July 18, 2007
---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x58417.xml
Hundreds of high-ranking
company officials have
been convicted in
corporate fraud schemes
since 2002, the Justice
Department said Tuesday
- a day after a federal
judge threw out charges
in one of the largest
criminal tax cases in
U.S. history.
Attorney
General
Alberto
Gonzales
called the
U.S.
District
Court
ruling,
in favor of
13 former
KPMG
employees,
disappointing
and said he
was "quite
confident"
the
government
would
appeal.
"Obviously,
we're
disappointed,
and we won't
be
discouraged
or deterred
from
pursuing
wrongdoing
where we
think it
exists and
following
the evidence
where it
takes us,"
Gonzales
told
reporters
following
the
long-planned
Justice
Department
announcement
regarding
its efforts
to curb
corporate
fraud. "So
we're
disappointed
but we're
going to
stay focused
on this very
important
issue."
In all,
federal
prosecutors
have won
1,236
convictions
in corporate
fraud cases
and reaped
hundreds of
millions in
payback for
victims over
the last
five years,
said Deputy
Attorney
General Paul
McNulty.
At least
one-third of
the
convictions
came against
company
CEOs,
presidents,
counsel and
other
high-ranking
officials,
said
McNulty, who
chaired a
government
task force
aimed at
curbing
corporate
corruption
in the
aftermath of
the Enron
scandal that
wiped out
thousands of
jobs, more
than $60
billion in
market value
and more
than $2
billion in
employee
pension
plans.
McNulty, who
is leaving
the Justice
Department
by summer's
end, last
year
authored
changes to
rules for
prosecutors
in corporate
fraud cases.
The result,
known as the
"McNulty
Memo," bars
prosecutors
from
charging
businesses
solely for
refusing to
hand over
corporate
attorney-client
communications.
It also
prohibits
the
government
from
penalizing
firms that
pay
attorneys'
fees for
employees -
except in
rare cases
where the
payments
result in
blocking the
investigation.
Critics say
that leaves
open the
possibility
of firms
that pay
attorneys
fees being
publicly
viewed as
hindering
investigations
- a death
knell in an
ethics-sensitive
business
era. Last
week, Rep.
Bobby Scott,
D-Va.,
introduced
legislation
to bar
prosecutors
from
pressuring
corporations
against
paying legal
fees or
demanding
attorney-client
information.
The bill is
similar to
one filed
last year by
Sen. Arlen
Specter,
R-Pa.
In the KPMG
case Monday,
U.S.
District
Judge Lewis
A. Kaplan in
New York
said the
government
coerced the
giant tax
firm to
limit and
then cut off
its payment
of the
employees'
legal fees -
stripping
the 13
defendants'
constitutional
right to
legal
representation.
The former
KPMG
employees
were accused
of
participating
in a fraud
that helped
the wealthy
escape $2.5
billion in
taxes.
(Charges are
still
pending
against
several
higher
ranking KPMG
executives.)
The case was
not
mentioned
during
Tuesday's
hour-long
ceremony,
which
doubled as a
public
send-off for
McNulty. The
memo,
McNulty
said, should
encourage
firms "to
engage in
more robust
self-assessment
of their
internal
controls."
|
Bob Jensen's threads
on fraud are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraud.htm
Bob Jensen's threads
on why white collar crime
often pays even if you know
you're going to get caught
are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#CrimePays
Why they do it is
hypothesized at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudEnronQuiz.htm
The case in Parma is
one of several against former executives and others accused of
contributing to the alleged fraud that concealed Parmalat’s
mounting debt.
Eric Sylvers, "Parmalat’s Founder and Bankers Are Charged,"
The New York Times, July 25, 2007 ---
Click Here
Bob Jensen's threads on
Parmalat's auditor, Grant
Thornton, are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#GrantThornton
The Controversies of
Rankings of Physicians by
Cost and Quality
"N.Y. Attorney General
Objects to Insurer’s Ranking
of Doctors by Cost and
Quality," by Anthony
Ramirez, The New York
Times, July 14, 2007 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/nyregion/14healthcare.html
In
a sharply worded letter,
the New York State
attorney general’s
office asked a health
insurance company
yesterday to halt its
planned introduction of
a method for ranking
doctors by quality of
care and cost of
service, warning of
legal action if it did
not comply.
.
. .
It
asked the company to
cancel its plan to
release the rankings in
September, citing a
furor over a similar
program’s introduction
in Missouri in 2005.
There, physician groups,
including the American
Medical Association,
said the cost rankings
primarily reflected the
cost of care to the
insurer — not to
patients.
Missouri doctors cited
numerous objections to
the pilot program, which
was halted and is being
redesigned. For example,
most faculty members of
the Washington
University School of
Medicine in St. Louis
were initially excluded
from the quality
rankings because
university-based care is
generally more
expensive. Doctors in
major specialties were
ranked by cost alone.
Tyler Mason, a spokesman
for UnitedHealthcare,
said the company had
been meeting with the
attorney general’s
staff. He said: “We
share their commitment
to looking at cost and
quality. That’s exactly
what this is about. The
assertion in the letter
that sometimes higher
cost equals higher
quality is actually not
what experts nationwide
find. Sometimes lower
cost means higher
quality.”
Continued in article
Related Item of
Controversy
Drug makers are exploring
the possibility of tying
pharmaceutical prices to
performance
"Pricing Pills by the
Results," by Andrew Pollack,
The New York Times,
July 14, 2007 ---
Click Here
Boston Scientific
agreed to pay $195 million
to settle claims related to
a potentially flawed
defibrillator made by its
subsidiary, Guidant.
Barry Meir, "Maker Settles
Suit on Device for Hearts,"
The New York Times,
July 14, 2007 ---
Click Here
Brocade Ex-CEO Convicted of Fraud
A jury in San Francisco has convicted Gregory Reyes,
the former chief executive of Brocade Communications Systems, of conspiracy to
defraud shareholders. The executive of the San Jose-based high-tech firm could
face years in prison and millions of dollars in fines.
Scott Horsely, NPR, August 8, 2007 ---
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12586282
Fraudulent Advanced Placement (AP) Credits
"College Board Tries to
Police Use of ‘Advanced
Placement’ Label," by Tamar
Lewin, The New York Times,
July 17, 2007 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/education/18ap.html
When Bruce Poch, the
dean of admissions at
Pomona College, sees a
high school transcript
listing courses in AP
Philosophy or AP Middle
Eastern History, he
knows something is
wrong. There is no such
thing. Neither subject
is among the 37 in the
College Board’s Advanced
Placement program.
“Schools just slap AP on
courses to tag them as
high-level, even when
there’s no Advanced
Placement exam in the
subject,” Mr. Poch said.
“It was getting to be
like Kleenex or Xerox.”
But now, for the first
time, the College Board
is creating a list of
classes each school is
authorized to call AP
and reviewing the
syllabuses for those
classes. The list,
expected in November, is
both an effort to
protect the College
Board brand and an
attempt to ensure that
Advanced Placement
classes cover what
college freshmen learn,
so colleges can safely
award credit to students
who do well on AP exams.
“We’ve heard of schools
that offered AP Botany,
AP Astronomy, AP
Ceramics, and one
Wyoming school with AP
Military History,” said
Trevor Packer, director
of the board’s Advanced
Placement program. “We
don’t have those
subjects. One of the
reasons colleges called
for the audit was that
they wanted to know
better what it means
when they see an AP on a
transcript.”
Schools seeking approval
for their Advanced
Placement courses must
submit their syllabuses.
Those found lacking are
returned, but schools
have two more chances to
revise them.
Developed 50 years ago
for gifted students in
elite high schools, the
Advanced Placement
program now exists in
almost two-thirds of
American high schools.
In May, about 1.5
million students took
2.5 million Advanced
Placement exams, hoping
to earn college credit
and impress college
admissions offices,
which often give
applicants extra points
on the transcript.
But with so many more
APs — real and fake —
admissions officers have
difficulty assessing
them, especially since
admission decisions are
made before the May
exams.
“When you look at
transcripts, what you
see is often not what
you get,” said William
Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s
dean of admissions. “It
could be AP Powerlifting
next, who knows? In my
view, it’s misleading to
call something AP if
it’s not a College Board
AP. And even in
legitimate College Board
AP courses, it’s hard to
know what was taught
until one sees the exam
results. If students are
getting watered-down AP
courses, this audit will
help bring them up to
the standard.”
As
APs have spread, it has
become clear that the
name is no guarantee of
rigor; an AP course at a
wealthy suburban high
school may be far more
ambitious than one at a
poor rural school. And
in many struggling high
schools, nearly all the
students in Advanced
Placement classes fail
the exam.
The College Board
concedes that the audit
will do nothing to
change that. “By no
means do we anticipate
that this will result in
higher exam scores,” Mr.
Packer said. “The audit
allows us to know one
thing only, and that is,
does the AP teacher know
what elements are
expected in a
college-level course.
It’s not proof that
students are prepared
for college-level work.”
But, he said, the audit
allows the board to give
teachers more guidance
and practice materials,
and to pinpoint areas
where APs do not mirror
college courses.
In
AP Art History courses,
the audit found, the
most common flaw in the
syllabuses was a narrow
focus on Western art. In
physics, atomic and
nuclear physics were
often left out. In
psychology, statistical
analysis and measurement
needed bolstering. And
in government and
politics, many high
schools left out Iran
and Islam.
Continued in article
How to recognize and avoid
Advanced Placement (AP)
credits ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/HigherEdControversies.htm#AP
Bob Jensen's threads
on higher education
controversies are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/HigherEdControversies.htm
At the same
time, health
care
benefits are
denied other
part-time
workers such
as adjunct
professors
The trustees
argue that
providing
health
benefits to
members of
the board —
many of whom
are retired
and most of
whom have
other
part-time
jobs or are
self-employed
— is
essential
for
attracting
candidates
whenever a
seat opens
up. Those
opposing the
expansion of
health
coverage,
who say they
are against
any benefits
for board
members,
believe that
being a
trustee
should be a
privilege in
itself
rather than
a collection
of perks.
They also
disagree,
citing
recent
elections
with
multiple
candidates,
that
benefits are
necessary to
entice
candidates.Members
of the board
currently
receive $240
a month plus
reimbursements
for
work-related
travel, in
addition to
the health
benefits
that five of
the trustees
have. In
California,
community
college
districts
are unusual
in that they
are
authorized
by the state
(in
section
53201 of the
government
code)
to offer
benefits to
board
members.
“That
clearly is
different
from most
other
states,”
said J. Noah
Brown,
president of
the
Association
of Community
College
Trustees.
Andy Guess,
"Helping the
College, or
Just
Themselves?"
Inside
Higher Ed,
September
14, 2007 ---
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/09/14/trustees
Bob
Jensen's threads on
financial accountability in
higher education are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/HigherEdControversies.htm#Accountability
"Majoring in Credit-Card Debt: Aggressive on-campus marketing by
credit-card companies is coming under fire. What should be done to educate
students about the dangers of plastic?" by Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Business
Week, September 4, 2007 ---
Click Here
This
story is
the
first in
a series
examining
the
increasing
use of
credit
cards by
college
students.
Seth
Woodworth
stood
paralyzed
by fear
in his
parents'
driveway
in Moses
Lake,
Wash. It
was two
years
ago,
during
his
sophomore
year at
Central
Washington
University,
and on
this
visit,
he was
bringing
home far
more
than
laundry.
He was
carrying
more
than
$3,000
in
credit-card
debt. "I
was
pretty
terrified
of
listening
to my
voice
mail
because
of all
the
messages
about
the
money I
owed,"
says
Woodworth.
He did
get some
help
from his
parents
but
still
had to
drop out
of
school
to pay
down his
debts.
Over the
next
month,
as 17
million
college
students
flood
the
nation's
campuses,
they
will be
greeted
by
swarms
of
credit-card
marketers.
Frisbees,
T-shirts,
and even
iPods
will be
used as
enticements
to sign
up, and
marketing
on the
Web will
reinforce
the
message.
Many
kids
will go
for it.
Some 75%
of
college
students
have
credit
cards
now, up
from 67%
in 1998.
Just a
generation
earlier,
a credit
card on
campus
was a
great
rarity.
For many
of the
students
now, the
cards
they get
will
simply
be an
easier
way to
pay for
groceries
or
books,
with no
long-term
negative
consequences.
But for
Seth
Woodworth
and a
growing
number
like
him,
easy
access
to
credit
will
lead to
spending
beyond
their
means
and
debts
that
will
compromise
their
futures.
The
freshman
15, a
fleshy
souvenir
of beer
and
late-night
pizza,
is now
taking
on a new
meaning,
with
some
freshman
racking
up more
than
$15,000
in
credit-card
debt
before
they can
legally
drink.
"It's
astonishing
to me to
see
college
students
coming
out of
school
with
staggering
amounts
of debt
and
credit
scores
so
abominable
that
they
couldn't
rent a
car,"
says
Representative
Louise
Slaughter
(D-N.Y.).
Congressional
Oversight
Weighed
The role
of
credit-card
companies
in
helping
to build
these
mountains
of debt
is
coming
under
great
scrutiny.
Critics
say that
as the
companies
compete
for this
important
growth
market,
they
offer
credit
lines
far out
of
proportion
to
students'
financial
means,
reaching
$10,000
or more
for
youngsters
without
jobs.
The
cards
often
come
with
little
or no
financial
education,
leaving
some
unsophisticated
students
with no
idea
what
their
obligations
will be.
Then
when
students
build up
balances
on their
cards,
they
find
themselves
trapped
in a
maze of
jargon
and
baffling
fees,
with
annual
interest
rates
shooting
up to
more
than
30%. "No
industry
in
America
is more
deserving
of
oversight
by
Congress,"
says
Travis
Plunkett,
legislative
director
for
Consumer
Federation
of
America,
a
consumer
advocacy
group.
The
oversight
may be
coming
soon.
With
Democrats
in
control
of
Congress
and the
debt
problems
for
college
kids
only
growing
worse,
the
chances
of a
crackdown
have
increased
substantially.
The
Senate
is
expected
to hold
hearings
on the
credit-card
industry's
practices
this
fall.
Representative
Barney
Frank
(D-Mass.)
has
pledged
to
introduce
tough
legislation.
And
Slaughter
introduced
a bill
in
August
to limit
the
amount
of
credit
that
could be
extended
to
students
to 20%
of their
income
or $500
if their
parents
co-sign
for the
card.
The
major
credit-card
companies
take
great
issue
with the
criticisms.
Bank of
America
(BAC),
Citibank
(C),
JPMorgan
Chase (JPM),
American
Express
(AXP),
and
others
say they
are
providing
a
valuable
service
to
students
and they
work
hard to
ensure
that
their
credit
cards
are used
responsibly.
Citibank
and
JPMorgan
both
offer
extensive
financial
literacy
materials
for
college
students.
Citibank,
for
instance,
says it
distributed
more
than 5
million
credit-education
pieces
to
students,
parents,
and
administrators
last
year for
free. At
JPMorgan
Chase,
bank
representative
Paul
Hartwick
says:
"Our
overall
approach
toward
college
students
is to
help
them
build
good
financial
habits
and a
credit
history
that
prepares
them for
a
lifetime
of
successful
credit
use."
Continued in article
Bob Jensen's threads
on the dirty secrets of
credit card companies are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudReporting.htm#FICO