Text/HTML
Text/HTML
If you are a registered user please log in to see more postings.
 

The AAO Weblog covers accounting issues and current events as they relate the practice of investment analysis.

 
 
Nov 22

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
11/22/2005 7:38 AM 

[Note: the PCAOB and KPMG subscribe to The Analyst's Accounting Observer. Not that it has any bearing on the comments below, but someone might care.]

Around the beginning of last month, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board released its annual inspection reports on half of the Big Four: KPMG and Deloitte & Touche. As you'd expect, the reports weren't flattering. The PCAOB does not exist to hand out "attaboys" to the audit profession, it exists to keep spurs under auditors' saddles.

Last week, it was time for the other half of the Big Four to take a turn in the woodshed. Ernst & Young was criticized for not gathering sufficient competent evidence to support its audit opinion for a number of 2003 audits in the PCAOB sample. Some of the issues involved in the audits: improper operating treatment for a lease that should have been capitalized; allowing presentation of only two segments in a client's financials, obscuring operating losses at one segment that should have been displayed; a failure to confirm terms of an agreement amounting to 15% of annual revenue; and the proposal of judgmental audit adjustments for obsolete inventory without support. In auditing the allowance for loan losses for a group of four financial institutions, in three cases the E&Y audit teams had failed to gather documentable evidence that the "unallocated component of the allowance represented a supportable estimate of probable losses inherent in the issuer's loan portfolio." In short, E&Y couldn't prove that it had really examined the squishiest part of the institutions' allowance for loan losses. In another case, E&Y workpapers didn't support that there had been enough analysis done to support the client's treatment of a divestiture as discontinued operation.

PricewaterhouseCoopers didn't fare any better. Deficiencies were found in auditing of accounts receivable (insufficient evidence obtained, improper sample sizes, lack of follow-through on differences found); failure to evaluate whether certain commodity contracts of one client were, in fact, derivatives; and deficiencies in internal control testing (improper reliance on controls that hadn't been tested for several years, reliance on controls tested only in first half of year, tests of controls based on a too-small sample size). Other problems found in audit client financial statements that escaped PwC detection: incorrect tax accounting for foreign subsidiary; improper inclusion of securities as cash equivalents; and recalculation of allowance for doubtful accounts using the client's methodology -without testing the methodology's soundness. There are many more similar findings.

It's not encouraging stuff to read; you'd like to think that the Big Four would do a higher-quality job in what should now be their mainstay business - auditing. But you also have to recognize that the tension between regulator and regulated is what makes the process work for investors. If the day ever comes when the PCAOB doesn't find some flaw in the way public accounting firms operate, investors should be concerned that the regulator isn't doing its job.

Tags:
 

Pension & Other Benefit Plans: A Look Ahead


    Investors in firms with defined benefit pension plans always face the risk of suddenly being pushed farther back in line when it comes to being served their returns. Variability in plan assets and variability in benefit plan obligations are the reason: poor asset returns coupled with sinking interest rates always spell tough times for defined benefit plan funding. In that regard, this year’s asset returns combined with the Fed’s “Operation Twist” add up to “Operation Agony” for defined benefit pension plans. If trends continue along their current path, firms that may have anticipated moving to more realistic pension accounting - like Honeywell, AT&T and Verizon already have done - might forego that decision. It could be just too painful. 

    Pensions aren’t the only kind of benefit plan affected by Operation Twist. Other postemployment benefit (OPEB) plans share much the same accounting model as pensions, including the calculation of a projected benefit obligation that similarly incorporates a discount rate - one that will also be affected by Operation Twist. The net OPEB obligations were slightly less than pension obligations at the end of 2010, but also promise to grow in 2011. Investors perceive them as less threatening than pension obligations because they don’t require funding. Strangely, there are a number of firms that are recognizing income from these benefit plans - without ever creating a dime of cash for investors.

A recent edition of The Analyst’s Accounting Observer dissects these issues, and is available only to paid subscribers. A condensed version is available for free upon request. To receive it, send an e-mail to Brenda Rappold at brappold@accountingobserver.com, with “PENSIONS” in the subject line.

For information about subscribing to The Analyst’s Accounting Observer, click here.