December 31, 2006
Bob Jensen's New Bookmarks on December 31,
2006
Bob Jensen at
Trinity University
For
earlier editions of Tidbits go to
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/TidbitsDirectory.htm
For
earlier editions of New Bookmarks go to
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/bookurl.htm
Click here to search Bob Jensen's web site if you have key words to enter ---
Search Site.
For example if you want to know what Jensen documents have the term "Enron"
enter the phrase Jensen AND Enron. Another search engine that covers Trinity and
other universities is at
http://www.searchedu.com/.
Bob Jensen's Blogs ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/JensenBlogs.htm
Current and past editions of my newsletter called New
Bookmarks ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/bookurl.htm
Current and past editions of my newsletter called
Tidbits ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/TidbitsDirectory.htm
Current and past editions of my newsletter called Fraud
Updates ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudUpdates.htm
Bob Jensen's past presentations and lectures
---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/resume.htm#Presentations
Bob Jensen's various threads ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/threads.htm
(Also scroll down to the table at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ )
Click here to search this Website if you
have key words to enter --- Search Site.
For example if you want to know what Jensen documents have the term "Enron"
enter the phrase Jensen AND Enron. Another search engine that covers Trinity and
other universities is at
http://www.searchedu.com/.
Bob Jensen's Home Page is at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/
Click Here for Tidbits and Quotations Between December 1
and December 31, 2006 ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/book06q4.htm#Tidbits123106
Click Here for Humor Between December 1
and December 31, 2006 ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/book06q4.htm#Humor113006
Links to Documents on Fraud ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud.htm
Bob Jensen's search helpers are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/searchh.htm
Bob Jensen's Bookmarks ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/bookbob.htm
Bob Jensen's links to free electronic literature, including free online
textbooks ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ElectronicLiterature.htm
Bob Jensen's links to free online video, music, and other audio ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Music.htm
Bob Jensen's documents on accounting theory are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/theory.htm
Bob Jensen's links to free course materials from major universities ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/000aaa/updateee.htm#OKI
Bob Jensen's links to online education and training alternatives around the
world ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Crossborder.htm
Bob Jensen's links to electronic business, including computing and networking
security, are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ecommerce.htm
Bob Jensen's links to education technology and controversies ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/000aaa/0000start.htm
Bob Jensen's home page ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/
Bob Jensen's complete set of Enron Updates are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudEnron.htm#EnronUpdates
Bob Jensen's threads on the Enron scandal are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudEnron.htm
How do scholars search for academic
references?
Scholarpedia Launches at the end of 2006
From the University of Illinois Issues in Scholarly Communication blog on
December 28, 2006 ---
http://www.library.uiuc.edu/blog/scholcomm/
Scholarpedia feels and looks like
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can
edit. Indeed, both are powered by the same program - MediaWiki. Both allow
visitors to review and modify articles simply by clicking on the edit this
article link.
However, Scholarpedia differs from Wikipedia in some very important ways:
• Each article is written by an expert (invited or elected by the public).
• Each article is anonymously peer reviewed to ensure accurate and reliable
information.
• Each article has a curator - typically its author -- who is responsible
for its content.
• Any modification of the article needs to be approved by the curator before
it appears in the final, approved version.
…Currently, Scholarpedia hosts Encyclopedia of
Computational Neuroscience, Encyclopedia of Dynamical Systems and
Encyclopedia of Computational Intelligence. Although all three will
eventually be published in a printed form, they will also remain freely
available and modifiable online. (Producing a hard copy of each encyclopedia
is important for archiving; besides, many academicians have a preconception
that the prestige of an online article is not as high as that of a printed
one.)
If there is enough interest and support from the
public, Scholarpedia will grow in the following directions:
• The neuroscience chapter of Encyclopedia of Computational Neuroscience
will be a seed to start Encyclopedia of Cognitive Neuroscience, and then
Encyclopedia of Neuroscience
• Encyclopedia of Dynamical Systems will be a seed to start Encyclopedia of
Applied Mathematics, and then Encyclopedia of Mathematics.
• Encyclopedia of Computational Intelligence will be a seed to start
Encyclopedia of Computer Science.
Read more at
Scholarpedia ---
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page
Second Nature: PLoS One Picks Up Where Nature
Left Off
From the University of Illinois Issues in Scholarly Communication blog on
December 27, 2006 ---
http://www.library.uiuc.edu/blog/scholcomm/
The launch of the new
PLoS ONE
scholarly research portal looks like a big win for open access research
content from a number of angles. PLoS ONE is posting research and will allow
interactive review before and after publication for scientific articles via
a very sophisticated publishing environment. The PLoS ONE platform applies
many of the best practices of social media, providing ready access to
comments posting and awareness of active discussions to draw in more active
discussions. PLoS ONE will publish all papers that are judged to be rigorous
and technically sound, and had already posted more an 100 papers by its
launch - a remarkable number for a just-launched scholarly journal of any
kind. By contrast Nature's recently shuttered open-review portal trial,
which ran for around four months, attracted only 71 authors willing to post
their work online and attracted 92 technical comments.
As we noted in our
latest news analysis article one of the keys to
successful social media products is a dedicated core of trusted contributors
who will be able to ensure editorial success. PLoS ONE starts with a global
editorial board of more than 200 scholars, ensuring a broad array of inputs
for reviewing content. Some of the fears about having content rejected after
having had it exposed to comments prior to publication may be relieved by
the PLoS ONE policy that allows papers that have been already rejected by
PLoS Biology and Medicine journals to be re-submitted via PLoS ONE. This is
a potentially valuable feature, allowing research that may not have yet
reached the highest levels of acceptance to mature through its exposure to
comments from a broader audience.
PLoS ONE is finally opening the doors to the
potential for fundamental changes in how scholarly research proves its
worth. With an open exchange of ideas and commentary facilitated by
technologies long available to the general public and a solid body of
research and reviewers PLoS ONE holds out the potential to liberate the
highest levels of scholarly innovation from the regimen of the printing
press. Changing the way that research is paid for was a good first step for
open access, but with the ability to eliminate artificial distribution
bottlenecks that choke off natural conversations PLoS ONE may do for
scholarly research what Wikipedia has done for reference materials - with
much more integrity in the underlying editorial processes.
John Blossom,
Content Blogger 12/22/06
Bob Jensen's search helpers are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/searchh.htm
How do scholars search for academic references?
Scholarpedia ---
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page
PLoS One ---
http://www.plosone.org/home.action
Google Scholar ---
http://scholar.google.com/
Not to be confused with Google Advanced Search which does not cover many
scholarly articles ---
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en
Microsoft's Windows "Live Search" or "Academic Search" ---
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?scope=academic&q=
Amazon's A9 ---
http://a9.com/-/search/advSearch
Beginning October 23, 2003,
Amazon.com offers a text search of entire contents of over 120,000 books
(over 10 million pages) ---
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/10197021/ref%3Dsib%5Fmerch%5Fgw/104-3984945-7813514
How It Works ---
http://snurl.com/BookSearch
A significant extension of our groundbreaking Look Inside the Book
feature, Search Inside the Book allows you to search millions of pages
to find exactly the book you want to buy. Now instead of just displaying
books whose title, author, or publisher-provided keywords that match
your search terms, your search results will surface titles based on
every word inside the book. Using Search Inside the Book is as simple as
running an Amazon.com search.
Answers.com ---
http://www.answers.com/
Wikipedia (heavily used by scholars in spite of authenticity
risks)---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s
Other Scholarly Search Engines (CrossRef
and
Scirus.) ---
http://privateschool.about.com/b/a/116956.htm
Also see
http://www.library.uq.edu.au/internet/scholsearch.html
Scholarly search tools
-
CiteBase
Citebase is a trial service that allows researchers
to search across free, full-text research literature
ePrint archives, with results ranked according to
criteria such as citation impact.
-
Gateway to ePrints
A listing of ePrint servers and open access
repository search tools.
-
Google Scholar
A search tool for scholarly citations and abstracts,
many of which link to full text articles, book
chapters, working papers and other forms of
scholarly publishing. It includes content from many
open access journals and repositories.
-
OAIster
A search tool for cross-archive searching of more
than 540 separate digital collections and archives,
including arXiv, CiteBase, ANU ePrints, ePrintsUQ,
and others.
-
Scirus
A search tool for online journals and Web sites in
the sciences.
|
|
UCLA Library Scholarly Search Helpers ---
http://www2.library.ucla.edu/googlescholar/searchengines.cfm
University of Kansas Scholarly Search Helpers ---
http://www.lib.ku.edu/technology/searchengines/scholar.shtml
Social scientists and business scholars often use SSRN (not free) ---
http://www.ssrn.com/
If you have access to a college library, most colleges generally have
paid subscriptions to enormous scholarly literature databases that are not
available freely online. Serious scholars obtain access to these vast
literature databases.
Librarian's Index to the Internet ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/searchh.htm#Librarian'sIndex
Searching the Deep Web ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/searchh.htm#DeepWeb
Open Access Shared Scholarship ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/000aaa/updateee.htm#OKI
University Channel (video and audio) ---
http://uc.princeton.edu/main/
Bob Jensen's links to electronic
literature, including free online textbooks and other learning materials ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ElectronicLiterature.htm
Bob Jensen's search helpers are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/searchh.htm
I think this is a good deal for accounting students everywhere!
November 9, 2006 message from Tracey E. Sutherland
[membership@aaahq.org]
I am proud to announce that student membership in
the American Accounting Association is now available to full-time students
residing anywhere in the world. Student members pay discounted membership
dues and receive their selected Association journals online. Student
membership also allows students to attend national, section, and regional
meetings of the Association without vote but at reduced rates. Student
members are also eligible to purchase Association publications at member
prices.
Student membership dues in the AAA are as follows:
One electronic journal option - $25
Two electronic journal option - $35
Three electronic journal option - $45
Also included in student membership are electronic
and hard copy versions of the AAA newsletter and updates/emails about
upcoming events and conferences. Student members are also welcome to join
any of our 15 interest sections at the discounted rate of only $6 per
section.
Please encourage your students to take advantage of
this new option to participate in the accounting education community, and
share the news of this new opportunity with your colleagues.
Information about student membership in the AAA and
an online student membership application can be found online at
http://aaahq.org/membership/student_member.htm.
If you have any questions about student membership,
please feel free to contact Deirdre Harris at membership@aaahq.org or
941-921-7747, ext. 319.
Best regards,
Tracey Sutherland
Executive Director
American Accounting Association
Phone: 941/921-7747 ext. 311
Fax: 941/923-4093
AAA website:
http://aaahq.org
Email:
tracey@aaahq.org
Although current issues of AAA publications are not free, I remind readers
that back issues of The Accounting Review (up to I think year 2000) can
be downloaded free as images (not PDF text) from
http://maaw.info/TheAccountingReview.htm
You have to click on the "(Non USF user link)".
I've never found sources for free back issues of other
AAA publications, although most college libraries subscribe to databases that
provide free downloads of page images (not PDF text for older editions).
Congratulations Bill (Well Deserved)
The Management Accounting Section of the American Accounting Association is
pleased to announce that it has awarded the Lifetime Contribution to Management
Accounting Award to Professor William L. Ferrara. The AICPA sponsored award
recognizes individuals who have made significant contributions to management
accounting education, research, and practice over a sustained period of time
through scholarly endeavors, teaching excellence, educational innovation, and
service to the Management Accounting Section. The award extends profession-wide
recognition to the recipient and promotes role models in management accounting.
"LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD GIVEN TO WILLIAM FERRARA FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO
MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING," AccountingEducation.com, December 7, 2006 ---
http://accountingeducation.com/index.cfm?page=newsdetails&id=144010
Study: Most Audit Committees
Do Not Have Even One Accountant
Then why call them
audit committees?
A new report says that in 2005 the number of
accountants sitting on audit committees doubled compared to four years prior,
but that six out of 10 companies still did not have at least one accountant on
their committee. The research from
Huron Consulting
is based on a sample of more than 700 audit committee
members at 178 public companies from the NASDAQ 100 and Fortune 100
listings. The report analyzed patterns of audit committee
composition between 2002 and 2005 using information contained in the companies'
annual proxy statements and 10-K disclosures filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
"Study: Most Audit Committees Lack Accountant ," SmartPros, November 30,
2006 ---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x55639.xml
Bob Jensen's threads on proposed
reforms are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudProposedReforms.htm
Issue 16 of the Ernst & Young Faculty Connection ---
http://www.ey.com/global/content.nsf/US/EY_Faculty_Connection_(Issue_16)
IFAC Code of Ethics for Professional
Accountants
From the IAS Plus blog on December 31, 2006 ---
http://www.iasplus.com/ifac/0612ethicsed.pdf
The International Ethics Standards Board for
Accountants (IESBA) has issued an exposure draft proposing to update and
strengthen the auditor independence requirements contained in the IFAC
Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants. Significant proposed
modifications to the Code include:
- extending the partner rotation requirements to
all key audit partners on an audit of an entity of significant public
interest;
- updating requirements related to the provision
of non-assurance services, including setting out additional guidance on
the provision of tax services to audit clients;
- providing guidance on key audit firm personnel
accepting employment with audit clients that are entities of significant
public interest; and
- extending the independence requirements to the
audits of a wider range of entities of significant public interest
Bob Jensen's threads on auditor professionalism and
independence are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraud001.htm#Professionalism
XBRL: You Can't Ignore It Anymore
The SEC has poured $54 million into a new interactive
reporting tool to replace the retiring Edgar. Now the Big Four say it is time to
scrap quarterly reports in favor of real-time (read: daily) financial reporting.
If the phrase "XBRL" put you to sleep in the past, it's time to wake up. And as
momentum for improving the format of data reporting builds, the push for
enriched information content is moving along, too. Indeed, the big audit firms
are calling on corporations to report scads of non-financial data to buttress
the financials.
"XBRL: You Can't Ignore It Anymore," CFO Magazine Special Report, Various
Dates in 2006 ---
http://www.cfo.com/guides/guide.cfm/8310234?f=members_121406&x=1
THE INTERACTIVE DATA MOVEMENT
Q&A: Microsoft's Laux on Finance Reports The
software giant's director of technical accounting and reporting thinks that
once CFOs clear the Sarbox 404 hurdle, they'll show more enthusiasm for XBRL
and the reporting of non-financial data.
Will the AICPA Take Over XBRL Standards? Companies
could be filing XBRL-ready financial statements as soon as 2008. But some
observers worry that the definitions corporations will have to follow will
be written almost entirely by accountants.
The Good and Bad About XBRL's Future The setup
costs for XBRL is relatively low, but without the proper user tools,
regulatory filings can turn into "gibberish."
XBRL Will Keep Investors Wanting More The
programming language will pique, not satiate, investors' appetite for more
information.
SEC Hires a Company It's Investigating Hired on
Monday to work on the commission's new filing system, BearingPoint earlier
reported that it would file its financials late—and that it was under
investigation by the SEC.
10-Ks, 8-Ks a Thing of the Past? In announcing that
the SEC's XBRL project will be done within a year, Chairman Christopher Cox
said investors will be able to assemble their own financial data, rather
than rely on current regulatory documents.
XBR-What? Even as SEC chairman Cox champions
"interactive data," few CFOs seem impressed. Is that because too few of the
benefits accrue to them?
Another XBRL Nudge from the SEC The SEC issues a
formal request to add an XBRL analysis tool to its online Edgar system. The
move increases pressure on companies to voluntarily adopt the technology.
Will XBRL Improve Analyst Coverage? If more
companies filed financial documents using XBRL, analysts would be able to
spend less time on data collection and would be likely to ''expand buy- and
sell-side coverage,'' according to one panelist at an SEC roundtable.
GE, Pepsi Join SEC Data Pilot More companies agree
to provide the SEC with financial data in XBRL format, a program strongly
backed by Chairman Christopher Cox.
Ready or Not, XBRL Is Coming The SEC and FASB are
gearing up for XBRL, suggesting it's only a matter of time before its use
becomes mandatory.
Tagged, But Not It Yet A small group of companies
has signed up with the SEC to test Internet-tagging of financial data. Will
this latest effort finally launch the long-predicted XBRL revolution?
XBRL: From Tags to Riches? The SEC is offering
limited liability relief, the ability to file using Form 8-K, the freedom to
tag just a portion of data, and other incentives to encourage companies to
file financial data using XBRL.
What XBRL Means For You XBRL promises to bring a
little context to numbers. And yes, that's a good thing.
THE SKINNY ON XBRL
For a more laid-back approach to our coverage of
interactive data, check out the blog posts below, or click to go to the main
blog page.
XBRL? No Thanks, Chaps
The Real-Time Reporting Conundrum
IDA? EVA? XENA?
Cue EDGAR's Fat Lady
Tiny XBRL
XBRL: Is it a TWR of BABL?
A Question of Terms
Bob Jensen's threads on XBRL ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/XBRLandOLAP.htm
A while back I created a video tutorial for XBRL. You
can download the xbrldemos.wmv files from the following path
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/video/windowsmedia/
IFRSs, Applying International Financial Reporting
Standards
Paul Pacter, a director in Deloitte's IFRS Global Office
and webmaster of IASPlus, is co-author of the Second (Enhanced) Edition of the
leading university textbook on IFRSs, Applying International Financial
Reporting Standards, published this month by John Wiley and Sons
(Australia). The focus of this 1,236-page text is on the analysis, illustration,
and application of IFRSs. The textbook has been written for intermediate and
advanced financial reporting courses, at both undergraduate and postgraduate
level, and aligns with the knowledge expectations of the accounting profession.
Paul's co-authors are Keith Alfredson, former chairman of the Australian
Accounting Standards Board (AASB); Ruth Picker, AASB deputy chairman and a
technical partner of Ernst & Young; Ken Leo and Jeannie Radford, both of Curtin
University of Technology; and Victoria Wise of Victoria University. Here is the
Book's Home Page, for more information and on-line purchasing. Or, for
international orders, email
custservice@johnwiley.com.au (cite ISBN: 9780470808238).
IAS Plus, December 21, 2006 ---
http://www.iasplus.com/index.htm
December 4, 2006 --- Dennis Beresford
[dberesfo@TERRY.UGA.EDU]
The first of the PCAOB's inspection reports on Big 4 firm audits for the
2004 year end has been posted to the PCAOB's web site. It can be accessed
at:
http://www.pcaobus.org/Inspections/Public_Reports/2006/Deloitte.pdf
Denny
December 9, 2006 reply from Bob Jensen
I'm getting
increased messaging from companies who complain that the PCAOB inspections
of Audits are making auditors highly conservative, especially regional
auditing firms.
In particular auditors are becoming very tough about
testing for hedge ineffectiveness under FAS 133. No auditing firm wants to
get caught up anything like KPMG got caught up in before being fired from
the Fannie Mae audit.
You can read
more about ineffectiveness testing under the term "Ineffectiveness" at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/acct5341/speakers/133glosf.htm#I-Terms
Because Denny is the new head of
Fannie Mae's Audit Committee, I suspect he's heard a lot about
ineffectiveness testing as of late.
Bob Jensen
December 9, 2006 reply from Denny Beresford
[DBeresfo@TERRY.UGA.EDU]
Bob,
Without commenting on specific situations, it
appears that the regulators would like companies and their auditors to
actually follow the accounting literature. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Denny
"PCAOB Finds Problems At PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)," by David
Reilly, The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2006; Page A4 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116622194790551886.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
The Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board, in an inspection report released Friday, cited
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for deficiencies in some of its audits of public
companies.
The PCAOB noted the firm had failed
in some cases to catch or address errors in the way companies applied
accounting rules or lacked sufficient evidence to back up some of its
decisions. The PCAOB singled out for criticism nine audits done by
PricewaterhouseCoopers, saying in a number of the cases the firm failed to
adequately check the value of revenue, inventory and accounts receivable at
companies whose books it was approving. The board's inspections entail
reviews of a sampling of audits, not every audit done by a firm.
In keeping with the board's policies,
the report doesn't identify the companies that had their audits cited. In
addition, only a portion of the report is made public. A section that
includes criticisms related to an accounting firm's quality-control systems
is kept secret and never made public if a firm is able to show that it has
corrected the problems cited within 12 months of the report's issuance.
In a comment letter included in the
PCAOB report, PricewaterhouseCoopers said, "We have addressed each of the
specific findings raised in the report and, where necessary, performed
additional procedures or enhanced the related audit documentation." A
spokesman for PricewaterhouseCoopers issued a statement saying that the firm
believes it is "performing quality audits" and that it "will incorporate the
board's findings" into the firm's practices.
The board's inspection reports are
the only public assessment of audit firms' work available to investors and
the corporate audit committees, which hire, fire and negotiate how much to
pay the accounting firms.
The report is the second this year
that the PCAOB has issued for a Big Four accounting firm covering
inspections conducted last year of the firms' audits of companies' 2004
financial results. Earlier this month the agency issued its 2005 report for
Deloitte & Touche LLP.
The PCAOB, which has been criticized
for the length of time it is taking to issue annual reports, has yet to
issue 2005 inspection reports for Ernst & Young LLP or KPMG LLP, the other
two members of the Big Four. The board has until the end of the year to do
so.
The PCAOB must issue an annual
inspection report for any accounting firm that audits 100 or more public
companies. Firms that audit fewer than 100 public companies are inspected
every three years, although the PCAOB on Friday said it would look to amend
this rule.
PricewaterhouseCoopers' response to
its PCAOB report was in contrast to that of Deloitte, which included strong
rebuttals of many of the board's findings.
Bob Jensen's threads on audit incompetence are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#IncompetentAudits
Bob Jensen's threads on PwC troubles are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#PwC
"FASB Proposes Improved Derivatives, Hedging Disclosures,"
SmartPros, December 11, 2006 ---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x55778.xml
The Financial Accounting Standards Board issued a
proposal that would provide investors and others with better information
about the effects of derivative and hedging activities on a company's
financial statements.
The proposed statement specifically addresses
constituents' concerns that existing disclosure requirements associated with
FASB Statement No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities, do not provide adequate information to financial statement
users.
"The proposed disclosure requirements are intended
to enhance understanding of how and why entities use derivatives, how they
are accounted for in an entity's financial statements, and how they affect
an entity's financial position, results of operations, and cash flows," said
Kevin Stoklosa, FASB Project Manager.
The exposure draft would enhance the current
disclosure framework by requiring that objectives and strategies for using
derivative instruments be discussed in terms of underlying risk and
accounting designation. The exposure draft would require tabular disclosure
of notional and fair value amounts of derivatives instruments and the gains
and losses on derivatives instruments and related hedged items.
Additionally, the proposed statement would require disclosure of information
about counterparty credit risk and the existence and nature of contingent
features in derivative instruments.
The requirements of the proposed Statement would be
effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim
periods ending after Dec. 15, 2007, with early application encouraged. The
proposed statement would encourage but would not require disclosures for
earlier periods at initial adoption. In years after initial adoption, the
proposed statement would require disclosures for earlier periods.
The board is seeking written comments on the
proposal by March 2, 2007.
For a short time you can download the proposed FAS 133 amendment from
http://www.fasb.org/draft/ed_derivatives_disclosure.pdf
Bob Jensen's tutorials on FAS 133 and IAS 39 are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/caseans/000index.htm
A slide show on FAS 133 and IAS 39 disclosure rules is available at
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/Calgary/CD/JensenPowerPoint/
Accounting Snags Push Dresser to Restate Problems with derivative
transactions, inventory controls
Dresser Inc. said it will restate its financial
statements for 2001 through 2003 based on a host of accounting errors. In May,
the industrial engineering company had warned that it would restate its 2004
annual filing, its 2004 and 2005 quarterly financial statements, and would be
evaluating the potential need to restate prior periods. The accounting errors
relate to inventory valuation and derivative transactions under the Financial
Accounting Standards Board's FAS 133. Other accounting errors relate to the
company's businesses which were sold in November 2005.
Stephen Taub, "Accounting Snags Push Dresser to Restate Problems with derivative
transactions, inventory controls, keep IPO on hold," CFO Magazine,
November 26, 2006 ---
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/8346406/c_8347143?f=FinanceProfessor.com
Dresser Inc. changed its independent
auditor to Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) in 2002 and with plans to restate its
2001 financial statements after it changed auditors. The previous auditor was
KPMG.
Bob Jensen's threads on KPMG are at ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#KPMG
Monster says it made monster accounting errors
Monster Worldwide Inc. said on Wednesday it overstated
profit from 1997 to 2005 by a total of $271.9 million, a result of its
investigation into historical stock option grants and accounting. In a filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the parent of job search Web
site Monster.com recorded a net charge of $9.2 million for 2005, $14.4 million
for 2004, $27 million for 2003, $44.9 million for 2002, $65.6 million for 2001,
and $110.8 million for the cumulative period of 1997 through 2000.
"Monster says overstated '97-'05 profit by $271.9 m," Rueters, December
13, 2006 ---
Click Here
The Independent Auditor for Monster Worldwide is KPMG ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#KPMG
It just gets deeper and deeper for KPMG
Fannie Mae Sues KPMG
The mortgage lending company Fannie Mae filed suit on
Tuesday against its former auditor KPMG, accusing the firm of negligence and
breach of contract for its part in the flawed accounting that led to a $6.3
billion restatement of earnings. Fannie Mae states in its complaint that KPMG
applied more than 30 flawed principles and cost it more than $2 billion in
damages. Fannie Mae fired the accounting firm in mid-December 2004, just a week
after the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered the company to restate more
than two years of flawed earnings. A KPMG spokesman, Tom Fitzgerald, said the
company planned to “pursue our own claims against Fannie Mae.”
"Fannie Mae Sues KPMG," The New York Times, December 13, 2006 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/business/13kpmg.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
KPMG fired back at former audit client Fannie Mae
this week, saying it would counter the mortgage giant’s $2 billion negligence
and breach of contract lawsuit. KPMG “will pursue our own claims against Fannie
Mae” in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., spokesman Tom Fitzgerald
told reporters Tuesday. Fannie Mae filed its lawsuit Tuesday in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia. Fitzgerald said the issues raised in Fannie
Mae's lawsuit “are already pending" in shareholder lawsuits before the federal
district court. He did not elaborate on what claims KPMG would make against
Fannie Mae, Reuters reported.
"KPMG Plans Counter Suit of Fannie Mae," AccountingWeb, February 14, 2006
---
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=102902
Bob Jensen's threads on KPMG are at ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#KPMG
Guilty Plea Made in Trial Over Shelters From KPMG
A businessman pleaded guilty yesterday to charges of
conspiracy and fraud and agreed to help federal prosecutors pursue indicted
former employees of the accounting firm KPMG in a widening investigation into
questionable tax shelters. The businessman, Chandler Stuart Moisen, who appeared
in Federal District Court in Manhattan, is the third person to enter a guilty
plea in the tax shelter investigation, which has ensnared accountants, bankers,
lawyers and investment advisers. . . . . . . Although Mr. Moisen is a relatively
minor figure in the tax shelter inquiry, his offer to cooperate with the
prosecution could have major consequences for the KPMG defendants, in particular
for Robert Pfaff, a former KPMG partner with whom Mr. Moisen worked closely to
sell questionable tax shelters.
Lynnley Browning, "Guilty Plea Made in Trial Over Shelters From KPMG," The
New York Times, December 22, 2006 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/business/22shelter.html?ref=business
Bob Jensen's threads on KPMG are at ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#KPMG
Prison for Chip Executive
An executive with Samsung Electronics will plead
guilty, serve 10 months in prison and pay a $250,000 fine for conspiring to fix
prices of computer memory chips, the Justice Department said on Thursday.
Young-hwan Park participated in the conspiracy while he was a vice president for
sales at Samsung, which is based in South Korea and is the world’s top maker of
memory chips, the department said.
"Prison for Chip Executive," The New York Times, December 22, 2006 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/technology/22samsung.html
"Fannie Mae Faces Work After Restatement," by Marcy Gordon,
SmartPros, December 8, 2006 ---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x55766.xml
Mortgage giant Fannie Mae has taken a significant
stride in its march out of an accounting scandal by completing a restatement
of past earnings but still faces tough work to make its financial reporting
current.
The restatement for 2001 through June 30, 2004,
made public on Wednesday, wiped out $6.3 billion in profit for the
government-sponsored company, which finances one of every five home loans in
the United States. But it was well below Fannie Mae's earlier estimate of
$10.8 billion. Ordered by the government two years ago, the massive
reworking of its accounting has cost the company some $1 billion this year
to carry out.
Shares of Fannie Mae rose $1.64, or almost 3
percent, to $60.14 in early trading Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange.
It has traded in a range of $46.17 to $62.37 over the last 52 weeks,
compared with its peak of around $80 in early 2004.
It was the first earnings statement filed by Fannie
Mae since late 2004. The scandal erupted in the fall of that year when
federal regulators accused Washington-based Fannie Mae - with its
long-standing prestige, vaunted political clout and reputation for financial
excellence - of serious accounting problems and earnings manipulation to
meet Wall Street targets.
Fannie Mae also announced Wednesday an increase in
its quarterly dividend to 40 cents from 26 cents, where it had been since
being slashed in half in January 2005.
"We believe that returning higher levels of capital
back to shareholders is a top priority at Fannie Mae, and this marks an
important first step," Moshe Orenbuch, an analyst at Credit Suisse, said in
a research note issued Thursday.
The company hasn't said when it will get caught up
and report its results for 2005 and 2006; it could take a year or two.
The restatement "is a key step forward for the
company and represents two years of hard work," James B. Lockhart, director
of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, said in a statement
Wednesday. "Much remains to be done. ... Fannie Mae faces enormous
challenges in fixing its operational and risk management systems, in
(financial controls) compliance, and in producing audited financial
statements for 2005 and 2006."
Jim Vogel, an analyst with FTN Financial Capital
Markets, said in a research note that for Wall Street, the concern is "if
there's a pattern of sustained quarterly losses that appear to reflect more
difficulties in risk management than the market had thought."
OFHEO is the federal agency that regulates Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, its smaller sibling in the $8 trillion home-mortgage
market. Last May, it issued a blistering report alleging a six-year
accounting fraud at Fannie Mae, the second-largest U.S. financial
institution after Citigroup Inc. Regulators said the scheme included
manipulations to reach quarterly earnings targets so that company executives
could pocket hundreds of millions in bonuses from 1998 to 2004.
Lockhart also said Wednesday the agency plans to
file a lawsuit before year's end to recover tainted bonus money from former
Fannie Mae officials, including ex-chief executive Franklin Raines and chief
financial officer Timothy Howard. Raines, a prominent Washington figure who
was White House budget director in the Clinton administration, was swept out
of office in December 2004 along with Howard. A number of senior executives
and board directors have left the company.
Fannie Mae paid a record $400 million civil fine in
a settlement with OFHEO and the Securities and Exchange Commission. It also
agreed to limit the growth of its multibillion-dollar mortgage holdings,
capping them at $727 billion, and to make top-to-bottom changes in its
corporate culture, accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
The company also disclosed Wednesday that its chief
executive, Daniel Mudd, received a pay package of $13.1 million, including a
$2.6 million bonus, for 2005. Mudd, who was the top operations official at
the time of the accounting misdeeds, was elevated to the CEO in a management
shakeup in December 2004.
In detailing its restatement, Fannie Mae cited a $7
billion net decrease from previously reported earnings for periods prior to
2002, a $705 million reduction for 2002, a $176 million increase for 2003
and a $1.2 billion increase for the first six months of 2004.
Over the last two years, Fannie Mae has disclosed a
passel of new accounting problems that had been uncovered in several areas,
including its core business of issuing securities backed by the billions of
dollars of home mortgages annually that it buys from lenders and bundles
together for resale to investors worldwide. Other problems were revealed in
loans, houses acquired through foreclosures, interest on delinquent home
loans and reverse mortgages.
They all were in addition to the accounting-rule
violations that came to light in September 2004 involving derivatives, the
financial instruments that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac use to hedge against
swings in interest rates.
Fannie Mae escaped criminal prosecution over the
accounting failure. The Justice Department had pursued a criminal
investigation, but federal prosecutors said in August that they had shut
down their probe without bringing any action. The SEC still could bring
civil actions against individual executives, including people no longer at
Fannie Mae, with the burden of proof less stringent than in criminal
prosecutions. Several shareholder lawsuits have been filed against the
company and current and former executives.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by Congress
to pump money into the home-mortgage market to keep interest rates low and
make home ownership affordable for low- and moderate-income people.
Freddie Mac, which also is government-sponsored and
has its stock publicly traded, had its own accounting scandal that came to
light in June 2003. The company misstated earnings by some $5 billion -
mostly underreported - for 2000-2002 to smooth out volatility in profit and
uphold its image on Wall Street as a steady performer.
Bob Jensen's threads on Fannie Mae are
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/caseans/000index.htm
"Regulators sue ex-Fannie Mae executives," Marcy Gordon, The
Columbus Dispatch, December 19, 2006 ---
Click Here
The government yesterday filed civil charges
against former Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines and two other top
executives, accusing them of misconduct costing shareholders billions of
dollars.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
announced that it is seeking fines and the return of millions in bonus
money. It filed 101 charges against Raines, former Chief Financial Officer
Timothy Howard and former controller Leanne Spencer.
Raines and Howard were swept out of office two
years ago in the multibillion-dollar accounting debacle at the
government-sponsored company, which finances one of every five home loans in
the United States. Fannie Mae earlier this month announced a longawaited
restatement for 2001 through June 30, 2004, that erased $6.3 billion in
profit.
OFHEO said it is seeking civil fines of $100
million or more against the three former executives and restitution of more
than $115 million in bonus money tied to an improper accounting scheme.
Continued in article
Will Fannie eventually become an even bigger taxpayer loss than the
infamous Savings and Loan frauds?
Fannie Mae's stock price has been on an upswing since
late summer, reflecting investor confidence that a Democratic Congress would
make strict scrutiny of the mortgage giant less likely (see the nearby chart).
And there's no doubt that with Barney Frank wielding the gavel in the House
Financial Services Committee, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have a pal on
Capitol Hill. Mr. Frank is already talking about expanding the companies'
operations (and thus taxpayer exposure to any financial accident) . . . The
well-documented allegation is that Fannie's managers manipulated earnings to
ensure that their bonuses and incentive compensation were maximized. If Fannie
didn't in fact reach those earnings targets -- and it has since restated its
earnings by $6.3 billion -- then that money does not belong to the managers who
"earned" it.
"Ill-Gotten Raines," The Wall Street Journal, December 20, 2006; Page A18
---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116658240822955337.html?mod=djemITP
Yet Again the SEC Amends Executive Compensation Disclosure (particularly
regarding stock options)
The US Securities and Exchange Commission has
amended its executive and director compensation disclosure rules to more closely
conform the reporting of stock and option awards to FASB Statement No. 123
(revised 2004) Share-Based Payment. FAS 123R is similar to IFRS 2 Share-based
Payment. The amendment modifies rules that were adopted in July 2006.
SEC Press Release 2006 219 ---
http://www.iasplus.com/usa/0612seccomp.pdf
Bob Jensen's threads on outrageous executive compensation are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#OutrageousCompensation
Where were the auditors?
Firms cook the books to set executive pay
And these same executives are protesting Sarbanes-Oxley
"Firms cook the books to set executive pay," Editorial, The New York Times,
December 19, 23006 ---
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/12/19/Opinion/Firms_cook_the_books_.shtml
Among the corporate deceits that buttress America's
obscene executive pay is the one about comparability. But a new federal rule
may help expose the reality of so-called "peer groups." Far too often, the
list of comparable CEOs is cooked.
As the New York Times reported in its latest
installment on executive pay, former New York Stock Exchange chairman
Richard Grasso was a poster child for the abuse. His $140-million
compensation package was rationalized, in part, by comparing his job to
those at companies with median revenues 25 times the size of the exchange,
assets 125 times and employee bases 30 times the size.
Grasso was hardly alone. Executives have learned
that the path to personal riches is paved by "peer groups" that include big
and profitable companies. Eli Lilly compared itself to eight companies that
had much higher profit margins. Campbell Soup used one set of companies for
executive pay and a separate one as a benchmark for stock performance. Ford
Motor Co. compared itself to other industries, its proxy statement said,
because "the job market for executives goes beyond the auto industry."
The "job market" argument is particularly
disingenuous. As the New York Times noted, ousted Hewlett-Packard chief
executive Carly Fiorina was replaced by a data processing executive who was
earning less than half her pay. His company, NCR, never appeared on the
Hewlett-Packard "peer group."
The growth in executive pay has been so meteoric in
the past quarter-century that it is demeaning the contributions of average
workers and undermining public faith in corporate America. Last year,
according to the Corporate Library, the average pay for an S&P 500 chief
executive was $13.5-million. The average CEO now earns 411 times the average
worker, up from 42 times in 1980.
The new Securities and Exchange Commission
disclosure rules went into effect on Friday, and compensation consultants
are scrambling to cover their tracks. But stockholders who have been kept
mostly in the dark will now at least have a chance to see the playbook.
That's the first step toward ending these games of executive greed.
Bob Jensen's fraud updates are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudUpdates.htm
Bob Jensen's threads on outrageous executive compensation are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#OutrageousCompensation
Bob Jensen's threads on fraudulent and incompetent auditing are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#IncompetentAudits
Where can you learn more about FAS 133?
February 15, 2006 message from XXXXX
Bob,
. . . .The purpose of my email is to solicit your opinion on the best
resources I can leverage to answer various issues that arise and generally
broaden my understanding of FAS 133. work in risk management but have
difficulties with the accounting side of FAS 133. [Other portions of
message deleted]
Thanks for your time!
XXXXX
February 15, 2006 reply from Bob Jensen
Hi XXXXX,
I receive inquiries like this almost daily. Usually these questions come
from accountants who do not have sufficient background in derivative
instruments contracting and economic hedging and, as a result, have not been
able to tackle FAS 133 and IAS 39. Sometimes the inquiries come from people
like your self who have good background in finance and risk management but
cannot comprehend the quirks of accounting that led to this monstrous set of
incomprehensible rules for booking and/or disclosing derivative financial
instruments.
When accountants do not understand derivatives and risk management, I
tell them to work through one of the best textbooks I've ever seen (which
has no accounting whatsoever inside):
Derivatives: An Introduction by Robert A Strong, Edition 2
(Thomson South-Western, 2005, ISBN 0-324-27302-9)
When people like yourself who understand derivatives and risk management
but cannot understand the quirks of accounting, I begin with an illustration
of a basic quirk in accounting--- a quirk discussion that also introduces
the concepts of "forecasted transaction" and "firm commitment" hedging under
FAS 133 rules.
Unbooked Financial Risks
One of the first things we learned in Accounting 101 is that accountants
traditionally do not book (and usually do not even disclose) purchase/sales
contracts until legal title to the goods and services actually changes
hands. Reasons are complicated, but the most fundamental reason is that
defaulted purchase/sales contracts are usually settled in court or out of
court for a small fraction of contracted amounts, i.e., settlements are
usually based upon damages rather than contracted amounts in full. For
example, when Dow Jones contracts with St. Regis Paper Company for paper
purchases over the next 50 years of publishing The Wall Street Journal
it would be absurd to try to book a soft estimate of the billions of the
actual contracted dollars of this contract. Damage estimates are virtually
impossible to estimate and change from month to month as more trees for
paper harvesting are planted.
Hence the biggest problem finance and economics professors have with
accounting professors is that purchase/sales contracts entail financial
risks that accounting professors refuse to book. Furthermore these
purchase/sales contract risks are commonly hedged. When the notional
(quantity) and underlying (price or rate) are contracted, the purchase/sales
contract is called a "firm commitment" under FAS 133. There is no cash flow
risk in firm commitments, but they can be hedged for fair value (when future
spot prices differ from contracted prices). When the notional (quantity) is
contracted or otherwise reasonably certain and the underlying is not
specified there is cash flow risk that can be hedged with a cash flow hedge
defined in FAS 133. Also firm commitments and forecasted transactions can be
hedged for foreign currency (FX) risk apart from U.S. dollar risks. Most
accountants do not even understand that it is impossible to simultaneously
hedge for fair value and cash flow.
FAS 133 as Source Material for Comedy Central TV
My purpose here is not to launch into a tutorial about purchase/sales
contract hedge accounting rules under FAS 133. Rather my purpose is to
illustrate the dilemma caused by traditional quirks in accounting. Where
finance and accounting professors differ is on the basic concept of
financial risk. Finance professors are confused
when there are financial risks that can be hedged even though those risks
are virtually ignored by accountants because legal title has not changed
hands. Then along comes FAS 133 that
declares the hedge contracts for unbooked hedged items must be booked and
maintained at fair value even though the hedged items themselves are not
booked until title passes. This begins to sound like great source material
for Comedy Central TV --- perhaps the Cobert Report!
Where To Begin
Adding pain to misery is the fact that FAS 133 rules for fair value hedges
differ greatly from rules for cash flow and FX hedges. Finance professors
find the stated reasons in FAS 133 incomprehensible. Accounting professors
don't bother to open FAS 133 and never get out of the starting gate in
understanding derivatives, hedging, risk management, and FAS 133.
So where do you begin to understand the accounting quirks in FAS 133? My
first piece of advice is to totally ignore accounting textbooks, including
those that may claim to be derivatives accounting textbooks. These are
worthless. Second ignore the finance and economics textbooks since authors
of these books do not understand accounting quirks.
You mentioned Ira Kawaller. Ira is an economist who admits to having
difficulties understanding accounting quirks. This is why he sometimes
brings me into partner with him on teaching FAS 133 --- my role is to teach
accounting quirks of FAS 133. I also give my own workshops on this topic ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/resume.htm#Presentations
I also provide free online FAS 133 and IAS 39 tutorials and videos ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/caseans/000index.htm
But the bottom line is that my audiences and my readers conclude that my
biggest success in life is confusing them about accounting for derivatives.
My defense is that it is very difficult to explain the huge gap between
financial risk versus what accountants book. I get a lot of compliments for
what I provide online, but the most common complaint is that my online
materials are a nightmare to navigate
Where should you dig into to learn about the accounting quirks of FAS
133? The bottom line is that I don't know! You can pay thousands of dollars
to attend one of our seminars, but these are so broad brushed that our
audiences feel like they've just had a meal on hors'deovers.
The bottom line is that it is probably best to dig into the FASB's "Green
Book" line for line as painful as that becomes for 873 pages of jargon ---
http://fasbpubs.stores.yahoo.net/dc133-3.html
Also request the FASB's supplemental documentation (119 pages to date) of
error corrections in the Green Book.
Secondly, memorize the FAS 133 and IAS 39 rules rather than try to find a
rationale. For example, it is utterly frustrating trying to reason why hedge
accounting for cash flow/FX hedges use OCI offsets that are verboten
fair value hedges (never OCI for FV hedges). You
should just to do or die, not reason why.
I do suggest that you especially look at my Excel workbooks at
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/Calgary/CD/FAS133AppendixB/
I also suggest that you look at my PowerPoint files at
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/Calgary/CD/
There is much pressure outside and within the FASB and the IASB to
simplify rules for accounting for derivative financial instruments. This is
a bit like appeals to reduce felony statutes to a mere Ten Commandments on
stone tablets. Simplification sounds great as a principle, but in my
viewpoint oversimplification will be disastrous. The reason is that there
are thousands of different kinds of risk management contracts, and it's
impossible to derive ten commandments covering all the variations arising in
the practice of risk management.
Some argue that fair value accounting (in place of historical cost
accounting) is the answer, but I have my doubts about this
oversimplification ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FairValueDraft.htm
Also see
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen//theory/00overview/theory01.htm#FairValue
For example, fair value accounting is no panacea to accounting for
purchase/sales contracts.
Bob Jensen
Federal Regulators Fine Grant Thornton $300,000 Over Audit of Failed Bank
Federal bank regulators have fined the accounting firm
Grant Thornton LLP $300,000 for what they called "reckless conduct" in its audit
of First National Bank of Keystone, a West Virginia institution whose collapse
in 1999 was one of the costliest U.S. bank failures in the past decade.
Marcy Gordon, "Federal Regulators Fine Grant Thornton $300,000 Over Audit of
Failed Bank, SmartPros, December 11, 2006 ---
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x55776.xml
Grant Thornton LLP said it will challenge recent
Treasury Department (DoT) findings and penalties stemming from the firm’s audit
of a bank that collapsed in 1999. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
the Treasury agency that regulates nationally chartered banks, on Friday
announced the telling $300,000 fine against the Chicago-based CPA firm that
audited First National Bank of Keystone in 1998.
"Grant Thornton to Fight Claim of “Reckless” Audit," AccountingWeb,
December 12, 2006 ---
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=102894
Bob Jensen's threads on Grant Thornton (especially the Refco audit failure)
are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm#GrantThornton
"Accounting Firms Seek Overhaul," by Tad Kopinski, Institutional
Shareholder Services ISS, November 20, 2006 ---
http://blog.issproxy.com/2006/11/accounting_firms_seek_overhaul.html
The six biggest international audit firms have
called for a complete overhaul of corporate financial reporting as
the U.S. and Europe move toward convergence of international audit
standards.
In a Nov. 8 report, the accounting firms
propose to replace static quarterly financial statements with
real-time, Internet-based reporting that encompasses a wider range
of performance measures, including non-financial ones. The report
was signed by the chiefs of PricewaterhouseCoopers International,
Grant Thornton International, Deloitte, KPMG International, BDO
International, and Ernst & Young. The report can be downloaded
here.
"We all believe the current model is
broken," Mike D. Rake, KPMG's chairman, told the Financial Times.
"There are significant shortcomings to U.S. GAAP [Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles] and issues of concern with International
Financial Reporting Standards. We're not in a very happy situation."
Rake noted that quarterly reporting and the
short-term focus on companies' ability to meet Wall Street earnings
expectations helped foster accounting scandals. The firms have been
working on their proposals for more than a year.
The large discrepancy between the "book"
and "market" values of many listed companies is clear evidence that
the content of traditional financial statements is of limited use,
the report said. The audit firms recommend using non-financial
measures that would provide more valuable indications of a company's
future prospects, such as customer satisfaction, product or service
defects, employee turnover, and patent awards.
The report said the following developments
need to occur to ensure capital market stability, efficiency, and
growth:
--Investor needs for information are well
defined and met;
--The roles of the various stakeholders in these markets--financial
statement preparers, regulators, investors, standards setters, and
auditors--are aligned and supported by effective forums for
continuous dialogue;
--The auditing profession is vibrant, sustainable, and provides
sufficient choice for all stakeholders in these markets;
--A new business-reporting model is developed to deliver relevant
and reliable information in a timely way;
--Large, collusive frauds are more and more rare; and
--Information is reported and audited pursuant to globally
consistent standards.
ICGN Expresses Concerns Over
ConvergenceMeanwhile, the
International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN) has expressed
concerns about a draft proposal on harmonizing international and
U.S. accounting standards. The ICGN argues that the draft doesn't
pay sufficient attention to shareholder rights and the stewardship
role of boards and investors.
"Convergence must be there to raise
standards," ICGN Executive Director Anne Simpson told the Financial
Times. "Convergence for its own sake is not of value."
The ICGN letter was in response to a
request for comment by the International Accounting Standards Board
(IASB) and its U.S. counterpart, the Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB) on a discussion paper on harmonization objectives. The
IASB and the FASB have been working on harmonizing the two
accounting systems since October 2002 and have set 2008 as the goal
for finalizing the process.
Unlike the current IASB auditing framework,
the discussion paper endorses a model more similar to U.S.
standards, dropping a key shareowner safeguard embedded in
U.K.-style standards, the ICGN noted. Rather than focusing audits on
past transactions, the discussion paper calls for audits to focus on
"decision-usefulness" that can affect company cash flows, the letter
said.
"We are concerned that this emphasis on the
ability to forecast the future does not fully capture the
requirements of stewardship, which is concerned with monitoring past
transactions and events," Mark Anson, the CEO of Hermes Pensions
Management who chairs the ICGN, wrote in the Nov. 2 letter. (A
Hermes affiliate is a part owner of ISS.)
"In many jurisdictions, financial
statements provide significant input into the decisions we make as
shareholders, by providing an account of past transactions and
events and the current financial position of the business," the ICGN
letter noted. "In de-emphasizing things that are particularly
[relevant to shareholders' risks and rights], the standards setters
could achieve the perverse effect of actually increasing the cost of
capital."
The ICGN includes more than 400
institutional and private investors, corporations, and advisers from
38 countries with capital under management in excess of $10
trillion, according to its Web site. The ICGN letter also was signed
by Claude Lamoureux, CEO of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan.
A copy of the IASB discussion paper, which
was published in July, can be downloaded
here.
Bob Jensen's threads on standard setting are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen//theory/00overview/theory01.htm#MethodsForSetting
Bob Jensen's threads on fair value accounting are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen//theory/00overview/theory01.htm#FairValue
Bob Jensen's threads on troubles in the big international accounting firms
are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm
Bob Jensen's threads on proposed reforms are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudProposedReforms.htm
Bob Jensen's threads on audit firm litigation instances are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Fraud001.htm
From The Wall Street Journal Accounting Weekly Review on November 3,
2006
TITLE: Booming Audit Firms Seek Shield From Suits
REPORTER: David Reilly
DATE: Nov 01, 2006
PAGE: C1
LINK:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116235111161209823.html?mod=djem_jiewr_ac
TOPICS: Auditing, Auditing Services
SUMMARY: The Big Four U.S. audit firms--PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte &
Touche, Ernst &Young, and KPMG--want legal limits on court damages granted to
investors and others after failure of publicly traded companies they audit.
"Their argument is being championed by an influential group recently formed to
study the competitiveness of U.S. financial markets with the encouragement of
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson." Others, including the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the European Commission, are considering similar measures.
QUESTIONS:
1.) The argument against limiting legal liability of public accounting firms
argues that auditors should "be held to a high standard of performance." Explain
this argument and describe who in business and investing activities likely holds
this view.
2.) The argument for limiting legal liability includes the point made by the
chief executive of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu in the article that "the cost of
...audits was never built for insuring capital markets." Summarize the argument
in support of limiting legal liability for audit firms, including and
explanation of this statement.
3.) How did the Arthur Andersen firm failure result from the Enron scandal?
How was the possibility of a similar fate for KPMG avoided? How do these events
contribute to the debate on this issue?
4.) How did the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation become involved in
the debate on limiting audit firms' legal liability?
5.) How does the discussion in the article indicate the international focus
on this issue? Cite all points you can find in the article.
Reviewed By: Judy Beckman, University of Rhode Island
--- RELATED ARTICLES ---
TITLE: Panel's Mission: Easing Capital-Market Rules
REPORTER: Alan Murray
PAGE: A2
ISSUE: Sep 12, 2006
LINK:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115802003723560082.html?mod=djem_jiewr_ac
"Booming Audit Firms Seek Shield From Suits," by David Reilly, The
Wall Street Journal, by November 1, 2006; Page C1 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116235111161209823.html?mod=todays_us_money_and_investing
Business is booming at the world's biggest
accounting firms, so their top lobbying priority may seem ironic: They want
government protection from a big financial hit.
Revenues at the Big Four -- PricewaterhouseCoopers,
Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young and KPMG -- have grown at a double-digit
pace in recent years as audit fees soared. Regulatory overhauls enacted in
the wake of accounting scandals earlier this decade have led to new work for
firms. One of the biggest problems facing the Big Four these days is a lack
of staff to meet the huge demand for services.
Yet the Big Four want to limit court damages that
investors and others can seek from them for flawed audits of public
companies. Without such a shield, the firms say, it's only a matter of time
before one of them is felled by a massive court award.
Their argument is being championed by an
influential group recently formed to study the competitiveness of U.S.
financial markets with the encouragement of Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson. The group is expected to recommend in coming weeks that the
government enact new protections for auditors. A panel set up within the
powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce is sounding a similar theme. In Europe,
the European Commission is studying the issue and is likely to recommend
limitations on the damages accounting firms can face.
How much risk the big firms actually face has been
largely absent from the debate over auditor liability. Despite a slew of
big-ticket lawsuits that emanated from corporate scandals earlier this
decade, none of the firms suffered a fatal blow from those legal actions.
The one big firm that folded, Arthur Andersen LLP in 2002, fell victim not
to a lawsuit but to a criminal obstruction-of-justice conviction, later
overturned on appeal.
"I don't see that auditors have a real need for any
kind of special protections," said Bill Kelley, general counsel at the
Retirement Systems of Alabama, which has sued accounting firms following
corporate blowups. "Auditors need to be held to a high standard. Those are
the outsiders we rely on. It's tough to have that responsibility, but that's
what they're getting paid for."
Mr. Kelley and likeminded critics say it's also
difficult to quantify the risk the firms face from a big court award. That's
because the accounting firms are private partnerships that don't, in most
cases, disclose their financial condition or results. So outsiders don't
know how much capital the firms have, their level of profitability or even
how much insurance they carry.
If anything, the risk from class-action lawsuits
appears to be dwindling. The number of class actions that cite auditors as
defendants declined to five last year from 14 in 2002, according to the
Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.
The bigger threat to firms has stemmed not from
civil litigation, but from alleged criminal actions related to their
conduct. In addition to the Arthur Andersen case, KPMG LLP suffered a
near-death experience last year due to its sale of improper tax shelters;
federal prosecutors ultimately decided not to indict the firm, a move that
likely would have put it out of business.
The Andersen and KPMG cases have led some lawyers
to claim that the Big Four are already seen by government as too big to
fail. "The fact is that the government couldn't indict KPMG for policy
reasons," said Sean Coffey, a partner at New York law firm Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, who has sued several accounting firms.
"These folks are effectively immune to being put out of business and now
they're trying to find ways to further inoculate themselves from
accountability."
The firms also have shown they can weather pretty
big hits. Over the past two years, KPMG has agreed to pay out nearly $700
million in fines and settlements related to criminal and civil actions. In
2000, Ernst & Young LLP settled for $335 million a shareholder suit related
to its work for Cendant Corp.
Accounting firms argue the danger they face from
civil litigation is real and that there are still many scandal-era actions
that have yet to work their way through the courts. What is needed, the
firms say, are litigation caps similar to those many states have enacted to
protect doctors from malpractice suits.
The firms say special protection is warranted
because they can be sued not just by the companies whose books they audit,
but also by others, such as investors. These investors, the firms add, try
to use auditors to recoup stock-market losses.
"The cost of our audits was never built for
insuring the capital markets," said William G. Parrett, chief executive of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, the international arm of Deloitte & Touche. "I
don't think we're saying we shouldn't have any liability, but it has to be
in proportion to our participation in any problem."
The firms also say they can't get sufficient
insurance because their liability is almost unlimited, encompassing in a
worst-case scenario the total stock-market value of the companies they
audit. So they are forced to settle lawsuits rather than risk a trial.
A study for the European Commission, released in
September, said the total costs of judgments, settlements, legal fees and
related expenses for the U.S. audit practices of the Big Four firms had
risen to $1.3 billion in 2004, or 14.2% of revenue, up from 7.7% in 1999. In
addition, according to a study by insurer Aon, there were 20 claims
outstanding against U.S. auditors as of September 2005 where damages sought
or estimated losses topped $1 billion. Accounting firms say they couldn't
survive an award of that size.
Advocates of liability caps frame the issue around
the broader debate over U.S. market competitiveness.
"I think the whole issue of liability is one of the
major reasons why foreign companies aren't coming here" to list their stocks
on U.S. exchanges, said Hal S. Scott, a Harvard Law School professor and a
founding member of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, the group
formed with Mr. Paulson's blessing to study market competitiveness. Mr.
Scott added that while court awards can serve as a deterrent to shoddy audit
work, "if we left this to the legal process, we might come up with the right
amount of damages to deter bad behavior but have just two or three
accounting firms" because one will have gone out of business.
Recognizing, though, that auditor liability
overhaul might be a tough sell on Capitol Hill, the committee may suggest
that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission come up with a solution,
Mr. Scott said. "The SEC could modify their own rules regarding liability,"
he added. One idea under study: Allowing accounting firms to negotiate
liability caps with clients, a practice now barred to preserve auditors'
independence.
November 2, 2006 reply from Mark Eckman, Rockwell Collins
[mseckman@ROCKWELLCOLLINS.COM]
With tongue firmly planted in cheek, why don't we
let the audit firms become insurance companies and let them charge premiums
based on the risk of material misstatement and deny coverage when the risk
is too high? Turn auditors into underwriters and I believe you would see a
vast difference in how audits are conducted.
Mark S. Eckman
November 2, 2006 reply from Deborah Johnson
[vicjohn@SPRINTMAIL.COM]
I have to agree. Even though you regard it as
tongue in cheek, it actually sounds more rational than the current
situation. Let each company comply with Sarbanes, and purchase two Bonds
from an Insurer. The first Bond for the materiality of the Financial
Statements. The Second Bond for Fraud Insurance.
November 5, 2006 reply from Bob Jensen
For years some professors like Josh Ronen (NYU) have made arguments for
auditing firms to insure financial reports (not necessarily internal fraud
that does not materially affect annual reports).
There are some very good reasons why it makes sense to do this,
especially from the perspective of reducing litigation costs for misleading
financial reports. However, there are some huge differences between auditing
and insurance risks. Insurance risks are measured by actuarial studies of
relatively stable systems such as mortality, home fires, wind damage, etc.
Insurance companies tend to write in coverage exceptions for things that are
less predictable like nuclear war and earthquakes that arise in
non-stationary systems. Financial fraud and auditor errors that hugely
impact financial statements are more like nuclear war and earthquakes.
Audits are conducted in much less stationary systems that defy actuarial
prediction of losses. One problem is that the systems themselves are
reactionary. The current rash of executive option backdating is a good
example. Who could've predicted that thousands of executives would commence
to backdate options? Events transpired to inspire these frauds, including
changes in FAS 123, changes in tax constraints, and a window of opportunity
before SOX went into effect. My point is that each new accounting standard,
EITF, interpretation, law change (especially tax law), and political
outcomes (with power shifting between conservatives and liberals) changes
the entire system being audited such that actuarial calculations are
impossible.
Bob Jensen
Bob Jensen's threads on proposed reforms are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudProposedReforms.htm
November 5, 2006 reply from Mark Eckman, Rockwell Collins
[mseckman@ROCKWELLCOLLINS.COM]
Very good analysis. Still, I would raise the point
that there are specialty underwriting segments available; viz., one can
insure for exceptional things such as war, inconvertibility of currency,
expropriation, kidnap & ransom, etc. that have no actuarial basis. However,
where a need exists and the pvt insurance sector cannot or will not take on
the entire risk, govt insurance entities as primary insurers, reinsurers, or
insurers of last resort are frequently seen. My former employer, the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, is an example. Whether these
coverages can provide indemnity in the same way as auto insurance is
doubtful. Even so, as one looks for solutions to the increasingly complex
problem of the modern role of financial auditing, these alternatives should
be carefully examined.
Paul Bjorklund, CPA
Bjorklund Consulting, Ltd.
Flagstaff, Arizona
November 9, 2006 reply from Tom Hardy
[thardy@IVESINC.COM]
In response to several inquiries that we have
received regarding the Nov 1, 2006 Wall Street Journal article on Big 4
Litigation cases entitled “Booming Audit Firms Seek Shield on Suits,” I am
making the attached analysis available to AECM.
“Big
4 Securities Class Action Litigation- Citing Auditor as Defendant”
highlights the number of security class action cases involving Big 4
Accounting Firms between 2002 and 2005. It also lists each case by year.
This research was compiled using the Audit
Analytics Litigation Module. If you would like additional information or a
demonstration of this new AuditAnalytics.com database please give me a call
or send me an e-mail.
Tom Hardy
AuditAnalytics.com
IVES Group, Inc.
9 Main St. Suite 2F
Sutton, MA 01590
508-476-7007 Ext. 28
thardy@ivesinc.com
Taxation of Dividends Creates European Union Stir
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI)
said that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling this week on the UK
dividends case creates issues for other European countries, including Ireland,
which have a similar system of taxation of dividends to that in the UK. The ECJ
ruled on the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom of movement of
capital in relation to the UK dividends system. See further details in our full
news item.
Andy Lymer, "ECJ DIVIDENDS CASE CREATES ISSUES FOR IRELAND,"
AccountingEducation.com, December 14, 2006 ---
http://accountingeducation.com/index.cfm?page=newsdetails&id=144069
"2007 Excellence in Project
Accounting Philosophy Essay Scholarship Contest Begins," AccountingWeb,
December 8, 2006 ---
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=102883
The 2007 Excellence in Project Accounting Philosophy
essay scholarship contest launches on January 1, 2007. The winning essayist
will receive $500 toward college tuition and fees from Journyx, the first
company to provide Web-based time-tracking and project accounting solutions
that guide customers to per-person, per-project profitability.
“Journyx is committed to eradicating cost ignorance
from our knowledge worker society and leading organizations to the highest
levels of profitability through innovation,” Curt Finch, chief executive
officer (CEO) of Journyx said in a prepared statement. “We developed this
essay scholarship so that we could educate and share our philosophy with
some of the bright minds about to enter the workforce, as well as learn new
ideas from them. We will choose the submission that is the most creative and
has the most real-world business applicability.”
The scholarship is open to full-time student
enrolled in a graduate level masters or doctoral level degree program at a
university in the United States. Interested students should contribute an
essay of 1,000 words or less on one of the following two topics:
- Persuade someone who doesn’t want to track his
time on a per product per-activity basis why it is in his best interests
to do so.
- Describe a real situation that you’ve
encountered where project oriented time tracking has made a positive
difference in the world.
Complete rules and details, including how the
essays will be scored, where to send the entries, etc., can be found
at
www.journyx.com/company/scholarship.html All
entries must be received by 5:00 p.m. CST on June 1, 2007.
January 1, 2007 message from Doug
Roberts [robertsfd@APPSTATE.EDU]
I am teaching for the first time a fraud
examination course. As this is not my area of experience, I'm looking for
ideas on what to cover and how best to cover it. In addition, the timing of
the class and the non- standard "audience" will impact what I do.
The course will meet 3 and 1/2 hours a day for 12
days (consecutive except for weekends) at the end of the semester. Students
will be those just returning from tax internships who need another 3 credit
hours to maintain full-time status (rather than taking the course because
they have an interest in fraud examination); they will have just finished 15
weeks of busy season and I suspect will be less than motivated to do much
work without thoughtful "pressure" on my part. Therefore, my objective is to
have activities that will force them to remain involved and hopefully learn
something and have fun at the same time.
The textbook is rather interesting reading covering
various forms of fraud. Beyond their reading outside of class and some
quizzes over the reading, I need ideas on what to do - I'd like to keep
lecture time to a minimum but need to fill up at least 3 hours. I have some
videos the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners put out and will try to
get some guest speakers who work in the area. But that still leaves me much
time.
Does anyone have any ideas? One thought I had was
working with data using Excel and Access to look for fraud flags. However, I
have not been able to find datasets. Does anyone know of any good datasets
or cases where data analysis is used? I saw where IDEA offers an educational
demo - does anyone have experience using that? And how long does that take
to complete? Any other ideas using hands-on computer exercises?
Any ideas would be appreciated.
Happy New Year,
Doug Roberts
January 1, 2007 reply from Len
Stokes
I have used some of the cases from the Knapp Audit
Case book published by Thomson. Many of the cases relate to audit failure
and I don't focus exclusively on the GAAS perspective but the Internal
Control, fraud etc. I break the class into groups and have a specific grup
lead the disucssion of the issues in the case and what they think went
wrong, why and what could have been done to prevent it. I don't allow them
to focus on the questions that are provided My concept is to get them to
begin to think outside the box not just think that Fraud involves specific
lists of thing to do. The Fraud videos usually are about an hour. The
students usally have interesting comments related to what they saw. Use the
class time like a seminar with disucssions and the time will fly with a
great deal of interest on their behalf.
Len
January 2, 2007 reply from Bob
Jensen
Here are a few references of possible interest on this topic:
Turn Excel into a financial sleuth: an easy-to-use digital analysis tool
can red-flag irregularities
Journal of Accountancy, August, 2003 by Anna M. Rose, Jacob M. Rose ---
http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/aug2003/rose.htm
Three books are reviewed in the December 2002 issue of the Journal of
Accountancy, pp. 88-90 ---
http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/dec2002/person.htm
"Auditors’ New Procedures for Detecting Fraud," by D.D. Montgomery, M.S.
Beasley, S. Menelaides, and Z. Palmrose, Journal of Accountancy, May 2002
---
http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/may2002/mont.htm
"Let Them Know Someone’s Watching, by Joseph T. Wells, Journal of
Accountancy, May 2002 ---
http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/may2002/wells.htm
Bob Jensen's fraud updates are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudUpdates.htm
Question
What happens when you don't qualify for the "Shortcut Method" for interest rate
swaps under FAS 133?
How to avoid ineffectiveness testing for interest rate swaps
using the Short-Cut Method ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/acct5341/speakers/133glosf.htm#Shortcut
Also see ---
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/000overview/mp3/133summ.htm#ShortCut
December 2006 article by Ira Kawaller
on Long Haul Hedge Accounting ---
http://www.kawaller.com/pdf/BALM_Long_Haul.pdf
Pension Fund
Accounting Fraud in San Diego
"San Diego Charges," by Nicole
Gelinas, The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2006; Page A12 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116459315111633209.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
The SEC has announced that it has resolved its
pension-fund fraud case against San Diego, with the city agreeing not to
commit illegal shenanigans in the future and to hire an "independent
monitor" to help it avoid doing so. Although the SEC went easy on the
residents and taxpayers of San Diego in its settlement, it still has an
opportunity to make an example of the former officials who the SEC
determined committed the fraud. The feds should seize that chance to show
they're serious about policing a sector of the investment world that remains
vulnerable to similar fraud.
San Diego ran into legal trouble with its pension
fund because elected officials wanted to keep its municipal workers happy by
awarding them more generous pension and health-care benefits, but also
wanted to keep taxpayers happy by sticking to a lean budget. The two goals
were mathematically irreconcilable. So San Diego officials, with the
cooperation of the board members of the city employees' retirement system
(the majority of whom were also city officials), intentionally underfunded
the pension plan for years. They used the "savings" to award workers and
retirees more benefits, some retroactive. Because taxpayers couldn't see how
much retirement benefits for public employees eventually would cost them,
they couldn't protest against those high future costs. The fund also
violated sound investment principles by using "surplus" earnings in boom
years to pay extra benefits to retirees, including a "13th check" in some
years. Trustees should have put such "surpluses" aside for years in which
the market was down.
But the alleged escalated in 2002 and 2003, when
city officials brushed aside warnings from outside groups, as well as from
an analyst it had itself commissioned, about the fund's parlous financial
straits. Although figures clearly showed that the pension fund would face a
seven-fold increase in its deficit, to more than $2 billion, over less than
a decade, San Diego didn't disclose what, according to the SEC, it "knew or
was reckless in not knowing" was an inevitability, instead maintaining its
charade. City officials disclosed not a word of the fund's financial
troubles to potential investors or bond analysts as it raised nearly $300
million in new municipal securities during those two years.
The SEC elected to go easy on the city. The feds
won't levy a fine against it, reasoning that it would end up being the
taxpayers who would pay. This argument has merit, since these taxpayers are
already on the hook for the $1.5 billion deficit -- roughly equal to the
city's operating budget -- the pension-fund fraud had concealed. Taxpayers
could face fallout if wronged investors sue the city. But while SEC won't
punish taxpayers, it can't afford to go so easy on the officials it's still
investigating. (The SEC doesn't name the current and former officials under
its scrutiny, but former Mayor Dick Murphy, former city manager Michael
Uberuaga and former auditor Ed Ryan, as well as members of the City Council,
all had degrees of responsibility for and knowledge of the pension fund's
operations.) The SEC must demonstrate that it considers the fraud officials
committed against the city's bondholders to be just as grave as similar
frauds in the private sector.
People who invest in municipal bonds do so because
they feel that such investments are safer than investing in the common
stocks of corporations. That's why cities and states enjoy access to capital
at affordable interest rates. And, for tax reasons, municipal-bond investors
often invest in the bonds of the city in which they reside, so they face
double jeopardy. In the first place, if city officials are committing fraud,
their bonds will turn out not to be as sound (and thus not as valuable) as
they thought they were. The second risk is that they will have to pay higher
taxes, or suffer lower government services, to cover pension-funding
shortfalls in their city's budget if that is the case.
Continued in article
Bob Jensen's threads on pension fund and
post-retirement accounting are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen//theory/00overview/theory01.htm#Pensions
"Assessing and Responding to Risks in a Financial Statement Audit: Part II,"
Journal of Accountancy, January 2007 ---
http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/jan2007/fogarty.htm
Bob Jensen's threads on
professionalism in auditing are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/fraud001.htm#Professionalism
Bob Jensen's threads on the future of
auditing are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudConclusion.htm#FutureOfAuditing
The Cost Approach for Financial Reporting
From IASPlus on November 21, 2006 ---
http://www.iasplus.com/index.htm
The International Valuation Standards Committee has
published
Proposed
Revisions to International Valuation Guidance Note 8 – The Cost Approach
for Financial Reporting {PDF 193k). The
proposed revisions are the result of requests for clarification and
suggestions of minor improvements to the 2005 version of GN8. Comment
deadline is 31 December 2006. The
IVSC
has also released an update of its work programme:
Bob Jensen's threads on underlying bases for balance sheet valuation ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen//theory/00overview/theory01.htm#UnderlyingBases
The CEO Who Jousted With Regulators
Options Backdating Takes Its Toll at Cyberonics
The tumultuous tenure of Robert P. Cummins as chairman,
president and chief executive of the medical device maker Cyberonics has ended,
the company disclosed yesterday. Mr. Cummins, 52, who is known as Skip, is a
former venture capitalist who joined the board of Cyberonics in 1988 and became
chief executive in 1995. He gained a reputation as one of nation’s most
passionate and intimidating business leaders in dealing with critics, regulators
and investors.
Barnaby J. Feder, "Head of Cyberonics Resigns as Options Inquiry Expands,"
The New York Times, November 21, 2006 ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/business/21device.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Bob Jensen's threads on accounting for employee stock options are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/theory/sfas123/jensen01.htm
The CEO Who Argued Against Backdating of Options Because Such Practices
Were Wrong
January 2, 2007 message from Denny Beresford
[DBeresfo@TERRY.UGA.EDU]
I found the following article quite interesting. As
noted, not backdating option grants (or other business correspondence) ought
to be obvious rather than something that needs to be taught in ethics
classes or otherwise. Yet it never hurts to mention these good examples to
students.
Denny Beresford
"McNealy is one reason Sun never backdated,"
by Elise Ackerman and Nicole C. Wong, Mercury News
Stanford University's Faculty Club dining room
buzzed at 8 a.m. one day recently with alumni, business leaders and
community members wondering what former *Sun Microsystems *Chief Executive
Scott McNealy would say about ``leadership transitions.''
McNealy -- a Silicon Valley icon known for pushing
people's buttons while pushing technology forward -- relinquished the top
job after 22 years to his hand-picked successor, Jonathan Schwartz, in
April. However, McNealy remains chairman of the board.
His quick tips raced from the importance of
``asking prima donnas to leave'' the company (``Everyone will love you for
it,'' he said) to hiring people who are smarter than you (``marrying up, as
they say'').
``The other piece of identifying and grooming
leaders is you have to watch for one very important breach -- that is a
breach of integrity,'' McNealy said.
``You have