Essay about Conflicts of Interest between Auditors and Clients

Niedermeyer, and Presha Niedermeyer. They performed surveys using internal auditors of public companies and external auditors from large and small firms. The survey questioned how auditors made ethical decisions, and they also wanted to see how internal auditors answered versus how external auditors answered. The result of the surveys showed that there was no difference in decision- making between internal and external auditors in the aspect of how major the effects unethical decisions on victims would be. The only difference between auditors in this study was how they make decisions on what is right and what is wrong. It appears that auditors that work for the Big Four have a stronger sense to determine what is right or wrong as opposed to the other auditors working in large and small firms. The study suggests that each firm adopts policies and special training to combat these

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,

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

This event was unprecedented. The seventh largest company in the United States disintegrated from an annually profitable company in business for over sixteen years to a company claiming to be bankrupt over a period of a few months (O’Leary). Ultimately, fraudulent accounting and misstatements of revenues and debt obligations orchestrated by the CEO, CFO, and other senior managers were to blame. These revelations roiled stakeholder trust in public companies' financial reporting, accounting methodology, and overall transparency. In addition to Enron’s admissions, their accountant and auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, was determined to have conspired to assist in the inflation of stated profits mainly by not disclosing Enron's money-losing partnerships in the financial statements (PBS). Arthur Andersen eventually surrendered the practices’ CPA licenses in the United States after being found guilty of criminal charges relating to the firm's handling of auditing for Enron

In October 2001, Enron Corporation which was one of the world major energy, commodities and service companies with claimed revenues of nearly 111 billion dollars during 2000 collapsed under the weight of massive fraud in that it has become largest bankruptcy recognition in the US economy. Enron’s earning report was extremely skewed that losses were not represented in their entirety, prompting more and more wishing to participate in what seemed like a profitable company. After collapse of Enron, Auditor independence has become a social issue that weather auditor has to be independent or not. In addition, while auditing must consider matters objectively with dispassion, there were still doubts whether it implemented well. Further, there has been much speculation about the need for the mandatory rotation of auditors or audit firm rotation to warn false accounting between audit firm and client. By examining Enron case, this essay will discuss about advantages and drawbacks of the mandatory rotation of

Ethics in any industry is important, but for Accounting professionals and those in need of their services, it is a particularly stressed element. Information provided by accountants is used to make major decisions, including investing, downsizing, expanding, etc, so accountants are expected to be competent, reliable, and have a high degree of professional integrity. Because of these high expectations, the professional accountancy industry, like many other professions, has adopted professional codes of ethics (Woelfel, 1986). These ethical codes go above and beyond the requirements for state or federal laws and regulations. There are several professional organizations within the

In 1913, the company Arthur Andersen started by Arthur Andersen and Clarence Delany by the name of Andersen, Delany, & Co. In 1918, it was given the name Arthur Andersen & Co. The company supplied tax, consulting services and auditing for the large business, and itself had a position in the "Big Five" accounting firms. In 2002, this firm was found guilty for auditing an energy corporation, Enron and it surrendered back its rights of auditing. This led to Enron 's bankruptcy and loss of 85,000 jobs.

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.

On June 15, 2002, Arthur Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to Enron’s audit which resulted in the Enron scandal. The impact of the scandal combined with the findings of criminal complicity ultimately destroyed the Arthur Andersen LLP. The company was accused of destroying thousands of Enron documents that included not only physical documents, but also computer files and Email files. By giving it the role of consultant along with their original role as external auditors, Enron made Arthur Andersen LLP a key player in Enron auditing.

Lindberg and Beck (2002) claim that auditor independence is hailed as the “cornerstone” in the accounting profession as it is the core reason as to why the public trusts their professional opinion. However, since 2000, many accounting fraud scandals have negatively impacted public opinion on the legitimacy of the audit profession and, if in fact, its independence is uninfluenced by other parties. One of the scandals being the sudden collapse of Enron, given that a few months prior its bankruptcy its auditors Arthur Andersen, which was one of the five largest audit and accounting firms, claimed that Enron was financially healthy, but in fact they were paid off

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

Needed for the Houston office of Andersen, an audit partner that understands the role of being a "public watchdog" with "ultimate allegiance to the creditors and shareholders" . Arthur Anderson abandoned its roles as independent auditor by turning a blind eye to improper accounting, including the failure to consolidate, failure of Enron to make $51million in proposed adjustments in 1997, and failure to adequately disclose the nature of transactions with subsidiaries . Another example is Lord Wakeham joined Enron as a non-executive director in 1994 and also sat on Enron's audit and compliance committee. In addition, Andersen also provides internal audit service to Enron, which in fact impact

Arthur Andersen supplied external auditing service to Enron since 1980s, internal auditing since 1990s. The long-term cooperation between Arthur Andersen and Enron blurred the lines between external auditor and the company under auditing. Many accountants of Enron were ex-employees of Arthur Andersen. The close relation between the Arthur Andersen and Enron led to the