Deloitte’s Latest PCAOB Inspection Report Is Its Worst Since 2017

Posted on by Going Concern News Desk
exterior of a Deloitte building

Uh-oh, this cant’t make Joe U., Lara Abrash, and other Deloitte audit folks happy (bold part added by us for emphasis):

In the 2021 inspection of Deloitte & Touche LLP, the PCAOB assessed the firm’s compliance with laws, rules, and professional standards applicable to the audits of public companies.

We selected for review 54 audits of issuers with fiscal years generally ending in 2020. For each issuer audit selected, we reviewed a portion of the audit. We also evaluated elements of the firm’s system of quality control.

We also selected for review two reviews of interim financial information (“interim reviews”). Our reviews were performed to gain a timely understanding of emerging financial reporting and auditing risks associated with issuers that were formed by mergers between non-public operating companies and special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). We did not identify any instances of non-compliance with PCAOB standards related to the interim reviews that we reviewed.

[…]

Seven of the 54 audits we reviewed in 2021 are included in Part I.A of this report due to the significance of the deficiencies identified. The identified deficiencies primarily related to the firm’s testing of controls over and substantive testing of inventory.

So said Deloitte’s 2021 PCAOB inspection report, which was released on Dec. 19. D-town’s 13% error rate in its latest auditing report card is its worst since 2017 when it screwed up on 20% of audits selected by the PCAOB. The good news is since that 20% deficiency rate in 2017, Deloitte has cut down on its auditing errors so much that even with PwC’s historically low 1.9% error rate in its 2020 inspection report and its 3.6% error rate in its 2021 inspection report, Deloitte still has a better average deficiency rate than PwC for audit inspection years 2018 to 2021:

Deloitte PwC
2018: 11.5% 2018: 25%
2019: 10.3% 2019: 30%
2020: 3.8% 2020: 1.9%
2021: 13% 2021: 3.6%
Average: 9.6% Average: 15.1%

So that part should make Joe U., Lara Abrash, and other Deloitte audit folks happy.

Of the seven wayward Deloitte audits in its 2021 inspection report, one had deficiencies in both internal control over financial reporting and in the financial statement, two had deficiencies in the financial statement only, and four had deficiencies in ICFR only.

There were two audit areas in which deficiencies were found, according to the PCAOB:

  • Inventory: The deficiencies primarily related to substantive testing of inventory and testing controls over the existence of inventory, including cycle-count controls.
  • Revenue and related accounts: The deficiency related to testing controls over revenue.

Two Deloitte audits with substantial errors happened for issuers in both the financials and energy sectors, while the other three were in the consumer discretionary, IT, and utilities sectors.

Feel free to peruse Deloitte’s latest audit inspection report below.

Related Posts

Thankless Audit Client: Tui Travel Edition

Tui Travel is “an international leisure travel group” (which is fancy-speak for a travel agent) out of the UK. KPMG has been audited the books for awhile but this year they found a booboo that resulted in a £117 million write off. At the time the company copped to the error, although you don’t get the impression they were grateful.


From today’s report in the Guardian:

Just two months ago, Tui chief executive Peter Long said: “KPMG identified some system weaknesses and ledgers that had not been reconciled … Yes, they identified some of these control weaknesses which had then manifested themselves into the issues subsequently identified through a detailed investigation.”

Nothing unusual really, these things happen, clients usually grin and bear it but not our “international leisure travel group.”

KPMG said its relationship with “certain [Tui Travel] directors became increasingly strained” following “extensive discussions with the directors”. Among the areas where KPMG had raised concerns, the letter added, were the implications arising from the restated accounts and “their disclosure and accounting treatment in the financial statements”. Relations had reached such a low ebb, KPMG concluded, that “we are not confident that in the future we could carry out an audit of the company to the appropriate standard, but others may be able to do so.”

So it kinda sounds like their annoyance with the whole thing slowly boiled over into flat-out bitterness, leading to some increasingly unpleasant conversations. Sure, the directors in question would start out acting cool about it, “You know [chuckling], you really didn’t do us any favors there.” But eventually it became, “Boy, you’ve really outdone yourself, this time.” And finally, “For crissakes! You couldn’t leave it alone, couldja? [extremely patient KPMG partner explaining on the other end] What?!? [increasingly steamed, drumming fingers] We don’t care if it’s your job; we don’t like being embarrassed. [Pause, eyeroll] Stewards of generally accepted accounting principles?!? What does that even mean? [brief pause] Whatever, you can plan on us being uncooperative going forward.”

Or something like that.

Tui drops KPMG after it found £117m hole in accounts [Guardian]

The Way Things Are Going, Eventually No One Will Have to Comply with Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404

As we trudge toward a Senate vote on he financial reform bill, one issue that is of utmost interest to those in the accounting/audit biz is that of small businesses complying with Section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley.

As it stands, only a small number of non-accelerated filers are voluntarily in compliance with 404. Those not jumping at the voluntarily complying with 404 have enjoyed the repeated delays by the SEC since the legislation was passed in 2002.

But if reform bill passes in its current form, all companies with market caps of less than $75 million will be exempt from complying with the requirement to have an audit of their internal control system. And even those companies that went to the trouble of voluntary compliance, might not continue doing so:

Dan Crow is one of the few small-company CFOs with an auditor’s stamp on his internal controls. Getting it wasn’t as time-consuming or as costly as it would have been several years ago, when large public companies first began complying with one of the most onerous requirements of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, known as Section 404.

Still, Crow, who oversees finance for retailer Hastings Entertainment, doesn’t rule out dropping the extra review next year if Congress decides to permanently exempt small public companies from needing an auditor’s sign-off on their internal controls — as it seems poised to do. The Senate is expected to vote this week on the final version of the financial regulatory reform bill, which would exempt companies with market caps less than $75 million from complying with Section 404(b), the rule in question. (The House has already passed the bill.)

But that’s not all! Because 404(b) is clearly “red tape” (a popular rallying cry in an election year) that provides no benefits whatsoever and just crushes the spirit of small business (the backbone of America, we might add!) Congress has called for a study of “how the ‘burden’ of 404(b) compliance for companies with market capitalization between $75 million and $250 million could be reduced, and whether an exemption for them could increase the number of initial public offerings in the United States,” in the bill.

Christ, where does it end? Let’s just study the whole damn thing over while we’re at it. Apparently the entire Congressional body has completely ignored the benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley; never mind that costs of gone down significantly in the past eight years, making compliance less financially painful.

And not to mention that smaller companies are at greater risk for fraud and accounting manipulation. Look at the roster of companies on Sam Antar’s website and you’ll note that many of them have market caps of $1 billion or less. If these companies can’t resist the temptation to get shifty with financial reporting in order to meet (or not) the short-term focus of Wall Street, it’s difficult to reason that even smaller public companies won’t succumb to it.

To 404(b), or Not to 404(b)? [CFO]

KPMG Arrives at the Paperless Audit Party

office-space-402a-061907.jpgWe’ve received several reports about Klynveldians attending “eAudit” training this summer which marks the firm’s attempt to get break into the “paperless” audit world. Reports have been mixed with some saying that it’s best technology KPMG has invested in but others claiming that it will only run on Vista which may be problematic when Windows 7 rolls out.
Forgetting the technology mumbo-jumbo, it’s been long rumored that KPMG was the last major firm to make the move to a paperless audit. This could have been due to a number of things:
More, after the jump


• Partners that have been around since WWII that can’t even use email put the kibosh on the whole idea
• M-O-N-E-Y
• Accountants, in general, resist the idea of trying a new restaurant so don’t even think about messing with their audit methods
What’s more surprising is that some Radio Station clients have said that they prefer the old school audit. Not exactly sure what is so appealing about young auditors schleping around boxes of binders that weigh a few metric asstons but whatevs.
Our point, dude, is that KPMG has finally caved on this whole “paperless” idea. Since audits aren’t truly paperless we’re not sure what all the fuss is about but KPMGers got an extra week in Florida in the dead of summer out of it. Discuss the firm breaking into the new century in the comments or let us know how terrible your lives will be because of it.