Accounting Scandal Updates on November 15, 2002
Bob Jensen at Trinity University

Bob Jensen's main document on the Enron scandal and other accounting frauds is at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraud.htm 

CLEANING UP THE MESS IN CORPORATE AMERICA 
Who is to blame for the meltdown of Enron, the crashing stock market and other disturbing events in corporate America? Everyone from the accounting industry that cannot police itself to individual investors who chose not to ask too many questions say Stanford Business School faculty members. Stanford Business magazine, November, 2002 http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/community/bmag/sbsm0211/feature_econ_scandal1.html 

A PwC (PricewaterHouseCoopers) survey finds that executives are trying to improve transparency. Come on folks, who thought this one up? A survey? Why bother? It is like asking politicians if they oppose clean air. Of course the executives are going to say they are trying to increase transparency and that transparency is important.
FinanceProfessor [FinanceProfessor@lb.bcentral.com]  http://www.barometersurveys.com/production/barsurv.nsf/vwAllNewsByDocID/C2464734264D3A8F85256C5D0066B2AA?OpenDocument 

Is this more bad news for Citigroup? The NY Times reports more evidence of shady dealings with Worldcom’s Bernie Ebbers has been found. This time the news involves loans granted to the ex-CEO that were accompanied by an equity position by Citigroups’ Travelers. The equity position was not illegal, but does seem slightly troubling given the fact that only months later Ebbers picked Citigroup as the underwriter for WorldCom deals. 
FinanceProfessor [FinanceProfessor@lb.bcentral.com] 
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/03/business/yourmoney/03WATC.html 

The SEC proposed several rules changes that will strengthen investor protections (see accounting section as well). One rule change will drastically cut down on the use of pro forma earnings figures. Another change prohibits insider selling when other employees are not allowed to sell from their pension plans (or 401k plans). And finally another change would make firms more fully disclose (in plain English) any off balance sheet financing.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40623-2002Oct30.html 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2378405.stm 
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/business/1640580 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43303-2002Oct30.html 

On November 10, 2002 William Webster quit as chairman of a new national board to police corporate accountants, resigned prior to the first scheduled meeting of the PAOSB. This resignation follows in the wake of the resignations of the Chairman of the SEC (Harvey Pitt) and the SEC Chief Accountant (Robert Herdman). There is now a huge vacuum at the top in America's efforts to restore investor faith in corporate reporting and auditing.

Question
How large is the gap between the fourth and fifth largest CPA firms?

Answer
$2,738.5 million but the gaps between the largest firms will change significantly next year when revenues from former Andersen clients are redistributed.

Public Accounting Report has published its annual ranking of America's Top 100 Accounting Firms, and it's no surprise that Andersen, last year's number five ranked firm, is no longer on the list. http://www.accountingweb.com/item/95611

AccountingWEB US - Nov-5-2002 - Public Accounting Report has published its annual ranking of America's Top 100 Accounting Firms, and it's no surprise that Andersen, last year's number five ranked firm, is no longer on the list. Although the former Big Five firm technically still exists, it was removed from the pool of eligible firms for this year's ranking due to its conviction on federal obstruction of justice charges. Holding on to first place, PricewaterhouseCoopers leads the pack, followed by the rest of the Big Four and six more familiar names that fill out the top 10 spaces on the list. A few firms switched places from last year: Ernst & Young moved ahead of KPMG, and Grant Thornton moved ahead of BDO Seidman. The top 10 firms, with their reported revenue, are as follows:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers: $8,056.5 million
  2. Deloitte & Touche: $6,130 million
  3. Ernst & Young: $4,485 million
  4. KPMG: $3,171 million
  5. Grant Thornton: $432.5 million
  6. BDO Seidman: $353 million
  7. BKD: $210.9 million
  8. Crowe, Chizek & Co.: $204.7 million
  9. McGladrey & Pullen: $203 million
  10. Moss Adams: $163 million

November 8 reply from James Borden [james.borden@VILLANOVA.EDU] 

Here are a couple of web sites that track info about former Andersen clients:

http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/13/0313andersen.html   
this lists defections by month, in alphabetical order by name of client.

At http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=74745  
the list is done by Big 4 firms, with the names of the clients that have gone to those firms.

Jim Borden 
Villanova University

Summary of Post-Enron News from Ernst & Young --- http://www.smartpros.com/x33207.xml 

"SEC Central Defining 'Non-Audit' Services: The Audit Committee's Role:  Nine prohibited activities courtesy of Sarbanes-Oxley," by: Charles Hecht, SmartPros, November 2002 --- http://www.smartpros.com/x35824.xml 

Prior to the adoption of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOA"), there was some confusion over what types of non-auditing services the outside accountant could perform for a public corporation. In fact, some of the major accounting firms sold their consulting units in recent years in order to avoid any possible conflicts of interest.

The SOA attempts to eliminate specified potential conflicts of interest arising out of "non-audit services" and gives further power to the Audit Committee. The SOA explicitly prohibits large scale, big fee financial information systems design and implementation or information technology work. This was a very high profit area for the non-audit arms of the large accounting firms. The SOA also bars internal audit outsourcing and "expert" services.
   
Set forth below are the nine prohibited activities for a registered accounting firm performing an independent audit of a public company:

Continued at  http://www.smartpros.com/x35824.xml 

Researchers at Penn State University and Florida International University have released a disturbing study showing that phony pricing schemes for import-export transactions are defrauding the federal government of well over $50 billion annually. http://www.accountingweb.com/item/95530 
The Penn State University report is at http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/s/j/sjp14/Syllabus/EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY2001FINAL.doc 

Researchers at Pennsylvania State University and Florida International University have released a disturbing study showing that fake pricing schemes for import-export transactions are defrauding the federal government of well over $50 billion annually.

Consider the following: Razor blades imported from Britain for $113 apiece. Tweezers from Japan for $4,896 each. Cut rubies from Burma for $38,192 per carat. And for U.S. trading partners, exporting car seats to Belgium for $1.66, missile launchers sold to Israel for $52, or bejeweled wristwatches sold to Columbia for $8.68.

Simon J. Pak, a finance professor at Pennsylvania State University Great Valley, and John S. Zdanowicz, the director of the Center for Banking and Financial Institutions have been studying government records for over a decade, and believe that this kind of pricing manipulation to shield U.S. Income Tax obligations is widespread.

"We do not cast wary glances at their stuff," Customs Service spokesman Dean Boyd said of the analysis. "It's very serious, because you can do this with any commodity."

The process is relatively simple. For example: A Japanese automaker manufactures a car radio for $100, but its U.S. subsidiary buys it for $199, then sells it for $200. The company's bottom line hasn't changed, but the taxable profit in the United States is now just $1 instead of $100. A tax bill that would have been $34 is reduced to 34 cents.

Conversely, if a U.S. manufacturer exports a bulldozer to its Colombian subsidiary for $1,742; the Colombian company sells it to a buyer for $28,000. The U.S. company's cost of producing the bulldozer can be written off its income taxes , but the profit from the sale would reside in Colombia. That profit would be subject to U.S. taxes only after it is "repatriated" across the border, presumably in a bad economic year when the company's taxable U.S. income is low or nonexistent.

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, who secured a $2 million grant for the research, wants the U.S. government to sit up and take notice. "The IRS and the Treasury have been in a deep sleep on this subject," Dorgan said. "I want Treasury and the IRS to look at this, to say this is a big, serious problem."

Zdanowicz said the government "is shutting down the front door on the illegal movement of money, focusing on banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions. But the back door is wide open, international trade."

"Wall Street Is Near Accord on Research, by Patrick McGeehan, The New York Times, October 30, 2002, October 30, 2002

The biggest firms on Wall Street are nearing an agreement with regulators for fixing the problems with stock research. But some champions of independent investment advice are criticizing the plan and the process that produced it.
Ten of the biggest brokerage firms and investment banks had until today to respond to a proposal laid out to them last week by Eliot Spitzer, the attorney general of New York, and Stephen M. Cutler, director of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the plan, the firms would pay a total of as much as $1 billion over five years to subsidize stock research by companies that, unlike the brokerage houses, do not also operate investment banks. The Wall Street firms, under pressure to reduce the conflict of interest between their research and investment banking operations, would have to make this independent research available to their customers.

Eager to reach a settlement that will end investigations by Mr. Spitzer and securities regulators, the firms were in general agreement yesterday on the broad outlines of the plan, people close to the negotiations said. It would limit  but not prohibit  analysts' cooperation with their investment banking colleagues and would allow the banks to keep recommending the stocks of their corporate clients, these people said.

Executives of some investment banks think that they should not be lumped together with firms like Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse First Boston, whose internal documents have been cited as evidence that analysts were influenced by investment bankers. Even those firms, including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, are likely to sign on to a general agreement that would cover all of their main competitors, people close to the negotiations said. Once they consent, regulators will work out the details, like how much each firm will pay and how the recipients will be chosen.

But some executives in the industry questioned whether the plan would really protect investors from built-in conflicts. They said that as long as analysts could draw paychecks from firms that profit by underwriting stocks, their recommendations should not be presented as objective.

Others criticized the regulators for failing to seek input from outside the core of Wall Street.  At a conference in Washington yesterday, Charles Schwab, chairman of the Charles Schwab Corporation, derided as "ludicrous" the notion that the investment banks that corrupted stock research should have a say in how to repair it.

"It's a pretty smelly thing in my opinion," Mr. Schwab told a group of financial advisers affiliated with his company.
Under the regulators' proposal, the Wall Street firms would pay a total of about $200 million a year into a fund that would be allocated by a board of advisers to a select group of independent research companies. The recipients might range from struggling boutiques to a profitable publishing company like Value Line.

Scott Cleland, one of the founders of an association of independent research firms, said that he had been rebuffed in his attempts to meet with Mr. Spitzer or securities regulators in Washington. Based on what he had heard of the plan, he said he would not take the money the advisory board would dole out.

"You can't get rid of the conflict by laundering it through a separate entity," said Mr. Cleland, who is also president of the Precursor Group, a research firm in Washington. "Research is conflicted if it is funded by a conflicted source.

"Why taint the rest of us?" he added.
Few of Mr. Cleland's peers can afford to turn down revenue. It is accepted wisdom on Wall Street that no one will pay for stock research any more.

Wall Street firms once sent out research reports in exchange for trading commissions. As those commissions shrank, the firms turned to their investment banks to cover the high cost of employing enough analysts to cover hundreds of companies.
With annual research budgets at the biggest firms running well past $500 million, banking was the obvious source of financing. Flush with fees earned from selling stocks during the boom years of the 1990's, the banks flooded their clients' mailboxes and the airwaves with their rationales for buying  rarely for selling  stocks.

Independent research firms could hardly compete against the juggernaut. Only a few of them have developed bases of paying customers. Value Line, possibly the most successful of the group, says it has only about 500,000 readers of its research, and that total includes those who find it in public libraries.

Value Line executives said yesterday that they would consider being part of the regulators' plan, although they have balked at previous invitations to distribute their company's reports through brokerage firms.
In the regulators' view, investors would benefit from more independent voices expressing opinions about stocks. But a reallocation of resources ordered by the government strikes some on Wall Street as too meddlesome. "This is just a huge wealth transfer within the financial-services industry with very little prospect of helping the retail investors," said Michael Holland, a money manager and former Salomon Brothers executive.

Mr. Holland said that the big firms would do little more than place the competing research on their Web sites. He and others asked how anybody could fairly decide which research firms deserved to be subsidized.

David S. Pottruck, co-chief executive of Schwab and a vocal critic of his competitors on Wall Street, said he would prefer to see investment banks make detailed disclosures about their potential conflicts and the performance of their recommendations.
Some traditional brokerage firms have already started doing that. Merrill Lynch, for example, is conducting its first survey of its stock brokers' opinions of the firm's senior stock analysts. Those reviews will be considered, along with the performance of analysts' stock picks, when the firm pays bonuses at the end of the year.

"We have the government now deciding how private industry will compete and operate," Mr. Pottruck said in an interview last week. "That's a very bad solution. I think we want the market, not government, driving this."
People involved in the negotiations dismissed the criticism from Schwab executives, saying that they simply wanted to preserve their competitive advantage. Schwab already offers its customers research reports from Standard & Poor's, Argus Research and

Goldman Sachs, along with its own quantitative ratings of stocks.
One person close to the talks said Schwab could be a big beneficiary of the plan. The advisory board could pay Schwab to make its research available to customers of competing brokerage firms, this person said, presenting the unlikely prospect that Merrill Lynch could be forced to give its customers access to research from its most hated rival.

Bob Jensen's threads on "Rotten to the Core" are at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraud.htm#Cleland 

Bot Jensen's threads on proposed reforms are at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudProposedReforms.htm 

From The Wall Street Journal Accounting Educators' Review on November 8, 2002

TITLE: Companies Add Ethics Training; Will It Work? 
REPORTER: Richard B. Schmitt 
DATE: Nov 04, 2002 
PAGE: B1 
LINK: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1036354025605220948.djm,00.html  
TOPICS: Accounting Irregularities, Code of Ethics, Fraudulent Financial Reporting

SUMMARY: Schmitt relates the efforts of various firms in their attempts to address the ethics issue in light of the corporate scandals and the focus on corporate governance.

QUESTIONS: 
1.) The title asks about ethics training: "Will it work?" Did Enron have ethics guidelines? How about conflict-of-interest guidelines? To who do these sorts of guidelines apply? Will it work, necessarily? What is it in the corporate culture that sets one company's ethical guidelines apart from another? What accounting firm had a thriving consulting practice in ethics consulting services?

2.) What happens when the leadership is only paying "lip service" to conflict-of-interest and ethics rules that the company espouses? What role does the Board of Directors play in this? What alleged role did Tyco's chief compliance officer have in ensuring the firm complied with their own rules?

3.) What signs would you look for if you had to evaluate the efficacy of a company's ethics and/or conflict of interest guidelines?

Reviewed By: Judy Beckman, University of Rhode Island 
Reviewed By: Benson Wier, Virginia Commonwealth University 
Reviewed By: Kimberly Dunn, Florida Atlantic University

From The Wall Street Journal Accounting Educators' Review on November 8, 2002

TITLE: FASB Takes Back Powers in Accounting Rule Making 
REPORTER: Cassell Bryan-Low 
DATE: Nov 05, 2002 
PAGE: A2 
LINK: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1036450538489975348.djm,00.html  
TOPICS: Accounting Standards Executive Committee, Accounting, Financial Accounting Standards Board, Emerging Issues Task Force, Securities and Exchange Commission, Standard Setting

SUMMARY: The Financial Accounting Standards board is taking back powers that were previously delegated to the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) and the Accounting Standards Executive Committee (AcSEC). Questions relate to standard setting in the U.S. and the impact of these changes on the profession.

QUESTIONS: 
1.) When did the EITF and the AcSEC come into existence? What role(s) were they expected to fulfill? How successfully did they fulfill their responsibilities?

2.) What reasons were given for consolidating power with the FASB? What gives FASB the authority to take power from the EITF and the AcSEC?

3.) What purpose(s), if any, does the EITF and the AcSEC serve since the FASB has reclaimed certain powers?

4.) List at least two positive and two negative consequences of this change in standard setting authority.

Reviewed By: Judy Beckman, University of Rhode Island 
Reviewed By: Benson Wier, Virginia Commonwealth University 
Reviewed By: Kimberly Dunn, Florida Atlantic University

As part of its efforts to restore confidence in the capital markets, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission tentatively approved new curbs aimed at the types of reporting and trading abuses involved in recent accounting scandals. http://www.accountingweb.com/item/95202 

AccountingWEB US - Oct-31-2002 -  As part of its efforts to restore confidence in the capital markets, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) tentatively approved several new curbs aimed at the types of reporting and trading abuses involved in recent accounting scandals. The curbs will be formalized in releases and exposed for a 30-day comment period.

The proposed rule-changes address four main areas:

The full text of detailed releases concerning each of these items will be posted to the SEC Web site shortly. Due to deadlines set by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the expectation is that rule changes will become effective as soon as practicable after the Commission has a chance to digest and consider the comments received on the proposed rules.

Oh No!  Say it isn't so.

I think others should also see this message sent by Scott to the CPAS-L discussion group.

In Tampa last week, Lynn Turner (former Chief Accountant of the SEC) made a remark mentioned in dinner conversation that a recent survey shows that the  accounting profession dropped from first to last in terms of perceived integrity. Does anybody have a link to this survey?

Bob

November 1, 2002 message from Scott Bonacker, CPA [scottbonacker@MOCCPA.COM] 

The Wells Fargo office here is insisting on audited financial statements for an unincorporated home based business that began operations on April 1, 2002. The local loan officer says that since Enron and Worldcom, their underwriters aren't accepting CPA compilations any more.

It is possible they are just trying to get out of this particular loan. Any similar experiences?

Adelphia Communications filed a lawsuit against D&T claiming the firm knew about "self-dealing and looting" by corporate officers, but failed to disclose it to the audit committee or suggest changes in corporate control practices. http://www.accountingweb.com/item/95846 

Facing accusations of acting recklessly by certifying the books of Anicom, Inc., PricewaterhouseCoopers has opted to settle a pending lawsuit from shareholders for $21.5 million, rather than seeking a protracted legal battle. http://www.accountingweb.com/item/95025 

The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued Wells notices to three auditors from Big Four firm Ernst & Young. The notice advises the auditors that they are likely to be the subject of civil charges by the federal agency and gives them an opportunity to explain their actions in an effort to show why they should not be so charged. http://www.accountingweb.com/item/95350 

Robert Walker informed me about this site at http://www.icanz.co.nz/StaticContent/AGS/corptrans.cfm#ctsubs 

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in New Zealand has released its much anticipated discussion document on corporate transparency.

The paper examines issues and concerns raised by such high-profile corporate failures as Enron, WorldCom and HIH and puts forward possible solutions that might be applied in the New Zealand market.

The paper is relevant to those with an interest in good corporate governance, the provision of quality information to users, and the efficient functioning of New Zealand capital markets.

There are a number of significant differences between the New Zealand and United States markets. Our boards are more independent, we do not have corporates of the same size and complexity, we do not use share options to the same extent, and our financial reporting standards are principle- rather than rules-based.

The discussion document outlines a range of options for public comment, including:

The document concludes with a case study of the collapse of Enron, to illustrate what can go wrong in capital markets.

Whatever solutions are finally put forward needed to be tailored to New Zealand conditions, and they must offer benefits that justify the associated costs of implementing them, because these costs will ultimately fall on business, shareholders, creditors, employees, customers, and taxpayers.

Download a copy of the discussion document Corporate Transparency — Making Markets Work Better draft. Alternatively, copies can be obtained by calling the Institute on 04-474 7890.

NEW INDEPENDENT PUBLIC BODY ESTABLISHED TO OVERSEE CANADIAN AUDITING STANDARDS 
Canada's Chartered Accountants has announced the establishment of an independent public body to oversee the setting of auditing and assurance standards in Canada, and at the same time announced its first Chair. Prominent business and commercial lawyer James C. Baillie will chair the new Auditing and Assurance Standards Oversight Council (AASOC), which will oversee the Assurance Standards Board (ASB), providing input, strategic direction and the perspective of users into the setting of auditing and assurance standards in Canada. See further details at http://accountingeducation.com/news/news3399.html 

UK ISSUES INTERIM REPORT ON AUDIT REFORM

In late July, the UK trade secretary presented an interim report on audit reforms, according to AccountingWeb UK. The main proposals included in the report were:

* Audit Committees- Audit committees should be composed of entirely independent, non-executive directors.

* Audit Rotation- All audit staff, not just partners, should rotate every five years.

* Non-Audit Services- Disclosure of the value of non-audit work by auditors should be improved.

* Profession Regulation- The funding and review processes of the current regulator, the Accountancy Foundation, will be reviewed. Currently the profession funds the agency.

These proposals will be reviewed further prior to implementation. To read the entire report, go to http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=86737&d=448&h=0&f=0&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y.

In Canada there is now a bill that would give investors many of the protections in the US’ Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Similarly, the EU has decided to up investor protections. 

http://www.eubusiness.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=95587&d=101&h=240&f=56&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y 

http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id={EA823F25-C097-4068-9440-B6B42390A36E} 

The SEC will hold hearings this month on credit rating agencies. Like securities analysts, credit rating firms have come under fire for not providing sufficient warnings of the downfall of corporate giants like Enron and WorldCom. http://www.accountingweb.com/item/95609 

In a surprising and controversial move, accounting standard-setters and regulators in the U.S. and Europe have jointly announced an agreement to stamp out any differences between FASB and IASB standards that may remain by January 1, 2005. http://www.accountingweb.com/item/95087 

Now if the nations of the world could also stamp out enforcement consistency. At the present time enforcement is highly inconsistent with nations like Germany and Japan having virtually no enforcement.  Laws, rules, standards, and regulations don't mean much if they're not enforced.

Ground-breaking new state legislation will soon require certain corporations doing business in California to disclose more information, including the names of their independent auditors. The information will be available to the public through an online system by the end of 2004. http://www.accountingweb.com/item/94514 

The International Federation of Accountants announced the formation of a global task force to help rebuild public confidence in financial reporting. The task force is chaired by John Crow, former governor of the Bank of Canada ---  http://www.accountingweb.com/item/94957 

From The Wall Street Journal Accounting Educators' Review on November 1, 2002

TITLE: Bristol-Myers to Restate Results; Move Follows Insistence that Sales Accounting to Wholesalers Was Sound 
REPORTER: Gardiner Harris 
DATE: Oct 25, 2002 
PAGE: A3 
LINK:  http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1035224500766820871.djm,00.html  
TOPICS: Earning Announcements, Financial Accounting, Pharmaceutical Industry, Restatement

SUMMARY:  
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., after insisting for months that its accounting of excessive sales to wholesalers was proper, said that it would restate sales and earnings for at least the past two years.?

QUESTIONS: 
1.) The question about the company's "wholesale-inventory stocking issue? "typically is referred to as "channel stuffing." Describe this problem, as you understand it from the article.

2.) Why would Bristol-Myers disclose the problem "in April when results from the first quarter plunged"? That is, what would compel them to have made a specific disclosure and why are these first quarter results indicative of a problem?

3.) Under what circumstances do companies restate previously issued financial statements? What does this indicate about the nature of the problem?

4.) Why would analysts say that "few have been able to figure out the true state of Bristol-Myers's sales and earnings" under the current circumstances? What would be the impact of this problem on the company's publicly-traded stock?

Reviewed By: Judy Beckman, University of Rhode Island 
Reviewed By: Benson Wier, Virginia Commonwealth University 
Reviewed By: Kimberly Dunn, Florida Atlantic University

Bob Jensen's threads on revenue accounting are at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ecommerce/eitf01.htm 

Question
How large is the gap between the fourth and fifth largest CPA firms?

Answer
$2,738.5 million but the gaps between the largest firms will change significantly next year when revenues from former Andersen clients are redistributed.

Public Accounting Report has published its annual ranking of America's Top 100 Accounting Firms, and it's no surprise that Andersen, last year's number five ranked firm, is no longer on the list. http://www.accountingweb.com/item/95611 

AccountingWEB US - Nov-5-2002 - Public Accounting Report has published its annual ranking of America's Top 100 Accounting Firms, and it's no surprise that Andersen, last year's number five ranked firm, is no longer on the list. Although the former Big Five firm technically still exists, it was removed from the pool of eligible firms for this year's ranking due to its conviction on federal obstruction of justice charges. Holding on to first place, PricewaterhouseCoopers leads the pack, followed by the rest of the Big Four and six more familiar names that fill out the top 10 spaces on the list. A few firms switched places from last year: Ernst & Young moved ahead of KPMG, and Grant Thornton moved ahead of BDO Seidman. The top 10 firms, with their reported revenue, are as follows:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers: $8,056.5 million
  2. Deloitte & Touche: $6,130 million
  3. Ernst & Young: $4,485 million
  4. KPMG: $3,171 million
  5. Grant Thornton: $432.5 million
  6. BDO Seidman: $353 million
  7. BKD: $210.9 million
  8. Crowe, Chizek & Co.: $204.7 million
  9. McGladrey & Pullen: $203 million
  10. Moss Adams: $163 million

 

My new and updated documents the recent accounting and investment scandals are at the following sites:

Bob Jensen's threads on the Enron/Andersen scandals are at  http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraud.htm  
Bob Jensen's SPE threads are at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen//theory/00overview/speOverview.htm  
Bob Jensen's threads on accounting theory are at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/theory.htm

Bob Jensen's Summary of Suggested Reforms --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudProposedReforms.htm 

Bob Jensen's Bottom Line Commentary --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm 

The Virginia Tech Overview:  What Can We Learn From Enron? --- http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraudVirginia.htm 

 

 

In March 2000, Forbes named AccountantsWorld.com as the Best Website on the Web --- http://accountantsworld.com/.
Some top accountancy links --- http://accountantsworld.com/category.asp?id=Accounting

 

For accounting news, I prefer AccountingWeb at http://www.accountingweb.com/ 

 

Another leading accounting site is AccountingEducation.com at http://www.accountingeducation.com/ 

 

Paul Pacter maintains the best international accounting standards and news Website at http://www.iasplus.com/

How stuff works --- http://www.howstuffworks.com/ 

 

Bob Jensen's video helpers for MS Excel, MS Access, and other helper videos are at http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/video/ 
Accompanying documentation can be found at http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/default1.htm and http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/HelpersVideos.htm 

 

Professor Robert E. Jensen (Bob) http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen
Jesse H. Jones Distinguished Professor of Business Administration
Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 78212-7200
Voice: 210-999-7347 Fax: 210-999-8134  Email:  rjensen@trinity.edu