Audit and Party Transactions

Before going into an analysis on the organizational culture at Enron, I will first elaborate on the severity of the unethical behavior that existed at Enron. The problem can best be shown in the words of an Enron employee who said “If I’m going to my boss’s office to talk about compensation, and if I step on some guy’s throat and that doubles it, then I’ll stomp on that guy’s throat”(Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room). This culture of greed and corruption can also be seen through Enron’s mark to market accounting system, in which Enron cashed in on ideas and “future profits” without actually making anything. Furthermore,

The auditor must remember that all information collected during the audit needs to be sufficient enough to further the audit process. The information must not only possess the two qualities, relevance and reliability, but it should also test various assertions. For instance, in the audit of Walmart, the auditor should make an attempt to acquire information such as financial statements from the company’s bank, as opposed to acquiring the statements from Walmart’s management. Taking such crucial information from Walmart’s management will put the reliability of that information into question. It is possible that management may manipulate the financial statements, so that they are more appealing to the public and investors. Management may do things

Was Enron’s collapse due to a failure in the standard setting process? Why or why not?

This now bankrupt company, misappropriated investments, pension funds, stock options and saving plans after deregulation and little oversight by the federal government. However, with deregulation an increasing competitive culture emerged as the CEO Jeffry Skilling motto to his organization was to “do it right, do it now, and do it better” this was the rally cried that pushed ambitious employees to engage in unethical behavior as Enron use deceptive “accounting methods to maintain its investment grade status” (Sims, & Brinkmann, 2003, pp.244-245). As Enron continued to flourish and received accolades from the business community this recognition drove executives to continue the façade of bending ethical guidelines before their public fall from

To illustrate the linkage of management assertions to audit evidence in the context of auditing Notes Payable.

A review and an audit report are both a form of an attestation engagement. A Review, however, is less in scope so it provides a moderate level of assurance on the financial statements. It is considered a “sniff” of an audit, which comparatively provides reasonable assurance that no material misstatements occurred. Since a review deals with a limited scope, it does not provide the basis for expressing an opinion on the presentation of the

4. The auditors have the responsibility to search for related-party transactions because of materiality. AU 334 & AS 18 gives a standard for related parties that auditors have to perform during an audit. One way to search for related parties is to examine the transactions between different parties and trace to locate the customers and or suppliers. Another way to locate related parties is money that comes into the business from lenders and or borrowers. Audit procedures that should be applied by discussing with the BOD of any transactions that may be related, examine closely each account and to audit intercompany accounts.

As with much of Enron, their outward appearance did not match what was really going on inside the company. Enron ended up cultivating their own demise for bankruptcy by how they ran their company. This corrupt corporate culture was a place whose employees threw ethical responsibility to the wind if it meant financial gain. At Enron, the employees were motivated by a very “cut-throat” culture. If an employee didn’t perform well enough, they would simply be replaced by someone who could. “The company’s culture had profound effects on the ethics of its employees” (Sims, pg.243). Like a parent to their children, when the executives of a company pursue unethical financial means, it sets a certain tone for their employees and even the market of the company. As mentioned before, Enron had a very “cut-throat” attitude in regards to their employees. This also became one Enron’s main ethical falling points. According to the class text, “employees were rated every six months, with those ranked in the bottom 20 percent forced to leave” (Ferrell, 2017, pg. 287). This system which pits employees against each other rather than having them work together will create a workplace of dishonesty and a recipe of disaster for the company. This coupled with the objective of financial growth, creates a very dim opportunity for any ethical culture. “The entire cultural framework of Enron not only allowed unethical behavior to flourish,

On the superficial level, the attitudes and motives behind the events and decisions causing eventual downfall seem simple enough: collective and individual greed created in the atmosphere of corporate arrogance. As Enron's reputation in the global environment grew, the internal culture of the organization began to worsen significantly. Skilling, Enron Chief Executive, founded the Performance Review Committee, PRC, which gained the reputation of the harshest employee-ranking system in the whole country. Theoretically, this review system was based on the values of Enron - respect, integrity, communication and excellence (RICE). But at the end of the

With Enron, the responsibility and blame started with Enron’s executives, Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, and Andrew Fastow. Their goal was to make Enron into the world’s greatest company. To make this goal a reality, they created a company culture that encouraged “rule breaking” and went so far as to “discourage employees from reporting and investigating ethical lapses and questionable business dealings” (Knapp, 2010, p. 14). They insisted the employees use aggressive and illegal

In this case of Enron the corporate culture played a vital role of its collapse. It was culture of full of moneymaking strategies and greed, in the firm Greed was good and money was God. There was no or very little regards for ethics or the law, they operated as there was no law and ethics in the world (Enron Ethics, 2010). Such culture affected all the employees of the firm from top to down. Organizational culture supported unethical behaviour and practises, corruption, cheating and those were all widespread. Many executives and managers knew that the firm is following illegal and unethical practises, but the executives and the board of directors did not knew how to change this unethical culture, the firm used creative accounting and were making showing misleading profits every day. Reputation management enabled them carry on their illegal and unethical operations. Moreover if the company made huge Revenue in the unethical way then the new individual who joined the firm would also have to practise all those unethical practises to survive in the company. All of the management was filled by greed and ambition, their decisions became seriously imperfect, thus the firm fell back and managers had to pay in the price in the form imprisonment and fines. Greed is the main key factors that brought the Enron “the most innovative company” to downfall. Enron was looking into the ways of

All of the prior represents the business side of the downfall of Enron. That being said, businesses fail all of the time. The reason why Enron Corporation and its executives will always live in infamy is not because the company failed, but how and why the company failed. How, exactly, does a company worth about $70 million collapse in less than a month? It became clear that the company not only had financial problems, but ethical problems that started from the top of the company and trickled down. A key player in these problems was Jeffrey Skilling. He was a man brought to the company by Ken Lay himself. Skilling brought his own accounting concept to the company. It was called mark-to-market accounting. This concept allowed Enron to record potential profits the day a deal was signed. This meant that the company could report whatever they “thought” profits from the deal were going to be and count the number towards actual profits, even if no money actually came in. Mark-to-market accounting granted Enron the power to report major profits to the public, even if they were little or even negative. It became a major way

Many questions are still being raised concerning the collapse of Enron. The aftermath of Enron’s fall has brought review of the actions that took place prior to the collapse. Many of these questions may be left unanswered. The company’s executive management, board of directors, and auditors hold the responsibility for the ultimate collapse of a once dominant force in the energy industry. Team A developed several options in a plan that could have possibly helped Enron avoid their demise. The plan is designed to discuss the benefits and challenges of communication, collaboration and conflict management. It will provide an opportunity to the management team of Enron the benefits of developing strong communication between all employees

Unfortunately, scandals like Enron are not isolated incidents and the last decade has offered Americans a disheartening perspective with comparable scandals like that of WorldCom and Tyco, Sunbeam, Global Crossing and many more. Companies have a concrete responsibility not just to their investors but to society as a whole to have practices which deter corporate greed and looting and which actively and effectively work to prevent such things from happening. This

There were specific internal control protocols and external audit agreements designed to prevent the tragic from happening. However, just like my classmate Likhita said during the class discussion (Thought and Discourse, September 16, 2015), “People will always find the loophole”. In terms of internal control failing, first of all, the malfunction of the board of directors would be our primary concern. Enron Board of Directors clearly failed to oversight company operations. In United States Senate Subcommittee report (The role of the board of the directors in Enron’s collapse, Permanent subcommittee on investigations, 2002), committee memebrs indicated that “The Board witnessed numerous indications of questionable practices by Enron management over several years, but chose to ignore them to the detriment of Enron shareholders, employees and business associates.” Moreover, the Board of Directors directly violated Enron’s code of ethics and agreed the company from trading with several SPE (includes LJM1) run by its own CFO, Andrew Fastow. Such transactions were not designed to generate legit business profit, nor providing