Please spread this word among older folks
"Watchdogs Warn About
Scams Alongside Medicare Drug Benefit," by Kelly Greene, The
Wall Street Journal, October 18, 2005; Page D2 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112959925370771490.html?mod=todays_us_personal_journal
Government and consumer watchdogs are bracing for
the marketing scams likely to spring up alongside
the long-awaited Medicare drug benefit.
Already, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, the federal agency overseeing the new drug
program, says it has enlisted help from
law-enforcement officials to investigate two
possible scams in which beneficiaries were asked for
bank-card numbers and other personal information.
Enrollment for the plans starts Nov. 15, and
coverage begins Jan. 1. Drug-plan marketers are
allowed to make calls to describe benefits and
offers, and to solicit requests for pre-enrollment
information.
Yet it's illegal for marketers of Medicare drug
plans to visit your home unless you invite them in
advance, or to send you unsolicited emails, says
Deane Beebe, spokeswoman for the Medicare Rights
Center, a New York advocacy group. Although
marketers can make unsolicited phone calls, they
aren't allowed to sign you up during those calls.
Several advocacy groups,
including the National Consumers League (www.fraud.org/tips/internet/medicare.htm),
are offering tips for protecting yourself from being
victimized by a Medicare-related scam. Among the
tips:
Check the list of Medicare-approved prescription
plans by calling the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services at 800-633-4227. If you're
contacted by a plan that isn't on the list, it could
be a scam.
Make sure the plan is
licensed. Call your state insurance department;
there's a directory of these departments at
www.naic.org/state_web_map.htm.
Guard
personal information, such as Social Security or
bank-account numbers. Legitimate plans may ask for a
Social Security number -- but not until you actually
enroll. And they can't ask for your credit-card or
bank data unless you're arranging automatic
payments.
No one can enroll in a drug plan before Nov. 15,
though the plans can start advertising this month.
If a plan asks for payment before that date, it
could be fraudulent.
Enrolling in a drug plan is
voluntary. If someone says you must join a plan to
avoid losing your other Medicare benefits, you're
getting false information. For free advice, call
your State Health Insurance Program or your local
area agency on aging. For a state-by-state directory
of state programs, visit
www.medicare.gov/contacts/Static/SHIPs.asp
or call Medicare's hotline. To
find your local aging agency, go to
eldercare.gov
or call 800-677-1116.
Even with legitimate plans, advocates for Medicare
recipients urge seniors to study and compare several
drug plans before choosing. "What incentive does a
salesperson have to inform a senior that a
competitor's plan might be better for them?" asks
Shannon Benton, executive director of the TREA
Senior Citizens League, an Alexandria, Va., advocacy
group.
The Medicare Rights Center
developed a flow chart to help sort through
drug-benefit options. To use it, go to
medicareinteractive.org/aarp,
then click on the yellow box on the right side of
the screen labeled "New! Medicare Drug Coverage
Information." |
Bob Jensen's threads on
consumer frauds are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudReporting.htm
Jensen
Comment:
Note that the traditional Medicare Supplement Plans (A, B, F, J,
etc) are going to cease. The trusted place to start for
information about new alternative is
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/default.asp?
Dance with
the one who brought (bought?) you!
Financial performance reporting transparency or in this
case lack thereof in accounting
A growing number of companies are paying extra sums to cover
executives' personal tax bills, even as CEO compensation
continues to soar. Details of the "tax gross-ups" are often
buried in impenetrable footnotes or obscure filings.
"Latest Twist in Corporate Pay: Tax-Free Income for
Executives," by Mark Maremont, The Wall Street Journal, December
22, 2005 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113521937434129170.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
Amid soaring CEO compensation, a
number of companies are paying extra sums to cover
executives' personal tax bills. Many companies are paying
taxes due on core elements of executive pay, such as stock
grants, signing bonuses and severance packages. Others are
reimbursing taxes on corporate perquisites, which are
treated as income by the Internal Revenue Service. They run
the gamut from personal travel aboard corporate jets to
country-club memberships and shopping excursions.
"This smacks of Leona Helmsley-like treatment, that
only little people pay taxes," says Patrick McGurn,
an executive vice president of Institutional
Shareholder Services Inc., an influential adviser to
big investors that often critiques companies'
corporate-governance practices. For these top
executives, he says, companies "are removing taxes
from the list of inevitable life experiences,
leaving only death."
Details of the little-known
payments, called "tax gross-ups," are often buried
in impenetrable footnotes or obscure filings. In its
2005 proxy statement, Home Depot didn't disclose
many of the perks it must give Mr. Nardelli, or that
the company is required to reimburse him for taxes
related to those perks. The company provided
specifics of these benefits and the gross-ups in his
employment agreement, which was attached to a 2001
regulatory filing. (Read
Home Depot's filing.)
Continued in article |
The question is: Why don't the auditors insist on
transparent disclosures?
COMPANY DIRECTORS - WHOM DO THEY
SERVE? --- http://www.ragm.com/archpub/ragm/company_directors.html
“Dance with
the one who brought you”
Bob Jensen's threads on outrageous executive compensation are
at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#OutrageousCompensation
On the heels of damaging audit inspection outcomes by
the PCAOB in the U.S., the Canadian CPAB finds serious
deficiencies in Canadian audits
The CPAB report also called for
firms to improve audit quality after it found five of 87
engagements chosen for review suffered "serious
deficiencies," and were not conducted in accordance with
Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. "In each of the
cases, we felt the firm had not done enough audit work to
support its opinion given the financial statements," he
said.
"Many accounting firm managers break policy: audit:
CPAB review finds over half did not report all their
investments, securities of clients." Shirley Won, The
Globe and Mail, December 20, 2005 ---
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051220/RACCOUNTING20/TPBusiness/Canadian
Bob Jensen's threads on fraudulent and incompetent audits
are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#IncompetentAudits
How can one man receive a $1.45 billion award
in a lawsuit?
Mr. Perelman, chairman of
cosmetics giant Revlon Inc., was awarded $604.3 million in
compensation and a further $850 million in punitive damages
against Morgan Stanley to punish the bank for its misconduct
in defrauding the financier when he sold his camping-gear
company to the bank's client, Sunbeam Corp., in 1998. Trial
Judge Elizabeth Maass allowed Mr. Perelman's allegation of
fraud against the bank to be put to the jury as fact, as a
sanction for the bank's continued failure to provide
documents in the litigation, a process known as discovery.
"Morgan Stanley Appeals Decision To Award Perelman $1.45
Billion," by Marietta Cauchi, The Wall Street Journal,
December 13, 2005; Page C4 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113441679728820385.html?mod=todays_us_money_and_investing
Bob Jensen's threads on Morgan Stanley and other investment
banking frauds are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudRotten.htm#InvestmentBanking
Also see Derivative Financial Instruments frauds at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudRotten.htm#DerivativesFrauds
Corporate Fraud Still Widespread, Difficult to Detect,
The number of companies around the
world that reported incidents of fraud increased 22 percent in
the last two years, according to a new Big Four survey. While
layers of new controls have been implemented to improve
corporate governance, fraud is still widespread, difficult to
prevent, and detected many times by chance, according to the
biennial survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), which
interviewed more than 3,000 corporate officers in 34 countries.
"Corporate Fraud Still Widespread, Difficult to Detect,"
AccountingWeb, December 5, 2005 ---
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=101540
New Tech Tools to Combat Corporate Fraud
A new tech sector has sprung up to
provide that software. Virtually every computer and software
maker is eager to tap one of the few high-growth markets in
technology -- the best thing to happen in the sector since the
Y2K panic caused thousands of big businesses to remake their
computer rooms in 1998 and 1999. Storage companies like EMC
Corp. stress the need to save audit-related materials for seven
years. Security experts like RSA Security Inc. and Computer
Associates International Inc. argue that companies can't prevent
deficiencies if they can't pinpoint who is using the systems. A
host of private companies have shifted their business models to
promote their software as a cure for compliance woes.
William M. Bulkeley and Charles Forelle, "How Corporate Scandals
Gave Tech Firms a New Business Line: Sarbanes-Oxley, Other Rules
Aimed at Fighting Fraud Create Market for Software," The Wall
Street Journal, December 9, 2005; Page A1 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113409818808818144.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
Yet another example of how fraud works in high finance
It was a prudent move. While
LandAmerica CFO G. William Evans says the review turned up
nothing irregular at the Richmond, Virginia-based company, it
appears some pension consultants have been recommending money
managers based on self-interest, and not on the needs of their
clients. Indeed, a study of 24 pension consultants conducted by
the Securities and Exchange Commission found that more than half
of the advisory firms earned money from both retirement-plan
clients and money-management funds. According to the SEC study,
issued in May, most of these pension advisers had relationships
with unaffiliated broker-dealers or operated their own
broker-dealers — thus providing themselves with an easy way to
receive indirect payments from money managers.
Randy Myers, "Games They Play: The other shoe has yet to
drop on pension consultants' possible conflicts of interest. But
companies can't afford to wait," CFO Magazine, December
1, 2005 ---
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/5193393/c_5243641?f=magazine_alsoinside
Bob Jensen's "Rotten to the Core" threads are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudRotten.htm
In particular, the "Pension Fund Consulting Racket" is
discussed at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudRotten.htm#PensionFundConsulting
"Lawsuit Accuses AOL of Illegal Billing," The New York
Times, December 2, 2005 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-AOL-Lawsuit.html
A lawsuit seeking to potentially
cover hundreds of thousands of America Online Inc.
subscribers accuses the Time Warner Inc. unit of illegally
billing customers by creating secondary accounts for them
without their consent.
The lawsuit, filed last month in
St. Clair County Circuit Court on behalf of 10 AOL customers
in six states, claims the company confused and deceived
customers about the charges, stalled them from canceling
unauthorized accounts and refused to return questioned fees.
''AOL exploits its subscribers'
confidential billing information to unlawfully generate
additional revenue by charging subscribers for additional
membership accounts that they neither order nor request,''
the lawsuit alleges, calling the scheme ''common, uniform
and continuing.''
Continued in article
Sickening: Congressman's Betrayal Of Troops Called
Greatest Sin
Rep. Randy Cunningham's dramatic fall
from power represents more than just a historic case of personal
corruption unprecedented in the long history of the Congress. It
is also betrayal on a grand scale. Cunningham betrayed his
friends, his constituents, his colleagues and, certainly most
important, the U.S. combat troops he so loudly championed. By
steering contracts vital to the Iraq war effort to cronies, he
may have put those troops at greater risk by judging contracts
more for what they would do for him than for the military. That
- even more than his manifest dishonesty, personal bullying of
opponents and slight legislative record - may turn out to be the
most shameful legacy of the now-disgraced Republican. "This is
nauseating at so many levels," said Norm Ornstein, a veteran
congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. What
Cunningham, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, did, said
Ornstein, "is worse than just taking money. It is taking money
and undermining everything he presumably stood for." In the end,
Cunningham was a portrait of contradictions and inconsistencies.
The ever-macho tough guy, he took bribes to buy two 19th-century
commodes, or chests of drawers. The family man, he liked to
invite women to his yacht. There, two women told Copley News
Service, he would change into pajama bottoms and a turtleneck
sweater to entertain them with chilled champagne by the light of
a lava lamp.
"Congressman's Betrayal Of Troops Called Greatest Sin," by
George E. Condon Jr., San Diego Union-Tribune,
December 1, 2005 ---
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1533271/posts
"Economists Caution Investors on Hidden Risks of Hedge Funds,"
Stanford News, November 2005 ---
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/vanhorne_hedgefunds.shtml The link below was forwarded by David Fordham at James Madison University
Four PricewaterhouseCoopers auditors arrested in Tokyo on criminal charges
Four certified public accountants at a Japanese unit of
the PricewaterhouseCoopers Group were arrested Tuesday for allegedly
collaborating with former executives at Kanebo Ltd. to falsify accounting
reports. The special investigation department of the Tokyo District Public
Prosecutor's Office also searched the offices of ChuoAoyama
PricewaterhouseCoopers in Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo, and the suspects' homes jointly
with the Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission, prosecutors said.
Pursuing criminal responsibility of certified public accountants in connection
with window-dressing is unusual, and the arrests have blemished the credibility
of those assigned auditing responsibilities, observers say. The accountants
under arrest were identified as Kuniaki Sato, 63, Seiichiro Tokumi, 58,
Kazutoshi Kanda, 55, and Kazuya Miyamura, 48.
The Japan Times, Sept. 14, 2005
This article was forwarded to me by Miklos A. Vasarhelyi
[miklosv@andromeda.rutgers.edu]
Bob Jensen's threads on PwC legal woes are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#PwC
S.E.C. Settles ImClone Insider Trading Suit,
Two friends of Samuel D. Waksal, the
former chief executive of ImClone Systems, have agreed to pay a
total of $2.77 million to settle a lawsuit accusing them of
insider trading in the company's shares. Zvi Fuks, a department
chairman at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York,
and Sabina Ben-Yehuda sold their ImClone shares in late 2001
after Mr. Waksal tipped them off that regulators were probably
going to reject the company's cancer drug Erbitux, the
Securities and Exchange Commission said yesterday. The
settlement covers the losses they avoided when the shares
subsequently fell 16 percent.
Bloomberg News, "S.E.C. Settles ImClone Insider Trading Suit,"
The New York Times, November 4, 2005 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/technology/04imclone.html
Jensen Comment
Martha got hard time for less dough.
Financial fraud by signing and returning materially false
audit confirmations sent to them by the auditors
The Securities and Exchange Commission
has filed enforcement actions against seven individuals alleging
they aided and abetted a massive financial fraud by signing and
returning materially false audit confirmations sent to them by
the auditors of the U.S. Foodservice, Inc. subsidiary of Royal
Ahold (Koninklijke Ahold N.V.). All of the individuals charged,
Brian Crowley, Robert Henuset, Ritchie Langfield, Frank Lysiak,
Ernie Rosenberg, Dale Schulz, and Larry Stone, were employees of
or agents for vendors that supplied U.S. Foodservice. The
Commission's complaints allege that U.S. Foodservice personnel
contacted vendors and urged them to sign and return the false
confirmation letters. In some cases U.S. Foodservice pressured
the vendors; in other cases they provided side letters to the
vendors assuring the vendors that they did not owe U.S.
Foodservice the amounts reflected as outstanding in the
confirmation letters. The letters clearly stated that the
confirmations were being used in connection with the annual
audit and the letters directed the defendants to return the
confirmations directly to the company's auditors.
"SEC CHARGES SEVEN INDIVIDUALS WITH AIDING AND ABETTING
FINANCIAL FRAUD AT ROYAL AHOLD'S U.S. FOODSERVICE SUBSIDIARY,"
AccountingEducation.com, November 3, 2005 ---
http://accountingeducation.com/index.cfm?page=newsdetails&id=141729
Improper pricing of stock options?
Three top executives of Silicon Valley
software company Mercury Interactive Corp. resigned amid
disclosures about improper pricing of employee stock options, an
issue under increased scrutiny lately by the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The management shakeup, which included the
resignations of Mercury's chief executive and chief financial
officer, caused shares of the Mountain View, Calif., company to
plunge 27% in 4 p.m. composite trading on the Nasdaq Stock
Market.
Rebecca Buckman, Mark Maremont, and Karen Richardson, "Mercury
Interactive Executives Resign in Wake of Probe," The Wall
Street Journal, November 3, 2005; Page A7 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113093861785486289.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
Tyco is in the news again, this time for reneging on a contract
More than five years have passed since Ms. Orlowitz,
51, bought Accurate Forming. During that time, she has spent thousands of hours
and millions of dollars trying to bring the company into compliance with
environmental rules. She has also tried to persuade Tyco to set things right
either by buying back Accurate or by paying for the necessary remediation to
ensure that its operations comply with emissions regulations. With the exception
of a $270,000 payment that Tyco made last April to cover what it said was enough
to put the plant into compliance with federal laws and a check for $27,500 to
pay for fines levied by New Jersey, Tyco has declined her pleas. Ms. Orlowitz
said she was bewildered by the hardball that Tyco has played with Accurate,
especially because the purchase agreement stated specifically that the seller
would be responsible for any losses arising out of environmental cleanups, fines
or penalties.
Gretchen Morgenson, "Memo to Tyco: I Won't Back Down," The New York Times,
October 31, 2005 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/business/yourmoney/30tyco.html
WorldCom defendants in $651 million deal
A group of investment banks and other
defendants agreed on Thursday to pay a combined $651 million to
a coalition of institutional investors that lost money in
WorldCom Inc.'s collapse. . . . More than 65 institutional
investors are part of the pact, including the largest U.S.
pension fund, the California Public Employees' Retirement
System. Others set to get payments include the California State
Teachers' Retirement System and pension funds in Illinois,
Washington state and Tennessee. The bulk of the settlement will
be paid by WorldCom's former investment banks -- primarily
Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase & Co -- that underwrote WorldCom
Inc. securities, according to plaintiffs' law firm Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins of San Diego.
Martha Graybow, "WorldCom defendants in $651 mln deal," The
Washington Post, October 27, 2005 ---
http://snipurl.com/wpOct27
Bob Jensen's threads on the Worldcom/Andersen scandal are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudEnron.htm#WorldCom
Internal Revenue Service Offers Settlement Over Tax Shelters
The Internal Revenue Service proposed a new settlement
offer for some 4,000 small businesses, wealthy individuals and large
corporations that participated in a variety of tax shelters. The settlement
covers 21 types of transactions, 16 of which include tax shelters the IRS
classified as abusive. Under terms of the settlement, individuals and
corporations will pay all taxes and interest owed. Penalties will be reduced to
half or one-quarter of the normal amount, according to the type of transaction.
IRS Commissioner Mark Everson told reporters. "We're offering taxpayers a quick,
quiet cost-effective way to put these deals behind them."
Rob Wells, "Internal Revenue Service Offers Settlement Over Tax Shelters,"
The Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2005; Page C2 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113045348752081810.html?mod=todays_us_money_and_investing
SEC instigates probe of General Motors' Accounting
General Motors Corp. said on Wednesday it had been
subpoenaed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as part of a probe
into its accounting practices and other matters. It was the latest blow to the
world's largest automaker, which is bleeding money from its core North American
automotive operations and confronting its biggest financial crisis since a
narrow brush with bankruptcy 13 years ago. GM said the subpoenas related to its
financial reporting for pension and other post-employment benefits, and to
transactions between the company and auto parts supplier Delphi Corp. (Other
OTC:DPHIQ - news). They also relate to the SEC's interest in GM's recovery of
various costs from suppliers and supplier price credits, and any obligations to
fund pension and post-employment benefits costs related to Delphi's Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings, the company said in a statement.
"GM subpoenaed in accounting probe," The New York Times, October 26, 2005
From The Wall Street Journal Accounting Weekly Review
on November 18, 2005
TITLE: GM Will Restate Results for 2001 in Latest Stumble
REPORTER: Joseph B. White and Lee Hawkins, Jr.
DATE: Nov 10, 2005
PAGE: A1
LINK:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113158081329892910.html
TOPICS: Accounting, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections,
Advanced Financial Accounting, Financial Accounting, Impairment
SUMMARY: GM inappropriately recorded credits from suppliers
in 2001, boosting earnings in that year by about 100%, rather
than recording them in later periods. "The practice of suppliers
making payments to customers, effectively rebating projected
cost savings up front, is a touchy one in the auto industry."
QUESTIONS:
1.) Describe the issue of "supplier credits" as described in
this article. For further information, you may examine GM's 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, filed on November 9,
2005 and available at
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40730/000004073005000097/0000040730-05-000097-index.htm
Open the document, then search for "supplier credit".
2.) What was the total impact on GM's 2001 net income of the
"supplier credits" issue described in this article? What will be
the ultimate impact on the company's shareholder's equity
through today? Explain your answer.
3.) What factors, particularly related to actions following
September 11, 2001, negatively affected GM's 2001 and later
earnings?
4.) How does GM's management argue that their 2001 and later
results would have been even worse had they not undertaken
programs to maintain sales following the September 11, 2001,
tragic events? In your answer, make reference to the concepts of
fixed and variable costs, defining each of these terms.
5.) Using the related article as well as the main article for
this review, describe GM's strategy with investments in foreign
entities. What is the issue regarding impairment reviews for
those investments? In your answer, define "impairment review"
and cite the authoritative accounting literature requiring those
reviews.
6.) What controls do you think might have been put in place
given the statement, quoted in the main article, that "GM said
it is 'confident' that it now 'has substantially completed the
process of fully remediating its related controls and
procedures.' In answering this question, rely on specific
requirements for timing of impairment reviews from authoritative
accounting literature.
Reviewed By: Judy Beckman, University of Rhode Island
--- RELATED ARTICLES ---
TITLE: At General Motors, Troubles Mount for Man Behind the
Wheel
REPORTER: Joseph B. White and Lee Hawkins, Jr.
PAGE: A1 ISSUE: Nov 11, 2005
LINK:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113167989835994535.html
"GM Will Restate Results for 2001 In Latest
Stumble: Auto Maker Says It Booked 'Erroneous' Supplier
Credits; Stock Price Hits 13-Year Low," by Joseph B. White and
Lee Hawkins, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, November 10,
2005; Page A1 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113158081329892910.html
DETROIT -- General Motors Corp.,
whose accounting is under scrutiny by the Securities and
Exchange Commission, said it must restate financial results
for 2001 and possibly subsequent years, the latest blow to
the beleaguered auto giant and its chairman and chief
executive, Rick Wagoner.
Late yesterday, after the close of
New York Stock Exchange trading, GM said it overstated
income for 2001 by as much as $300 million to $400 million
-- equivalent to about 50% of the profit it reported at the
time -- by "erroneously" booking credits from suppliers. The
company said its accounting for credits from suppliers is
"one of the matters" being investigated by the SEC.
GM's admission ended a day in which
its shares fell to their lowest level since November 1992 --
during the company's last financial and management crisis --
in 4 p.m. Big Board trading, closing down $1.23, or nearly
5%, at $24.63. Also yesterday, Fitch Ratings cut its already
junk-level rating on GM's debt by another two notches.
GM spokeswoman Toni Simonetti said
GM's audit committee had met earlier this week to discuss
the accounting issue.
"The issue here was that we
basically booked the income in the wrong period," Ms.
Simonetti said. "We're going to restate it rather than
taking it all in 2001. That income still exists. It's not
like that income shouldn't have been booked, it just
shouldn't have been booked in all of 2001."
Still, the disclosure that GM
materially overstated 2001 income from continuing operations
-- and may have to make what it said would likely be
"immaterial" adjustments to earnings reported for subsequent
years -- likely will add pressure on Mr. Wagoner. He has
been battling to turn around losses that have totaled more
than $3 billion for the company so far this year.
Mr. Wagoner, who was CEO in 2001,
has spent his five years at the company's helm trying to
expand its global footprint while propping up North American
sales to generate revenue to cover burgeoning U.S.
health-care and pension costs. But this year, intensified
competition coupled with rising gas prices, which have
dented demand for GM's most profitable models, have
undermined Mr. Wagoner's strategy for keeping GM in the
black.
The company's falling stock price
-- shares are down 39% this year -- and the downgrading of
its debt to junk status by all the major credit-rating
agencies symbolize the declining confidence in Mr. Wagoner,
who became GM's chief financial officer in 1992 in a
boardroom coup that swept out top management.
Neither GM nor Mr. Wagoner or any
GM officer has been accused by the SEC of any wrongdoing.
Continued in article
Bob Jensen's threads on revenue accounting
controversies are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ecommerce/eitf01.htm
Bob Jensen's threads on GM auditors, Deloitte
and Touche, are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#Deloitte
Canadian white collar criminals can almost wait until their in nursing
homes before going to trial
Canadian authorities say they want to clamp down on
corporate crime. They seem to be having a hard time. Take Livent Inc. In 1998 --
before Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International, Adelphia and other high-profile U.S.
accounting scandals unfolded -- the Toronto-based producer of "Phantom of the
Opera" and other Broadway shows went into a tailspin. Its U.S.-listed shares
became worthless. The company, under new U.S. management, accused founder Garth
Drabinsky and other executives of a fraud that disguised the company's financial
problems for years . . . The "right to mount a proper defense" can stretch out a
"difficult, complex fraud" case, said a spokesman for the attorney general of
Ontario. About two years ago, Canadian authorities vowed to get tougher on
alleged corporate wrongdoers. While some recent moves show stiffer resolve,
critics say cases are still taking too long, if they are pursued at all, and
penalties remain light by U.S. standards.
Mark Heinzl, "Slow Canada: Fraud Cases Can Drag On," The Wall Street Journal,
October 27, 2005; Page C1 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113037467355480761.html?mod=todays_us_money_and_investing
It's hard to drop executive's luxurious golden parachutes
American University may pay Benjamin Ladner, who
was recently fired as president, a settlement of up to $4 million, according to
an article in The Washington Post. Many students are outraged by the plan, which
Ladner has still not agreed to, and another member quit American’s board to
avoid having to sign off on such a deal.
Inside Higher Ed, October 24, 2005 ---
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/24/qt
For a follow up, see
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/25/american
Holy Fraud Batman
"Payouts Before the Fall: Refco Insiders Received $1 Billion in Cash ,"
SmartPros, October 21, 2005 ---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x50306.xml
Oct. 21, 2005 (International Herald
Tribune) — In the year before Refco sold shares to the
public and then made the fourth-largest bankruptcy filing in
U.S. history, insiders at the company received more than $1
billion in cash, according to Refco's financial statements.
Also, one insider, Robert Trosten,
received $45 million when he left his post as chief
financial officer a year ago, according to an arbitration
hearing this year.
Mystery still surrounds the
collapse this month of Refco, a decades-old Wall Street firm
that conducted billions of dollars in trades in commodities,
currencies and U.S. Treasury securities for more than
200,000 client accounts last year. But investors and
customers who are facing losses in Refco's bankruptcy will
certainly want to understand how insiders could drain $1.124
billion from the company's coffers in the year or so leading
up to its demise.
To some degree, the money that
insiders took out is not surprising, given that Refco's
executives sold a big stake in the company to Thomas H. Lee
Partners, a private equity firm in Boston, in August 2004.
Most of the money that insiders
received $1.057 billion was paid upon the completion of that
deal. Two Refco insiders were on the receiving end of those
payouts: Phillip Bennett, the former chief executive who has
been charged with defrauding investors by concealing a $435
million loan he arranged with the firm, and Tone Grant,
Refco's longtime chief executive before Bennett.
Bennett has denied the securities
fraud charges but has declined to comment further. Grant
could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Creditors of Refco will almost
certainly try to recover what they can from payments made by
the company to its top executives in the months leading up
to its demise.
While compensation like salaries is
typically not recoverable, payments made in the sale of a
company or dividends paid to its owners are fair game if the
company is insolvent, said Denis Cronin, a specialist in
bankruptcy law at the New York firm Cronin & Vris.
The $1.057 billion came in two
chunks, according to the Refco prospectus. First, Bennett
and Grant appear to have shared in a $550 million cash
payment in the transaction with Thomas Lee Partners. Then,
Bennett appears to have received $507 million more from the
deal.
Bennett did not cash out of Refco
completely. At the time of the Lee deal, he agreed to roll
over an equity stake in Refco worth $383 million, the
prospectus said.
-- Gretchen Morgenson and Jenny
Anderson, The New York Times
The question ex post when fraud is discovered
is always: How high were the "red flags?"
In court, the plaintiffs and the auditors
generally filter down to a dispute over the auditor's failure to
discover or take action on known "red flags" that signaled fraud
or poor internal controls. In the Refco case, the fraud
was both financial (stealing money) and an enormous GAAP
violation ($430 million unbooked loan).
"Spotlight on Grant Thornton in Refco
Bankruptcy," AccountingWeb, October 25, 2005 ---
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=101415
“The odds are high that the
auditors were hoodwinked, but it’s an open question as to
the size of any red flags which were missed,” Christopher
Bebel, a former U.S. securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) attorney told Reuters. “The plaintiffs [in the
shareholder lawsuits] are going to argue that these
deficiencies which existed at Refco . . . served as red
flags and a more thorough investigation was warranted once
these flags were discovered,” he said. But these same
disclosures can provide a way out for the auditors and
underwriters, he added.
Refco said in its August SEC filing
that its auditors had warned it in February of deficiencies
in internal controls due to inadequate resources at its
finance department, Reuters reports.
In fact, a new hire in the finance
department, Peter F. James, initially questioned the
interest spike from Liberty, according to a report Monday in
the New York Times. James brought it to the attention of the
company’s chief financial officer, Gerald M. Sherer, who had
joined Refco in January. Answering James’ questions led to
the discovery of the unacknowledged debt and subsequent
collapse of the company.
GTI is standing by its U.S member
firm, Global Chief Executive David McDonnell announced on
Thursday, according to Reuters. “There is absolutely no
question of separation and I don’t believe there will be,”
McDonnell said. GTI broke with its Italian arm in the wake
of the Parmalat scandal in 2003. “We separated from our
Italian unit because they were unable, unwilling to
cooperate with us,” said McDonnell, who said that he
believed Grant Thornton LLP was investigating the problems
at Refco thoroughly, Reuters reports.
Continued in article
Bob Jensen's threads on the legal troubles of Grant
Thornton are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraud001.htm#GrantThornton
The Diamond Rating Scandals: Did you pay to much
for a diamond?
I'll just bet your finance also bought you those phony Lean
Macleans pawned off at McDonalds Restaurants.
The still-unfolding scandal
over diamond ratings is fueling anxiety among both jewelers
and jewelry customers. Laboratory workers at the leading
rater of diamonds in the world, the Gemological Institute of
America, are being accused of taking bribes to give
higher-than-deserved ratings to stones. The GIA, which in
October fired four lab workers after a four-month internal
investigation, says only a handful of rogue dealers and a
relatively small number of stones were involved. But the
institute isn't saying how many stones may have bogus
ratings. The incident has diamond buyers around the world
wondering if they overpaid for their purchase.
Ann Zimmerman and Raymud Flandez, "Getting a Second Opinion
On Your Diamond: Bogus Ratings on Some Gems Fuel
Anxiety Among Buyers; GIA Offers Free Reappraisals," The
Wall Street Journal, December 21, 2005; Page D1
. . .
Diamonds are graded by the GIA
after being inspected under a microscope for internal flaws,
and the color is measured against a set of master stones
reflecting the spectrum of color ratings. Three graders look
at the diamond independently and then the stone is given a
grading report, or certificate, that lists its color and
clarity rating, in addition to its weight and cut.
Of course, getting an accurate
rating is only part of the challenge. Consumers need to make
sure they aren't paying too much for a stone that has been
properly rated. They can turn to resources such as
Diamondhelpers.com, a consumer-focused Web site that doesn't
sell diamonds. It has a price finder where consumers can
enter information from the diamond's certificate -- such as
color, cut, carat weight and clarity grade -- and get an
idea of its value.
The diamond-grading scandal erupted
after a prominent diamond dealer filed a lawsuit earlier
this year charging that workers at the GIA lab in New York
had improperly graded stones sold in 2001 for $15 million to
members of the Saudi royal family. The Saudis later had an
independent evaluation done and got their money back. The
GIA is on the brink of settling the lawsuit, say people
familiar with the situation.
Joseph Tacopina, the attorney
representing the diamond dealer in the lawsuit, says that he
has gotten calls from dozens of consumers worried about the
accuracy of the grading certificates on their diamonds. He
understands their concern. "A difference in just two levels
of a grade can mean a lot of money and the average consumer,
of course, can't tell the difference," says Mr. Tacopina.
Jonathan Grella, a Washington PR
executive, says he has definitely taken note of the scandal.
He became engaged just two weeks ago, after months of
learning the ropes about buying a diamond.
"I learned that a certificate is a
must," he says, adding that he isn't sure whether he will
get the ring reevaluated by another lab.
"This could send shock waves, not
just through the jewelry and insurance industries," he says.
"Can you imagine, going back to your bride-to-be and saying,
'I don't mean to alarm you, but the ring may not be what the
certificate says it is.' That could make for some
interesting holiday conversation."
Bob Jensen's threads on consumer frauds are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudReporting.htm
"Embedded Audit Modules in Enterprise Resource
Planning Systems: Implementation and Functionality," by Roger S.
Debreceny, Glen L. Gray, Joeson Jun-Jin Ng, Kevin Siow-Ping Lee, and
Woon-Foong Yau, Journal of Information Systems, Fall 2005, pp. 7-28
---
http://aaahq.org/ic/browse.htm
Embedded Audit Modules (EAMs) are a
potentially efficient and effective compliance and
substantive audit-testing tool. Early examples of EAMs were
implemented in proprietary accounting information systems
and production systems. Over the last decade, there has been
widespread deployment of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
systems that provide common business process functionality
across the enterprise. These application systems are based
upon a common foundation provided by large-scale relational
database-management systems. No published research addresses
the potential for exploiting the perceived benefits of EAMs
in an ERP environment. This exploratory paper seeks to
partially close this gap in the research literature by
assessing the level and nature of support for EAMs by ERP
providers.
We present five model EAM-use
scenarios within a fraud-prevention and detection
environment. We provided the scenarios to six representative
ERP solution providers, whose products support "small,"
"medium," and "large" scale clients. The providers then
assessed how they would implement the scenarios in their ERP
solution. Concurrent in-depth interviews with
representatives of the ERP providers address the issue of
implementing EAMs in ERP solutions.
The research revealed limited
support for EAMs within the selected ERP systems. Interviews
revealed that the limited support for EAMs was primarily a
function of lack of demand from the user community. Vendors
were consistent in their view that EAMs were technically
feasible. These results have a number of implications for
both practice and future research. These include a need to
understand the barriers to client adoption of EAMs and to
build a framework for integrating EAMs into firm
risk-management environment.
Bob Jensen's threads on ERP education are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/245glosap.htm
Also see
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#ERP
Bob Jensen's threads on audit bots are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#ContinuousAuditing
"Don't Shred on Me The U.N. must not be allowed to destroy the Volcker
investigation's archives," by Claudia Rosett, The Wall Street Journal,
Novembe4r 30, 2005 ---
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110007613
Paul Volcker's findings on Oil for
Food have been widely received as the final word on the
United Nations relief program for Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Far
from it--as Mr. Volcker himself has admitted. In reporting
that Saddam, along with his smuggling and oil graft,
diverted $1.8 billion in kickbacks from U.N.-approved relief
contracts under the program, Mr. Volcker underestimates,
quite probably by billions, the amount the U.N. allowed
Saddam Hussein and many of his favored business partners to
graft out of Oil for Food deals for goods such as oil parts,
milk, laundry soap and baby food. In low-balling the total,
Mr. Volcker understates the negligence of the U.N., and
overlooks some of the most potentially virulent links in Oil
for Food.
The most urgent implication of Mr.
Volcker's incomplete findings is that his huge and
expensively assembled archives must be preserved intact well
beyond the Dec. 31 deadline by which Mr. Volcker now plans
to start disposing of them. Above all, they must not be
handed back to the U.N., where too much related to the
corrupt Oil for Food program has already
vanished--including, to a fascinating extent,
Secretary-General Kofi Annan's own powers of recollection.
The former head of the program, Benon Sevan, alleged to have
taken bribes from Saddam, was allowed to skip town, U.N.
pension in hand. Mr. Annan is even now resurrecting, via a
new $4 million U.N. program called the Alliance of
Civilizations, the career of his former chief of staff,
Iqbal Riza, who officially retired earlier this year after
it came to light that during Mr. Volcker's investigation Mr.
Riza had overseen the shredding of three years' worth of
documents that might have better illuminated the
oil-for-fraud shenanigans of the U.N.'s executive 38th
floor.
As it happens, Rep. Henry Hyde, who
has led the main investigation into Oil for Food in the
House, introduced a bill on Nov. 17 urging that the U.S.
withhold $100 million from its U.N. dues for each of the
next four fiscal years, or until the secretary of state
certifies to Congress that the Volcker investigation's
archives have been transferred, intact and uncensored by the
U.N., "to an entity other than the [Volcker] Committee or
the United Nations"--and made available for public
inspection, at the very least by law-enforcement
authorities.
Continued in article
"Lavish Spending, Little Reward D.C. Agencies Gave Contractor
Millions for Projects but Scant Oversight," by David S. Fallis
and Dan Keating, The Washington Post, November 28, 2005
---
http://snipurl.com/LavishSpending
With the District's approval, he
gave himself an $82,000 salary and paid his brother $8,000
as a consultant. He spent $25,000 for signature artwork and
a matching stainless steel table. He bought $6,000 chairs, a
new blue sport-utility vehicle and a silver van,
personalized with vanity tags. He spent $143 to settle debts
at a florist and rush a "Happy Birthday" bouquet to the D.C.
Council member who approved his grants. He billed taxpayers
for it all.
Over seven years, District
officials sank nearly $5.4 million into his projects. Three
city agencies gave him multiple contracts, and four others
had a role in making sure he was paid.
But when Prioleau's foundation
collapsed last year, the city's investment evaporated. Most
of the furnishings had been sold at public auction after
languishing in a warehouse for almost two years. About
$195,000 worth of equipment was sold for slightly less than
$9,000, just to pay a storage bill. Prioleau closed his
training center.
Prioleau defended his work in
interviews over the course of a year and reported to the
D.C. government that his center had trained thousands of
disadvantaged people. But city officials say there are no
records to verify that number.
The story of Archie Prioleau and
his dealings with the District is one of broader failings --
the propensity across city agencies to violate their
policies as they dispense public funds with little attention
to how the money is spent.
Continued in article
"GM Will Restate Results for 2001 In Latest Stumble:
Auto Maker Says It Booked 'Erroneous' Supplier Credits," by
Joseph B. White and Lee Hawkins, Jr., The Wall Street Journal,
November 10, 2005; Page A1 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113158081329892910.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
General Motors Corp., whose
accounting is under scrutiny by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, said it must restate financial results for 2001
and possibly subsequent years, the latest blow to the
beleaguered auto giant and its chairman and chief executive,
Rick Wagoner.
Late yesterday, after the close of
New York Stock Exchange trading, GM said it overstated
income for 2001 by as much as $300 million to $400 million
-- equivalent to about 50% of the profit it reported at the
time -- by "erroneously" booking credits from suppliers. The
company said its accounting for credits from suppliers is
"one of the matters" being investigated by the SEC.
Continued in article
Jensen Comment
GM's stock price hit a 13-year low and is a huge component of
many investment and trust funds that are hoping GM can end this
free fall.
The outside independent auditor for GM that apparently did
not detect this huge error is Deloitte and Touche ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#Deloitte
From The Wall Street Journal Accounting
Weekly Review on November 4, 2005
TITLE: Letter to the Editor: I Don�t Deserve Tarring With
Refco Debts Brush
REPORTER: Victor Niederhoffer
DATE: Nov 02, 2005
PAGE: A15
LINK:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113090229816986057.html
TOPICS: Accounting, Bad Debts, Bankruptcy
SUMMARY: This letter was submitted in reaction to an article
about Refco that was covered by this Review last week.
QUESTIONS:
1.) What is the tainting that Mr. Niederhoffer associates with
the previous WSJ article? To provide your answer, you may refer
to the original article, which is presented as a related item.
2.) What loss would Refco have hidden under monitoring �by
regulators, clearing houses, and exchange officials� in order to
have resulted in the issues leading to Refco�s downfall and
bankruptcy?
3.) Does Mr. Niederhoffer say that his firm completely
discharged its liabilities to Refco in October 1997? If not,
then what would have been the resulting impact on Refco�s
financial statements?
Reviewed By: Judy Beckman, University of Rhode Island
--- RELATED ARTICLES ---
TITLE: Refco�s Debts Started with Several Clients
REPORTERS: Deborah Solomon, Peter A. McKay, Jonathan Weil, and
Carrick Mollenkamp
PAGE: C1
ISSUE: Oct 21, 2005
LINK:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112986306329075408.html
I Don't Deserve Tarring With Refco Debts Brush," by Victor
Niederhoffer, The Wall Street Journal, November 2, 2005; Page
A15 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113090229816986057.html
Your Oct. 21 article "Refco's Debts
Started With Several Clients -- Bennett Secretly Intervened
to Assume Some Obligations; Return of Victor Niederhoffer"
(Money & Investing) reported that some familiar with Refco's
accounts stated that the company's troubles with bad debts
dated back to the late 1990s and included losses that the
firm supposedly incurred as the result of the collapse of my
hedge fund in 1997, when Refco was my broker. While I had
used Refco for 15 years prior to my firm's collapse, I have
had no contact with or obligations to Refco for seven years.
However, the use of my name in the headline, and the display
of my picture may have given the casual reader the
impression that I was a major cause of Refco's collapse.
The events that took place in 1997
were so closely monitored by regulators, clearing houses and
exchange officials that it is inconceivable to me that Refco
could have hidden a loss. In any case, such a loss would
have been microscopic compared with the approximately $2
billion in cash and equity taken out by Refco officials and
shareholders last year before the firm's IPO. I turned over
what I considered very substantial assets to Refco as part
of our mutual releases. Perhaps there were fictitious
accounting entries later, but I shouldn't be tarred with
this brush.
I have recovered from the
devastating blow my firm suffered when stock prices
collapsed amid the Asian financial crisis in October 1997,
but the "return of Victor Niederhoffer" has nothing to do
with Refco. It relates to building up my firm to some 25
outstanding employees, establishing and acting as trading
adviser for several highly successful hedge funds, including
the Matador Fund, and recovering money at my own expense for
clients involved in my 1997 debacle.
Victor Niederhoffer
Chairman Manchester Trading, LLC
Weston, Conn.
October 24, 2005 message from Lois Garza, Lois
[lgarza@trinity.edu]
I am writing this to inform as many
people as possible and hope that you will pass this
information along to everyone that you know.
Just as I began to put air in the
front tire on the passenger side of my car, I felt my car
move and looked up (thinking that someone had possibly
backed into my car) as I stood up a Hispanic male was
running from my vehicle and jumped into what looked like a
Tan 4 door Tahoe with darkly tinted windows and slammed the
rear door and sped away. I looked into my car and realized
that he had just stolen my purse. It happened in a matter of
seconds and I was unable to get a license plate or a facial
description of the person. I was able to call the police
from inside the Exxon station located at Marbach and Loop
410. They arrived about 30 minutes later and took a report.
The officer then asked if we wanted the car finger printed,
we said yes and unfortunately waited about 2 1/2 hours. When
the second officer arrived, she indicated that there were a
few prints but they were smudged. They did take two prints
off the outside of the car. She did inform us that they were
unable to get any prints from inside the vehicle because the
interior is textured.
The only good thing is that my car,
house and work keys were not in my purse
I spoke with one of the gas station
attendants who said that I was not the first person to have
my purse stolen. He also informed me that there was a
gentleman who had his vehicle stolen while he was putting
air into the tires. Another woman turned her back on her car
and someone reached in and stole her purse.
The first officer told me that you
should never leave your vehicle unlocked, even if you are
standing next to it. Even if you are getting gas, they can
open the passenger side if your back is turned and get away
in a matter of seconds.
Unfortunately, I learned the hard
way and hopefully this will help in deterring the criminals
who seek to steal what each of us has worked so very hard
for.
Lois L. Garza
Trinity University
Conferences and Special Programs
People continuing to fall for hurricane victim scams
If you see an e-mail this weekend
asking you to donate to the victims of Hurricane Wilma, be
careful. A scammer may be "phishing" in your e-mail inbox. "Phishing"
scams, in which e-mails and Web sites made to look official are
used to trick people out of their credit card numbers or other
personal information, are on the rise. And with people
continuing to fall victim and new opportunities to put a
different face on the same scam -- the hurricane relief efforts
among the latest -- it appears that phishing attacks are here to
stay.
Mike Musgrove, "'Phishing' Keeps Luring Victims, The
Washington Post, October 22, 2005 ---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/21/AR2005102102113.html?referrer=email
Bob Jensen's phishing hole is at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ecommerce/000start.htm#Phishing
A Marine's Book on How to Commit Fraud and Make Money With a Pack of
Atrocity Lies
What is sad is how the media did not try to confirm his claims before
reporting them as facts!
"Marine who confessed to abuses lied to gain celebrity," by
Ron Harris," St. Louis Post-Dispatch via Salt Lake
Tribune, November 6, 2005 ---
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3188630
WASHINGTON - For more than a year,
former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey has been telling
anybody who would listen about the atrocities that he and
other Marines committed in Iraq. In scores of newspaper,
magazine and broadcast stories, at a Canadian immigration
hearing and in numerous speeches across the country, Massey
told how he and other Marines recklessly, sometimes
intentionally killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Among his claims: Marines fired on
and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters. Americans shot a
4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head. Tractor-trailers were
filled with the bodies of civilian men, women and children
killed by American artillery. Massey's claims have gained
him celebrity. Last month, Massey's book, Kill, Kill, Kill,
was released in France.
His allegations have been reported
in nationwide publications such as Vanity Fair and USA
Today, as well as numerous broadcast reports. Earlier this
year, he joined the anti-war bus tour of Cindy Sheehan and
he's spoken at Cornell and Syracuse universities, among
others. News organizations worldwide published or broadcast
Massey's claims without any corroboration and in most cases
without investigation. Outside of the Marines, almost no one
has seriously questioned whether Massey, a 12-year veteran
who was honorably discharged, was telling the truth.
He wasn't.
Each of his claims is either
demonstrably false or exaggerated - according to his fellow
Marines, Massey's own admissions, and the five journalists
who were embedded with Massey's unit, including a reporter
and photographer from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and
reporters from the Associated Press and the Wall Street
Journal.
Massey, 34, was discharged in
December 2003, shortly after returning from Iraq due to
depression and post-traumatic stress syndrome. He began
turning up in the press and broadcast last spring with
stories about military atrocities. Massey's primary thrust
has been that Marines from his battalion - some of whom, he
told a Minneapolis audience were ''psychopathic killers'' -
recklessly shot and killed Iraqi civilians, sometimes, he
said, upon orders from their commanders.
The majority of CPAs "are still ignorant about fraud
The majority of CPAs "are still ignorant about fraud," said
Joseph Wells, founder and chairman of the Association of
Certified Fraud Examiners. He provided three reasons accountants
are having trouble catching frauds ---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x50171.xml
Wells said there are three reasons CPAs cannot catch
all material misdeeds:
-
The first is the dichotomy of fraud. "Trust is
an essential element of business -- and an
essential element of fraud," he said. "Absent
trust, it is impossible to con anyone. But
absent trust, it is also impossible to conduct
business."
-
Second, fraud is a crime without unique clues,
making it easy to miss. While it is hard to
mistake a robbery, an embezzlement may be marked
merely by numbers that don't add up.
-
Finally, CPAs can only audit what is presented
to them. "Under-the-table deals, sham
transactions and the like can be easily
concealed," Wells stated. "Holding CPAs to a
standard that requires them to detect all
material fraud puts them in a no-win situation
and they know it. Still, auditors can certainly
do a much better job than they've done in the
past."
Wells pointed out that key insiders are often the
first to divulge corporate misdeeds. Sharron Watkins
of Enron and Cynthia Cooper of WorldCom are only the
latest in a long line of employees tarred as
whistleblowers. But auditors typically react to
these tips rather than seeking them out in time to
avoid major financial disasters.
"Accountants don't currently learn what motivates
fraudulent conduct, how to spot the signals, how to
prevent fraud from occurring and much more," said
Wells. "As it stands now, auditors are fighting a
war without being taught how to recognize the enemy.
Until that changes, expect more heavy casualties." |
Nothing like admitting defeat before the charges are filed
The chief executive of Refco Inc.'s outside auditor,
Grant Thornton LLP, said the accounting firm has ample resources to withstand
the government probes and investor lawsuits it will face as a result of the
brokerage firm's meltdown last week. In his first interview since Refco's
scandal broke a week ago, Grant Thornton's Edward Nusbaum said the firm is well
capitalized and has outside liability insurance it can tap if necessary to cover
legal expenses, including potential settlements. "We anticipate the legal costs
will be expensive, as they are in every case," Mr. Nusbaum said. "But Grant
Thornton is very sound financially, and we anticipate any legal costs will be
absorbed by the firm. We have insurance, if it is needed."
Jonathan Weil, "Grant Thornton Expects to Weather Scandal of Client," The
Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2005; Page C1 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112951490246670395.html?mod=todays_us_money_and_investing
A Who Done it?: Grant Thornton's Case of the
Unknown Debt
Some of the IPO underwriters had
previous experience with Refco. Two of those three firms,
CSFB and Bank of America, also played lead roles, along with
Deutsche Bank AG, in arranging an $800 million term loan for
the Lee buyout, as well as a related $600 million debt sale,
according to Thomson Financial. Bank of America, Deutsche
Bank and Sandler O'Neill & Partners, a smaller firm that
specializes in financial services, all were advisers on the
Lee firm's investment in Refco . . . Those companies'
extensive experience with Refco, together with the fees they
collected, is sure to be scrutinized in court claims brought
by aggrieved investors. The role of Refco's outside auditors
Grant Thornton LLP in failing to discover the chief
executive's debt sooner will come under the microscope. For
now, the Wall Street firms aren't publicly discussing the
matter, but some people familiar with their executives'
thinking say they believe both they and the auditors were
duped. A Grant Thornton spokesman said in a statement issued
yesterday, "We are continuing our investigation related to
the matters reported by Refco." The accounting firm likely
will argue that its auditors were lied to, people familiar
with the matter said. Executives at Thomas H. Lee won't
discuss the matter publicly, but people familiar with its
thinking say the buyout shop relied on underwriters and two
auditing firms when it made the investment.
Randall Stith, Robin Sidel, and Kara Scannell, "From Wall
Street Pros To Auditors, Who Knew? Refco Disclosures Raise
'Due Diligence' Issues; Why Thomas Lee Invested," The
Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2005; Page C3 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112908133517166268.html?mod=todays_us_money_and_investing
Ed Ketz sums it up pessimistically at
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x50181.xml
Accounting frauds are here to stay.
When the prophet said "the heart is deceitful above all
things," he included the hearts of corporate managers.
Whatever one's religious beliefs, one has to admit that the
empirical evidence in the world of corporate accounting
confirms Jeremiah's insight. Managers don't employ
accounting; they bend, twist, and distort it to display the
set of numbers that helps them look good. Who cares about
truth?
Continued in article
Bob Jensen's threads on Grant Thornton's legal woes are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#GrantThornton
SEC Accuses Two Deloitte Auditors in Adelphia Fraud
Federal regulators on Friday
accused two Deloitte & Touche accountants who audited the
books of cable TV operator Adelphia Communications Corp. of
aiding the company's accounting fraud in 2000. The
Securities and Exchange Commission announced the
administrative action against auditors Gregory Dearlove and
William Caswell for alleged improper professional conduct.
Caswell agreed to settle the case by being barred for at
least two years from auditing a public company. He neither
admitted nor denied the allegations. The SEC is seeking an
injunction against Dearlove and restitution to investors,
with the case to be heard by an administrative law judge at
the agency. His attorney, Joseph Sedita, disputed the
allegations and said his client would contest them. Sedita
said that they had told the SEC lawyers, "You've got your
facts wrong, you've got your accounting wrong." Deloitte &
Touche, a Big Four accounting firm, in April agreed to pay
$50 million to settle the SEC's charges in relation to its
audit of Adelphia, which filed for bankruptcy protection in
2002 after founder John Rigas and others were accused of
using the company as their private piggy bank and cheating
investors out of millions. Rigas and his son, Timothy, were
convicted of conspiracy, bank fraud and securities fraud
last year. Also in April, Adelphia avoided criminal fraud
charges in a deal with the Justice Department in which the
company received $1.5 billion in cable television systems
and other assets from John Rigas and family members and
agreed to pay the government just under half that amount.
"SEC Accuses Two Deloitte Auditors in Adelphia Fraud."
SmartPros, October 3, 2005 ---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x49950.xml
Bob Jensen's threads on the Adelphia fraud and other legal
woes of Deloitte and Touche are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#Deloitte
Enhancing Auditors’ Capabilities to Detect Fraud
EY Faculty Connection
Fall 2005 ---
http://www.ey.com/global/content.nsf/US/EY_Faculty_Connection_(Issue_11)
SAS 99 (AU 316) states, “The
auditor has the responsibility to plan and to perform the
audit to provide reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement,
whether caused by error or fraud.” PCAOB Chairman William
McDonough stated it differently when asked the question,
“How do you respond to auditor’s insistence that it isn’t
their job to detect fraud? He replied, “We have a very clear
view that it is their job. If we see fraud that wasn’t
detected and should have been, we will be very big on the
tough and not so big on the love.” As I read these two
quotes, it appears to me that, the bar is being raised.
Regulators, audit committees, management, and auditors all
play a vital role in preventing or detecting fraud . As
educators, how can we do a better job of training tomorrow’s
business leaders–and especially auditors--to detect material
fraud?
Over my career, I have both taught
auditing and have been an expert witness in numerous cases
where auditors were sued for negligence because of not
detecting fraud. In one such case, the fraud had been going
on for 16 years and the perpetrator has embezzled over 10%
of the company’s assets. Several times, while conducting
annual audits, the auditors had identified real fraud
symptoms but had dismissed them based on client
representations. In another case, auditors sent
confirmations to addresses that were really only rental mail
boxes that appeared to be physical addresses only to have
the perpetrators fly to the location, complete the
confirmations and confirm that everything was okay. In a
multi-billion dollar case, it was alleged that auditors not
only saw fraud symptoms but must have been participants in
the fraud not to recognize those symptoms.
Detecting and proving fraud are
extremely difficult. Recent cases where CEOs have been
acquitted attest to the difficulty of proving fraud.
However, given that auditors may be held liable for failing
to detect material fraud, it is incumbent upon all of us who
prepare tomorrow’s auditors to make them better fraud
detectors.
People who commit fraud do not fit
the profile of typical criminals. Instead, they look just
like us. They have rationalized committing fraud either
because (1) they lack basic ethical values, (2) they have
basic ethical values but don’t know how to translate those
values to business settings and decisions, (3) they know how
to translate their ethical values to business settings but
they lack the ethical courage to make the right decision
even when it is costly or (4) they work in an environment
where ethical leadership is absent and they are taught to be
dishonest through unethical modeling and labeling. They have
also perceived an opportunity to commit and conceal the
dishonest acts and, most often, they have some kind of firm
or individual pressure that is motivating them to take
advantage of the perceived opportunity and to rationalize
the dishonesty.
Given that most fraud perpetrators
look like us and are first-time offenders, how can auditors
better detect fraud? I believe that both the firms and
educators must do a better job in teaching fraud detection.
Most of our students and firms’ young staff members wouldn’t
recognize a fraud if it hit them between the eyes. Here are
some ways educators can better teach our students fraud
detection techniques:
We should use major fraud cases
to teach accounting principles throughout our
curriculum. Students will understand accounting
principles better when they see how they have been
abused. For example, the difference between assets and
expenses can be effectively taught using WorldCom. Our
students need to know that throughout their careers they
will be exposed to fraud, as an auditor, consultant,
coworker or victim. Fraud is now so common that all of
us will witness it in one form or another. We must force
our students to face ethical and fraud dilemmas in every
course in our accounting curricula. Most good textbooks
now contain ethical dilemmas or cases related to the
subject matter being taught. Unfortunately, most
professors don’t use these or other fraud and ethics
cases. Students should be exposed to and learn to
recognize potential conflicts of interest, fraudulent
behavior, illegal activities and “shrewd” business
practices that push the limits of propriety.
We can teach a dedicated fraud
course where students learn why and how fraud is
committed and how to prevent, detect and investigate
fraud. Regardless of the careers our students choose,
learning how to skeptically examine records, conduct
better interviews and use technology to detect fraud are
skills that will be valuable to them.
In our classes, we should use
pedagogical tools such as inquiry, data mining and
brainstorming that our students will be using as
professionals to detect fraud.
To establish a proper tone, our
business schools should establish a code of ethical
conduct and invite all students, staff, and faculty to
pledge to honor it. The code should be discussed and
made a prominent part of our business schools.
The firms, too, must become better
in training their auditors to detect fraud. They must spend
time in both separate and integrated training sessions and
on the job teaching auditors about deception, the nature of
fraud, how to conduct fraud risk assessments, how to analyze
journal entries for fraud, common fraud schemes, how to mine
data, how to better conduct interviews and brainstorming
sessions, and in working through fraud case studies.
Auditing firms must continuously reinforce the fact that
they are in the business of detecting fraud, regardless of
what the standards say. The purpose of an audit has come
full circle. The first edition of the Montgomery auditing
text, published in 1917, states that an audit had three
objectives: (1) detection of fraud, (2) detection of
technical errors, and (3) detection of errors in principle.
Through a series of frauds (e.g. McKesson Robbins, etc.) and
issuance of new standards, the responsibility to detect
fraud evolved from “…the ordinary examination…is not
designed and cannot be relied upon to disclose defalcations
and other similar irregularities” (SAP 1) to “…an audit
gives consideration to the possibility of fraud” (SAP 30) to
“…auditors must plan the audit to search for material errors
or irregularities” (SAS 16) to “…auditors must design the
audit to provide reasonable assurance of detecting material
fraud,” (SAS 53) to “the auditor must plan and perform the
audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free from material misstatement
whether caused by error or fraud (SAS 82 & 99) to “…it is
their job to detect fraud.” (William McDonough, PCAOB)
Given this renewed responsibility,
both educators and firms must be more diligent and
pro-active in teaching students and employees how to detect
fraud. We can no longer say it is someone else’s
responsibility. Not doing so will result in increased
regulation, litigation, and lesser esteem and respect for
our profession.
W. Steve Albrecht
Professor of Accounting
Brigham Young University
Links to Bob
Jensen’s fraud documents ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud.htm
The world's media eagerly falls for another hoax
The UMass Dartmouth student who
claimed to have been visited by Homeland Security agents
over his request for "The Little Red Book" by Mao Zedong has
admitted to making up the entire story. The 22-year-old
student tearfully admitted he made the story up to his
history professor, Dr. Brian Glyn Williams, and his parents,
after being confronted with the inconsistencies in his
account. Had the student stuck to his original story, it
might never have been proved false. But on Thursday, when
the student told his tale in the office of UMass Dartmouth
professor Dr. Robert Pontbriand..
"Federal agents' visit was a hoax," SouthCoastToday,
December 25, 2005 ---
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-05/a01lo719.htm
Had the
student stuck to his original story, it might never have been proved
false.
But on Thursday, when the student told his
tale in the office of UMass Dartmouth professor Dr. Robert Pontbriand to
Dr. Williams, Dr. Pontbriand, university spokesman John Hoey and The
Standard-Times, the student added new details.
The agents had returned, the student said,
just last night. The two agents, the student, his parents and the
student's uncle all signed confidentiality agreements, he claimed, to
put an end to the matter.
But when Dr. Williams went to the student's
home yesterday and relayed that part of the story to his parents, it was
the first time they had heard it. The story began to unravel, and the
student, faced with the truth, broke down and cried.
It was a dramatic turnaround from the day
before. For more than an hour on Thursday, he spoke of two visits from
Homeland Security over his inter-library loan request for the 1965,
Peking Press version of "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung," which
is the book's official title.
His basic tale remained the same: The book
was on a government watch list, and his loan request had triggered a
visit from an agent who was seeking to "tame" reading of particular
books. He said he saw a long list of such books. In the days after
its initial reporting on Dec. 17 in The Standard-Times, the story had
become an international phenomenon on the Internet. Media outlets from
around the world were requesting interviews with the students, and a
number of reporters had been asking UMass Dartmouth students and
professors for information.
The story's release came at a perfect storm
in the news cycle. Only a day before, The New York Times had reported
that President Bush had allowed the National Security Agency to conduct
wiretaps on international phone calls from the United States without a
warrant. The Patriot Act, created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks to allow the government greater authority to monitor for
possible terrorism activities, was up for re-authorization in Congress.
There was an increased sense among some
Americans that the U.S. government was overstepping its bounds and
trampling on civil liberties in order to thwart future attacks of
terrorism. The story of a college student being questioned for
requesting a 40-year old book on Communism fed right into that
atmosphere.
In Thursday's retelling of the story, the
student added several new twists, ones that the professors and
journalist had not heard before. The biggest new piece of information
was an alleged second visit of Homeland Security agents the previous
night, where two agents waited in his living room for two hours with his
parents and brother while he drove back from a retreat in western
Massachusetts. He said he, the agents, his parents and his uncle all
signed confidentiality agreements that the story would never be told.
He revealed the agents' names: one was
Nicolai Brushaev or Broshaev, and the other was simply Agent Roberts. He
said they were dressed in black suits with thin black ties, "just like
the guys in Men in Black."
He had dates and times and places, things he
had signed and sent back in order to receive the book. The tale involved
his twin brother, who allegedly requested the book for him at UMass
Amherst; his uncle, a former FBI attorney who took care of all the
paperwork; and his parents, who signed those confidentiality agreements.
But by now, the story had too many holes.
Every time there was a fact to be had that would verify the story --
providing a copy of the confidentiality agreements the student and agent
signed, for example -- there would be a convenient excuse. The uncle
took all the documents home to Puerto Rico, he said.
What was the address of the Homeland
Security building in Boston where he and his uncle visited the agency
and actually received a copy of the book? It was a brick building, he
said, but he couldn't remember where it was, or what was around it.
He said he met a former professor at the
mysterious Homeland Security building who had requested a book on
bomb-making, along with two Ph.D. students and a one pursuing a master's
degree who had also been stopped from accessing books. The student
couldn't remember their names, but the former professor had appeared on
the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News recently, he said.
The
former professor's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor did not check out.
Other proof was sought.
Were there any copies of the inter-library
loan request? No.
Did the agents leave their cards, or any
paperwork at your home? No.
His brother, a student at Amherst, told Dr.
Williams that he had never made the inter-library loan request on behalf
of his brother.
While The Standard-Times had tape recorded
the entire tale on Thursday, the reporter could not reach the student
for comment after he admitted making up the story. Phone calls and a
note on the door were not returned.
At the request of the two professors and the
university, The Standard-Times has agreed to withhold his name.
During the whole episode, the professors
said that while they wanted to protect the student from the media that
were flooding their voice mails and e-mail boxes seeking comment and
information, they also wanted to know: Was the story true?
"I grew skeptical of this story, as did Bob,
considering the ramifications," Dr. Williams said yesterday. "I spent
the last five days avoiding work, and the international media, and rest,
trying to get names and dates and facts. My investigation eventually
took me to his house, where I began to investigate family matters. I
eventually found out the whole thing had been invented, and I'm happy to
report that it's safe to borrow books."
Dr. Williams said he does not regret
bringing the story to light, but that now the issue can be put to rest.
"I wasn't involved in some partisan struggle
to embarrass the Bush administration, I just wanted the truth," he said.
Dr. Pontbriand said the entire episode has
been "an incredible experience and exposure for something a student had
said." He said all along, his only desire had been to "get to the bottom
of it and get the truth of the matter."
"When it blew up into an international
story, our only desire was to interview this student and get to the
truth. We did not want from the outset to declare the student a liar,
but we wanted to check out his story," he said. "It was a disastrous
thing for him to do. He needs attention, he needs care. I feel for the
kid. We have great concern for this student's health and welfare."
Mr. Hoey, the university spokesman, said the
university had been unable to substantiate any of the facts of the story
since it first was reported in The Standard-Times on Dec. 17.
As to any possible repercussions against the
student, Mr. Hoey said, "We consider this to be an issue to be handled
faculty member to student. We wouldn't discuss publicly any other
action. Student discipline is a private matter."
Dr. Williams said the whole affair has had
one bright point: The question of whether it is safe for students to do
research has been answered.
"I can now tell my students that it is safe
to do research without being monitored," he said. "With that hanging in
the air like before, I couldn't say that to them."
The student's motivation remains a mystery,
but in the interview on Thursday, he provided a glimpse.
"When I came back, like wow, there's this
circus coming on. I saw my cell phone, and I see like, wow, I have
something like 75 messages and like something like 87 missed calls," he
said. "Wow, I was popular. I usually get one or probably two a week and
that's about it, and I usually pick them up."
A Bankruptcy Fraud
"Oohs and Ahs at Delphi's Circus," by Gretchen Morgenson, The New York
Times, November 13, 2005
It's not every day that investors can view the
contortions performed by compensation consultants trying to justify the
monster executive pay packages that they recommend to corporate clients. And
when these exercises in absurdity are done for executives asking for great
sacrifices from workers, retirees, creditors and former shareholders because
they manage a company in Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the entertainment
is unmatched.
The ringside seat for this show comes courtesy of
the Delphi Corporation, the automotive parts giant that filed for Chapter 11
on Oct. 8. The performers are Delphi's lawyers, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, and its compensation consultant, Watson Wyatt. The
consultant said it was hired to devise incentive plans for the company's
executives that would "align the interests of both program participants and
company stakeholders and to benchmark such programs against competitive
practice."
Brian Foley, a compensation expert in White Plains
who scoured the Delphi plan, is dubious. "It starts off with usual alignment
rationale, but the reality is it provides no explanation as to how that
rationale works when the only people receiving payments are the 500 to 600
chosen," he said. "At the end of the day, you have shareholders, retirees,
union employees and nonunion workers who get nothing under this. Align
that."
The Watson Wyatt plan - 35 pages in all - was filed
with the bankruptcy court overseeing the Delphi case in New York.
Accompanying the plan was a brief from Delphi's lawyers arguing that the
company's managers must be "appropriately incentivized to maximize the
financial performance" of the company. A hearing on the plan is scheduled
for Nov. 29.
Delphi, which has 185,000 employees, argues that
its woes are a result of high union wages, a fiercely competitive industry
and rising commodity prices. The company plans to turn itself around,
according to its lawyers, by improving its manufacturing and "eliminating
noncompetitive legacy liabilities and burdensome restrictions under current
labor agreements." Put in plain English, that means dumping its pension
liabilities on American taxpayers and cutting its workers' wages and
retirees' health and life insurance.
Workers at Delphi earn good money - $26 to $30 an
hour in many cases. And the company is bizarrely forced to pay 4,000 current
workers who no longer have jobs.
But when a company jettisons a pension that is
underfunded by $11 billion, according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, and proposes cuts of up to two-thirds in workers' pay and deep
reductions in retiree benefits, you would think that its executives might
want to share the pain.
You would, however, be mostly wrong.
Continued in article
November 8, 2005 message from Marv Eatinger
[marv@mitec.net]
Dear Professor Jensen At Trinity.Edu:
If you go to
www.ragingbull.com
message board for Daleco Resources Corporation (OTCBB
- DLOV) and Regency Affiliates, Inc. (OTCBB - RAFI) posts by "virgule"
(Marv Eatinger), you will find two cases of tax fraud and securities
fraud involving public corporations that exist at the present time, and
it would seem that timely prosecution of the Rule of Law does not mean
much in the scheme of things! I have really become a cynic concerning
the Rule of Law and the timely application thereof!
Sincerely,
Marv Eatinger
The long-awaited PCAOB auditor inspection reports
We had a visiting accounting
researcher in recently who claimed that the
Big Four can charge more for audits because
they do better audits than the second tier
auditing firms. There are some global
advantages of the largest firms, but audit
quality does not necessarily justify higher
pricing.
The following is sad,
because Deloitte was once viewed as the
auditors' auditor much like a skilled
physician is viewed as the doctors' doctor.
"Deloitte Receives Criticism
in 2004 Inspections Report," SmartPros,
October 7, 2005 ---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x50107.xml
The U.S. audit
overseer on Thursday rebuked Deloitte &
Touche LLP for weaknesses in its audits
of public companies, including an
instance where the accounting firm
allowed a company to gloss over an
auditing error.
The Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board said
that an inspection of the accounting
giant from May through November 2004
found that "in some cases, the
deficiencies identified were of such
significance that it appeared to the
inspection team that the firm had not,
at the time it issued its audit report,
obtained sufficient competent evidential
matter to support its opinion on the
issuer's financial statements."
The U.S. audit
oversight board also noted that Deloitte
& Touche had improperly applied lease
accounting standards in one audit and
that it had come to an inaccurate
conclusion about a company's ability to
continue as a going concern.
"We have taken
appropriate action to address the
matters identified by the inspection
team for each of the instances
identified," said Deborah Harrington, a
spokeswoman for Deloitte & Touche. "We
are supportive of this process and
committed to work collectively to
continuously improve the independent
audit process."
The audit board
was created by Congress in 2002
following a spate of accounting scandals
that rocked the U.S. stock markets.
Under law, it must inspect the Big Four
firms each year. It does not identify
any of the public companies alluded to
in its inspections reports.
The PCAOB's
report did not include details about the
quality-control systems at Deloitte &
Touche or the "tone at the top." Under
law, that information must remain
confidential for at least a year. If
firms fail to address criticism about
their quality controls within 12 months,
then the PCAOB may make public its
criticisms.
KPMG also had troubles in
its inspection report. The following
appeared in my September 30, 2005 edition of
New Bookmarks ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/book05q3.htm#093005
The long-awaited PCAOB auditor
inspection reports
Denny Beresford clued me into
the fact that, after several
months delay, the Big Four and
other inspection reports of the
PCAOB are available, or will
soon be available, to the public
---
http://www.pcaobus.org/Inspections/Public_Reports/index.aspx
Look for more to be released
today and early next week.
The firms themselves have seen
them and at least one, KPMG, has
already distributed a
carefully-worded letter to all
clients. I did see that letter
from Flynn.
Denny did not mention it, but my
very (I stress very) cursory
browsing indicates that the
firms will not be comfortable
with their inspections, at least
not some major parts of them.
I would like to state a
preliminary hypothesis for which
I have no credible evidence as
of yet. My hypothesis is that
the major problem of the large
auditing firms is the continued
reliance upon cheaper risk
analysis auditing relative to
the much more costly detail
testing. This is what got all
the large firms, especially
Andersen, into trouble on many
audits where there has been
litigation ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#others
"The Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board found
audit deficiencies at three
major accounting firms,"
SmartPros, November 18, 2005
---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x50712.xml
Reports on the PCAOB's
inspection of Ernst & Young
LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP and BDO Seidman LLP,
issued Thursday, said the
inspection team identified
matters it considered to be
audit deficiencies.
In
the reports, the PCOAB said
those deficiencies included
failures by the firm "to
identify and appropriately
address errors in the
issuer's application of GAAP
(or generally accepted
accounting principles)," and
that one or more of those
errors was "likely to be
material to the firms'
financial statement."
In
all three reports, the PCAOB
said "the deficiencies also
included failures by the
firm to perform, or to
perform sufficiently,
certain necessary audit
process."
The
three reports, which can be
viewed on the PCAOB's Web
site,
www.pcaobus.org ,
provide details of specific
cases, without mentioning
the audited entities by
name.
Bob Jensen’s threads on the
future of auditing are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#FutureOfAuditing
Bob Jensen’s threads on the
weaknesses of risk-based
auditing are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraud001.htm#RiskBasedAuditing
At the above site the first
message is the following AECM
message from Roger Debreceny
April
27, 2005 message from Roger
Debreceny
[roger@DEBRECENY.COM]
Hi,
While doing some grading, I
have been listening to the Webcast
of the February meeting of
the PCAOB Standing Advisory
Group
(see
http://www.connectlive.com/events/pcaob/)
(yes, I know, I have no
life! <g>). There is an
interesting discussion on
the role/future of the
risk-based audit. See http://tinyurl.com/8f5nt at
42 minutes into the
discussion. A variety of
viewpoints are expressed in
the discussion. This refers
back to an earlier
discussion we had on AECM.
Roger
--
Roger Debreceny
School of Accountancy
College of Business
Administration
University of Hawai'i at
Manoa
2404 Maile Way
Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
www.debreceny.com
"PCAOB Finds 18 KPMG
Auditing Flaws," SmartPros, October
7, 2005 ---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x50018.xml
A required
report by the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board, released last week,
uncovered flaws in 18 audits performed
by KPMG LLP for publicly held companies.
The PCAOB
reviewed just 76 of KPMG's 1,900
publicly traded clients between June and
October 2004. Some of the failures by
KMPG, according to the PCAOB, include
not thoroughly evaluating some known or
likely errors, not keeping crucial
documentation, and not backing up its
opinion with "sufficient competent
evidential matter."
In a prepared
statement, KPMG Chairman Timothy Flynn
said, "KPMG is committed to the goal of
continuous improvement in audit quality.
We appreciate the constructive dialogue
and consider it an important element in
the process of improving our system of
quality controls."
The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which established
the oversight board, requires the
inspections. The PCAOB may not make
certain criticisms public, however, so
some portions of the KPMG report remain
undisclosed. This report is the first of
four reports that will inspect the
nation's top four accounting firms. KPMG
is the fourth-largest accounting firm.
The remaining reports are expected in
the coming weeks.
Bob Jensen's threads about troubles in
the large accounting firms are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#others
The Saga of Auditor Professionalism and Independence ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#Professionalism
KPMG's Knight in Shining Armor
Denny Beresford forwarded me an interesting article entitled “KPMG's Knight
in Shining Armor” by Sue Reisinger.
I then set out on a Google search and found a link at
http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1131425800801
This is a most interesting document on what was going on behind the scenes to
convict versus same KPMG. It took a second generation Norwegian immigrant to get
the job done. Now that made me feel good.
One statistic popped out. Sue’s article claims KPMG “raked in $128 million in
ill-gotten profits while thumbing its nose at the law.” This is the supposed
return on over $1 billion sales of illegal tax shelters, many of which were sold
after the IRS warned KPMG to stop selling these shelters. Details are given at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#KPMG
The eventual $453 million settlement to stay in business is costly to KPMG.
Civil suits are still pending and these could become astronomical. And nearly 20
former KPMG tax partners are still facing criminal charges that could send them
to jail.
But KPMG is still in business. Like Andersen many of Andersen’s
professionals, there are many, many outstanding KPMG employees who bear no
responsibility for the bad things that went down.
"Farm Freeloaders in Foreign-Aid Food Fight Shady disaster
aid is a global phenomenon," by Kerry Howley, Reason Magazine,
September 28, 2005 ---
http://www.reason.com/links/links092805.shtml
The U.S. is asking the E.U. to
drop its egregious $3 billion farm supports. But as
Washington pours billions into reclaiming a city
from a gulf, the E.U. wants major changes in the way
the federal government responds to humanitarian
crises outside its borders. At a cost of more than
$1 billion, the U.S. carts overseas 7.5 million
metric tons of food every year. For their trouble,
U.S. taxpayers have earned the excoriation of the
WTO, the EU, Oxfam, and aid organizations the world
over—all of whom want the U.S. to stop sending free
corn and wheat to Africa. U.S. Trade Representative
Rob Portman has referred to this request, by turns,
as "radical,"
"outrageous,"
and "
harmful to our farmers and ranchers."
What's the WTO got against food aid? The
organization has another word for sending developing
countries free stuff: dumping. If that sounds a
touch cynical, consider the circumstances under
which the food aid program was developed in 1954.
The U.S. was simultaneously experiencing a spike in
agricultural production—notably wheat—and eager to
solicit the goodwill of newly emerging states.
Letting taxpayers buy and ship surplus carbohydrates
evidently seemed like a good idea.
Fifty years later, according
to Oxfam, food aid still rises with surplus
production and falls when supply is tight. When a
bumper crop threatens to destabilize prices, the
feds sweep in to buy and give away. Having trouble
hawking
California raisins?
Soybean oil? Corn? Wheat?
Rice? There's an African village with your name on
it.
The
importance of food aid as an
export outlet is nowhere near
what it once was, but the
business of disaster aid has
given other industries an
interest in maintaining the
status quo. According to a
July report
by the
Minnesota-based Institute for
Agricultural and Trade Policy (IATP),
it's the shipping industry—not
agribusiness—that has emerged as
the lobbying behemoth behind
food aid. The U.S. requires that
75 percent of procurement,
processing, bagging and shipping
be handled by U.S. firms. Fully
a third of the money taxpayers
spend sending free food
(typically bought at 11 percent
over market price) goes straight
to shipping costs.
In
general, drowning a country in a
product for which it might
otherwise have a competitive
advantage is not a particularly
helpful way to foster
development. A
March
Oxfam report
notes that in 2002 and 2003,
donors shipped 600,000 tons of
food to Malawi, causing the
prices of maize and rice to
crash. Ten percent of food aid
isn't even directed at countries
with a hunger problem; instead,
the food is given for the
purpose of being sold and used
to fund development projects.
The practice, referred to as the
"monetization of aid," has the
potential to put local traders
out of business in the name of
building a school for their
kids.
Food aid recipients are a mix of
NGOs who sell food for funds,
countries with genuine food
shortages, states with which the
U.S. wants to build alliances,
and the odd wild card for whom
the motivation to give free
wheat is altogether unclear. (IATP
quotes the USDA's economic
research service: "Allocations
to individual countries do not
always correspond to levels of
need."). China, for instance,
received U.S. food aid from 2000
to 2002. During the same period,
China donated food aid in the
form of wheat, rice, corn, and
oils to North Korea and Africa.
Oxfam, the
E.U., and IATP want the U.S. to
send cash in place of carbs, so
less aid can be used to buy more
food from local traders. The
millions lost to shipping costs
would disappear; the food would
be cheaper, packaging and
processing costs would plummet.
Cash handouts in kleptocracies
are inherently problematic, but
food aid is easily converted to
cash and just as
vulnerable to corruption.
Continued in article
|
|
"Privacy for Sale How to buy online anonymity," by Adam L. Penenberg,
Slate, November 1, 2005 ---
http://www.slate.com/id/2129114/
When you surf the Internet, you
leave footprints everywhere you go. Google conceivably
knows every term you've
searched for and every e-mail you've sent and received.
Cookies greet you when you return to a site and track
your movements when you stay within its pages or visit
affiliated sites. Your ISP knows who you are and where
you live or work whenever you get online.
This tracking continues far
from your computer. The
hundreds of publicly and
privately owned surveillance cameras within a 10-block
radius of my office capture my image when I buy a
falafel or read a book in Washington Square Park. If you
talk on a cell phone or send text messages from your
PDA, your provider knows where you are. The same goes
for when you pay for socks with a credit card or get
cash from an ATM.
As the battle to provide ads
better-targeted to online consumers intensifies, our
information becomes more valuable to online marketers
and publishers.
Web surfers also fear that
identity thieves are on the prowl for their personal
data. The government is a potential bogeyman, too: As
fears over terrorism intensify, the feds may find your
personal data irresistible. In 2003, Congress scuttled
the Total Information Awareness program, which would
have enabled the Pentagon to mine millions of public and
private records to search for indications of terrorist
activity. But that doesn't mean the effort to combine
databases has stalled—it's
just been redirected.
So, how can we
protect ourselves? We're going to
have to pay for it. In the same way
we fork over a few extra bucks a
month for caller ID block and an
unlisted phone number, we'll pay for
anonymity in other areas. Privacy
has become a commodity. The more our
personal information gets out there,
and the more valuable it becomes,
the more incentive there will be for
companies to shield it on our
behalf.
There's a
good chance you already have a
personal
firewall
or a
spyware remover
installed on your machine. But there
are loads of other products that can
do everything from masking your IP
address—kind of like driving in a
car with a fake license plate—to
scrambling your data so that anyone
trying to intercept it will
encounter gibberish, to services
that claim to expunge your personal
information from a whole range of
databases and search engines. Some
do what they say they can do. Others
don't.
For $29.99,
Acronis
Privacy Expert Suite will wipe your
hard drive of all traces of Web
surfing.
Anonymizer.com
offers an
array of products that do everything
from masking your identity by
routing your Web traffic through
secure servers to encrypting your
wireless connection.
GhostSurf,
a competing product, provides "an
anonymous, encrypted Internet
connection" that erases any trace of
your surfing "to Department of
Defense standards." Encryption
schemes like
PGP will
let you send e-mail securely so that
even if hackers intercept it
upstream, they won't be able to read
it. A program called
SafeHouse
will fully encrypt your hard drive
to ensure that if your laptop is
stolen, your data won't be.
Not
everything that comes at a price can
do the job. A new service called
DeleteNow
vows to expunge your personal
information from search engines,
databases, and directories for $2.99
a month. The company says it uses
searchbots and a "deletion module"
to search for and destroy
information in databases and on the
Web that its client doesn't want
dispersed in the ether. But
DeleteNow's claims are a bit
exaggerated. It can't simply delete
information from third-party Web
sites—all it does is automate the
process by which any user can ask
that a page gets removed from a
particular search engine. Believe
me: If Google didn't remove its CEO
Eric Schmidt's personal information
from search
results after the company
raised a stink
with CNET,
it's not going to remove yours.
Not all
privacy enhancers cost money. Some
free Web-based services help those
who simply want to control their
information because they don't want
"The Man" to have it—marketers, the
government, whoever.
Bugmenot
offers communal logins and
passwords—the password "liberalmedia"
for the New York Times and
the e-mail
nypostisfuckingretartedforrquiringregistration@suckme.com
to access
the New York Post, for
example—that allow users to avoid
providing personal information at
sites that require free (but
annoying) registration. But the
model that
Hushmail,
which offers snoop-proof e-mail, has
adopted will probably hold sway in
the future. The company gets you in
the door by offering free e-mail
accounts but then offers a number of
different services that cost money.
Of course,
it's possible that these services go
too far. Do most of us really need
to encrypt our hard drives so that
pictures of our kids don't fall into
enemy hands? The most important
question, though, is whether it's
right that individuals have to bear
the economic burden of protecting
their anonymity online. Shouldn't
our own personal default settings be
set on privacy?
Continued in article |
|
|
|
Bob Jensen's home page is at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/