Re:Balance -- Jim Peterson

Re-Posting -- Internal Control Reports Under Sarbanes-Oxley: Hazards Out of Washington

2009-11-10T17:38:39-06:00

In my first job in journalism, back on a small-town newspaper, the last critical deadline risk was a break-down of our creaky old press. Now it's that the elves of the internet somehow got Monday's post out via Twitter and my news groups, but failed to feed it to e-mail subscribers.

This re-posting is with my appreciation to all, and my apologies for either the delay or the duplication.

What’s in store for reporting on internal controls under the Sarbanes-Oxley law? The most important Washington development was not last week’s legislative merry-go-round over possible small-company exemption.

As discussed here, the SEC had earlier pushed back its deadline under Section 404(b) for auditor reports. Impelled by White House Chief of Staff Raum Emanuel, the House Financial Services Committee responded with approval of a permanent exemption, as proposed by Representatives Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and John Adler (D-NJ) (teed up in Edith Orenstein’s post of November 4 on her FEI Blog).

What may yet emerge from Congress is anybody’s guess – considering the opposition of Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass) and SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro and Commission Luis Aguilar. Their view is championed by Floyd Norris of the New York Times, quoting ex-SEC chief Arthur Levitt – here – in whose hyperbolic antagonism the climb-down on Section 404 would rank with repeal of the Bill of Rights or perhaps the Ten Commandments.

Much more ominous, across the country in Seattle, was the October 27 opinion and order of federal district judge Marsha Pechman. As discussed by Kevin LaCroix (D&O Diary), Judge Pechman has sustained most of the shareholders’ class lawsuit against fallen home lending giant Washington Mutual, along with its senior executives and Deloitte, its auditors.

The case is based not only on the usual array of claimed false financial and other statements, but on WaMu’s allegedly defective internal controls and the opinions of management and the auditors – claims that WaMu “misrepresented the state of its internal controls, which were weakened in order to facilitate WaMu’s reckless lending practice,” and that Deloitte “made the false and misleading statement that its internal control reports were audited ‘in accordance with the PCAOB’s standards’.”

From the very passage of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002, its requirement for opinions on internal controls has been an under-appreciated time bomb. Under Judge Pechman’s Order, the fuse is now lit, live and sparkling.

WaMu presents a major survivability hazard for Deloitte -- and by extension, for the viability of the entire big-firm assurance franchise. The investor claims involve securities totaling more than $ 4 billion -- well above the destruction threshold of Deloitte or any of the large accounting firms (see here).

And the plaintiffs are represented by the veteran law firm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman – reported to have achieved five of the ten largest securities fraud recoveries in history, and to have collected over $ 20 billion on behalf of investors – here – thus no strangers to the extraction of serious amounts from their adversaries.

In the early years of Sarbanes-Oxley, while the accounting firms were reaping major revenues from their work on big-client compliance, two topics largely dominated the discourse: whether the cost was actually achieving any real value to the capital markets, and whether there could be a screwing down of the escalated fee increases felt to be windfalls to the large firms.

Two other themes were either lost or absent in the discussion. The first was that Section 404 reports and opinions comprised a new class of publicly-accessible statements on which investors might claim reliance to their detriment – no less than traditional financial statements and audit reports – a chicken now come home to roost in Seattle.

The second was the ultimate but eventual day of reckoning, with the certain arrival of large internal control failures. There a crucial mis-alignment lay concealed: the accounting profession’s cash-based business model involves immediate profit distribution to reward current partners, while the related litigation burden lies inchoate and deferred until inflicted years later on succeeding generations.

This kind of disconnect is broadly familiar:

· The immediate benefits of large public works are consistently over-stated, for failure to recognize, for example, the future radioactive waste disposal costs of a de-commissioned nuclear plant, or the environmental disaster of a strip mine or a silted-up hydroelectric project.
· Only now are the re-cycling impacts of consumer goods becoming visible – whether in the recoverability of scrap auto components or the packaging of home appliances or the extraction of metals and chemicals from old computers and refrigerators.
· Closer to home, it’s a fair bet that the strategists in the law and accounting firms responsible for the tax shelter strategies so aggressively sold to their clients a decade ago did not include in their business plans the costs of their legal defenses, criminal trials, fines and civil settlements.
· And nowhere is the timing mis-match more acute than in the legislative arena, where the sleight-of-hand calculations for health reform proposals or military hardware procurement or tax code revisions are fanciful exercises in advocacy.

In the same way, it is no small understatement that the profitability of the Big Four’s Sarbanes-Oxley compliance work would have been unpleasantly re-calculated, when the law was enacted in 2002, if future litigation exposures running into WaMu’s billions had been taken into account.

So concerning the yes-or-no desirability of Sarbanes-Oxley 404 for smaller companies, there is this interesting question:

With the potentially catastrophic impact of a WaMu trial now pending, and claims among the roster of failed financial institutions lurking in the background – why would a young partner in a Big Four firm think that more such expanded Sarbanes-Oxley work is a good idea?

Those who may think so are invited to explain why – especially to their dependents and their creditors.

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with your friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign on at the Main page – easy, free and non-commercial.

Internal Control Reports Under Sarbanes-Oxley: Hazards Out of Washington

2009-11-08T11:37:42-06:00

This kind of disconnect is broadly familiar:

· The immediate benefits of large public works are consistently over-stated, for failure to recognize, for example, the future radioactive waste disposal costs of a de-commissioned nuclear plant, or the environmental disaster of a strip mine or a silted-up hydroelectric project.
· Only now are the re-cycling impacts of consumer goods becoming visible – whether in the recoverability of scrap auto components or the packaging of home appliances or the extraction of metals and chemicals from old computers and refrigerators.
· Closer to home, it’s a fair bet that the strategists in the law and accounting firms responsible for the tax shelter strategies so aggressively sold to their clients a decade ago did not include in their business plans the costs of their legal defenses, criminal trials, fines and civil settlements.
· And nowhere is the timing mis-match more acute than in the legislative arena, where the sleight-of-hand calculations for health reform proposals or military hardware procurement or tax code revisions are fanciful exercises in advocacy.

So concerning the yes-or-no desirability of Sarbanes-Oxley 404 for smaller companies, there is this interesting question:

Those who may think so are invited to explain why – especially to their dependents and their creditors.

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with your friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign on at the Main page – easy, free and non-commercial.

Sarbanes-Oxley 404(b): Auditors' Reports on Internal Controls -- A Shot in the Arm, or a Poke in the Behind?

2009-11-01T11:58:42-06:00

What’s to be made of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s grant, on October 2, of yet another extension of its deadline for small companies to have reports on their internal controls by their independent auditors? (See Edith Orenstein’s FEI Blog – here and here.)

As the autumnal season for influenza raises alarmist cries of epidemic, the comparison with an improved but experimental vaccine seems apt.

The mandate of section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley law is criticized as a boondoggle for the accounting firms, or worse, by Tom Selling (The Accounting Onion), and the whole issue of auditors' work on controls is thoroughly raked over by Francine McKenna (Re:The Auditors). And there were short-lived legislative moves in Washington to extend or make permanent the small-company compliance exemption -- see the October 30 Compliance Week.

In this context, there is much to contemplate.

To start – just as with the question whether to submit to a shot against uncertain exposure to a new type of swine flu – is there any real upside?

Veteran readers here know my deeply skeptical view that Sarbox was never more than a knee-jerk political feel-good exercise – going back to my July 20, 2002 column in the International Herald Tribune: “any legislation receiving the bipartisan margin of 97-0 is bound to be fundamentally defective.”

In the general population, most will never even catch the flu at all, or at worst will spend a few days of bed-ridden discomfort. Most public companies, likewise, operate honestly and with generally satisfactory controls, or require only modest treatment of their symptoms in order to return to good corporate health.

There are sectors at special risk, to be sure. With new vaccines, officials struggle to identify and set priorities and to deliver to the right targets – the elderly, the infirm, the weakened. That’s tough enough, for expert epidemiologists and public health professionals. Errors and oversights are unavoidable, as with any system under human design, and there will be casualties.

No less, the episodic outbreak of corporate malfeasance is unpreventable, and will strike a percentage of the most exposed. But no regulatory system yet conceived has been able to identify the “at risk” targets or find a way to avoid a non-zero victim count.

Secondly, there are the false negatives. Just as no vaccine provides protection against all strains, especially the newly emergent and opportunistic, the large-company experience with Section 404 has shown that Sarbanes-Oxley has failed to inoculate the corporate world against continued out-breaks of business dishonesty.

Attempts to legislate virtue have been no more effective than a mandatory vaccination program – whether among foreign companies with US-traded securities (Parmalat and Satyam), or individual perpetrators (the convicted Bernie Madoff, the accused Alan Stanford, and the recently-charged Raj Rajaratnam), or the long list of fallen financial institutions (Bear, Citi, Lehman, AIG, Merrill, etc.) whose cleanly-reported controls did not protect them from the fatal infection of the credit market collapse.

Third and most pernicious, there are the inevitable side effects.

It is mis-directed and erroneous to ask whether corporate behavior has improved since the post-Enron legislative spasm of 2002. Rather, Sarbox has never been fairly measured for its negatives – extravagant costs, severe disruption of the auditor-client dialog and relationship, and diminution of real value contributed by the assurance process. Just as most flu victims recover full good health, whether treated or not, the proper question is how the side effects of Sarbox weigh against the evolved corporate governance and controls that would have emerged in the normal cycle, had the law never been enacted at all.

Discussion of the Sarbox cost-benefit analysis typically omits recognition that the equivalent of “good health” practices was always in place. Just as preventive hand-washing and use of Kleenex will fend off most routine contagions, the prohibitions on false statements to investors under the American securities laws have a long tradition of deterrence – imperfect, to be sure, but nothing is. So the proper question is whether imposition of a universal requirement for additional measures under Sarbox could justifiably alter the prevention calculus for the better.

To conclude -- leave for another day, and soon, scrutiny of the potentially devastating litigation exposures run by small companies and their auditors when the next round of control failures show up in a renewed wave of investor litigation.

For now, compare with a health-delivery marketplace where individual choice still counts. Conscientious consumers can weigh the potential benefits of an experimental new vaccine. They can consider the risks of side effects and possible false comforts, absorb the publicity from a profit-driven drug industry, and decide accordingly.

With Sarbox 404(b), by contrast, unless a re-evaluation occurs while this latest deadline extension is pending, small listed companies will have no choice but to bend over and offer a fat and juicy target – to be stuck by a needle-wielding bureaucrat with the fear-inducing cry, “I’m from the SEC, and this shot is for your own good.”

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, please join at the Main page – easy, free and non-commercial.