Aggressive Accounting and its Effects on Society
Many interesting questions and images came to mind when first being introduced to the term “aggressive accounting”. Is “aggressive accounting” an energetic accountant? Could it quite possibly be an over-achieving accountant? Maybe it could be accounting methods that create hostility? Could it be a course of study in accounting that someone might consider as a profession? Ironically, these examples could be the outcome of anyone involved in the accounting profession that practiced “aggressive accounting”; however, it would not be the defining explanation. A simple definition of” aggressive accounting” is an unethical practice that can be used by accountants, CPA’s, and auditors to produce inaccurate or unlawful accounting methods in order to intentionally inflate the financial records of a company. “Aggressive accounting” has the potential to encourage scandals like the publicized Enron debacle. It also has the potential to destroy the public’s trust in the accounting and audit professions that oversee the safety of corporations, investors, stockholders, families, and ultimately our nation’s economy. To eliminate “aggressive accounting” practices it is important to promote public awareness for signs of fraud. Additionally, enforcement of all current regulations is imperative to insure there is a penalty for unethical behavior. Finally, accounting curriculums should include ethic standards as well as a historical time line of accounting advances to reduce mistakes previously made.
The history of accounting is fascinating, and can be traced back as far as 30,000 B.C. in the prehistoric Near East as described by archeologist Denise Schmandt-Besserat. There were hunters and gatherers that simply consumed whatever they accuired; therefore, there was no need for accounting. As humankind became more evolved, counting became extreemly important (Schmandt-Besserat, 1996, p. 103). She reports there were tokens used in three different stages of counting and record keeping. The first stage in Upper Paleolithic through 12,000 B.C. was very primative in nature. The second stage in the Neolithic era 8000 B.C. became more detailed and the third stage was the Urban era in 3100 B.C. where the tokens became more refined (Schmandt-Besserat, 1996, p. 99). Her research also reveals the complexity of the tokens as accounting began its form. Schmandt-Besserat’s research shows that during these intial phases of counting there was integrity in those who were the “counters.” She points out, “more important than the hunter, more in control than the chief, the holder of the tokens and dispenser of the grain, cereals, animals, or oils was the most important figure in these first small villages because they served as ‘honest brokers’ and controllers of the shared wealth” (Schmandt-Besserat, 1996, p. 28).
The Urban era was an historic time frame when accounting practices were just beginning. What is known about tokens, cords, and even later in tablets, created a very startling fact. The prehistoric “counters” began the process of accounting as it would develop over centuries. They would count every item of “data” and record it with a token for accuracy and accountability. This level to detail was the “perfect” audit model for the future and discontinuing “inventory control” because it became to costly in later years caused the accounting downfall. If this precision in “counting” would have carried through the generations of future accountants it quite possibly could have saved the many scandals and lack of public trust in the accounting and audit profession.
Moving into the 14th century, Luca Pacioli was considered the “father” of accounting with his double entry ledger method, which is still used today. He published a book in the 14th century titled, "Everything about Arithmetic, Geometry, and Proportions" which served as the first and only accounting textbook through the 16th century. This was a milestone for accounting because this textbook created the first students of accounting.
According to research of Mike Brewster, author of “Unaccountable: How the Accounting Profession Forfeited a Public Trust;” implementing the double entry ledger method through the 18th century in England seems to have set the stage for accounting standards for the United States to emulate some years later. Public trust in accounting practices were yet again advanced in England using Pacioli’s contribution to defining double entry accounting. Brewster summarizes, “These advances show that the most powerful members of society invested enormous trust in the top accountants” (Brewster, 2003, p. 32).
The 1960’s introduced the eight global accounting firms called the “big eight”. They were known as Arthur Andersen, Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery, Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Ernst, KMG, Peat Marwick, Price Waterhouse, and Touche Ross. These firms would face legal indictments over the next years that would reduce the global firms from the “big eight” as we knew them, to currently the “big 4” after Arthur Anderson was found guilty for involvement with the Enron scandal. There was a time in accounting history that the corporation had the upper hand on the auditor. If the auditor wanted to maintain a working relationship year to year there was incentive to be “bullied” in the board room to signing an inflated financial certificate. This shift in ethics when the corporation had the authority to determine when the auditor must acquiesce to the corporation was the down fall for the accounting and audit profession.
With the 19th century is the introduction of George May and Arthur Anderson, founders of two global firms. These two men would affect accounting policies in different ways for years to come. May, was a pioneer of separation of corporate fraternizing during audit procedures. He would discontinue participating in an audit if he felt there was any public speculation of inappropriately conceding to management. Ironically, Anderson on the other hand, was continually defined as an accounting firm that promoted their services “aggressively.” He did promote his accounting firms with a different attitude than the other global firms, and was a pioneer for aggressive selling tactics for the firms “consulting” and audit services. Anderson was the first to introduce computer technology to corporations; this was one more way for the firm to get “inside” the corporations for added revenue services. This advancement in technology for the global firms and corporate world created the next paradigm in accounting.
Public trust in accounting was being acknowledged for the first time due to its many advances. This created a demand for accounting services that could not be maintained by the global firms due to the hardships of travel at that time. This scenario would replay itself in the 1970’s. After the “Great Depression” the accounting staffs were cut back to a minimum. When the economy was ramping back up in the late 70’s the global accounting firms were scrambling for additional help to cover the magnitude of new partnered firms they had created across the country. This amount of travel and time away from families created inaccurate reporting and deadlines that were not met by the accountants and auditors. There were also audits performed that did not catch “aggressive accounting” practices, this once again undermined the public trust. Over time there was reduction of global firms that public companies could choose from to perform mandated audits. This problem only became worse with the newly designed stringent audit regulations of today’s Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
In comparison, the 19th century introduced Parliament, the first regulatory agency to set mandated audit standards for publicly held companies. The independent audits of public companies mandated by the Parliament were met with great criticism. These regulations created a stressor because there were not enough educated accountants that understood the new regulations to meet the demand. This cycle is repeated throughout history (McDermott, 1993, p. 4). This repetition poses a question, why did we not learn from these mistakes early on? Why did we repeat them over and over? The answer lies in the possibility that only in times when the public trust was violated there was government intervention, not when the problems began organically.
Brewer states, with the advance of auditing of public companies in the 20th century as well as newly formed regulations, there were more securities fraud and con artists than seen before. So do all these regulations that were introduced from the various agencies, both government and private, actually help to protect the public? It seems hasty regulations just antagonize the entire system.
With the invention of the generally accepted accounting principles, (GAAP) there was a format that all accountants must follow and are used currently. When the audit was complete the auditor’s primary role was to sign off on the corporation’s financial certificate that GAAP principles had been followed for accounting and reporting. However, as the auditors reduced their responsibility for detecting aggressive accounting, fraudulent activities increased. In addition there was no more “counting” of inventories to determine if what was in the ledgers actually made up the records of the business. It was as if some accountants had forgotten the integrity of their ancestors. That was unfortunate for the world and the advancement of the accounting profession.
For next we find in 1929 the market crash and the ensuing “Great Depression.” Many people lost jobs, businesses, possessions, and their faith in the economic future of the country. In the attempt to recover the accounting profession the “Federal Securities Act” of 1933 was established and mandated again by a government agency. This act, created out of desperation was full of problems and loopholes that led to overworked accountants tying to comply with the act in a timely manner. With the act of 1933 came the requirement of additional amount of “sampling” (pulling samples of documents that proved the data entry). Audits became extremely difficult and time consuming. Corporations could not fund these expensive audits and a whole new debacle was now on the rise, very similar to what happened after the Enron and WorldCom scandals. Out of these current scandals the securities exchange committee known as the “SEC” formed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Professor Thomas Joo, of UC Davis School of Law defines and explores the many issues with Sarbanes-Oxley Act:
There have been a lot of changes, the main change being the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which did two things. First, it created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which is in charge of registering and inspecting public accounting firms, and for adopting and modifying audit standards. (Ghoddoucy, 2006)
Joo goes on to say, “the Act does what critics would call a micromanaging of corporate governance by establishing some very specific requirements of corporations. For example, they must have independent audit committees. Again, this is something that historically has been done at the state level” (Ghoddoucy, 2006). He also states, “the classification of ‘independent’ defined by Sarbanes-Oxley Act is that the director of audit committees can not garner a salary from the corporation, yet directors are still being paid to be a voice for the committee” (Ghoddoucy, 2006).
Again, let’s pose the question why did we not learn from this experience? The answer possibly lies in the thought that the government agencies that were creating these acts were not accountants and admittedly did not know much about the accounting profession. Repeatedly, the securities exchange committee butted heads with the accounting profession. Primarily, accountants were offended that this agency would create a policy that accountants for ages had used from principles that had been passed down from generation to generation. With this conflict brewing between the governing agencies and the accounting profession there would be consequences. The effect was reduced public confidence.
There are suggestions for solutions that can be pondered. First, there are investors that are working with large volumes of dollars that have no formal training for this kind of business dealings. Investors should be required to have formal training prior to entering the markets. This would educate them to be better “watchdogs,” as well as be able to detect if companies are implementing controls that will provide ethical business dealings. Joo supports the idea of investor education:
The problem with that is that there is no institutionalized system of investor education. You need a license to drive a car, yet you can buy stocks without knowing anything about investing. There has been no serious attempt of any kind by the government, or anyone else for that matter, to educate investors. Investment is becoming a public policy concern since people increasingly are investing their retirement money into the stock market. We certainly don’t want retired people starving in the streets. I think society should pay for that, but I’d rather it not come to that. So why don’t we make sure that people are well educated when they invest so that these problems don’t occur. (Ghoddoucy, 2006)
Second, the fact that historically regulations have been mandated by governing agencies; however, very few of those regulations were ever enforced. Over time this lack of enforcement sent a clear message that there would be no penalties for unethical accounting practices. The regulating agencies must now send the clear message that “aggressive accounting” practices will not be tolerated and there will be a penalty for such actions. Joo’s insight is very interesting:
One way you can prevent people from breaking existing regulations is to enforce those regulations more strictly. I think it probably would have been better to crack down on enforcement of existing regulations, rather than to pass more of them that ultimately won’t be enforced. If you create an expectation of relaxed enforcement, then people will simply continue breaking whatever additional regulations you do pass. (Ghoddoucy, 2006 )
Third, formal education that trains accountants must be involved and create curriculums that look at the historical timeline of accounting to understand the similarities of accounting successes and failures. Curriculums must also stress the importance of ethics and the ramifications of practicing unethical accounting.
With the current debacles such as Enron, WorldCom, and Fannie Mae are excellent examples of how corporations can undermine the investors with various unethical practices. With the addition of our most current economic conditions it is imperative that “aggressive accounting” must stop. The CEO’s and accountants of each of these scandals were charged penalties of long jail sentences and expensive fines. It is the hope that this will be the beginning of our governing agencies sending the clear message that unethical actions will not be tolerated and punished by the letter of the law.
With our economy in the state that it is presently can the public’s trust in the safety of our countries financial structure be jeopardized any further? It appears that it is important in our society for each individual to be the eyes and the ears of the corporations and communities they are involved in. Much like the neighborhood “watch dogs” that looks for signs of crime and reports concerns; this is a simple grassroots model for the accounting profession as well. With the accounting profession government regulating agencies, and the public putting on their “ethical hats” we can maintain a steadfast economy and rise above these unstable economic times with equanimity.
References
Ackman, D. (2002). Andersen indictment and consequences. Retrieved Sept 30, 2008, from
Forbes website: http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/15/0315topnews.html.
Brewster, M. (2003). Unaccountable: How the accounting profession forfeited a public
trust. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ghoddoucy, D. (2006, May). Corporate Governance and Sarbanes-Oxley "Post-
'Post-Enron.'" Retrieved Sept 2, 2008, from UC Davis’s Website:
http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article.asp?id=590.
Gutman, H. (2002 ,February). The Lessons of the Enron Debacle. Retrieved Sept 3, 2008, from
Common Dreams website: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0207-07.htm.
Jorion, P. (2003). Investing in a Post Enron World. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. (1996). How Writing Came About. Texas: Austin University of Texas
Professional Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment