My latest column at American Banker was published online on Monday and discussed some of the reasons, I think, why bank auditors are missing or consciously ignoring increased risk and poor to no controls.
Reuters has a story out today entitled, “Regulators tighten up bank in-house checks.”
Unfortunately it does nothing, in fact it distorts, the role of internal audit, external audit and the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors in a bank.
I’m a panelist July 12 for, “Auditors, the Board and Shareholders: An Evolving Relationship,” at the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals Annual Meeting in Washington DC.
I’ll be covering the Compliance Week Annual Conference in Washington D.C. next week June 4-6, 2012 at the Mayflower Hotel. The venue alone is worth the price of the ticket! This year I will also be moderating/hosting several panels. See you there!
Chesapeake Energy’s auditor is PricewaterhouseCoopers. The auditor is paid lass than $3 million to prepare an opinion on this challenging company. Sometimes you can be paid too little to be sufficiently skeptical…
It’s difficult for me to imagine a new generation of systemically important financial services company CEOs without strong risk management experience. But the newly prominent role also gives shareholders, regulators, and the media an easy target for ridicule after a corporate stumble or failure.
Let’s not forget PricewaterhouseCoopers, MF Global’s auditors.
When it comes to hands-on access to private information, the auditor has more than any other regulator mentioned. And they are supposed to be experts in that client’s business and in the accounting and auditing standards for that industry. PwC also audits JP Morgan, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, and Goldman Sachs. They are all large players in the futures brokerage industry.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Dodd-Frank’s clawback provision both require a restatement. The restatement of financial results to correct material errors – whether those errors occurred by default or by design – is a necessary condition for enforcing both the Sarbanes-Oxley Section 304 provision and the new Dodd-Frank law.
The topic of audit industry reform is hot again. OK, that’s relative to where you stand on what’s hot. But in the world of legal and regulatory compliance and auditors the only thing hotter would be a significant development in the New York Attorney General’s case against Ernst & Young.
The next time something goes terribly wrong at a Berkshire Hathaway company, there’s a strong possibility no one will hear about it. Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger won’t be held directly responsible either. That’s the beauty of Buffett’s version of a conglomerate corporate structure, decentralized to such an obscene level such that its minimalism is brandished as a feature not a bug.
Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to end financial scandals once and for all. Will Dodd-Frank succeed where it failed? My OpEd for Boston Review is online today, Monday, August 22, 2011.
I wrote this post about a month ago for Forbes.com and my column, “Accounting Watchdog” on a very important legal decision related to a real estate company, Centro, in Australia. Centro’s auditors were PwC.
