Case Analysis Arthur Andersen: Questionable Accounting Practices

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,

In addition, associated with the misapplication of accounting methods, the financial industry has been plagued with one disaster after another involving numerous scandals from top leading American companies. Consequently, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002 compromising eleven sections that are generated to insure the responsibilities of the company’s managers and executives. This act identifies criminal penalties for particular unethical practices and currently has new policies that a corporation must follow in their financial reporting. The following examples describe some of biggest accounting methods as a result of the greed and the outrage of the ethical and financial misconduct by the senior management of public corporations.

Fraudulent financial reporting is one form of corporate corruption and may involve the manipulation of the documents used to record accounting transactions, the misrepresentation of accounting events or transactions, or the intentional misapplication of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) (Crumbley, Heitger, and Smith, 2013). Examples of fraudulent schemes befitting of this category abound and usually involve financial statement items that have been misclassified, omitted, overstated, undervalued, or prematurely recognized. One case involving CEO Bill Smith of Moonstay

Without a question the BOD should have placed a high degree of reliance on Andersen, which at the time was one of the most prestigious worldwide accounting firms. The auditors should have known the kind of accounting taking place in Enron. In my opinion, Andersen knew, at least to some extent, the company’s financial condition. However, Enron was already too deep under water that blowing the whistle so late would have created problems for Andersen as well. According to the case, on 02/05/01, Andersen held internal meeting during which it addressed the company’s accounting from and oversight of the LJM partnership. Andersen never discussed these concerns with the Audit and Compliance Committee. Although the BOD has its faults, it should have been able to rely on Andersen’s work.

Arthur Andersen (AA) contributed to the Enron disaster when it has failed to the management by failing to have Enron establish and enforce its own internal control. There has been flaws to AA‘s internal control. There has been assumption that AA partners were too motivated by revenue recognition thus, overlooking several criteria when providing their services to Enron. Additionally, AA also recognised the retention of audit clients as vital and a loss of any clients would be disadvantaged to an auditor’s career. In AA internal control, the person who is able to make most of the decisions is the person who is most concerned about the revenue or losses of the client’s company.

Between the years 2000 and 2002 there were over a dozen corporate scandals involving unethical corporate governance practices. The allegations ranged from faulty revenue reporting and falsifying financial records, to the shredding and destruction of financial documents (Patsuris, 2002). Most notably, are the cases involving Enron and Arthur Andersen. The allegations of the Enron scandal went public in October 2001. They included, hiding debt and boosting profits to the tune of more than one billion dollars. They were also accused of bribing foreign governments to win contacts and manipulating both the California and Texas power markets (Patsuris, 2002). Following these allegations, Arthur Andersen was investigated for, allegedly,

The architectural design of a firm varies greatly. In 1950, the business environment of Arthur Andersen included using the computer effectively for automated bookkeeping. Structure and regulation of the markets, helped Arthur Andersen to develop into a well-respected and reputable auditing company. The federal law in the 1930s requiring companies to turn over their financial statements yearly to an independent auditor not only strengthened Arthur Andersen, but also helped with their impeccable reputation. Arthur Andersen’s strategy included quality audits with a well-managed staff and profits. Promotions and rewards were plentiful when auditors made sound auditing decisions. In the 1990s, Arthur Andersen’s organizational architecture and strategy focused on generating new business, cost cutting, and performance evaluations along with decision rights over its business (Brickley, Smith, & Zimmerman, 2009).

The purpose of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities law, and for other purposes. (Lander, 2004) The Act created new standards for public companies and accounting firms to abide by. After multiple business failures due to fraudulent activities and embezzlement at companies such as Enron Sarbanes and Oxley recognized a need for the revamping of our financial systems laws, rules and regulations. Thus, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was born.

Andersen – Although Enron committed the fraud, Andersen allowed Enron to get away with it. An audit firm has to be independent from their client and act in the best interest of the public. For this reason, I think that Andersen was the most responsible for the Enron crisis. Andersen could have declined continuing their relationship with Enron as their client, considering some Andersen representatives did not agree with Enron’s “aggressive” accounting and financial reporting decisions in the early months of 2001. Andersen also assisted Enron in restructuring some of the SPEs so they would still be considered unconsolidated entities. Andersen not only audited Enron, but they also went beyond the scope of what the quality audit should entail. It was also telling when personnel in the Houston office destroyed documents related to Enron and

Due to the information, 20 acres of land equal 80 sheep according to the exchange rate of last year, a one-room cabin equal 3 acres of land and equal 12 sheep finally, a plow equals 2 goat and equal 2/3 sheep according to last year’s exchange rate and 2 carts which were traded with a poor acre of land equals 8 sheep plus 400 sheep. So Deyonne’s total assets are 500(2/3) sheep. Deyonne’s liabilities and assets deduction are 35 sheep plus 3 sheep, which will come to 38 sheep,

Businesses, investors, creditors rely on accounting ethics. The accounting profession requires honesty, consistency with industry standards, and compliance with laws and regulations. The ethics increase the responsibility and integrity of accounting professionals, and public trust. The ethical requirements influence the management behavior and decision-making. The financial scandal of Enron and Arthur Anderson demonstrates the failure of fundamental ethical framework, such as off-balance sheet transactions, misrepresentation of financial statements, inaccurate disclosure, manipulations with earnings, etc. The confronted accounting profession and concern for ethics in businesses forced regulators to revise the conceptual framework of accounting processes.

Rule based accounting standards are difference from principle based standards in that rule based standards are just that – rules. For instance, the Internal Revenue code is rule based. There are things you can do and things you can’t. When rules are broken,

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

Assigned auditors were more than aware of the accounting misrepresentation of financial statements, overstating net income. Still instead of walking away from the client and resign, Andersen in pursuing short-term goals stayed with the company and moreover played by the Giant’s rules. More and more accounting firms at that time started to provide consulting services along with auditing to the same companies which always indicates a conflict of interests. Auditors are the guardians and rules players where consultants are giving advices and showing how to avoid some accounting oversights. Andersen also in order to make good profits stepped on the side of combining two contradicting to each other services. Waste Management had lots of former Arthur Andersen employees which also led to close ties between two companies. That situation undoubtedly led to inability to turn down fraudulent accounting practices Waste Management was exercising at that time for a long period of time.

Enron and Arthur Anderson were both giants in their own industry. Enron, a Texas based company in the energy trading business, was expanding rapidly in both domestic and global markets. Arthur Anderson, LLC. (Anderson), based out of Chicago, was well established as one of the big five accounting firms. But the means by which they achieved this status became questionable and eventually contributed to their demise. Enron used what if often referred to as “creative” accounting methods, this resulted in them posting record breaking earnings. Anderson, who earned substantial audit and consultation fees from Enron, failed to comply with the auditing standards required in their line of work. Investigations and reports have resulted in finger