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.

 
 
Jan 29

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
1/29/2007 7:32 AM 

From a former Arthur Andersen employee, regarding my post on the Bloomberg/Schumer report:

I feel compelled to respond to your comment about Arthur Andersen: “remember the shredding of evidential workpapers?”

No audit workpapers were shredded, and the DOJ never claimed that workpapers were shredded. The shredded documents were correspondence files and such; documents that did not belong in the workpapers and were never part of the workpapers. The audit workpapers were intact.

As to your comment about flawed audits, that is subjective (the nature of documents is objective). I would only observe that the record of the numerous investigations over the past five years reveals a pattern of deliberate withholding of key transaction details from the auditors, aided and abetted—knowingly—by a host of blue-chip commercial and investment banks.


Thanks for the clarification: I changed the post to read "remember the shredding of correspondence files?"

Aside from that - there's nothing else to change. My point is not to trash Andersen, or its people - my point is that history should not be revised to read that Andersen was done in by litigation. It wasn't.

As for "flawed audits" being a "subjective comment" - no. The outcome of the audit in question is not subjective - it's an objective fact, as well as other Andersen audits of the time. Good audits don't have those outcomes. My point was - and is - that there was more at work in the demise of Andersen than litigation - it started with the audits they could have done better.

That post did not start as an attack on Arthur Andersen, and this one is not going to turn into one, either. But you also cannot say that this was a firm doing everything right and was unraveled by litigation.

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.