Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: compradun who wrote (5507)	2/6/2002 3:29:43 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33421

Hi compradun, I admire the clarity of your intellect. And your depth of experience. GAAS is a term I am unfamiliar with. GAAP - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles is one I am quite familiar with. How would the two differ? In ten words or less.... <g> The logic train: "Collusion hides fraud, ergo, mere attestation" seems to be a nice biz schul shibboleth that is defied by the reality of the accountancy world, where the accountancy wizards at the Big Five generally serve not only as outside auditors but with great frequency also as tax structure advisors, IBC/LLP structure advisors, OTC derivatives advisors and general co-conspirators with management. If they are not actively hustling the corporate suites with new products such as "improved interpretations of contingent existing forward contracts" or "improved share-settled costless collar arrangement" for instance. I was not a little shocked by Joseph Berardino's chutzpah in sitting before the Congressional dogs of war yesterday, denying that the most egregious conflicts of interest do not exist and, anyway, aren't really a problem for Andersen. Some beg to differ: Message 17019591 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As to: CPAs in an audit are only allowed to report fraud to the audit committee not to the "public". It is my profound hope that enough stink is attached to the utterly broken accounting schema in this country that we somehow get back to the original notion of what accountancy is all about. After all, the original British accountants sent to this country in the 1800's to see where owners money was disappearing to in fraudulent and foolish public company fiascos. How did we get so far down the road to the insane system of today? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Re: The real issue is whether AA&co was a party to the collusion. I nonconcur. I've seen enough evidence to say that this is incontrovertible. What the nub of the matter is, is being able to make the case stick in front of an administrative judge who is just as likely to be bent as is the honcho class at Andersen. Andersen, after all, is a past master and present wizard at the art of buying itself the best justice that money can buy. Cordially, Ray

To: compradun who wrote (5507)	2/6/2002 5:50:18 PM
From: Yorikke	Respond to of 33421

compradun, fraud is not necessarily the major issue here. There can be no denying that fraud is difficult to detect. But setting GAAS in such a way that it permits misrepresentation may well be a serious issue that auditors will have to face. Of course Misrepresentation is a wonderful term. Most any standard can be decorated with all kinds of if's and however's to the point of making it appear quite just and sensible, while allowing widespread misuse. If a company and its associated auditors follow flawed rules that permit statements that a reasonable man would consider misrepresentation, is it any less a misrepresentation because the Auditor has followed 'the rules'? And as Auditors, is it not their responsibility to strive for more representative statements? If so, why has the profession allowed itself to be led astray? Why have auditors simply chosen to become befuddled with rules and regulations, while letting the statements lose their realistic basis? Aren't the voices of the profession's own past coming back to haunt the profession? Aren't those people who said you can not be both a watch dog and an associate consultant being proved correct? Its not like the profession has not faced this issue since the first 'consultant' walked into a firm. It has, but in the end the $$$$$ were just to many and the companies charged with maintaining a 'business morality' found it easy to pervert it as the money flowed in. It doesn't matter if this view is not exactly correct, that technically things were not quite that way. The fact is that the public now perceives the profession as in collusion with those who have made profits through fraud and misstatement. The self-regulation issue, long defended by Accountants and Auditors, is being scoffed at. The Government will step in, and audit independence will be subject to a host of rules and regulations. And this will be a major defeat for the profession and business at large.